Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!pyrnj!esquire!esquire.dpw.com
From: baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: Does ATM improve HP Deskwriter output?
Message-ID: <3009@esquire.dpw.com>
Date: 30 Jan 91 15:42:55 GMT
References: <0B010004.st0u4u@outpost.UUCP>
Sender: news@DPW.COM
Reply-To: baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten)
Organization: Davis Polk & Wardwell
Lines: 16
In-reply-to: peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce)

In article <0B010004.st0u4u@outpost.UUCP>, peirce@outpost (Michael Peirce) writes:
>Right, nothing but hand tuned fonts look decent ON THE SCREEN.  72dpi
>just isn't enough resolution to do outline fonts justice.

Not so.  I use ATM 2.0 with Adobe's LucidaSans at 11pt. all the time,
and I think it actually looks better than the 12pt. bitmap.

Of course, it helps that it's a sans-serif font, but I'm sometimes
pleasantly surprised at how well ATM does when rending fonts on
screen.

--
   Steve Baumgarten             | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
   Davis Polk & Wardwell        |  remember, we were way ahead of you."
   baumgart@esquire.dpw.com     | 
   cmcl2!esquire!baumgart       |                           - David Letterman