MacIntel - Freeze - Save - Adobe Minion Open Type

[andreas.faulkner]

A thread was started some time ago regarding Word 2004 for Mac
crashing when it saved a document which uses certain Open Type fonts,
when the computer is a MacIntel. I am now having the same problem,
having made the switch recently to a MacBook Pro. I am first wondering
if any progress has been made on this issue? Secondly, I wanted to add
that I can confirm that the issue goes away once I removed Adobe Minion
from my system. This is the only OT font I use, and I have had problems
with
it ever since I switched from a PC to an IBook several years ago. At
that
time, Minion Pro and some other OT fonts (exactly which ones was
difficult
to ascertain) would not display Greek characters properly in OSX even
in Unicode
enabled programmes. This issue was to some extent fixed in OSX.3, but
when I
was using Word 2004 and Minion, I still had some problems viewing Greek
text; as
I typed, certain accented characters would cause the programme to
substitute Lucida
Grande, and I would at the end have to select all and choose Minion to
have the whole
document in Minion. At that time, I was told that there were still
issues of compatibility
between OSX and certain OT fonts. This issue was very difficult to find
support for as
obviously very few people are using these OT fonts to type polytonic
Greek. I am untrained in computers, but wondered whether these issues
could in some way be related?

I would be grateful for any help, as I depend upon these fonts.

Andrew

 

[Chris Ridd]

A thread was started some time ago regarding Word 2004 for Mac
crashing when it saved a document which uses certain Open Type fonts,
when the computer is a MacIntel. I am now having the same problem,
having made the switch recently to a MacBook Pro. I am first wondering
if any progress has been made on this issue? Secondly, I wanted to add

It is reported that Apple and MS can now reproduce the problem, which
is obviously a vital step towards being able to fix it.

It isn't clear if it is a bug in Microsoft code or a bug in Apple code,
and to an extent it doesn't matter. Due to crazy legal systems neither
company is going to publically admit the bug is theirs, or when a patch
is due.

You will just have to hold tight and wait for that patch

Cheers,

Chris

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Andreas:

Try here:

http://www.linotype.com/1236/minion-family.html?PHPSESSID=6a1112943b0a643a4c
7e69ef09130a84&gclid=CO_s-tS54YYCFR1kTAodTx22_g#

You could try a Windows TrueType version of the font.

The problem goes something like this: A "font" is made up of "glyphs"
(shapes). These shapes are mathematical formulae. The computer obtains
measurements from the graphics subsystem and from the printing subsystem
(the printer driver) and inserts those measurements into the formula, then
computes the shape for display or printing.

On the MacIntels some fonts get the computation engine into such a state
that it crashes (possibly, a divide by zero, which is easy enough to do if
you're working with floating point numbers at small sizes...)

Now: Is the problem the formula in the font, the measurements being fed in
by the display and printing subsystems, or the measurements being handed off
by Word? Here is where the finger-pointing (computer industry term for
"blaming everyone else") begins.

Microsoft would claim that since the crash is happening in Apple's code,
it's Apple's bug. Apple would claim that since Word is handing it numbers
that are too big or too small, it's Microsoft's bug. And both of them would
complain that since this only happens on certain specific fonts, there must
be something wrong with the way the font is coded. The font manufacturers
would, of course, claim that since their fonts work perfectly on every other
kind of computer out there, even in Microsoft Word, that it's not their
font...

Of course, it *could* be the printer driver

My guess is that the bug is that Apple's ATSUI module is using bad language,
and that Microsoft Word is not hanging up the phone politely when it closes
the document. So it's both of their faults.

But both companies have plenty to do preparing new versions of things. So
while they can continue to blame each other, they will.

If I were you, I would look for a different font...

Sorry!

A thread was started some time ago regarding Word 2004 for Mac
crashing when it saved a document which uses certain Open Type fonts,
when the computer is a MacIntel. I am now having the same problem,
having made the switch recently to a MacBook Pro. I am first wondering
if any progress has been made on this issue? Secondly, I wanted to add
that I can confirm that the issue goes away once I removed Adobe Minion
from my system. This is the only OT font I use, and I have had problems
with
it ever since I switched from a PC to an IBook several years ago. At
that
time, Minion Pro and some other OT fonts (exactly which ones was
difficult
to ascertain) would not display Greek characters properly in OSX even
in Unicode
enabled programmes. This issue was to some extent fixed in OSX.3, but
when I
was using Word 2004 and Minion, I still had some problems viewing Greek
text; as
I typed, certain accented characters would cause the programme to
substitute Lucida
Grande, and I would at the end have to select all and choose Minion to
have the whole
document in Minion. At that time, I was told that there were still
issues of compatibility
between OSX and certain OT fonts. This issue was very difficult to find
support for as
obviously very few people are using these OT fonts to type polytonic
Greek. I am untrained in computers, but wondered whether these issues
could in some way be related?

I would be grateful for any help, as I depend upon these fonts.

Andrew

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[CyberTaz]

Excellent points, John (as usually) - but just out of curiosity, might there
not be at least one more villain in our midst?... You don't mention Intel.
Could there not be a problem in the design/coding of the chips that prevents
them from handling what the G4s, G5s & Pentiums seem to take instride?

Interested in your thoughts

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Bob:

{Gales of Laughter} Since the Pentium 90 that couldn't count, leading to
all sorts of jokes such as Q: "What's another name for the "Intel Inside"
logo? A: "The warning label", I think Intel have been extremely careful to
make sure its chips *can* count

The truly obsessive amongst us derive great delight from learned discussion
of the difference in numeric precision between the PowerPC and the Intel
chips. I can't remember the details, but if you surf the Net you will soon
pick it up. The argument is to do with the "overflow" capability.

Both processors will do 64-bit maths. But the Intel has three extra bits or
something, to allow for the "overflow". This becomes critical in floating
point calculations when you need to know what the next few bits of precision
would be so you can round off accurately.

There's an interesting sum you can do: If you do it on the Windows
calculator and again on the Mac calculator, you will get different answers


Which raises the horrifying prospect that "mathematics" in general are not
"exact" on a computer. If you continue to Google, you will pick up an
interesting discussion about the move in Financial circles to doing Integer
maths, external decimal maths, and the holy grail, "decimal maths" in order
to get around this.

Basically, the argument has now come full circle. In the early days of
computing (roughly when I started... Sigh...) computers couldn't DO floating
point calculation at all. It all had to be done with a technique that was
then called "ASCII Maths" and is now called "Decimal Maths". Basically, you
wrote a routine to do high-school long division and long multiplication
(which most kids these days would not have a clue how to do, and I am not
sure I could remember...)

1234 )___________________
4097,104,308

If you remember, you can do the next line

Now, these algorithms enable you an absolutely unlimited prevision (you can
calculate the value of Pi with them...) but they're very slow... A huge
problem when a "fast" CPU trickled along at 4.77 MHz. Today's dual CPUs
running at 3,600 MHz can do a couple of hundred "long divisions" or "long
multiplications" while waiting for the disk to find the next piece of
data...

So then along came 16-bit CPUs, and all of a sudden, floating point maths
started to become possible. Maybe not a very good idea, but possible. For
small numbers. With 32-bit CPUs, they thought all their Christmases had
come at once, and floating point sums started to appear all over the code
base (including, as we all found out in Year 2000, in places where they
really shouldn't have...)

By the time CPUs capable of 64-bit floating point maths appeared, many of us
old farts who could remember "why not" had retired. So now, a whole new
generation of programmers is standing pasty-faced and perspiring on the matt
in front of the Chairman of the Board's desk trying to explain why the
general ledger seems to have "misplaced" 17 million dollars. See here:
<http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/beats-me-auspharm-loses-17m-somewhere/2
006/08/14/1155407739892.html>

So yes: It's entirely possible that the Core Duo CPUs are handing the ATSUI
a value that is three bits more precise than the PowerPC can, and this
contains data where none is expected.

If you want a good explanation of what I am talking about, look here:
<http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/archives/2005/09/26/float/>

For a completely accurate treatment, see here:
<http://docs.sun.com/source/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html>

Cheers

Excellent points, John (as usually) - but just out of curiosity, might there
not be at least one more villain in our midst?... You don't mention Intel.
Could there not be a problem in the design/coding of the chips that prevents
them from handling what the G4s, G5s & Pentiums seem to take instride?

Interested in your thoughts

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[Palazzo]

In the meantime, and since Word doesn't really handle OpenType the way
OpenType is meant to be handled, you can just convert the offending
font(s) to TrueType using FontForge (it's a free program, but you need
to install X11). Using a font management program such as Linotype
FontExplorer (free as well, or do you think I'm going to shell out cash
to fix a Word problem?), it's easy to activate the TrueType version
when you want to use Word and the OpenType version when you are in
another program.