I didn't do lower case, though. I created this as a debugging aid when I was writing SCSI drivers for a third-party Mac drive vendor. I wanted a debug printf, but since the disk drivers run before the OS runs, the OS facilities aren't available. I made a debug printf that printed, using my tiny font, directly to screen memory. Each character is 3x5, so that with one pixel spacing you can fit a horizontal slice of two characters in a byte, so I didn't need to write a general bitblt routine.
On modern displays it is hard to read because the dots are so small. On a Mac Plus built-in display, or a Mac II with a 640x480 or 1024x768 monitor it was quite legible.
I can't find it any more, but I found another once which made characters in 2x3 pixels, relying on the positions of subpixels. Wasn't the most readable, but you could still make out what was written. That was the smallest.
"in most jurisdictions bitmap fonts are not copyrightable"
Is that really the case? A quick Google finds some articles in agreement, but I'm no lawyer. If it's true, I'm surprised I haven't seen, for example, Chicago pop up in more places.
The shape of vector fonts are also not copyrightable, but the actual file is. So you are free to recreate it if you wish.
For example what if I wrote a program to open the original file, examine the shapes of the fonts, then write them to a new file?
That would essentially be copy-pasting the file, wouldn't it? But how is that different from someone using their eyes to "examine the shapes of the fonts and write them to a new file"? Just because of small inaccuracies?
So what if I wrote a program to very slightly change the shapes of the font? Did I "create" a new font?
Aha! You've voiced the problem with the very notion of having any sort of control over or ownership of information.
If that's the case then I'd say you created a new implementation of existing font?
I can't seem to find any (non-Wikipedia) references to the patent that might give a clue.
So this is possibly made up.
I went back and found the original diff where it was added. It is from an IP in Redmond in March of 2007.
Wikipedia needs a better interface to search through diffs. I had to manually do a half-interval search. :/
Wait! We had them!
On the Apple II, the Magic Window word processor, could use a 70-column mode with the graphics screen and a font that was 4 pixels wide. It was 7 pixels tall, but nobody made a big deal out of that. I am quite sure I had proportional fonts that could fit in a 4x5 matrix in my developer toolbox (I did lots of courseware in the mid-80's that ran on Apple IIs). Using similar fonts, Atari and C=64 computers could do 80-column text screens with this same approach (both could do 320 pixels per scan line, while the II did only 280)
In Brazil we did similar things with accents, but Portuguese is no match for Hungarian in that regard. Also, my grandpa taught me Rovasirás and I made a font (Apple IIs had a nice hack for graphical fonts) for it.
I would like to know more about that ZX-81-like computer. We had something like it here, one that could do 192x256 pixel graphics.
The second one mentions a Brasilian connection :) Yes, the resolution was the same.
No it's not, his font requires a 320x240 box to display all the text, the original font fits in a 302x220 box and that even includes ~8-10 pixels of padding. http://techhammers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Worlds-sma...
Are you taking that into account?
In that case I'd say that the colour fringing suffered a little from having a hint of font almost visible beneath it, whereas the bitmapped font was actually pretty decent.
Sure, if you naively blow it up it looks worse. But what if you convert the subpixels into real pixels?
When I was done, he wanted a copy too :)
Probably due to me being old.