On 2024-07-07, Jack wrote: > To how fonts are designed, many if not most modern fonts (such as > true-type) are specified internally by the commands to draw each > character, and you request the size in points. The conversion to how > many pixels to use is based on the DPI the system thinks is being used > by the monitor. Some fonts are actually specified by the Width x > Height in pixels. These are bitmap fonts, which often come in sets of > various sizes. Fortunately (as far as I can tell) there are fewer and > fewer bitmap fonts in use any more, as they need to get very larger for > higher DPI displays. You can imagine that mixing the two is even more > likely to lead to confusion and poor looking display, unless you are > extremely careful.
That's funny, because in my experience the fonts that render poorly are the non-bitmap ones, and often the best way to get a clear, crisp, readable text display here is by using bitmap fonts. Now I'd like to know why are non-bitmap ones so often rendering poorly. While I've tried to explore settings in the past, I don't think I've discovered a satisfactory set of settings for non-bitmap. Maybe some day in the future I'll revisit this... -- Nuno Silva
