Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!pacbell.com!ames!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!convex!usenet
From: russ@convex.COM (Russell Donnan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: Does ATM improve HP Deskwriter output?
Message-ID: <1991Jan30.151015.20841@convex.com>
Date: 30 Jan 91 15:10:15 GMT
References: <0E010009.ga3tkq@stx.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@convex.com (news access account)
Reply-To: russ@convex.COM (Russell Donnan)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation; Richardson, TX
Lines: 19
Nntp-Posting-Host: magnum.convex.com

In article <0E010009.ga3tkq@stx.UUCP> costello@world.std.com writes:
>In article <27A0D88E.25278@ics.uci.edu>, ajauch@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Alexander Edwin Jauch) writes:
>> >I know ATM is good for smoothing really large fonts, but does anyone have
>> >first-hand experience with it, for improving deskwriter output at small
>> >fonts like 6-14 point?
>
>ATM doesn't help *any* printer in that size range.  The indifference point
>between having specific bitmaps versus letting ATM do its thing is right
>around 14 points.

As an avid user of ATM, I'll have to disagree there.  Unless your  printer has
its own built-in bit-map fonts, you will be able to see a dramatic difference
even in a 9-point font.  10 and 12 point bitmap fonts are downright ugly at
300 dpi.  Perhaps you mean that ATM won't help you beyond 14 point if you are
using a dot-matrix printer?  DEATH to the jaggies!
--
Russ Donnan, (214) 497-4778, russ@convex.com
Convex Computer Corporation, 3000 Waterview Parkway, Richardson, TX
"vi: the look-and-feel of Hollerith cards, but without the added bulk!"