🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2562@pur-phy> cca@pur-phy (Charles C. Allen) writes:
>How does ATM do with "standard" sizes on an ImageWriter compared to
>the 2x bitmapped versions of fonts like Times, Helvetica, Bookman,
>Palatino, etc. (Adobe and Apple versions)?  I've never been pleased
>with the IW output for those fonts in the 9-12 point size, where a
>proper 2x bitmapped version usually exists.  Am I just being too hard
>on my poor little IW, or can ATM do better?

ATM can do better in any case where the 2x bitmap doesn't exist. For most
users who only get 10, 12, 14, 18, and 24 - 12/24 is the only 2x combination.
Results on the printer might be the same for 5, 6, 7, and 9 point (for Image-
writer users) - but the screen would look bad. Honestly, if all you use is
9 and 12 point (and have 9 point bitmaps), ATM might not be for you - nothing
would improve what you can do (except a higher resolution printer). If you want
10, 11, or 13+ size fonts you'll get a huge benefit from ATM. There are some
fonts that have larger sizes built for them (I believe Persuasion comes with
36,48,60, and 72 points - and maybe a few more), but these take a lot of disk
space and only work in the proper multiples (2x for image, 3x for image LQ,
and 4x for Laser SC).

Note: The above information on 2x bitmaps only applies to the ImageWriter
(or other 9-pin dot matrix printers). There resoultion is 144 dpi, which 
is exactly double the screen's 72dpi. But on the Laserwriter SC at 300 dpi,
4x fonts (288 dpi) just don't match up as well - and it is visable. The same
goes for the Imagewriter LQ and 3x sizes.

Conclusion: On your imagewriter, ATM would be an improvement for any cases
where a bitmap doesn't exist for the screen size requested and a matching
2x bitmap doesn't exist for printing. The best way to fall in love with it,
is to see it. You'll see a lot of announcements when it ships ;-) Hope this
information helps.

----
Brian Bezanson						bezanson@adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated