Office 2008 fonts sizes are a mess...

[Jeremy_Bechtold]

is anyone else experiencing completely wrong font sizes? does anyone know what units they are attempting to present fonts in?size 11 is non-existent, and teh prefs allow a size 7, but the compose window doesn't... any thoughts on what is happening here? i haven't even gotten to a point where I'd install new fonts on this brand new computer... Entourage is the only app that does this, even my other office apps are fine (s far as I can tell)...

I sent a test email to myself to try to figure out what to use for the benefit of my clients... what 2008 claims is shown in paren, but what it actually equals visually and when you highlight it in office 2004 is listed at the right. (I sent a copy of teh email to myself and read it on my old computer still showing with 2004 until my migration is complete)

Text size example (claims is: 12) = 16

Text size example (claims is: 11) = 14

Text size example (claims is: 10) = 13 I guess... it won't say?

Text size example (claims is: 9) = 12

Text size example (claims is: 8) = 10

Text size example (claims is: 8.2) = 10

anyone...?

thanks,
- jeremy

 

[Corentin Cras-Méneur]

I sent a test email to myself to try to figure out what to use for the
benefit of my clients... what 2008 claims is shown in paren, but what it
actually equals visually and when you highlight it in office 2004 is
listed at the right. (I sent a copy of teh email to myself and read it
on my old computer still showing with 2004 until my migration is
complete)

That looks like a font cache issue.
You might want to use an application like Onyx to clean out all Font
cache and reboot,

Corentin

 

[Jeremy_Bechtold]

see this post in the entourage help blog... seems to explain a little bit by using points rather than pixels,but it still doesn't make much sense. at least it doesn't seem to be a caching issue, although i will likely run onyx after a few more app sand things get installed on this new computer. been a fan of onyx for a while.

here's the link: <http://blog.entourage.mvps.org/2008...in_size_with_each_replymsft_is_listening.html>

if points vs pixels is the reason, it still doesn't make much sense.

this monitor on the laptop is insane. it's 1950x1200 crammed into a 17" macbook pro. so if it was really only 10px tall, it would be super tiny. however, unless entourage knows how to separate the px per vertical inch vs the 1200px tall screen (which would be 16+ inches tall at a normal 72 dpi).

the only thing i can guess about might be that ms is using the 96 px/in ratio in it's calculation, but keeping the natural 72 points per inch standard. if that was the case, then it might accounts for an approx 33% increase in size... but that isn't even right in terms of the difference shown—or is it? hmmm. makes sense for the 12 to 16 change... that might be it.

can't imagine the ms mac bu using the 96 px/in standard since they do so well for everything else (meaning not making the mac ms products like a normal ms product, but actually like a mac-intended product). however, that might explain it.

did i just answer my own question?

can anyone from ms verify anything about this?

- jeremy

 

[Corentin Cras-Méneur]

can anyone from ms verify anything about this?

MS rarely posts here. This is a peer support group,


Corentin