inconsistent field appearance

[J. Landman Gay]

Scott Rossi wrote:
> Recently, Jacque Landman Gay wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Probably I don't understand enough about fonts but, perhaps it's the
>>> font size I'm using and this particular font aren't a happy
>>> combination? Or does that matter?
>> Windows fonts and Mac fonts aren't the same, even if they have the same
>> names and are set to the same size. The Windows version is usually a
>> little smaller but it depends on the font. I have some notes about it here:
>> <http://www.hyperactivesw.com/resources_fonts.html>
> 
> Nicolas was referring to Windows only (XP and Vista), but even then, fonts
> on WinXP look pretty crappy compared to later versions of Windows, so this
> might be what he's running into.  Mostly this happens with "small" fonts (I
> don't have a recipe offhand), but certain fonts at certain sizes are
> rendered without antialising, which might account for the differing
> appearance.  I know some folks here have done some visual comparisons but
> this was a long time ago -- one would have to check the mail archives.

Thanks, I forgot it was Windows-only. Also, the notes I linked to are 8 
years old so probably out of date by now. I don't have recent font 
studies of Vista and Win7, so anyone who reads that page should take it 
with a grain of salt.

-- 
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com