home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!parsifal.umkc.edu!vax1.umkc.edu!edowdy
- Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
- Subject: Re: Star Trek...The screen saver
- Message-ID: <1992Dec15.122329.1@vax1.umkc.edu>
- From: edowdy@vax1.umkc.edu
- Date: 15 Dec 92 12:23:29 CST
- References: <1992Nov21.165657.27840@dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu>
- <4700@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> <1992Dec6.010323.13515@utkux1.utk.edu> <ByuM3M.C22@magna.com>
- Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City
- NNTP-Posting-Host: vax1.umkc.edu
- Lines: 36
-
- In article <ByuM3M.C22@magna.com>, doc@magna.com (Matthew J. D'Errico) writes:
- > In article <1992Dec6.010323.13515@utkux1.utk.edu> harp@martha.utcc.utk.edu (harp) writes:
- >>In article <4700@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> pierce@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
- >>>
- >>>that eats up resources: lottsa TT fonts (I have about 110 installed right
- >>>now, and I GOT to thin that out! Its eating over 60% of my GDI resource
- >>>pool up!!!
- >>>
- >>
- >
- > TT does indeed eat up resources... But you have to have been running an
- > application that will load the font table to do so. I've converted my
- > fonts all to ATM, because Adobe handles the resources better (I've got over
- > 400 fonts loaded on my system -- with TT, I was down to 60%, and with
- > Adobe I'm seldom below 75%)...
- >
-
- I am confused, I thought TT fonts take up less space (both disk and memory)
- atm fonts. Could someone give us users a quick rundown on the differences
- between the two regarding memory reqs., disk space, and overall effiecency?
-
- Thanks
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-