There is no Geneva Bold. The Bold instance was generated by pixelshifting.

People have made ‘their’ versions, eg
http://www.masterstech-home.com/the_library/font_samples/font_indices/im...
but no Bolds…

. . .
Bert Vanderveen BNO

The reason Appleworks can fake it under OSX is because it's a Carbon app, based on the old Mac (pre-OS X) application programing interface (API). Carbon was a workaround devised by Apple to make sure there were lots of apps for OS X when it was first launched. Older programs could be updated to work with OS X by simply recompiling to Carbon, instead of starting over from scratch.

Pages is built with Cocoa, the "native" OS X API, which generally doesn't do fake type effects. You can tell when an app is Cocoa-based if it includes the system-wide "Fonts" window for choosing fonts, as in Pages.

Many thanks for your helpful explanations.
It looks like I'll have to reset the lot in some other fonts and programs.
I appreciate the help of you both.

Why, I wonder, can't OSX "Pixel-shift"?

And what a waste of a good (but half-finished) font!
It would be well worth Apple, or some public-spirited soul, completing the set!

Anyone out there?.....

BTW, is anyone else driven half-crazy by having to resize OSX Finder windows all the time, so that you can read the full contents of the last column top the right, and by having to open multiple windows to be able to drag items into the same folder? Despite the stability, I find myself constantly time-wasting in OSX. Bring back the ease of 9 !

GS

You could get an effect similar to a pixel shift in Pages by using the shadow effect in the Font window. Set the angle to 0°, drag the opacity to 100%, and the blur to 0. Then adjust the offset as needed. The resulting effect could be set up as a style, or you could redefine the "Emphasis" style using this psuedo-pixel-shift effect. It works okay if you save as PDF for viewing on-screen, but has a double-strike appearance if you print it on a laser printer.

Why, I wonder, can’t OSX “Pixel-shift”?

Because it looks like crap.

BTW, is anyone else driven half-crazy by…

Yes. And by about a thousand other things Apple’s horrible UI designers have done with the operating system. It’s still better than Windows, but the people responsible for arbitrarily dumbing down Apple’s software need to be run out of Cupertino on a rail. Hopefully Google’s OS on netbooks will do enough damage to Apple’s netbook line that Jobs starts taking software design seriously again.

> BTW, is anyone else driven half-crazy by having to resize OSX Finder windows all the time, so that you can read the full contents of the last column top the right

Maybe I just have a poor memory because I've happily left the Classic OS in the past, but how is this different in OS 9?

> by having to open multiple windows to be able to drag items into the same folder?

I am not sure what you mean. Moving files works essentially the same in the Finder of both OSes.

> Older programs could be updated to work with OS X by simply recompiling to Carbon, instead of starting over from scratch.

While rewriting with Cocoa is certainly far far more work than adapting to Carbon, going to Carbon didn't simply involve recompiling (for the vast majority of non-trivial apps).

You're right, of course. Sorry for overstating the case.