What are the differences between the original (rasterized) CM fonts and the current (smooth PDF-friendly) type1 versions of these fonts?
It seems to me that the originals are much better looking. They are "thicker". You can clearly see the difference in printed output. The type1 ones are somewhat "thinner".
Why is this? Why aren't they exactly the same?
And final question: On a modern MacTeX distribution (on my Mac OS X), how can I compile my document with the older fonts?
Update: I feel the current answers haven't answered some of the sub-questions and, more importantly, haven't provided the proper understanding that I'm looking for. The question can be rephrased: I look at "Digital Typography" by Knuth and a recent mathematics book on my shelf. Both are clearly printed in very high resolution—the fonts are smooth and look how they are supposed to look. But the font in Knuth's book is far more "thicker" and has a much more warmer, juicier, and nicer feel to it. On the other hand, I recognize the font in the mathematics book as the modern ubiquitous "smooth type1" CM font. In comparison to the font in Knuth's book, it looks thin and pale. I'm looking for some foundational understanding for why this is the case and why it turned out this way. Any font experts in here?