It is better on my screen, but it's not remarkably better. On the whole
though it is more attractive. Wayne is always into the latest and
greatest so it is better, but may not make that much difference to the
average person who just cares about being able to read it.
Jimen Ching wrote:
On
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, LinuxDan wrote:
>The first is bolder (46869)
On my screen, it's only slightly bolder. Hardly worth mentioning.
--jc
--
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The first is bolder (46869)
Dan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jimen Ching
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 6:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [luau] Mozilla w/ xft
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
>Compare the
I guess whether you will see any difference or not depends on what kind
of monitor you use. I am using a 0.20mm 21" Nokia @ 1152x864, and the
difference in fonts is truly stunning.
Before xft, I would alway avoid using Internet Explorer, because it made
Moz "look" so inferior. Now I won't he
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
In my system, the differences are stunning. How do others see?
Oh, it makes a huge difference in font quality. Unfortunately it seems to be
VERY, *VERY* unstable for me (looking at it the wrong way tends to make it
segfault). Unfortunately my moz build is compiled wi
In my system, the differences are stunning. How do others see?
Jimen Ching wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
Compare the two screenshots of Mozilla 1.2.1,
(1) with xft:
http://www.wpuniverse.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=46869
(2) without xft:
http://www.wpuniverse.com/v
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
>Compare the two screenshots of Mozilla 1.2.1,
>(1) with xft:
>http://www.wpuniverse.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=46869
>(2) without xft:
>http://www.wpuniverse.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=46870
You have better eyes than me. I can't tell the diffe
