4 ms·
My guess is that because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you seem to make the assumption that "antialiased=good looking, non-antialised=bad looking" but i
by badsectoracula 5y ago
My guess is that because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, you seem to make the assumption that "antialiased=good looking, non-antialised=bad looking" but in my comments for this entire thread i claim that i prefer non-antialiased text. And i'm going to guess that anyone who would use CDE would also like it to use non-antialiased text.
Anyway, here are a couple of screenshots in the CDE wiki that says how to enable it[0]. Unsurprisingly the only comment there is about someone saying that they prefer the non-antialiased version.
Apparently there are a issues with the terminal emulator though i guess xterm would be a better choice anyway.
https://sourceforge.net/p/cdesktopenv/wiki/FontsWithXFT/ https://sourceforge.net/p/cdesktopenv/wiki/FontsWithXFT/
- chrisseaton 5y agoThe pixels in that screenshot are absolutely enormous. Modern screens have far higher resolutions. If you can’t even see that then I don’t what what else to say.
- badsectoracula 5y agoSorry but what you write make zero sense, the pixel size has nothing to do with screen resolution and the pixel sizes are not even something you can judge from a screenshot. And even ignoring all that, the topic was about text antialiasing, pixel sizes (whatever you may mean with that) and resolutions have absolutely zero to do with it.