Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!huxley!glenn From: glenn@huxley.huxley.bitstream.com (Glenn P. Parker) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: TrueType vs ATM Message-ID: Date: 18 Mar 91 21:04:21 GMT References: <1991Mar16.221601.9927@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Mar17.004942.2900@cs.widener.edu> <1991Mar17.130959.327@husc3.harvard.edu> Sender: glenn@huxley.UUCP Reply-To: (Glenn Parker) Distribution: comp Organization: Bitstream, Inc. Lines: 25 In-reply-to: stern6@husc9.harvard.edu's message of 17 Mar 91 18:09:58 GMT In article <1991Mar17.130959.327@husc3.harvard.edu> stern6@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Stern) writes: > In <1991Mar16.221601.9927@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, dawg6844@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >1) TrueType fonts look _much_ better at small point sizes than ATM ones do. > > While it is certainly true that sizes in the 8-12 point range look better > on the screen when generated by TrueType, I credit the fact that Apple has > optimized their font system for screen display. Oh really? And what makes you think ATM is *not* "optimized for screen display"? In fact, what makes you think that TrueType *is* optimized for screen display? > When printed, especially at smaller sizes, ATM is clearer. Compare 5 or > 6 point off a 300 dpi printer. ATM produces better text. Hogwash. This is not an argument about ATM producing better output vs. TrueType. At 300 dpi, the two technologies are equally capable of producing excellent output, *if* the fonts are done well. If you notice a preference, then it is the font vendor you should compliment, not the font scaler. -- Glenn P. Parker glenn@bitstream.com Bitstream, Inc. uunet!huxley!glenn 215 First Street BIX: parker Cambridge, MA 02142-1270