 |
 |
Fonts in Classic, within OSX
|
 |
|
 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
First off, I have a G5 running OSX of course. The version of Quark I have operates under OS9 - which is fine. but the fonts from OSX are not "accessable" from OS9. How do I load the fonts I need into 9?
thanks.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status:
Offline
|
|
You have to put the fonts in the OS 9 Fonts folder (OMG how did he know that!?). That's /System Folder/Fonts.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
no kidding....nevermind..I'll just ask a buddy of mine to help me out. Thanks.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status:
Offline
|
|
The regular OS X fonts are found in three places: /Library/Fonts, /System/Library/Fonts, and ~/Library/Fonts. Copy any or all of these to /System Folder/Fonts. I don't know which, if any, of the OS X fonts are backwards compatible with OS 9.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
ok that was the problem - I'm totally new to a Mac/OSX and still trying trying to figure out where all system stuff is hidden, and why its hidden in 50 different places. (as long as we're at it, where is the equivilent to say, C:/Program Files/?
And then I forgot that OS9 probably won't read the damn fonts I need to use!
What type of fonts WILL OS9 read? Not ttf I assume.
Thanks.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status:
Offline
|
|
No, OS 9 can do TTF I think. I don't know if there is more than one format of TTF or something.
The OS X file layout goes like this: System stuff (that you shouldn't touch) goes in /System/Library. Custom stuff that ALL users can access goes in /Library. Custom stuff that only YOU can access goes in your ~/Library. It makes plenty of sense, but it's not the most obvious thing in the world.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
To add to your problem, if you're using Quark 4.x, it has problems finding fonts even in the right folders when running in Classic mode. It's the reason I held on to an OS 9-bootable Mac until recently. Now, I just use InDesign...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah I loaded some ttf fonts into what should be the correct folder, but my Quark 4 isn't seeing them.
Quark sucks...I've been meaning to get InDesign.
Thank you.
Originally posted by Macola:
To add to your problem, if you're using Quark 4.x, it has problems finding fonts even in the right folders when running in Classic mode. It's the reason I held on to an OS 9-bootable Mac until recently. Now, I just use InDesign...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by kg109:
as long as we're at it, where is the equivilent to say, C:/Program Files/?
It's not quite the same thing, but almost:
/Applications
It's a lot simpler than C:/Program Files, which contains all sorts of things other than just simple applications (usually nested deeply in subdirectories).
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Uh...not really....what about, for instance, in /Applications the root directory for Final Cut is not there...just the application itself - where is the folder which contains all the program files?
Originally posted by Brass:
It's not quite the same thing, but almost:
/Applications
It's a lot simpler than C:/Program Files, which contains all sorts of things other than just simple applications (usually nested deeply in subdirectories).
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Some support files can go in /Library/Application Support or ~/Library/Application Support. User preferences go in ~/Library/Preferences. But 90% of the time, all the files that the app needs to run are self-contained. What you see (for instance, "Safari" or "Mail" or "Final Cut Pro") are not binaries, they are "packages," which contain binaries and all the files necessary for the program to run. You can confirm this for yourself--just right click (or ctrl+click or use the widget menu) on an Apple app. In most cases (I say that in case there are exceptions) you will see an option "Show package contents." Choose that and take a look at what's inside.
Packages like that are also often called "app bundles." Their true filenames end in ".app," which you can cofirm by getting info on one (Safari, for instance) and looking at the full filename. That's why people often call the "Mail" program "Mail.app" in an effort to differentiate the program from mail in general.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ah....didn't know about the "show package contents" - Thanks. Makes more sense.
Originally posted by wataru:
Some support files can go in /Library/Application Support or ~/Library/Application Support. User preferences go in ~/Library/Preferences. But 90% of the time, all the files that the app needs to run are self-contained. What you see (for instance, "Safari" or "Mail" or "Final Cut Pro") are not binaries, they are "packages," which contain binaries and all the files necessary for the program to run. You can confirm this for yourself--just right click (or ctrl+click or use the widget menu) on an Apple app. In most cases (I say that in case there are exceptions) you will see an option "Show package contents." Choose that and take a look at what's inside.
Packages like that are also often called "app bundles." Their true filenames end in ".app," which you can cofirm by getting info on one (Safari, for instance) and looking at the full filename. That's why people often call the "Mail" program "Mail.app" in an effort to differentiate the program from mail in general.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by kg109:
Yeah I loaded some ttf fonts into what should be the correct folder, but my Quark 4 isn't seeing them.
Quark sucks...I've been meaning to get InDesign.
Thank you.
TTF files come in Windows and Mac variants. OSX can use both without any problems, but OS9 can only use Mac variants. There are, however, quite a number of programmes around for both the Mac and Windows that can convert them from one format to the other. Other than TTF fonts, OS9 can also use Type1 fonts, which are postscript fonts.
|
|
weird wabbit
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by kg109:
Uh...not really....what about, for instance, in /Applications the root directory for Final Cut is not there...just the application itself - where is the folder which contains all the program files?
What other files are there?
I believe that all the actual application code and library files it depends on are withing the /Applications/Final Cut application bundle (it is not a single file, the Finder just makes it look that way, because that's more convenient for the user, and makes it easy to delete the entire application at once, and in many cases makes it easy to install or copy the entire application).
Ie, /Applications/Final Cut IS the "root directory" for that application (as you put it). To see this for yourself, use a terminal session an type:
ls -lR "/Applications/Final Cut"
(or whatever the actual bundle is called - I don't have it myself)
You will then see all the real files that are actually withing the bundle directory.
Now you can see what I mean by it being a lot simpler (for the average user) than C  Program Files.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Why do people re-explain things that have already been explained in the same exact thread? And they don't even add new information. Very odd.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by wataru:
Why do people re-explain things that have already been explained in the same exact thread? And they don't even add new information. Very odd.
I'm just an odd person, I guess 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|

|
|
 |
Forum Rules
|
 |
 |
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|