Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies
From: gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: TrueType versus ATM
Message-ID: <1991Mar20.193744.10870@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 91 19:37:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1991Mar20.193744.10870
References: <1991Mar20.164934.3177@waikato.ac.nz> <1991Mar20.080055.26542@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Lines: 20


I don't think speed comparisons are all that meaningful, for the
following reasons:

(1) Adobe's algorithm may indeed produce better 300dpi or
    180dpi results.  This is because adobe's font hints
    are just data structures, and the algorithm that makes
    use of these data structures is still proprietary and is
    still rumored to do a superior job of rasterizing fonts.
    Superior 180dpi and/or 300dpi results are probably what you 
    want in the long for a quickdraw printer driver.

(2) If ATM 2.0 does indeed use type-1 "hinting" to produce
    these improved fonts, then two different fonts may have
    completely different amounts of hinting, not to mention
    different amounts of total fill, and serifs, etc.  In my
    opinion, only similiar fonts (times - times, helvetica - 
    helvetica, etc) can be compared in a meaningful way.

--