Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!usc!samsung!aplcen!haven!purdue!decwrl!adobe!bezanson From: bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: ATM and HP LaserJet II-compaitble printers Message-ID: <1449@adobe.UUCP> Date: 15 Nov 89 19:32:03 GMT References: <5907@shlump.nac.dec.com> <2046@network.ucsd.edu> <1432@adobe.UUCP> <2061@network.ucsd.edu> <1442@adobe.UUCP> <0ZLD=oG00WBLQ1UnJM@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) Distribution: na Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View Lines: 56 In article <0ZLD=oG00WBLQ1UnJM@andrew.cmu.edu> dw2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Duane T. Williams) writes: > >ATM works, and very well if you listen to our users." > >Not if you listen to this user. The quality of ATM output on my >ImageWriter is, for the most part, no better than what I get without it, >and in some cases it's (surprisingly) worse. And it's very slow. For >me, it was a waste of money. I would advise most people to wait for >System 7.0. Before posting this reply, I read all of the follow-ups to this message, and all of them were positive towards ATM. It's aimed at improving Imagewriter type where it wasn't able to print at before. If you do any headline type in sizes greater than those for which you might have a 2x bitmap installed, then ATM is worthwhile. In the cases where you say type is actually worse, Adobe knows of the problem and is working to fix it. The speed problems are difficult to talk about because they depend on machine, memory, and user perception. For the mail order price of $57 and what it can do at other sizes, I personally don't see it as a waste of money. In fact my parents and my wife's parents will be getting copies for Christmas - it's okay, they aren't on the net ;-). The biggest problem with ATM is user perception. Some people think that ATM is going to improve their screen resolution to 300 dpi, or give their ImageWriter LaserWriter output quality. In regards to System 7.0 - we'll have to see. Adobe does have one user who called in who is a tester for the 7.0 outlines. ATM and Royal were interchangable for speed and quality. If you don't like the output from ATM on your ImageWriter, 7.0 won't be any better. Word will still need to be fixed for fractional widths, etc... The users biggest remark was that he only has "one" royal outline (no bold, italic, etc...). ATM gives him access to over 600 faces, and when other vendors make their fonts Type 1 compatible early next year, they'll add another 2000-4000 faces. Royal fonts have some neat technology to do what they will do, but that makes them all the more complex. To do really good type design with royal fonts will take a long time. Apple's published the specs, but they aren't supplying any tools. I don't see 500-4000 similar quality Royal fonts for 2-4 years, and the reports from Publish and other print related magazines echo similar time frames. I'm starting to make this into a ATM vs. Royal discussion, it isn't meant to be. ATM is a way to give outline fonts to users now. It will work right along with Royal, but it will allow PostScript fonts to do outlining. What I meant it to be, was that Royal will have the same problems as ATM is experiencing. Some users are saying, "ATM ______, so wait for Royal and System 7". By that time you'll probably see some major improvemnts in ATM for speed, spacing, etc... But System 7.0 and Royal won't make the ImageWriter or screen have better resolution. The win for the user is that ATM will spur some developers to fix these problems, so their applications work with ATM and with 7.0. Hope this has been informational and not more flame/debatable material. -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.