🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <0ZLD=oG00WBLQ1UnJM@andrew.cmu.edu> dw2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Duane T. Williams) writes:
>
>In a recent article, Brian Bezanson writes:  "But for now I repeat that
>ATM works, and very well if you listen to our users."
>
>Not if you listen to this user.  The quality of ATM output on my
>ImageWriter is, for the most part, no better than what I get without it,
>and in some cases it's (surprisingly) worse.  And it's very slow.  For
>me, it was a waste of money.  I would advise most people to wait for
>System 7.0.

I think that's a somewhat narrow view, and more than a little unfair.
Better quality type is not the answer to the world's problems. Having
a better typeface does not automatically improve kerning, spacing, etc.
if the program using that information can't handle it (i.e., you can't
make a silk purse out of a sow's ear -- sorry Microsoft :-)
I find the speed acceptable (on an SE), and that's only when I have
to generate the bitmaps, typically when I first open my document.
Just because Adobe has pushed the technology foreward, leaving 
application vendors to catch up, is no reason to condemn either progress
or Adobe. I'd say that ATM is of debatable value if you only use a few
small fonts (14 points or less), but if you have a need for display type
(18 points or greater) or like to play with text in Illustrator,
the improvements are dramatic with ATM.

-- 
Frank Kolnick,
consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X
UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank