5 ms·
"For TrueType fonts, Microsoft has somehow seen fit to require an unsupported registry hack" this is an interesting comment. iirc it is because most 'fixed wid
by jheriko 9y ago
"For TrueType fonts, Microsoft has somehow seen fit to require an unsupported registry hack"
this is an interesting comment. iirc it is because most 'fixed width' true type fonts aren't actually fixed width enough to not make a mess out of the console when used there... any pixels that bleed out of the fixed width bounds are left behind when removing the character.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20070516-00/?p=26843 https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20070516-00/?p=...
- Asooka 9y agoSo how do Linux and Mac graphical terminal emulators manage to use monospaced true-type fonts? Granted, sometimes box drawing characters don't appear fully seamless, and sometimes a character printed on console isn't in the chosen font, so the fallback font mechanism kicks in and the glyph is rendered with some non-monospaced font and looks ugly and out of place, but by and large, it seems that most terminal emulators manage to work just fine with true-type monospaced fonts.
- bonzini 9y agoThey redraw more than it would be strictly necessary. Remember that the linked post refers to Windows 95, and the corresponding state of the art in the Unix world was bitmapped X11 fonts.