bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (11/10/89)
In article <2046@network.ucsd.edu> dpaight@weber.UUCP (Dan Paight) writes: >And I suppose Adobe was unaware of this problem before releasing >ATM. Don't these people test their products before marketing them? >Their ads sing the virtues of ATM for owners of Imagewriters, yet >the damned thing won't even handle kerning correctly on an >Imagewriter! Most of the spacing problems on the Imagewriter are due to application spacing problems (no support for fractional widths). Adobe did extensive testing on all printers mentioned in the advertising. Should Adobe hold up shipping ATM so Apple could do a better ImageWriter driver or Microsoft fix their spacing to the ImageWriter? Apple isn't going to fix their drivers because the whole architecture is changing under 7.0. Adobe is working with developers to make their applications space better, and things are happening. For users with FullWrite, PageMaker, XPress, or MacWrite II 1.1 the results are very similar to a LaserPrinter (given the dpi differences). For any type above 14 point ATM is a big win. >The more I hear about Adobe Type Manager, the more I think I'll wait >for system 7 for outline fonts. These spacing problems won't go away in System 7.0. The new print drivers will fix some of the problems, but if the applications don't do spaing right now with the fonts, they won't in System 7.0. My personal guess right now is that ATM is showing manufacturers where they need upgrading and most are doing ATM upgrades and they may need to do more for 7.0. -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
dpaight@HP-UX.ucsd.edu (Dan Paight) (11/11/89)
In article <1432@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >Adobe did extensive testing >on all printers mentioned in the advertising. Should Adobe hold up shipping >ATM so Apple could do a better ImageWriter driver or Microsoft fix their >spacing to the ImageWriter? Unfortunately, no one uses just the printer: everyone also uses software. And MS Word happens to be the most popular word processing software for the Mac. I'm not sure it's such a good idea to release a software enhancement for Imagewriters when that enhancement produces bad-looking text on such a popular piece of software as MS Word. As for the driver, what does it matter that it's the driver's fault? The driver is already in use -- bugs and all. If Adobe released ATM knowing that some problem in the IW driver would cause ATM to screw up people's printouts, then that strikes me as dishonest. In short, it doesn't matter whose "fault" it is. Adobe ought to make it clear to potential customers that ATM and certain popular programs do not work exactly right together. I was ready to go out and buy ATM when it was first announced (before it was distributed), but after reading the lengthy discussion of ATM here on the net, I decided that ATM would not make my printouts look any better. I almost never use odd-sized fonts or large fonts -- mostly just 9 & 12 point. Your informative posts convinced me not to buy ATM. But if I HAD bought it -- just for the sake of those few times when ATM would help -- and then found that ATM wouldn't work properly with MS Word, no amount of blaming Microsoft would have made me feel better. See what I mean? dp
cohen@sunybcs.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Alexander Cohen) (11/12/89)
In article <1432@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: > >In article <2046@network.ucsd.edu> dpaight@weber.UUCP (Dan Paight) writes: >>And I suppose Adobe was unaware of this problem before releasing >>ATM. Don't these people test their products before marketing them? >>Their ads sing the virtues of ATM for owners of Imagewriters, yet >>the damned thing won't even handle kerning correctly on an >>Imagewriter! > >Most of the spacing problems on the Imagewriter are due to application >spacing problems (no support for fractional widths). Adobe did >extensive testing >on all printers mentioned in the advertising. Should Adobe hold up shipping >ATM so Apple could do a better ImageWriter driver or Microsoft fix their >spacing to the ImageWriter? *------> 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? 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. >Apple isn't going to fix their drivers because the >whole architecture is changing under 7.0. Adobe is working with developers to >make their applications space better, and things are happening. For users >with FullWrite, PageMaker, XPress, or MacWrite II 1.1 the results are very >similar to a LaserPrinter (given the dpi differences). For any type above >14 point ATM is a big win. Sure above 14 point, so long as you don't try to use an apostrophe which will be have a mile of space either side of 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? >These spacing problems won't go away in System 7.0. The new print drivers will >fix some of the problems, but if the applications don't do spaing right now >with the fonts, they won't in System 7.0. My personal guess right now is that >ATM is showing manufacturers where they need upgrading and most are doing >ATM upgrades and they may need to do more for 7.0. 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. >Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com >Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my > own and may not represent those of Adobe. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander J. Cohen ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!cohen Dept. of Computer Science internet: cohen@cs.buffalo.edu SUNY at Buffalo BITNET: cohen@sunybcs.BITNET Buffalo, NY 14260 GEnie: AJCOHEN "Who put these fingerprints on my imagination?" Elvis Costello ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (11/12/89)
In article <2061@network.ucsd.edu> dpaight@weber.UUCP (Dan Paight) writes: >I'm not sure it's such a good idea >to release a software enhancement for Imagewriters when that >enhancement produces bad-looking text on such a popular piece of >software as MS Word. My answer to this will follow in a reply to a related message. But for now I repeat that ATM works, and very well if you listen to our users. I doubt any company could put an indefinte hold on a product because someone else doesn't do things correctly. More later on this point. >In short, it doesn't matter whose "fault" it is. Adobe ought to make >it clear to potential customers that ATM and certain popular >programs do not work exactly right together. If potential customers call our support number or order number and ask about compatibility, they are given the facts as best they are known. I can't see a manufacturer (like Adobe) put stickers or lenghty text on a package or in an adertisement saying that using so and so's application doesn't work correctly given this situation, blah, blah. For one, the application developer might file a lawsuit for one reason or another, or they may have a fix in a few weeks, etc... Let me point out that Adobe wants its customers to feel like 'King' (or 'Queen' - since we don't discriminate ;-). Adobe is working with Microsoft and other developers to work out these problems, and any fixes that could be incorporated into ATM are also being worked on. If you don't have a need for ATM, fine. A lot of people don't have a need for System 6.0, and they get their work done great under 4.1 and MacWrite 4.5 and MacCalc 1.0. If you need the features of ATM or System 6 (7 next year), you'll get it and use it to do your job better. There is a fix for Word 4 and the Imagewriter now (not from Microsoft though) to work better with ATM. If the spacing is still a problem, try the Apple screen fonts - their default spacing is narrower. Or use Fontographer to generate new widths for the bitmaps from the FOND. I hope these suggestions help. -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (11/12/89)
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.
dw2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Duane T. Williams) (11/12/89)
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. Duane Williams (dtw+@cs.cmu.edu)
dpaight@HP-UX.ucsd.edu (Dan Paight) (11/12/89)
In article <1442@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >In article <2061@network.ucsd.edu> dpaight@weber.UUCP (Dan Paight) writes: >>In short, it doesn't matter whose "fault" it is. Adobe ought to make >>it clear to potential customers that ATM and certain popular >>programs do not work exactly right together. > >I can't >see a manufacturer (like Adobe) put stickers or lenghty text on a package or >in an adertisement saying that using so and so's application doesn't work >correctly given this situation, blah, blah. Why not? Is it better to lead people to believe they're getting something they want (better printouts on IWs), but then fail to deliver? And it's not just "so and so's" application: it's the Apple IW driver! Adobe is selling a product that won't do what it (Adobe) claims it will do. It's like selling a pair of wings for Toyotas and then pleading that it's Toyota's fault if they're cars won't fly -- the wings themselves are well-designed. Doesn't help would-be Camry pilots. >Let me point out that Adobe wants its customers to feel like 'King' >(or 'Queen' - since we don't discriminate ;-). Oh, well that's nice. You WANT them to feel like kings and queens -- just like they WANT their Imagewriters to print properly spaced text using ATM with the Imagewriter driver. Adobe's 'wants' notwithstanding, the company has made its customers feel more like suckers than like kings. >Adobe is working with Microsoft >and other developers to work out these problems, and any fixes that could >be incorporated into ATM are also being worked on. Oh joy! Then these people will have the privilege of upgrading to a version of ATM that actually works. In the meantime, however, they get screwed. dp
dpaight@HP-UX.ucsd.edu (Dan Paight) (11/13/89)
Dan Paight writes: >they're cars Tsk tsk. ...their cars dp
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (11/13/89)
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
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (11/14/89)
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. Works fine for me. Quite nicely, in fact. Then again, I didn't go off to buy ATM expecting some miracle as it seems others have. ATM does exactly what it says it does. It generates bitmaps based on the outline fonts for when you need a size that isn't installed in your system. People have been bitching (yes, bitching) that 12 point fonts look better with the bitmaps installed. To that I say, of course they do. You're not going to get any better than hand-tuned bitmaps? How could anyone possibly expect that? I keep all the general bitmaps installed. ATM kicks in when I need a nice 48 point headline and it looks great. Conclusion: ATM won't produce miracles and Adobe doesn't advertise it as such. Ken -- Ken Hancock '90 | DISCLAIMER: I'm graduating and looking for Consultant | a job, so I'll stand by my words. Computer Resource Center |============================================== Dartmouth College | EMAIL: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
dpaight@HP-UX.ucsd.edu (Dan Paight) (11/14/89)
In article <16874@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes: >People have been bitching (yes, bitching) that 12 point fonts look >better with the bitmaps installed. To that I say, of course they >do. You're not going to get any better than hand-tuned bitmaps? >How could anyone possibly expect that? > >I keep all the general bitmaps installed. ATM kicks in when I need >a nice 48 point headline and it looks great. > >Conclusion: ATM won't produce miracles and Adobe doesn't advertise it as such. > >Ken > The complaints have focused mostly on bad spacing of text. Mr B. at Adobe made it quite clear about a month ago that ATM would offer no improvement (aside from bold and italics) for those who use 12 pt. (or, I presume, any size for which you already have a 2x installed[?]). That cured me of the expect-the-impossible affliction. You can't make an IW into a Laser Writer. But it ought to be possible to make the IW produce a properly spaced apostrophe. I don't use ATM (don't own it), and I don't plan to. But these other people you hear complaining sound pretty convincing to me. dp [My views are, of course, the official views of the Regents of the University of California.]
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (11/16/89)
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.
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (11/16/89)
In article <2062@network.ucsd.edu> dpaight@weber.UUCP (Dan Paight) writes: >In article <1442@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >>In article <2061@network.ucsd.edu> dpaight@weber.UUCP (Dan Paight) writes: >>>In short, it doesn't matter whose "fault" it is. Adobe ought to make >>>it clear to potential customers that ATM and certain popular >>>programs do not work exactly right together. >>I can't >>see a manufacturer (like Adobe) put stickers or lenghty text on a package or >>in an adertisement saying that using so and so's application doesn't work >>correctly given this situation, blah, blah. >Why not? Is it better to lead people to believe they're >getting something they want (better printouts on IWs), but then fail >to deliver? And it's not just "so and so's" application: it's the >Apple IW driver! Adobe is selling a product that won't do what it >(Adobe) claims it will do. This discussion has really moved to complaints about the ImageWriter driver. It was mentioned by someone a while ago that the ImageWriter driver wasn't the best at supporting kerning, and now you blame it all on the ImageWriter driver. To that I say: take PageMaker, Ready-Set-Go, or XPress, where you can set the spacing/kerning and then print to an ImageWriter. That's what Adobe did for the ads and you can see the quality they get there. From what I read in the advertising, ATM is designed to allow you to print PostScript fonts on printers using the printers full resolution and display type on the screen at best resolution. If you try this with ATM (and at sizes where pre-built bitmaps for the device don't exist), ATM will be a noticable improvement. How that output is spaced is done by the application (and in some part by the driver). Since XPress allows me to space the type perfectly, then my guess would be that Word could have a similar feature. >>Adobe is working with Microsoft and other developers to work out these >>problems, and any fixes that could be incorporated into ATM are also >>being worked on. >Oh joy! Then these people will have the privilege of upgrading to a >version of ATM that actually works. In the meantime, however, they >get screwed. The spacing problems don't need a special version of ATM to be fixed. As was mentioned above, some applications have no problems. If a new version of Word comes out that has better support for Fractional Widths and spacing better, then the user has no need for an ATM upgrade. In the pursuit of happy customers and a better product, Adobe is probably working on fixing any bugs found in the software and improving (from the ATM end) any of the other problems encountered by users. -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (11/16/89)
In article <2064@network.ucsd.edu> dpaight@weber.UUCP (Dan Paight) writes: >You can't make an IW into a Laser Writer. But it ought >to be possible to make the IW produce a properly spaced apostrophe. >I don't use ATM (don't own it), and I don't plan to. But these >other people you hear complaining sound pretty convincing to me. What's so special about the apostrophe? I know it doesn't space well, but it spaces "just as good" without ATM. For an example, I used MacWrite II 1.1, ATM 1.01 and then on the screen type "n't t's t'l" at 60 points. First in Geneva, then Helvetica, Chicago, Helvetica-Bold, Monaco, and Courier. The last 2 being mono-spaced fonts don't help, but the other fonts space the apostrophy the same way. ATM fonts do look better because the fonts have better widths and true-er appearance. This is with Fractional Widths on and using "Curly" quotes. Well that's my personal input on this one. To get better spacing you need to add special kerning of hand kern the characters. -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
dpaight@HP-UX.ucsd.edu (Dan Paight) (11/16/89)
Brian Bezanson, >What's so special about the apostrophe? I know it doesn't space >well, but it >spaces "just as good" without ATM. Special? Did I say it was? I guess some people can get along without them. Then again, some cant. dp
kyt@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu (Kok Yong Tan) (11/17/89)
I'm interested in knowing if ATM work with a HP Paintjet hooked up to a Mac IIx
running the latest versions of Nisus and Wingz. Thanks.
Kok-Yong Tan
Lowly undergraduate at Columbia University
===============================================================================
Kok-Yong Tan can be contacted via:
BitNet: kyt@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu (personal mail)
kyt@cs.columbia.edu (other mail)
CompuServe: 75046,256
===============================================================================kyt@cunixd.cc.columbiawri (Kok Yong Tan) (11/17/89)
I'm interested in knowing if ATM work with a HP Paintjet hooked up to a Mac IIx
running the latest versions of Nisus and Wingz. Thanks.
Kok-Yong Tan
Lowly undergraduate at Columbia University
===============================================================================
Kok-Yong Tan can be contacted via:
BitNet: kyt@cunixd.cc.columbiawri (personal mail)
kyt@cs.columbiawri (other mail)
CompuServe: 75046,256
===============================================================================
#! rfiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (11/17/89)
In article <1449@adobe.UUCP>, bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) writes: > > 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. When the Apple][ first appeared, it was one of the first affordable computers with support for color. For a long time, one of the most common problems dealt with by Customer Support was "my Apple][ doesn't output color!" After a while, the time spent dealing with this problem was drastically reduced by the support person asking "Do you have a color TV?" (The most typical response being "Why? Does it make a difference?" I wish I were joking, btw, but I'm not. ------------ "...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_ 275d