the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Bleeding Edge / Another corrupted font, and a mystery

Another corrupted font, and a mystery

July 19, 2010 By JimK Leave a Comment

Just when I thought the Office 2010 font wars were over, a new battle broke out. I got an e-mail with a Word attachment that crashed Word 2010. I brought it up in Word on a computer that had only the standard Windows 7 fonts installed, and saw that the predominant font was Times. I opened up the control panel and brought up the font browser on the computer that was having trouble. Sure enough, Times and had the odd $%& pattern in the preview icon that Helvetica had had. I deleted Times, and Word could open the file just fine.

Concerned, I went through all the fonts in the font browser, looking for the $%& pattern. It appeared in Tekton, Futura Book, Futura Light, Frutiger 45, Frutiger 55, Frutiger 95, Optima, and Optima Oblique. What these all have in common are that they’re Adobe Postscript Type One fonts. However, I had many Postscript Type One fonts that didn’t have the problem. I removed all the fonts with the $%& preview pattern and reinstalled them. They still exhibited the funny pattern.

However, all of these fonts except Tekton (not tested) appear to work in Word. I’m not sure what the difference is between these fonts and Times and Helvetica, both of which crash Word.

← A failed Office 2010 upgrade, and a fix Office 2010 crashes: why’d they happen? →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

April 2021
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  
« Mar    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Relative sensitivity of Sony a7RIV and GFX 100S
  • Ilya Zakharevich on Pixel shift with the Fujifilm GFX 100S
  • Ilya Zakharevich on Relative sensitivity of Sony a7RIV and GFX 100S
  • JimK on GFX 100S sensor is a 4-shot stitch
  • John Leathwick on GFX 100S sensor is a 4-shot stitch
  • Christer Almqvist on GFX 100S sensor is a 4-shot stitch
  • JimK on Three dimensionality and sensor format
  • Tom Hegeman on Three dimensionality and sensor format
  • Bjoern on Three dimensionality and sensor format
  • JimK on Shutter shock in the GFX 100s

Archives

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.