🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <0ZLD=oG00WBLQ1UnJM@andrew.cmu.edu> dw2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Duane T. Williams) writes:
>
>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.

Before posting this reply, I read all of the follow-ups to this message, and
all of them were positive towards ATM. It's aimed at improving Imagewriter
type where it wasn't able to print at before. If you do any headline type in
sizes greater than those for which you might have a 2x bitmap installed,
then ATM is worthwhile. In the cases where you say type is actually worse,
Adobe knows of the problem and is working to fix it. The speed problems are
difficult to talk about because they depend on machine, memory, and user
perception. For the mail order price of $57 and what it can do at other
sizes, I personally don't see it as a waste of money. In fact my parents and
my wife's parents will be getting copies for Christmas - it's okay, they
aren't on the net ;-).

The biggest problem with ATM is user perception. Some people think that ATM
is going to improve their screen resolution to 300 dpi, or give their 
ImageWriter LaserWriter output quality. In regards to System 7.0 - we'll have
to see. Adobe does have one user who called in who is a tester for the 7.0
outlines. ATM and Royal were interchangable for speed and quality. If you
don't like the output from ATM on your ImageWriter, 7.0 won't be any better.
Word will still need to be fixed for fractional widths, etc... The users 
biggest remark was that he only has "one" royal outline (no bold, italic,
etc...). ATM gives him access to over 600 faces, and when other vendors make
their fonts Type 1 compatible early next year, they'll add another 2000-4000
faces. Royal fonts have some neat technology to do what they will do, but that
makes them all the more complex. To do really good type design with royal fonts
will take a long time. Apple's published the specs, but they aren't supplying
any tools. I don't see 500-4000 similar quality Royal fonts for 2-4 years,
and the reports from Publish and other print related magazines echo similar
time frames.

I'm starting to make this into a ATM vs. Royal discussion, it isn't meant
to be. ATM is a way to give outline fonts to users now. It will work right
along with Royal, but it will allow PostScript fonts to do outlining. What
I meant it to be, was that Royal will have the same problems as ATM is
experiencing. Some users are saying, "ATM ______, so wait for Royal and
System 7". By that time you'll probably see some major improvemnts in ATM for
speed, spacing, etc... But System 7.0 and Royal won't make the ImageWriter or 
screen have better resolution.

The win for the user is that ATM will spur some developers to
fix these problems, so their applications work with ATM and with 7.0.

Hope this has been informational and not more flame/debatable material.
-- 
Brian Bezanson                                          bezanson@adobe.com
Adobe Systems Incorporated           The opinions expressed above are my
                                     own and may not represent those of Adobe.