Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!cmhgate!p3.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Burton
From: Michael.Burton@p3.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Burton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: ATM screen performance on low-end Mac's?
Message-ID: <146099.27B389C9@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG>
Date: 4 Feb 91 20:36:31 GMT
Sender: ufgate@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:226/200.3 - Aurora Borealis, Gahanna OH
Lines: 25


   Curtis Sanford wrote:

CS> Does anyone have any comment on the performance of ATM on low 
CS> end machines such as the Classic? 

   On my Mac Plus, ATM takes about five to ten seconds to generate a
screen bitmap from the Adobe outline font when I change font, size, or
style (bold, italic, etc.). Once the bitmap has been generated, using it
is as quick as using any existing bitmapped font.  ATM doesn't "kick in"
if a bitmap of the requested size, font and style are present in your
system.
   ATM keeps the screen bitmaps it creates in a buffer.  If the buffer is
too small, ATM will have to re-create the screen bitmaps more often,
slowing performance.  Large type sizes occupy more buffer space than
smaller sizes.  Using a large number of fonts will also tend to fill up
the buffer more quickly.
   You can control the size of ATM's buffer in the Control Panel.
   After adjusting to the delay in changing font, size or style, I've
found that ATM provides satisfactory speed even on my Mac Plus.
 
--  
Michael Burton via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!200.3!Michael.Burton
INET: Michael.Burton@p3.f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG