On Aug 3, 5:59 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:29:17 +0100, Toby A Inkster
> <usenet200...@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
> >Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> >> Toby A Inkster wrote:
> >>>No -- it's quite sensible. 8px text at 640x480 pixels is exactly the same
> >>>physical height as 16px text at 1280x960 pixels, but the 16px text looks a
> >>>lot better: the extra pixels allow the curves to be smoother.
> >> Actually, no, you're completely and totally WRONG on that point since
> >> most system fonts are VECTOR BASED, true type fonts, which are
> >> anti-aliased you fucking retard.
> >The fact that most fonts are vector-based and anti-aliased has got nothing
> >to do with it.
> I mean, do you even comprehend...at all, just how entirely fucking
> stupid you just made yourself look? I mean...is it clickin at all for
> you? Do you have ANY idea?
Toby is completely right... but so are you :) It doesn't matter if a
font is vector or not when it is very small; ultimately there are only
so many pixels on the physical display so at some point the font will
become unreadable. On the other hand, if you are working on a platform
that is totally resolution independent (Flash, Vista, OSX) then it's
really important that you are using vector fonts as you have no idea
just the "size" of the display.