steve@huxley.huxley.bitstream.com (Steve Stein) (03/27/91)
In article <8326@umd5.umd.edu> vbob@umd5.umd.edu (Bob Shields) writes: > Some earlier messages on TrueType vs. ATM seemed to indicate that TrueType > is slightly faster imaging to the screen. I have been using the > Styler 2.0 program, which displays a selected font in 10-,12-, 18-, 24- > and 36-point, then displays all the characters in the font in 18-point plain, > bold, italic, and outline (and shadow, if desired.) In comparing the speed > of the screen display, I found that TrueType can be extremely slower than > ATM 2.0 by an order of magnitude. Admittedly, one usually doesn't use this > many variations in a normal document, but this seemed like a good benchmark > test. Do you have bitmaps installed for the ATM fonts you tried here. If you do, ATM isn't doing anything - Quickdraw just uses the bitmaps to image to the screen, which is real fast. (ATM fonts require at least one bitmap to be persent in the suitcase - I think most ATM fonts ship with 2 - a 10 and a 12 point.) TrueType doesn't require a bitmap font to be installed in the suitcase - but you can put bitmaps in the suitcase if you have them and if you want to (use Font/DA Mover). - Steve Stein - Bitstream, Inc.