RE: [OT?] ugly screen fonts in .pdf files [solved]
>
> What version of ghostscript are you using? Some (older) versions use
> bitmapped fonts for all non-Postscript-standard fonts, which
> includes the
> computer modern fonts to which LaTeX defaults. The newest gs
> (7.something) will embed postscript fonts, which is what you want for
> this. You should also change /etc/texmf/dvips/updmap os
> type1_default=true
> to get dvips to put the embedded postscript fonts in your ps file.
>
> You may get more help with this in comp.text.tex.
>
> ap
>
Looks like I have gs 5.10-10.1 and gsfonts 5.10a-2. I assume these
are woody packages since I upgraded recently. I'll look for the
source on freshmeat to a later version...
I changed type1_default=true... no joy. pdflatex looks the same
and ps2pdf looks worse. Unfortunately, I'm behind a corp firewall
and can't get to the news groups. (It can probably be done but I'm
not one of the privledged.)
Umm...dummy check here. I forgot to change from ccr. Changing to
phv (\renewcommand{\familydefault}{phv}) shows good stuff! I'm
on track now.
Thanks for the help.
jim
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Andrew J. Perrin - Assistant Professor of Sociology
> University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
> 269 Hamilton Hall CB#3210, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210 USA
> andrew_perrin@unc.edu - http://www.unc.edu/~aperrin
>
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Lewis, James M. wrote:
>
> >
> > I am using pdflatex to make .pdf files of a document. It
> prints just fine
> > but looks bad when viewing with acroread. Is there some
> trick to using
> > different fonts to make the screen display look good? I have tried
> > using a couple of postscript fonts as well as the usual tex
> fonts (ccr).
> > I have also tried ps2pdf with the same result. No problems
> with xdvi
> > but I have to send this doc to windows users...
> >
> > tia
> > jim
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
> >
> >
>
Reply to: