3 ms·
> This monitor has a lot of pixels by decade-ago standards, but its pixel density leaves much to be desired by today standards. I have accidentally become accu
by jstimpfle 10y ago
> This monitor has a lot of pixels by decade-ago standards, but its pixel density leaves much to be desired by today standards. I have accidentally become accustomed to crisp, small fonts by a couple of years of using an old Retina Macbook. Bitmap fonts are better at this than scalable fonts, especially on screens with low pixel density.
IMO these are all the right reasons. I also suffer from a bad purchase: 27" FullHD Monitor, which means 82dpi (if I remember correctly). But even at more common resolutions like 90-100dpi, vector fonts totally suck at small sizes. So bitmap fonts it is for coding work.
However this font clearly suffers from being only 5x10 size. The characters look similar to vector fonts without antialiasing: Random disproportions -- the same line is 1px here, 2px over there.
What's not to like about the default font that comes with xterm (6x13 size)? http://jstimpfle.de/dateisalat/2016-10-xterm-screenshot/ http://jstimpfle.de/dateisalat/2016-10-xterm-screenshot/
- benwr 10y agoPrimarily just that it's too tall - 13 vs 10 pixels means the difference between 100 lines and 130. And yep! It's really hard to get an even look at a size this small.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- userbinator 10y agoWhat's not to like about the default font that comes with xterm (6x13 size)? That's one of my favourites too --- the only "what's not to like" about it is the nonslashed zero, but that's easily fixed with a suitable font or even hex editor. There is a 5x7 in the same family, but I find it too small for regular use; on the other hand, it looks much like the standard font on embedded systems' character LCDs, which are much lower DPI.
- benwr 10y agoI confess that I did not know about the 5x7 variant - I'll check it out.