OS/2 does not provide bitmap font scaling like Windows does.
So it's either 9 point WarpSans or it's not Warpsans.
Mike Kaply
IBM
Timur Tabi wrote:
> I understand that TmsRmn is much faster than Times Roman (or Times New
> Roman or whatever the vector fonts are called). Bitmaps fonts have
> always been faster than vector fonts. However, since another poster
> said that 12pt TmsRmn is not the same as 12pt Times New Roman, my vote
> is that you do NOT substitute fonts for scaling. In fact, I think
> bitmap fonts should be scaled as bitmap fonts.
>
> WarpSans is not supposed to be used as a normal font. OS/2-specific
> pages like os2.org should be allowed to specify WarpSans, provided they
> can convince the browser to stick to 9pt regarldess of how it's
> configured. But anyone who specifies WarpSans as his default font for
> all web sites is a moron. If he does it, it should be scaled, not
> forced to remain at 9pt.
>
> If the user specifies TmsRmn, then it should also be scaled, but as a
> bitmap font. This means that at larger point sizes, it will be blocky.
> So what? That's what bitmap fonts do!
>
> On my 233MHz Pentium Pro, Netscape 4.61 with Times New Roman renders
> text very fast. If I set it to TmsRmn, I barely notice a difference.
> Does that mean that NS substitues it with Times New Roman automatically?
>
> BTW, is Times New Roman a True Type or PostScript font?
