Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!husc6!hscfsas1!kenh From: kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: ATM 2.0 Message-ID: <4271@husc6.harvard.edu> Date: 27 Sep 90 11:40:17 GMT References: <1990Sep27.050115.7077@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu Organization: Isle Systems - Waltham, MA Lines: 27 In article <1990Sep27.050115.7077@ddsw1.MCS.COM> hammen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Robert Hammen) writes: >In article ls1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Leonard John Schultz) writes: >>Has anyone used ATM 2.0 yet? Is it any better? > >It's definately faster, that's for sure. It still isn't in the same league, >as TrueType on the 7.0a9 system. But, we've had ATM for a year, and Adobe's >not letting the product stagnate, so expect another upgrade before System >7.0 ships. I disagree. I think it's quite comparable to any of the TrueType I've seen in System 7.0 releases. (This is on a 16MHz '030). I did a few timing tests with ATM 2.0. It is faster than 1.2, but not 2x -- at least not in font GENERATION time. The big speedup I noticed was the time it took to remove an old font from the font cache when it filled up. ATM 1.2 was noticibly slow. ATM 2.0 isn't nearly as much so. The bottom line is if you're working with a small cache, you'll get a lot more of a speedup than if you're working with a large cache. Ken -- Ken Hancock | This account needs a new home in MA... Isle Systems | Can you provide a link for it? isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu | It doesn't bite... :-)