> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:19:50 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> > Cc: 3246251196r...@gmail.com, help-emacs-windows@gnu.org > > > Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:10:09 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Drew Adams <drew.ad...@oracle.com> > > Cc: help-emacs-windows@gnu.org > > > > > > But emacs does the font if I manually select it from the Set Font > > > > menu as described above. > > > > > > Yes, it does. But that only makes it the default font for the text > > > in the buffer in which you choose it. Using that as the default for > > > the entire frame, not just for buffer text, is something that requires a > > > higher-quality font. > > > > I didn't know that. > > You didn't know what exactly? > > > Why does a frame need a better (default) font than a buffer? > > Just what does a frame require in this regard? > > The bold variant, for starters, because we show the buffer name in > bold on the mode line.
Btw, there could easily be another problem here, with the font's name: it includes the "-8" part, which Emacs might try to interpret. Like I said: it's a bad font. Don't use it.
