Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!hsdndev!dartvax!mars!nic!eclectic!kenh
From: kenh@eclectic.COM (Ken Hancock)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: TrueType questions answered
Message-ID: <150@eclectic.COM>
Date: 11 May 91 11:43:56 GMT
References: <673545631.0@blkcat.FidoNet.Org>
Organization: Isle Systems - Waltham, MA
Lines: 17

>things (to this author at least) faster than ATM. TrueType is also part of 

It is NOT faster than ATM.  I wish people would do some REAL tests as opposed
to just looking at it on the screen.  Timing can play all kinds of tricks
on the human eye.  Try printing out a text waterfall using TrueType and
ATM.  That gives you a good sense of the rasterizer's speed.  If you do
that, you'll find that ATM 2.0 is TWICE as fast as TrueType.

Ken


-- 
Ken Hancock             | INTERNET: kenh@eclectic.com 
Isle Systems            | Compuserve: >INTERNET: kenh@eclectic.com
Macintosh Consulting    | AOL: KHancock 
                        | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine,
                        | your opinions are yours.  Simple, isn't it?