Re: Beta2: Nice job!

Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> pav_at_FreeBSD.org writes:
> 
> Andrew Gallatin p=ED=B9e v po 22. 08. 2005 v 08:39 -0400:
> 
>>>- X.org is a major downgrade from XFree86 3.x in terms of fonts.
>>>  linux-mozilla, linux-firefox, etc, all look terrible & blurry
>>>  compared to XFree86-3.x or Windows.
>>> =20
>>>  I've installed the bitstream-vera fonts, and messed with
>>>  ~/.fonts.conf for hours turning on/off anti-aliasing, subpixel
>>>  rendering, hinting, autohinting, etc.  I know I'm having an effect,
>>>  because each change manages to make things worse.  This is a
>>>  75x75dpi 1024x768 LCD screen driven by a NeoMagic video chip.
>>>=20
>>>  I've got the same problem with fonts on my desktop (1600x1200 LCD
>>>  panel), but I'd always assumed that it was something about this
>>>  particular LCD.
>>
>>Forget these linux-* relics from times when Netscape only came as binary
>>kludgepackage.
> 
> 
> It is much easier to keep linux binaries to date with security
> releases because you don't have to worry about some obscure libfoo
> dependancy changing.  Plus java and flash plugins, while native
> alternatives exist, are much, much easier to deal with as linux
> binaries.
> 
> 
>>Try native mozilla/firefox, you will be pleasantly surprised with the
>>slicky smoothness of fonts delivered by freetype and libXft.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I should have mentioned:  Native versins of firefox and
> other gnomish things (thunderbird) look just as blurry. Xfce menus
> and title bars look bad, etc.  The only fonts which look decent
> are the 15-year old X11 fonts that xterm and xemacs use.

Just to check the obvious, but, you are certain you are running at the 
native resolution of the LCD panel, correct?

Eric


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson        Sr. Systems Administrator        Centaur Technology
Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------