Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!unixhub!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!torrie
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: TrueType questions answered
Message-ID: <1991May11.214221.8871@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 11 May 91 21:42:21 GMT
References: <673545631.0@blkcat.FidoNet.Org> <150@eclectic.COM>
Sender: torrie@neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Lines: 22

kenh@eclectic.COM (Ken Hancock) writes:

>>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.

  Printing may be different, but in my reasonably extensive tests
on-screen, I've found TrueType to be 20-30% faster than ATM on
average.  It also seems to have a much better caching system, so fonts
don't need to be regenerated as often.
  Speed on screen is more important to me than printing speed... I
only print once, but I view it on screen many times.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu   
"Lay me place and bake me pie, I'm starving for me gravy... Leave my shoes
and door unlocked, I might just slip away - hey - just for the day."