On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Peter Howkins wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 08:06:52PM -0600, Jon Trulson wrote:
> Quite a while ago I experimented with the helvetica and courier fonts from > Adobe that are available as part of the ghostscript packages (gsfonts-x11 > on debian). > > http://marutan.net/pics/CDE-20120530.png > https://sourceforge.net/p/cdesktopenv/wiki/ImprovingFonts/ (the > instructions on using these fonts are quite possibly out of date now) > > That's a particulaly good font at that pixel size, but like nearly all the > bitmap fonts I've seen if you change the px size a bit they often end up > looking ropey again. Are you sure these are ghostscript fonts? I think I have achieved the same effect using standard 100dpi/75dpi fonts from the X11 distribution. I just changed the '-dt-interface system-*' font to '-adobe-helvetica-*' per your recipe and it looks good, no worse than TTF Lucida or Robota. I think I will stay with '-b&h-lucidatypewriter-*' as the '-dt-interface user-*' font for now. Can you send me your "fonts.dir" and "fonts.alias" (if any) from the ghostscript fonts directory? If those are indeed standard X bitmap fonts, I think we can switch defaults to those and no longer require Lucida. Regarding other comment on Lucida vs. Roboto - both fonts have their problems (I am not an expert). I found Roboto looking surprisingly good on my 1280x800 laptop screen. Only the shape of capital "O" is annoying. Will switch to helvetica again :) //Marcin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;258768047;13503038;j? http://info.appdynamics.com/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html _______________________________________________ cdesktopenv-devel mailing list cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
