«

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 07:35:01 -0500, FoxWolfie Galen <>
posted:

>One could easily read or type faster than the
>data could be transmitted.

Sure! In fact, one of the ads for one of the early Commodore modems used
that very pitch: "Sends data faster than you can type!"

>Clicking the advanced option could give a warning
>that improper changing of these entries could stop
>the browser from working.

Yes... along with an option to never see that warning again

>The is what the "large fonts" setting changes in the advanced video
>options.

In XP, Open Windows Explorer in "Classic" mode. Highlight any file or
directory. Now look at the text just above the Start button. It's
microscopic, and nothing I have found can enlarge it.

Or open a dialog box, such as the advanced video options you just mentioned.
The text on those dialogs is the same micro text, and there's no way to
enlarge it.

Please, please show me where I'm wrong. The difference between a period and
a comma, between i and l, between 8 and B, and many others, are absolutely
indistinguishable to me.

>The problem is that many programmers never test
>their applications at various resolutions and font sizes.

I still say that's Windows' fault. Windows should respect my preferences no
matter what the programmer said about font size. Enlarge his whole
fixed-size window if necessary. Something.

>This is required if a person wants to keep the system
>fonts readable at even higher resolutions than 800x600.

I have applications that I use for my work that force me to use 1024x768
resolution. A period in the system font is two pixels. It's like spotting
a hole in a golf course from an airplane. Now put those two pixels on a
white background and it's like trying to pick out a sunspot.

>Here are some common video modes and the custom font settings that are
>required to keep the system font appearing the same size as it does in
>640x480 mode. This happens to be close to the smallest size I can read on a
>19-inch monitor.
>
> 1024x768 160%
>
>I currently use 1024x768 with my system fonts set to 150 percent.

I haven't been able to find this option. Would you give me directions,
please?

>I gave up many years ago trying to configure Windows to
>use a black background. Too many programs are hard coded to force black
>text, making them unusable

I haven't given up yet, but you're right, many things force black text and
it's infuriating. Many third party applications, as well as the Windows
Help files, for crying out loud! And they don't obey my system specified
chosen highlight colors, either; when I highlight text in them they go to
white on white. It's sickeningly stupid. A lot of times I can see
something forced to black by highlighting it, but not the Windows Help
files. To read those I have to highlight, copy, and paste into a text
editor. This is the thanks we get for making the Microsoft bosses into a
bunch of out-of-touch billionaires.

J.

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:46:04 -0700, Janice P. <> wrote:

> In XP, Open Windows Explorer in "Classic" mode. Highlight any file or
> directory. Now look at the text just above the Start button. It's
> microscopic, and nothing I have found can enlarge it.
>
> Or open a dialog box, such as the advanced video options you just
> mentioned. The text on those dialogs is the same micro text, and there's
> no way to enlarge it.
>
> Please, please show me where I'm wrong. The difference between a period
> and a comma, between i and l, between 8 and B, and many others, are
> absolutely indistinguishable to me.

Same here. I confuse those same characters myself, unless I make the fonts
so large that I then have to scroll more than I'm willing to do.

I do not have Windows XP, as I'm still using Windows 98se. In Win98, the
only start button I have is the one on the task bar. The text that appears
above that, which is normally small, is the same font that appears below
each desktop icon and is adjustable. Fonts that often appear in dialog
boxes and sometimes in input boxes in Windows is very small and can not be
adjusted using the appearance tab under display properties. I don't know
what the equivalent areas are under XP. The only way I found to adjust
these normally unadjustable fonts is to go into my display properties,
select the settings tab and then the advanced button. That is where the
large fonts and custom fonts setting is. Unlike the appearance tab,
changing these font settings alters the font metrics for all of Windows at
once. It also requires a restart of Windows to take effect. This is the
only way I've even found to enlarge the system font, but it comes with a
price. The sizes of dialog boxes and other screen elements are often
calculated from this particular font setting. Dialogs and menus that would
normally fit the screen often are too large to fit, even though the fonts
themselves don't grown is size at the same rate. It would not surprise me
to discover that Microsoft removed the ability to alter the system fonts in
XP. They want people to see and use Windows just like they do. If your eyes
aren't perfect, I don't think they really care.

> >The problem is that many programmers never test
> >their applications at various resolutions and font sizes.
>
> I still say that's Windows' fault. Windows should respect my preferences
> no matter what the programmer said about font size. Enlarge his whole
> fixed-size window if necessary. Something.

The problem is that many programmers, determined to make their programs
look the way they prefer, will purposely find ways to override whatever
Windows tries to enforce. Windows is broken in many ways, but some
programmers have a talent for coming up with things that are even more
broken than Windows already is. Even if Windows was 100 percent capable of
being set to your own preferences, and remembering it, some programmers
would still hard code their applications to disobey what Windows wanted to
do, just so they can do it their own way. The problem is often that their
way is only right if you are using the same type of system, with the same
resolution and have the same visual capabilities. They set things their way
and provide no options to change it.

> I have applications that I use for my work that force me to use 1024x768
> resolution. A period in the system font is two pixels. It's like
> spotting a hole in a golf course from an airplane. Now put those two
> pixels on a white background and it's like trying to pick out a sunspot.

Unfortunately, I thing we are going to have reliable speech recognition as
a standard feature in all programs, long before they fix font size problems
like this. Of course, that would only work if you were in a situation where
you could talk to your computer without disturbing others. It would also
ignore the fact that many people would still rather read and type, rather
than listen and speak, to a computer.

The size of your periods and commas might be altered slightly with
different fonts, though I know you can use different font faces for the
system font. For normal reading, I use Bitstream Vera Sans Mono. I have it
set so that I get 80 characters across the full width of my screen, so it
is pretty large by most people's standards. The periods a nine pixels
arranged in a 3x3 square. A comma occupies 13 pixels, so there is a
noticeable difference. Unfortunately, There is no way to apply this font to
the main system font.

> >I currently use 1024x768 with my system fonts set to 150 percent.
>
> I haven't been able to find this option. Would you give me directions,
> please?

Someone with XP will have to help with that, assuming the option is there.
All I can say is that it is not likely to be in the same place where you
choose your colors, icon and title bar fonts. I'd like to know where it is
in XP myself, as it would be a factor in whether I would be likely to
upgrade. I obviously don't want to move to a system that I can't see as
well. I know several dozen other computer users around here, but I honestly
only know one person who has Win 2000 on his system. The rest are all still
using 98se, ME and even 95. I was personally still using Win 3.11 up until
just three years ago. It did everything I needed, until programs started
requiring Winsock 2.0. They never made a Winsock 2.0 for 16-bit Windows, so
I went to 95 for a year, and then to 98se - each upgrade being noticeably
slower than the previous version. Thankfully, Firefox isn't like that. It
tends to get faster with each new major version.

> I haven't given up yet, but you're right, many things force black text and
> it's infuriating. Many third party applications, as well as the Windows
> Help files, for crying out loud! And they don't obey my system specified
> chosen highlight colors, either; when I highlight text in them they go to
> white on white. It's sickeningly stupid. A lot of times I can see
> something forced to black by highlighting it, but not the Windows Help
> files. To read those I have to highlight, copy, and paste into a text
> editor. This is the thanks we get for making the Microsoft bosses into a
> bunch of out-of-touch billionaires.

And cutting and pasting from help files is sometimes anything but reliable.
Not only does it strip any images or sample diagrams, but it often mangles
the formatting of the help text.

Sometimes I think there is a connection between the ability to comfortably
read 4-point fonts on a 1920x1440 display, and the desire to develop and
distribute software!
--
FoxWolfie

On 2006-12-17, Janice P <> wrote:

> Nevertheless, I apologize for the nasty link I posted. Sincerely.

Apology accepted. And I offer my own for the ambigious response that
triggered this whole tirade.

> Can we move on now?

With pleasure. Enjoy...

--

John ()