Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 3798
Display of TT Fonts in 641d poor compared to 641c
Last modified: 2003-03-11 17:57:38 UTC
Running RH 7.2. XFree86-xfs 4.1.0-15 Truetype fonts (e.g., time new roman) in 641c looked great. Same fonts in 641d are not nearly as crisp on the screen, although print OK. Both versions (641c 641d) configured the same. Used spadmin to provide links to true type fonts for both versions. Issue applies to writer, calc, presentation. (Haven't checked the other apps). Noticed the same problem in 642.
Reassigned to Ulf.
Experiencing the same problem with both 641c and 642. 641c was fine. System: Suse 7.3, Xfree86 4.1.0-45 truetype fonts used under X, no Antialiasing configured for X.
Could you please check if you can confirm my screenshot at issue 3943 http://www.openoffice.org/issues/showattachment.cgi?attach_id=1364&file=font-rendering-issue638--642.png I'm also complaining about ugly fonts. SuSE 7.2, Xfree 4.2.0
The top part of the example looks good, like what I see using 641c. The bottom part looks poor, like what I see using 641d and 642. In the Tools -. Openoffice -> View window, the anti-aliasing value is set to 8. I've confirmed that the settings are the same in my 641c and 641d instances.
Well, I'd like to ask you to confirm two more points: a) Another screenshot: this one shows Times New Roman, 642 vs. 638 in the sizes 12,16,22,36,60 For me this problem applies only to fonts smaller or equal to ~16. The smaller, the uglier. In the rest I cannot see any difference, apart from small changes in AA which you can see at 800% zoom, and which is not a bug but a feature. b)Switch off AA in the View menu in the older version. Now the <=16 fonts should look as distorted as in the newer version. The guru our bug is attached to is on vacation this week as he told me in issue 3943, but if and only if you can confirm these points we hopefully provide him with enough pesticide to kill that bug next week ;-)
Created attachment 1426 [details] times new roman in sizes 12,16,22,36,60, version 642 vs. 638
Confirm both points. Just for the record, I'm comparing 641c vs. 641d
I've almost given up hope that someone is reading our thread... Maybe we find something our systems have in common. The point is that OO does nearly everything from scratch. So there is X: I tested with 4.0.3 and 4.2.0, you with 4.1.0. These newer versions are compiled with gcc 3.0, I got 2.95.3...but I cannot believe there are problems, more people should complain. The fonts themselves: They are taken from Windows AFAIK. Well, lots of people are supposed to have done that... Apart from that they use freetype, and it does a great job displaying my fonts in KDE apps. The fact "only <= 16" suggests there is something wrong with the handling of fonts in smaller sizes, but why do only we see it??? Any ideas?
With the release of 1.0, I've admittedly lost interest in this particular bug. The TT fonts in 1.0 are much better than 641d and 642. However, now we have other problems. What used to work with regard to the importation of MS Word and PowerPoint bullets, plus some other things (like smart quotes) is broken in 1.0. Oh well. Bob
Check out the "Font Problem Trouble Shooting" guide: http://www.openoffice.org/files/documents/16/63/FontTroubleshooting.pdf?JServSessionIdservlets=u7et3lawl2 *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 4336 ***
Excuse me, it is duplicate of 4366. http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4366
As mentioned on the qa dev list on March 5th I will close all resolved duplicate issues. Please see this posting for details. First step in IssueZilla is unfortunately to set them to verified.
As mentioned on the qa dev list on March 5th I will close all resolved duplicate issues. Please see this posting for details.