Sorry can't remember what the fonts were before, but certainly the default desktop fonts families are quite different with 8.0! :-) ISTR, anti-aliasing came in as the default with 7.3 - but was it the default? It certainly took me quite a while to get used to the default(?) of anti-aliasing with 8.0. You might try turning it off to see if that's the effect you are indeed seeing? As a (rather long) aside: I know I also had problems with uneaven brightness of letters ACROSS my *LCD* screen driven by a GF2/MX200. It looked absolutely awful at first! I am actually dual booting the machine with WinME and the default scan rates inherited(?) from Windows were seemingly different to those SuSE required? The solution was to spend quite a *long* time fiddling with Sax2 (or specifially the command xfine2!) to optimise settings. I did reach some kind of sweet-spot which seemed to satisfy everything and it now looks just FINE. More luck than judgement? :-) I don't *seem* to remember having this problem with 7.2 which seemed closer to the optimum setting from outset... Dunno if this applies to CRTs though - if that's what you have? Chris On Tuesday 27 August 2002 01:34, John Lowell wrote:

Fellow SuSEans,

I've recently installed 8.0, and consider it more "substantial" than 7.3 (I refuse to use the term "robust", it sounds nauseatingly like I've been reviewing ads for Windows 2000) which it is, of course. While I'd made important hardware changes here prior to installing 8.0, moving among other things from a Matrox Millenium G450 to a G550, I've noticed disconcerting ways in which the default fonts are being rendered in 8.0. There is, for example, a certain inequality of boldness to the letters, some appearing noticeably darker than others. I do not recall a similar disparity with 7.3, which brings me to this question: Are the default fonts the same in both versions or are they not? If they differ, how might I know how they are so without having to go through an installation of 7.3 on a second machine?

John Lowell