>>>>> "MAH" == Mike A Harris <mharris@redhat.com> writes: MAH> I just looked at the picture above and it looks like straight MAH> antialiased fonts. As I said, the vertical elements are not grid-snapped as they were in earlier versions of Red Hat. The source of this was revealed earlier in this thread. MAH> I do not see any subpixel rendering effects MAH> or artifacts present in the image. This could be because you MAH> used xmag to magnify it possibly, if there are in fact artifacts. No, the artifact is clearly in the source image, and has been revealed (by other messages in this thread) to be intentional. Too bad for me that the default has been chosen to be something that I think looks poor, but it's a one line change to put it back to something readable so I'm not complaining. MAH> Not sure, as the gif above doesn't really show much IMHO. It MAH> looks like some of the stems are being antialiased on the sides, MAH> which looks just plain wrong in every way, but other than that, I MAH> see no subpixel rendering artifacts. Yes, the stems are being antialiased (or at least, not snapped to the pixel grid and not forced to integer-pixel-width). This is what I've been calling "vertical font elements" but if "stems" is the proper term then, hey, I've learned something else. Your "just plain wrong in every way" seems to indicate that you might agree with me. - J< _______________________________________________ xfree86-list mailing list xfree86-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/xfree86-list IRC: #xfree86 on irc.redhat.com
