Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!torrie
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: TrueType versus ATM
Message-ID: <1991Mar20.080055.26542@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 20 Mar 91 08:00:55 GMT
References: <1991Mar20.164934.3177@waikato.ac.nz>
Sender: torrie@neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Lines: 26

ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) writes:

>I've been doing some rough speed tests to see how TrueType compares with
>Adobe Type Manager 2.0.

  So have I.  I've found one interesting thing.  Using Times, Truetype seems 
to be about 50% faster when rasterising the standard A-Za-z character set, 
but if you add in some of the special "option" characters, Truetype suddenly
starts rasterising noticeably slower than ATM.
  Is this just due to the more complicated nature of the special
characters, or is it that they haven't been optimised and tuned for
speed as much as the Roman characters?

  Also interesting is the memory requirement.  Truetype's cache
doesn't seem to be included in the System heap - at least it doesn't
show up in About the Finder as taking up anywhere near the same amount
of space as ATM with say, a 160K cache.
  Yet Truetype caches many more fonts on my 5MB machine than ATM does
in its 160K cache.  My guess is that Truetype is using temporary
memory?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu   
Where can a nation lie when it hides its organic minds in a cellar dark and
grim?  They must be ...  very dim.