> > I'm not sure why, maybe I have too poor a font selection here, but > > the fonts, I mean, the onscreen fonts that xpdf seems to choose, > > always seems to run characters together, so it gets hard to read > > them. So, xpdf wouldn't be my first choice. I use kpdf to view > > pdfs for that particular reason, and onthe same document, kpdf does > > a distinctly better job, If kpdf uses xpdf's engine, then it must > > find some way to pick better fonts for itself, it actually does > > look better. > > I personally find that xpdf looks OK.
Same here, though I do remember to have that cramped characters problem before. I think it was in PDFs created by OpenOffice swriter. When I used the "other" OS to print these PDFs, there were cramped characters on paper. BTW, 'tis slightly off-topic, but had anyone else noticed that xpdf is rather slow in rendering pages? I remember, when I had a chance to use that "other" OS, there was some program to view PDF -- AcrobatReader it was called, AFAIR -- well, that thing rendered pages almost instantly. > I avoid things like kpdf because I don't use KDE and don't really need > all the bloat associated with it. But that's just me. No, that's not just you. That KDE and GNOME bloat is getting barely tolerable already. And not only because of the weight -- instability and departure from UNIX/XFree conventions are driving me crazy (did you notice that copying text to buffer by selecting it with a mouse doesn't seem to work anymnore with GTK?). Still, how can it be that just starting an app should waste tens of seconds of your time and more RAM than necessary? And that's on a dual-core 2GHz machine! Who would have imagined... [SorAlx] ridin' VS1400 _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
