home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!ogicse!network.ucsd.edu!mvb.saic.com!info-tex
- From: BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG (bbeeton)
- Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
- Subject: Re: amsfonts
- Message-ID: <725133211.277463.BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
- Date: 23 Dec 92 07:53:31 GMT
- Article-I.D.: MATH.725133211.277463.BNB
- Organization: Info-Tex<==>Comp.Text.Tex Gateway
- Lines: 50
- X-Gateway-Source-Info: Mailing List
-
- paul duggan asks what the differences are between amsfonts 2.0
- and amsfonts 2.1.
-
- attached is a portion of the READ.ME file that is included with
- the distribution at e-math.ams.org in /ams/amsfonts/READ.ME .
- -- bb
- --------------------
-
- NOTE: MANY OF THE TFM FILES FOR AMSFONTS HAVE CHANGED FROM VERSION 2.0.
- Line and page breaks may be affected by these changes. Therefore, we
- suggest that you regenerate any DVI files which refer to these fonts,
- after version 2.1 has been installed.
-
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
- WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE IN VERSION 2.1, AND WHY SHOULD EVERYONE UPGRADE?
-
- The changes which you will most readily notice are:
-
- 1. All of the Euler Bold are more bold and extended. In previous releases,
- eufb was difficult to distinguish from eufm. Now they are more
- distinguishable.
-
- 2. The Euler fonts in sizes smaller than 10 point were beefed up a bit
- so that they stand out more when used in subscripts and superscripts
- with 10 point text.
-
- 3. The Metafont code for Blackboard Bold was changed so that these characters
- are much improved at low resolutions. Blackboard Bold characters on your
- screen or dot-matrix printer will no longer be ugly and unrecognizable.
-
- 4. There was a bug in the MSAM fonts which caused them to have different
- TFM files when generated by Metafont at different resolutions. This led
- to different TFMs for the same fonts in different locations. Now there is
- one TFM which will be consistent everywhere (everywhere that version 2.1
- has been installed, that is).
-
- 5. A few other changes were made which are less noticeable. A change in
- the code for EUEX eliminated a Metafont error with the 240dpi mode.
- A Metafont error which sometimes appeared in the Counter-clockwise
- Arrow was eliminated. Slight changes to some parameters in CMEX9 made it
- compatible with a previously existing version.
-
- The reason everyone should upgrade is simple: In order to solve the problems
- which existed in version 2.0, the metrics of some of the fonts were changed.
- This means that the TFM files are different, which means that TeX will produce
- different line and page breaks. If everyone upgrades to the new version, then
- the portability of TeX, one of its greatest assets, will remain intact. If
- you continue to use an old version of these fonts, then your output files may
- not be portable to other sites. So, PLEASE encourage all of your friends and
- colleagues to upgrade to AMSFonts 2.1 to avoid confusion and errors.
-