On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:57:17AM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote: > On 01/15/2013 12:26 AM, mist wrote: [...] > >- I generally can understand less at once than can possibly fit with > >9th font size on 24 inch screen. > > In my experience, the screen is always too small. I prefer font size > 12 though. [...]
I use font size at least 15. :-P Well, it depends on what resolution I'm running at. For 1280x1024, I use about 15. For my home PC running at 1600x1200, I use 18 or 20. I find anything less than 14 straining on my eyes, and anything below 12 painful. I'm a stickler for 80 column text terminals. I find that anything much larger than that tends to be unwieldy because your eyes have to scan too far a horizontal distance per line. And I like the 80 columns to fill the entire width of the screen. (I have stopped believing in tiling or overlapping windows. Maximize everything FTW.) But then again, I don't expect anyone else to share my peculiar configuration. :-P T -- MS Windows: 64-bit overhaul of 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1-bit of competition.
