Again, I agree in principle, but even vector type at some point will have to be rasterized to the output pixel grid, and while Photoshop would be nearly my last option for setting body copy, if that’s all you have, then there are ways to manage the quality of the type rendering.
Can you explain how Photoshop is different? Couldn’t you just change the image DPI and/or the antialiasing method?
Yes, but sending vector type to the screen or printer and allowing it to manage the pixels and antialiasing will always be superior to sending a rasterized font and having it rescaled. Type is a lot like facial recognition: it only takes subtle flaws to degrade the way it’s perceived.
See above. Type needs to be rendered “perfectly” and any raster-to-raster conversion is going to degrade it more than a final rasterization by the output device.
PR is correct in that you can get acceptable type output from PS if you spent the time to tweak the size, font, weight, AA and other settings. It’s a lot simpler - and the professional method - to use PS for what it’s good at and combine that image and type in another application designed for that purpose.
Are you sure Photoshop necessarily rasterizes its output? When you make a PDF from photoshop, for example, vectors are still kept as vectors. Could Photoshop maybe send postscript-like data to printers too instead of just pixels?
To partially answer my own question, Photoshop can indeed send vector output directly to Postscript printers. However, the option is hidden when printing with a non-PS driver, and it’s unclear whether that means enabled or disabled by default.
But if Photoshop is already storing the vector information, it wouldn’t be out of the question that it’s keeping it all the way to the print driver. It would have to be a conscious design choice to say “let’s rasterize these objects for non-postscript printers”, but that’d be strange, because whatever mechanism Illustrator and InDesign would use to send vectors to non-PS printers, Photoshop can also use. Why would they design a different, inferior, output pathway for one product? Not saying it’s impossible, just odd.
So I did an experiment.
Small font, upscaled in print settings dialog in Photoshop: pixellated (rasterized) output
Same thing in Illustrator: Still sharp
So despite what I said,** Photoshop does rasterize its print output unless you’re exporting to PDF or printing to a Postscript print driver**.
Of course there are a dozen yes-buts. For one thing, PDF isn’t a final print form but an intermediate stage; if you’re using PS to create PDF content, you could probably get away with smaller and more delicate type than if you were making a web or low-res print graphic.
Minor caveats aside, the bottom line is that PS does a lousy job with small type (under maybe 16-18 point, or delicately formed faces) and shouldn’t be used for the purpose unless it’s part of a graphical design that can be tweaked and “finished” for acceptable output - or unless you have pro-grade output equipment like a high-res PostScript printer, in which case you should be using the right tools for the job in the first place. 
You’re scolding me for adding my pet peeve to your own comment on the “problem” with PShop’s “primitive” shapes? File that under irony. Yeah, I don’t like Adobe, but PShop is still the one indispensable app in my photographic kit. I occasionally need to include some image related text, and PShop’s basic type rendering does, in fact, suck. If I were in the business of setting type into graphics, then I’d invest in a different app for that, but I’m not.
No. I’m not particularly scolding you except for baseless hating on the graphics and creative suite that owns 95% of the market based on user choice. Is Creative Suite perfect across the board? Hell, no. Is it the choice of nearly every professional in print and imaging, and a substantial leader in web and video? Absolutely, and for good reason.
Photoshop’s handling of vector shapes is extremely primitive. That has nothing to do with the way it manages and delivers set type. IMVHO of 30+ years, the type tools in PS are ONLY for creating “art type” and should never be used to set copy of any kind.
There are at least four or five other tools you could use and never see a hated Adobe logo again. Talk to the GIMP crowd, for example. (Oh, GIMP doesn’t meet your needs? Only PS from Adobe? How very surprising.)
Then you are using a tool that is not well-intended for your purpose and in lieu of expanding your toolset, you will need to learn and follow some peculiar rules to get clear, sharp text on your images - just as I have to follow some careful practices when I use a big screwdriver to drive nails.
What? How do you manage that?
[ol]
[li]Hold screwdriver by shaft.[/li][li]Position nail on surface.[/li][li]Whack nail on head with screwdriver handle.[/li][li]Mutter obscenities when the handle ricochets into your wrist.[/li][li]Repeat 3 and 4 until the nail is mostly driven.[/li][li]Go online and complain that Stanley tools suck.[/li][/ol]
Good grief, Amateur B! It takes some real argumentative gymnastics to turn a “pet peeve” into hating on Creative Suite, let alone take it as an opening for gratuitously smarmy advice. Most of what I dislike about Adobe has nothing to do with the functionality of their apps. It’s possible to tweak my text into sufficient shape for occasional use, without resorting to other software tools, but it’s not exactly unreasonable to point out that PShop is hardly ideal for such purposes. I don’t know why you seem to have such a problem with the fact that I find the extra effort annoying.