Ugly fonts whith Core2
gene.smith at sea.siemens.com
Wed Jun 9 17:13:21 UTC 2004
Patrice Brockhaus wrote, On 6/5/2004 8:05 AM:
> Does no one here experience fonts whith core 2 being very ugly? Here they are
> as unreadable, that I still use core1 for this reason - well not only for
> this reason: Why is KDE so damn slow on my 333-celeron? KDE works great whith
> I can't see any difference between anti-aliasing turned on/of in
> KDE-Controlcenter although the difference is clearly visible in Core1 when
> doing the same thing. I neither couldn't see any difference between freetype
> patched (natural AA, or how was this called?) and non-patched. Fonts appear
> very unclear, somehow thinner as in core1 and lack contrast.
> I'm not quiet shure if this is a problem of font-rendering or a general
> graphic-problem. Is there a software to increase contrast of XOrg? My monitor
> is already set to maximum. I'm using the same Nvidia proprietary driver whith
> both fedoras. I can see no difference in 2D between nv and proprietary
> I like core1 very much, but I'm very disappointed whith core 2. :-(
When I clean installed the final fc2 (after running test versions for
several months) I got excellent fonts everywhere. I think this is the
first linux install I have done in which I *did not* have to go
adjusting fonts all over the place.
I run a 500Mhz Ath (384M ram) and the only thing that seems slower in
kde is the panel menu rendering. Otherwise, it seems to run about the
same as kde 2.x in rh7.2 which I last had on the machine.
When I used the Nvidia proprietary driver with rh7.2 and I ran gvim and
resized the window, it was extremely sluggish to redraw. When I went
back to the stock rh driver, it was fine (I don't do fancy graphics or
games). You might try the stock fc2/xorg Nvidia driver and see if that
helps with the menu (mine is a bit slow, but not unusable).
Lit up like Levy's
More information about the fedora-list