14 Jul
2004
14 Jul
'04
6:41 p.m.
Hi all,
I have successfully installed Slackware on both my test machine and my
laptop. My test machine has a parallel Windows partition, and my laptop
used to be running Windows.
However, I have the impression that on both machines, the quality of the
graphical image (under KDE) is not as good as with Windows on exactly
the same hardware.
My basic question is: what is the most likely cause:
-1- the fonts used -> i.e. would using the Windows TTF fonts make a
large difference ?
-2- the configuration for the monitor? For the desktop, I have put into
xorg.conf the values I found in my monitor's book; for the laptop, I
couldn't find the information yet so I left the defaults.
-3- the graphics card driver? The desktop has a ATI Radeon 7500, and I
use the X.org "radeon" driver. For the laptop, I ended up using
"vesa",
short of anything specific available for an ATI 3D Rage LT Pro.
Any hints are welcome.
-pu
14 Jul
14 Jul
7:17 p.m.
Hello,
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
-1- the fonts used -> i.e. would using the Windows
TTF fonts make a
large difference ?
Installing Windows TTF fonts can be nice, especially if you often open
Word documents with OpenOffice. But as a first step, make sure that your
monitor/graphics card is calibrated correctly.
-2- the configuration for the monitor? For the
desktop, I have put into
xorg.conf the values I found in my monitor's book; for the laptop, I
couldn't find the information yet so I left the defaults.
-3- the graphics card driver? The desktop has a ATI Radeon 7500, and I
use the X.org "radeon" driver. For the laptop, I ended up using
"vesa",
short of anything specific available for an ATI 3D Rage LT Pro.
Do you have a LCD (TFT) screen? A logical pixel must correspond to a
physical pixel. Make sure that the screen resolution corresponds to your
LCD screen's physical resolution. The frequencies must also be correct.
Make the following test:
Open a xterm (because xterm doesn't use anti aliased fonts). Type some
text. The characters are composed of white and black pixels only. There
must not be any gray pixels. All pixels should be sharp and clearly defined.
Greetings, Patrick Kaell
15 Jul
15 Jul
9:02 a.m.
Hi,
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Patrick Kaell wrote:
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
> -2- the configuration for the monitor? For the desktop, I have put into
> xorg.conf the values I found in my monitor's book; for the laptop, I
> couldn't find the information yet so I left the defaults.
The resulting refresh rate for an LCD should be about 60Hz. Some
will handle up to 75Hz, but many will show an "unclean" picture
if the signal goes that high (for external LCDs connected via
normal VGA anyway).
> -3- the graphics card driver? The desktop has a
ATI Radeon 7500, and I
> use the X.org "radeon" driver. For the laptop, I ended up using
"vesa",
> short of anything specific available for an ATI 3D Rage LT Pro.
The Rage should work with the Mach64 driver IIRC. ATI also provides
closed-source drivers, I'd guess those might support the Rage series.
Greets Eric
5:37 p.m.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:02:17AM +0200, Eric Dondelinger wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Patrick Kaell wrote:
The rage cards often use the "r128" (or similar name) driver, I also got a
laptop with almost the same card and use that driver.
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
> -2- the configuration for the monitor? For the desktop, I have put into
> xorg.conf the values I found in my monitor's book; for the laptop, I
> couldn't find the information yet so I left the defaults.
The resulting refresh rate for an LCD should be about 60Hz. Some
will handle up to 75Hz, but many will show an "unclean" picture
if the signal goes that high (for external LCDs connected via
normal VGA anyway).
> -3- the graphics card driver? The desktop
has a ATI Radeon 7500, and I
> use the X.org "radeon" driver. For the laptop, I ended up using
"vesa",
> short of anything specific available for an ATI 3D Rage LT Pro.
The Rage should work with the Mach64 driver IIRC. ATI also provides
closed-source drivers, I'd guess those might support the Rage series.
Greets Eric
_______________________________________________
Lilux-help mailing list
Lilux-help(a)lilux.lu
http://lilux.lu/mailman/listinfo/lilux-help
--
Pascal Steichen
pascal.steichen(a)linux.lu
Lilux ASBL
www.lilux.lu
" Linux is like a woman, hard to understand
But very nice once you get under the hood. "
18 Jul
18 Jul
7:33 p.m.
Hi All,
after setting all the correct values (I hope) in xorg.conf, installing
Windows TrueType fonts and so on, the result is still not good.
For a visual, please see:
http://www.homepages.lu/pu/snapshot4.png
The left part is how Linux (OpenOffice) shows the text; right is Windows
(Word). Both use the same font (Times New Roman).
Any hints appreciated.
-pu
19 Jul
19 Jul
6:48 a.m.
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Hi All,
after setting all the correct values (I hope) in xorg.conf, installing
Windows TrueType fonts and so on, the result is still not good.
For a visual, please see:
http://www.homepages.lu/pu/snapshot4.png
The left part is how Linux (OpenOffice) shows the text; right is Windows
(Word). Both use the same font (Times New Roman).
Any hints appreciated.
The only difference I see is that Windows doesn't use antialiasing.
This is intentional. Anti Aliasing uses grey pixels to make letters less
sharp (Kantenglättung). You can still configure Linux so that it doesn't
use anti aliasing (like Windows) and other stone age operating systems.
Anyway, RISC OS (Archimedes) uses Anti Aliasing since 1989, LaTeX (xdvi)
previewers use it since the 80's, MacOS X uses it and Longhorn *will*
use it in 2006.
Here is an explanation:
http://www.widearea.co.uk/designer/anti.html
Anyway, Anti Aliasing is a recent feature in Linux. Two years ago fonts
were as pixelized as in Windows ;-) But it seems that you do like
pixelized fonts ;-)
Greetings, Patrick
4:02 p.m.
Patrick Kaell wrote:
The only difference I see is that Windows doesn't
use antialiasing.
This is intentional. Anti Aliasing uses grey pixels to make letters less
sharp (Kantenglättung). You can still configure Linux so that it doesn't
use anti aliasing (like Windows) and other stone age operating systems.
OK, I asked OOo to stop anti-aliasing. It did, and now the font is
actually less "fuzzy", but still not as good as under XP. Are you sure
Windows does no AA?
Anyway, Anti Aliasing is a recent feature in Linux.
Two years ago fonts
were as pixelized as in Windows ;-) But it seems that you do like
pixelized fonts ;-)
I have no problem being different ;-)
More seriously, one could either say that I don't like AA, or that the
AA I've come across is not really good. I've read about having to
recompile FreeType with an option to have a better quality AA; did
anyone do this? If so, is it really better?
-pu
4:20 p.m.
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Anyway, Anti Aliasing is a recent feature in Linux.
Two years ago
fonts were as pixelized as in Windows ;-) But it seems that you do
like pixelized fonts ;-)
I have no problem being different ;-)
you are not the only one ;)
it seems that especially using lcd screens not everyone is happy with
the antialiasing.
best regards,
kymon
7:07 a.m.
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Hi All,
after setting all the correct values (I hope) in xorg.conf, installing
Windows TrueType fonts and so on, the result is still not good.
For a visual, please see:
http://www.homepages.lu/pu/snapshot4.png
The left part is how Linux (OpenOffice) shows the text; right is Windows
(Word). Both use the same font (Times New Roman).
Any hints appreciated.
As I can see, your KDE doesn't use Anti Antiasing. Gnome uses it by
default. Mozilla and Gnome use the Pango system to provide Anti Aliasing.
You can install a non Anti Aliasing Version of Mozilla if you want. Just
do the following:
Just download:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla-i686-pc-lin…
Close your Mozilla.
Remove the Slackware Mozilla package (as root):
removepkg mozilla-1.7-i486-1
Unpack your downloaded tarball:
tar -zxvf mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-1.7-installer.tar.gz
Run the installation script (as root).
Btw: Here is the official Anti Aliasing Mozilla Slackware uses (Pango
support):
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.7/contrib/…
Anybody known how this is done with OpenOffice?
Greetings, Patrick Kaell
4:11 p.m.
Patrick Kaell wrote:
As I can see, your KDE doesn't use Anti
Antiasing. Gnome uses it by
default. Mozilla and Gnome use the Pango system to provide Anti Aliasing.
KDE did, but I used only non-serif fonts. Maybe that's why you thought
it didn't.
You can install a non Anti Aliasing Version of Mozilla
if you want. Just
do the following:
I *thought* I found an easier way.
In about:config, there is a setting called font.antialias.min, which by
default is set to 10. I set it to 100. Also, I changed
font.FreeType2.unhinted from true to false. Alas, it goes on AAing...
:-(
-pu
7:12 a.m.
New subject: Antialiasing
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Hi All,
after setting all the correct values (I hope) in xorg.conf, installing
Windows TrueType fonts and so on, the result is still not good.
For a visual, please see:
http://www.homepages.lu/pu/snapshot4.png
The left part is how Linux (OpenOffice) shows the text; right is Windows
(Word). Both use the same font (Times New Roman).
Any hints appreciated.
Here are two maginifications (attachment) of Patrick Useldinger's
screenshot. antialias.gif shows the rounded characters (Linux) and
stoneage.gif the pixelized ones (Windows).
Guess, Bill Gates will have to do some work to sell this in 2006 with
the introduction of Longhorn ;-)
But with Linux, you can always return to the old setup. With Windows, if
you do not like the look of the new version you have to use an
unsupported (no drivers anymore, no patches) old Windows version.
Greetings, Patrick Kaell
7:53 a.m.
New subject: Antialiasing
What I forgot to say:
Take a look at the files antialias.gif and stoneage.gif I sent
previously. Look at the 'sô waere', you will see that the pixelized
version (stoneage.gif) doesn't center the ^ correctly over the o (ô).
Your M$ Word clearly does not provide WYSIWYG.
Patrick Kaell
7:24 a.m.
New subject: Longhorn screenshot
Here is a magnification (attachment) of the following Longhorn screenshot:
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/long4008_043.gif
Greetings, Patrick Kaell
7:46 a.m.
New subject: OpenOffice
Hello,
Now, I haven't found any quick way to turn off Anti Aliasing in
OpenOffice. But let's face it: Why should someone want to to this? The
pixelized M$ Word fonts do not provide real WYSIWYG (What You See Is
What You Get), because it has to respect pixel borders. Word uses
special screen fonts with are different from the paper fonts. OpenOffice
uses the same fonts on paper as on screen. When you take the paper fonts
you have to scale them down to the screen resolution. The scaled down
font then needs half or quarter pixels to be displayed correctly. But as
we all now, half pixels do not exist. So the only way to display this is
to use Anti Aliasing. You can display half pixels by taking a full pixel
and using a grey value. Only the full pixels are displayed black in Anti
Aliasing.
M$ has modified all screen fonts so that they use exact pixel values.
But obviously this it far from being WYSIWYG.
Greetings, Patrick Kaell
4:21 p.m.
New subject: OpenOffice
Patrick Kaell wrote:
Hello,
Now, I haven't found any quick way to turn off Anti Aliasing in
OpenOffice. But let's face it: Why should someone want to to this? The
Tools->Options OpenOffice.org->View->Screen font anti-aliasing
M$ has modified all screen fonts so that they use
exact pixel values.
But obviously this it far from being WYSIWYG.
I did a little test at work. To my surprise, all the collegues I asked
for their opinion preferred the AA version. I really don't understand, I
have been working on computers for 25 years now, and I never found
someone who said that he preferred a more fuzzy picture over a sharp
one. Only my girlfriend prefers the non-AA fonts. Maybe that's why she's
with me ;-)
One thing that's more important to me than WYSIWYG is my eyesight. The
fonts, as I experienced them im OOo, are causing a lot of strain to my
eyes and I refuse to work more that 5 minutes in such an environment.
This does not mean that I do not want AA. It means that something has to
be improved, either
1- the fonts I use
2- the AA that's running here
3- maybe some piece of hardware (monitor, graphics card).
ad 1 - as I have copied the M$ fonts, according to what you wrote, they
are not the best solution. So I will go hunting for a good Times New
Roman font.
ad 2 - recompile FreeType - any alternatives ?
ad 3 - only as a last resort.
BTW, thanks for your help so far. I wish I had to much time at work ;-)
-pu
20 Jul
20 Jul
3:38 p.m.
New subject: OpenOffice
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
I did a little test at work. To my surprise, all the
collegues I asked
for their opinion preferred the AA version. I really don't understand, I
have been working on computers for 25 years now, and I never found
someone who said that he preferred a more fuzzy picture over a sharp
one. Only my girlfriend prefers the non-AA fonts. Maybe that's why she's
with me ;-)
I have experienced similar things. I immediately see if a LCD screen
doesn't use its real resolution. But I have seen other people at work
who do not even see a difference. I say that the picture is miserable if
the LCD screen has to interpolate pixels, but they do see nothing.
One thing that's more important to me than
WYSIWYG is my eyesight. The
fonts, as I experienced them im OOo, are causing a lot of strain to my
eyes and I refuse to work more that 5 minutes in such an environment.
Now, I think that you only have a problem when you use small fonts where
a character only consists of a few pixels. By using large characters
where every line consists of at least 4 pixels AA schould be no problem.
You can magnify the text under OO. Or buy a higher resolution monitor
(1280x1024 is fine ;-). The characters have been very small on your
screenshot.
Under MacOS X, there is a setting where you can say that the OS should
not use AA when the characters are smaller than x points.
I have to admit that I do not use much AA myself. My Mozilla doesn't use
AA, nor my Window Manager, my wterm, my editor and so on. But with
applications which show you the text on screen as it is printed
afterwards like Acrobat Reader, OO, xvdi, AA is not bad.
I mainly do not use AA where it is not needed, because I do want the
fastest desktop possible on my K6-2 500Mhz ;-) Therefore I do not use
KDE either ;-)
This does not mean that I do not want AA. It means
that something has to
be improved, either
1- the fonts I use
2- the AA that's running here
3- maybe some piece of hardware (monitor, graphics card).
Perhaps there are only 2 solutions:
- Wait until the tireless opensource developers have improved AA
- Use MacOS X if you want a Unix system with good font support
Font support on Linux has much improved on Linux the last few years.
Unfortunately, AA is not very efficient on the X protocol. So, if you
use X over the network, even if you have something faster than a
K6...... no fun
Greetings, Patrick Kaell
7422
days inactive
7428
days old
16 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Eric Dondelinger -
Kymon MacDaire -
Pascal Steichen -
Patrick Kaell -
Patrick Useldinger