From: rnichols@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (robert.k.nichols)
Subject: Re: ATM
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 39

In article <1r1jq4$af5@network.ucsd.edu> adean@weber.ucsd.edu (Anthony V. Dean) writes:
>
>I've been reading, with much confusion, about whether or not to use
>ATManager. Lately, all the packages I've been buying have all
>included ATManager as a "bonus"
>I do some desktop publishing using PageMaker and Coreldraw.
>Coreldraw comes with a nifty laser disk that contains over 200 diff
>types. Add that to the TTfonts that come with win31 and you have a
>decent amount of fonts. I print my creations out on an HP4
>Postcript, at 600 dpi resolution with the "Resolution Enhancement 
>Technology" and ..  well ... I get some darn good copies. 
>So good that there isn't any diff whether or not ATManager is turned
>on or not. Is it worth it to run ATM at all? Especially with these
>better printer technologies ... and TT?

ATM will do nothing for your TrueType fonts.  If your TrueType fonts are
sufficient for your needs, don't run ATM.  I have a lot of fonts that I can
install either as Type-1 PostScript (under ATM) or as TrueType.  I have
noticed that:

    1.	TrueType font files are at least 1/3 larger than their Type-1
	equivalents.  If you are using a disk compressor, though, be aware
	that TrueType fonts will compress, whereas Type-1 fonts will not
	(they are encrypted).

    2.	With a 300 dpi laser printer, the "artificial bold" version of a
	TrueType font is indistingishable from the original, forcing me to
	install the actual bold (and bold-italic, etc.) variants if I want
	to use them.  Type-1 PostScript fonts under ATM generate a visually
	distinct bold variant from the base font.  I realize that the
	artificial bold font that ATM generates is aesthetically inferior
	to the hand-generated bold TrueType variant, but it is sufficient
	for my needs, and not having to install bold variants saves me 50%
	on disk space (uncompressed).

--
Bob Nichols
AT&T Bell Laboratories
rnichols@ihlpm.ih.att.com
