From: "John Beamish" 

I tend to agree with your assessment.  OS/2 may not have had the most
elegant fonts but they were very easily read.

I'm sure that under the hood, Vista brings all sorts of useful enhancements
but the Aero interface -- while pleasant eye-candy for a while (somewhat
like the video link I posted a week or so ago to a Linux box running some
glitzy stuff) -- holds little interest for me.  I expect that, if/when I
move to it, I'll probably use settings that match XPs just because it
doesn't get in the way.  In my work a computer is a hammer, a saw and
screwdriver.  I expect it to do the job, not look pretty while doing it.

Which brings me back to OS/2.  I never thought of it as pretty.  But it
certainly let me do the job and it stayed out of the way while I was doing
it.

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:57:07 -0400, Don Hills
 wrote:

> In article , "David B"

> wrote:
>>
>> Token reference: squatty fonts.
>
> Fonts designed to be easily readable, especially the mono-spaced fonts.
> Most
> of them came out of IBM's work on fonts for mainframe terminals. It's
> less
> relevant today but back when screens were 720x400 or 640x480 or less with
> 8x8 or 12x8 fonts, it mattered.
>
> I've just gone through the screenshots for the various Windows versions
> on
> that site. They don't fare any better, and in the VIO windows the fonts
> are
> often worse than the OS/2 ones.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5