Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!snorkelwacker!mintaka!ogicse!cs.uoregon.edu!dogmatix!akm
From: akm@dogmatix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Word Wrapping in WFW
Summary: works fine for me...
Keywords: monitor resolution, printer fonts
Message-ID: <1990Jun2.225145.1058@cs.uoregon.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 90 22:51:45 GMT
Expires: 6/12/90
References: <292600008@trsvax> <8023@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
Sender: usenet@cs.uoregon.edu (Netnews Owner)
Reply-To: akm@dogmatix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal)
Organization: University of Oregon Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 22

In article <8023@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> todd@uhccux.UUCP (Todd Ogasawara) writes:
>In article <292600008@trsvax> reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes:
>>With both the WFW demo and the Microsoft Write which comes with Windows 3.0
>>the text that is displayed on the screen is, to put it mildly, attrocious
>>to read.
>Yes, WfW is nearly unreadable in WYSIWYG mode... It took me a long while
>before I got "used to" working with the on-screen Times-Roman font (used
>to represent most serifed proportional fonts: Bookman, Palantino, New
>Century Schoolbook).

I find the display just fine, and almost exactly what I get on my
printer. Perhaps this is because I am using HP PCL fonts on a deskjet,
and the Helv and TmsRmn fnts that come with windows seem to be just
fine. Another possibility is the display resolution. I use Herc at
home, and VGA at work. I can imagine that if I had CGA, I would have
probems.

kartik
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anant Kartik Mithal					akm@cs.uoregon.edu
Department of Computer Science				akm@oregon.BITNET
University of Oregon