> > Specifically I am trying to find out why the fonts appear so radically > > different in Gnome (horrible) and KDE (beautiful) for all combinations of > > anti-aliasing. > > > > Maybe post some small screenshots of a word or two of text (using a > fresh user account with no options changed, ideally) so we can see > what you mean. The fonts are rendered by the same code in each, except > for possible changes in render options (as in Preferences->Fonts in > GNOME). > > Havoc Ok, so what I have found out since (now that I am sitting in front of the console) is that: 1. The fonts in KDE and GNOME indeed look the same when using the video card. 2. When using VNC, GNOME behaves as it does with the video card but KDE behaves differently. 3. The anti-aliasing setting in KDE has no effect when using VNC. 4. Different fonts are available under KDE when using VNC. 5. Arial Unicode Ms messes up when used with KDE and VNC (i.e. A r i a l U n i c o d e ...) Anyway, I posted some screen shots at http://naturally-me.com/snapshot1.png (without anti-aliasing) and http://naturally-me.com/snapshot2.png (with anti-aliasing). The left side is the video display, the right side is through VNC. Without aa the rendering on the video card is crude and not as pleasing as through VNC; with aa it is very fuzzy. While the difference is not really visible on a CRT running 1280x1024 it is VERY noticeable on an LCD running 1024x768. So my question should probably be rephrased to "Why does KDE use a different rendering mechanism under VNC than under video?". J.
