Re: techwr-l digest: February 17, 2000

Subject: Re: techwr-l digest: February 17, 2000
From: Chris Kowalchuk <chris -at- bdk -dot- net>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:43:45 -0500

I find these comments about ATM odd. I share George's experience: I have
been using the product since Win 3.1 and have found it quite reliable.
It is not inherently a flaky product. It does use up some system
resources, but it is not a hog. I can only think that perhaps in times
past (and this is quite imaginable in Windows 3.1 which, lets face it,
never won any awards for hardiness), some aspect of it may have
conflicted with resources required by another program or process under
very specific conditions. Let us not forget that there was a whole whack
of products and strategies for resource (especially memory) management
and optimization for Windows 3.1. In fact, there was hardly a major
program you could install without getting into the config.sys and
altering something, and if that was all you had to do, you were lucky.
Virtually every program conflicted with _something_ and required some
workaround or other in order for your other software/hardware to work
with it. Since I do a lot of work with print houses, and use postscript
and type 1 fonts as a matter of course (they really are of much higher
quality), I don't know what I would do without the ATM on my system.
Like George, I have never had a problem with it, and I think if you are
using Win 95/98 especially, and version 4.1 of the type manager,
installation should be effortless and you shouldn't run into any

Chris Kowalchuk

Previous by Author: Re: Advice for beginner
Next by Author: Re: How to reference document sections?
Previous by Thread: Re: techwr-l digest: February 17, 2000
Next by Thread: Polite international e-mail

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads