CompuServe Messages

I have direct output samples of 600 x 600, 800 x 800, and 1000 x 1000 here. The defects are generally slight except in that horrid looking page from Publish! magazine, and they would normally be quite excusable. I am trying, though, to be as critical as possible of this new approach so that I can ultimately be convinced, one way or the other, as to whether it is a definite step forward or not. Do you have the 800 x 800 sample page with the photograph of the two boys? Or the one with the letters "A" through "g" showing various sizes and effects? If so, look at the body text (Bitstream Amerigo) and note the gaps in the letters "n", "m", "h" and any other letter where a chiseled or pointed stroke meets with a straight vertical stroke. The 600 x 600 dpi sample does not have these gaps. They've already got my check for the 800 dpi upgrade; I'm just asking for reasonable assurance that it works better than these samples, which requires an explanation of why these samples look the way they do. I could conceivably be wrong about the design of Amerigo, but it is a typeface I've used a certain amount and I think I'm reasonably familiar with it. If I'm wrong, you or LaserMaster should feel free to tell me so. I've brought this up with them, and haven't received any direct reply. Apparently they are now working to clarify the situation with the Publish! article somehow. –The message I wrote on IBMAPP was apparently deleted the other day; it didn't scroll off the board naturally, and I'm pretty sure I did not delete it myself. That didn't exactly increase my confidence level either.