Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watdaisy!abrueggemann
From: abrueggemann@watdaisy.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Quality of TeX fonts
Message-ID: <8176@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Mar-87 12:24:23 EST
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.8176
Posted: Wed Mar  4 12:24:23 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Mar-87 19:57:43 EST
Reply-To: abrueggemann@watdaisy.UUCP (Anne Brueggemann-Klein)
Distribution: world
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 18
Keywords: TeX, fonts
Summary: Differences between am-fonts and cm-fonts?

In this newsgroup and in publications on document processing, there
have been several comments on the quality of TeX's built-in fonts.
The old am-fonts are described as horrible, and the new cm-fonts
are described as acceptable or even good.

Frankly, if I compare documents set with the old or the new fonts,
I can hardly see a difference. I am aware of the fact that very
subtle properties that can only be detected by specialists
can decide on the quality of a font family. I'd like to see a
list of improvements of the new cm-fonts compared
with the old am-fonts.

Any pointers or comments?

-- 
  UUCP:	  ...!{clyde,utzoo,decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!abrueggemann
  ARPA:	  abrueggemann%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
  CSNET:  abrueggemann%watdaisy@waterloo.CSNET