🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <13126@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> cohen@antares.UUCP (Alexander Cohen) writes:
>	But look--the real question is not even being addressed here, namely
>why does Adobe adverstise that this program works for Imagewriter users? The
>simple fact is that ATM and Fullwrite DOES NOT WORK any better than it does 
>with Word 4.0 or MacDraw or Canvas, or NISUS!  Why are you still confused
>on this point?

How am I confused. FullWrite on the Imagewriter, or WriteNow, MacWrite II 1.1,
XPress, PageMaker, or MacDraw II 1.1 look a lot better with ATM that without
when printing at point sizes where bitmaps do not exist. Take these applications
and print on a LaserWriter SC and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference
with the output and that on a LaserWriter NT for text. 

>	I have a hard time believing that it works with any program which prints
>through the apple driver.  I posted a challange to reproduce the Adobe
>advertisment and nobody has sent me any word as to whether they were able
>to reproduce the fine kerning of that ad. If it only works with Quark express
>then Adobe should tell potential buyers that in advance.

I already posted a reply here and personally to you on this one. The ad was
done using XPress 2.11 with the type centered and around 110 points in size.
Tight kerning was manually adjusted in the program. It is an exact printout
from an ImageWriter II using the ImageWriter 2.3 driver. I don't think anybody
bothered to send you how they "redid" it, because no one cared to re-create it.

>	And which is it?  Is it the Imagewriter Driver? or the Applications?
>Brian, you can't tell me that on the one hand it is the Driver and on the other
>that it works with some applications, what do these programs do differently
>with the Imagewriter Driver?

First, applications that print better use Fractional Widths for spacing. And
why can't it be a combination of both? Try Word 4 and print to a LaserWriter
SC. First with Fractional Widths off (simulate spacing like it would print to
an ImageWriter), and then with Fractional Widths on. Last I looked it got
progressively better, suggestion that one, the driver/printer did better
kerning, and secondly that the application spaced better under fractional
widths. If you look at the GCC driver for the Personal Laser Printer, they
have special choices to do a lot more kerning in their driver. So tell me
it can't be both a driver and an application. 

>	Ah come on!  Adobe should write their own driver for ATM, it can't
>be impossible...at least we would then get what we paid for.

ATM is a driver. If you meant that Adobe write print drivers for
every printer made, and still give it to you for $99 (~$57 mail order) then
all I can do is smile :-) You tell me that you don't own ATM, yet you've
done all these tests and say it is so bad (may I ask where you got your copy
of ATM). Since you never bought ATM, then you got what you paid for.
Registered owners of ATM have a manual and read me file that give tips on
getting better spacing, speed, and they are our most prized asset. Their
problems are Adobe's, and Adobe is working to fix those problems.

>	Well, that's my last flame on this subject...I'm dissapointed
>with ATM and Adobe, but I'm not recommending this product to anybody.

My personal feelings here (and others will probably agree) is that you
can't please everyone - but you can always try. You blame Adobe because 
they didn't fix limitations with Apple's software or commercial applications. 

For $99 any Macintosh user can get better screen font rendering and better 
printing in most sizes. I personally don't see that as a bad deal. Again,
Adobe is working on improving ATM and working with the developer community 
to fix any problems that exist.
-- 
Brian Bezanson                                          bezanson@adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated           The opinions expressed above are my
                                     own and may not represent those of Adobe.