Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!orstcs!
From: mcgredo@CS.ORST.EDU (Don Mcgregor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: TrueType questions answered
Message-ID: <1991May13.215039.24346@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>
Date: 13 May 91 21:50:39 GMT
References: <1991May13.180624.3819@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
Sender: @lynx.CS.ORST.EDU
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: typhoon.cs.orst.edu

jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
> Out of curiousity, what have screen and printer tests of ATM 2.0 and TrueType
> revealed on an 030 machine when the 030/881 optimized version of ATM is used?
> 
   _Personal Publishing_  compared PostScript and TrueType speeds in
their most recent issue.  They did various tests on the Personal LaserWriter
LS and Personal NT using both ATM and TrueType.  They didn't specify 
what Mac they were using.

They found that a Times waterfall printed in 2:06.99 using PostScript to
the Personal LS, vs. 3:05.35 for TrueType, each using their respective
native font formats.  

They stated that "TrueType seemed to render fonts on the screen more quickly
than ATM," though they didn't attempt to time it--a glaring omission
in my view, since snappy screen response is critical while slow printing
is merely annoying.  

_Personal Publishing_ is generally pro-PostScript.

Don McGregor
mcgredo@typhoon.cs.orst.edu