Re: 560 vs. 701

["John H. Kim" <jokim@mit.edu>]

On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Robert Dewar wrote:

> Rather than a folding screen, which is hard to imagine would not have a
> break anyway at the fold, multiple screens that folded out would be fine,

Wasn't there some U.S. company working on flexible LCDs?

> (*) the fonts that come standard with win 95 are much worse than the OS/2
> fonts. The true type fonts are simply terrible at small sizes, and the
> number of bit-mapped fonts is disappointing, e.g. there is no 10 x 6

I've noticed this problem too.  I can work for hours with the 8x6
fonts I use with Linux and X, but I get eyestrain after a couple
hours of the 10xsomething font I have for Win95.  Does anyone know of
some good small bitmapped fonts?  Does Adobe Type Manager do any
better?
--
John H. Kim
jokim@mit.edu