Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!mojo!russotto
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: TrueType questions answered
Message-ID: <1991May11.223237.14295@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 11 May 91 22:32:37 GMT
References: <673545631.0@blkcat.FidoNet.Org> <150@eclectic.COM>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (C-News)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Lines: 17

In article <150@eclectic.COM> 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.

REAL tests?  I assume, then, that you have tried this on every different class
of Macintosh (Plus, SE, Classic, II, IIx/cx, IIci, IIfx, IILC, IIsi with and
without coprocessor), or at least a few representative samples, and with
various different fonts.  You have also taken into account caching.   If so,
I'd love to see your results.
--
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
     .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.