[Solved] Font looks terrible in FireFox--need to install better one

Some forums, for example MobileRead and Unix.com, look terrible in FireFox on my new installation of Arch.  Or more specifically, the main font used looks terrible. 
I had the exact same problem on Fedora a few years ago when I did a new installation.  I thought I rememberered that the solution there was to install some Lucida font.  But running the command "xlsfonts | grep lucida" gives me the same results on my Fedora and Arch systems.
I installed several font packages with pacman which improved other things but not this.
Any ideas?  Is anyone similarly afflicted?
Last edited by KenJackson (2011-06-04 16:41:07)

Excellent!  I used Kyansaa's solution:
sudo pacman -R xorg-fonts-{75,100}dpi
Now everything looks nice!
Thank you.

Similar Messages

  • [solved] For each new wine prefix / need to install mono?

    Hi!
    Haven't "worked" with wine for a while now and I don't remember getting prompted to download/install wine ("bla bla no mono detected... download / install / you should use your distributions package or something", guess winecfg is doing that) every time I create a new prefix.
    Has something changed here? Or did I change something (remove a package, compile wine the wrong way)? Or did I just forget about that dialogue?I think basic mono support just used to be there... just like it's with gecko, using an archlinux package or something... but I'm not sure. The only "mono-package" I have installed is: "mono 2.10.8-1"... so...  uhm...
    TL/DR: Why no mono automatically there / how fix it? I'm confused.
    Thanks!
    Last edited by whoops (2012-06-11 13:42:52)

    fiddlinmacx wrote:Try looking here:
    http://wiki.winehq.org/Mono
    I already looked there at the beginning of my "journey", it only confused me more
    The newest version of wine adds automatic installation of mono. It's looking for an MSI
    http://www.winehq.org/announce/1.5.6
    There is a wine-mono package in the AUR as well that you can try.
    That though, explains everything, thanks!
    ( For some reason I thought wine was trying to use parts of my native mono and couldn't find it, somehow totally missed the "msi part" :3 )
    => solved
    edit: In case you have the MSI in place but it's still downloading mono every time: Check the md5sum. There seem to be different valid & working versions of the msi around (maybe for different languages?), but only one seems to be recognized by wine. That one seems to work for me at the moment: 972b4e96e677c2cf5065fbdd13183c66
    Last edited by whoops (2012-06-16 08:04:48)

  • Fonts look bad in OSX jagged text

    Hello
    I thought apple gave us font smoothing in OSX! My fonts look terrible in QuarkXpress6.0. Is this what I have to look forward to? I miss my ATM.
    I did the "font smoothing thing" in appearence-no change.
    Also will all my older fonts from when I used OS 7 +8, will these still work in OSX? and by Quark XPress?
    Please enlighten me!
    all fonts look bad; Goudy old style, bellvue etc. (postscript type 1)
    imac G5   Mac OS X (10.4.4)   21" screen

    if I zoom out in Quark to view document at say 125% the 45 pt type really looks bad
    Hmm. I'm unable to duplicate your problem. I've pasted some random text into Quark, sized it to 45 pt and set the zoom to 125%. No matter if I go up or down, the fonts look very smooth with both Goudy Old Style and News Gothic (I have the Adobe version, not MT, which is from MonoType). Well, if I look real close, I can see a little bit of jaggies around curves. But nothing very noticable.
    Is your 21" monitor a CRT or LCD? LCD always produce the best image when used at their native resolution. A CRT's best display varies depending on whether it has a shadow mask or aperture grill tube. If your monitor has an independent control for sharpening, it may be too high.
    I have some fonts installed that I don't know where they came from ex: News Gothic MT (Microsoft I think) Will these view and print okay in any program?
    As long as it's a standard Mac suitcase style TrueType font, or a complete and proper Type 1 PostScript font, it should just as well as any other.
    I keep all my fonts in classic folder and manage w/font book (thats another story) It seems that my classic apps, Illustrator, see most of the fonts all the time eventhough I turned many off in fontbook. Also illustrator doesn't see ALL the fonts.
    That's a handful. When it comes to Classic, the rules are a little different. Fonts you manually place into the OS 9 Fonts folder, or are put there by the OS when activating them from Font Book with OS 9 as the choice to be activated for, fonts are then available to both Classic and OS X.
    If you deactivate them in Font Book, the fonts will become unavailable to OS X apps. However, any Classic apps will continue to see them until you shut down all OS 9 applications and Classic. In other words, once you open fonts for Classic, they can't be closed to Classic without shutting the entire environment down. Confused yet?
    As far as Illustrator not seeing all the fonts, that relates to this part of your question:
    Please explain the limitations of classic apps and fonts.
    Classic can use any fonts that were in existence for the Mac before OS X. All of your older Mac TrueType and Type 1 PostScript fonts will work in OS X and Classic. Fonts that will work as is in OS X that you couldn't use before on a Mac are PC TrueType fonts. If you have copied any of the OS X .dfonts into the OS 9 Fonts folder, those will not work. A .dfont is a variation of a TrueType font, with the data in the data fork rather than the resource fork as they are with the older Mac TrueType fonts. Neither OS 9 or any Classic apps can read these fonts. Those are likely the ones not showing up in Illustrator.
    It sounds like you do a lot of work with fonts. While Apple has improved Font Book quite a bit in Tiger, it's still very much a consumer font manager for those who handle fonts only occasionally. You'd be much better off using a font manager such as Suitcase X1 or Font Agent Pro.

  • Do I need to install Font files after adding new languages to EBS

    Hi All,
    I added Spanish and Portuguese languages to my 12.1.3 EBS (Enterprise Linux 5). As per post steps of MOS doc 788053.1, I just wanted to confirm whether I need to execute the step to install font files or not:
    I need to do if one of below conditions is true in my case:
    1) Multiple languages from different native character sets are active
    2) The operating system of the node that contains the Web server is not configured with the required language support for the active languages
    What does point 1 exactly mean ? and how to confirm point 2 ?
    Thanks
    Bharat

    chuckfromportland wrote:
    Pancenter,
    You are correct I would need big blue to run the rig, a cpu meter was bouncing on the ceiling when running.
    Thank you,
    Chuck
    Just because an interface can run that resolution...... remember, it's mainly used as a selling point.
    Consider the final target... CD?  44.1kHz/16 bit, DVD 96kHz/24bit All of the compressed formats (mp3..etc.) lower than CD quality.
    Plus.... you would have to have a pristine listening room, very high end monitors and amplification to hear a difference, even if you could. Most people fail blindfold tests and can't tell the difference between 44.1/24-bit and 96 or 192. More important is the bit rate, use 24-bit at 44.1 or 48kHz and you will save on resources and file size. A 192kHz audio file uses 4 times the bandwidth of a 44.1 file, add to that, effects and VI become enormous bandwidth hogs at that resolution.
    Three or four audio tracks, a couple of Space Designers, Sculpture and an ES2 at 192kHz can bring the fastest Mac Pro to it's knees.
    pancenter-

  • Make openbox fonts look like the ones in XFCE/GNOME

    Recently I did (once again) a li'l bit of DE shuffling, and I've discovered that fonts look nicer on XFCE and GNOME compared to ones in openbox. Of course, OB doesn't tweak your font config, but leaves it "as is", but I'd really like to get the "hidden stuff" from XFCE/GNOME. Those fonts look really nice...
    Any ideas on how to do that?
    Last edited by mandalic (2011-11-04 19:48:38)

    Naah... XFCE does something odd with fonts, so I installed freetype2-infinality from AUR. It works like a charm!!!
    Last edited by mandalic (2011-11-05 13:21:42)

  • Font rendering looks terrible

    I have the Firefox 26.0 running on Windows 7 Ultimate and have noticed that the font rendering often looks terrible. For example, have a look at the lower left title on the New York Times:
    http://webspace.lenscritic.com/firefox/2.png
    Interestingly, when the page is first rendering I get a split second where it looks fine, but then it quickly changes to what you see above. Here's what it looks like in the early stages of rendering when it looks fine:
    http://webspace.lenscritic.com/firefox/1.png
    I have tried disabling hardware acceleration (in Tools > Options > Advanced > General > Browsing) as well as setting the gfx.content.azure.enabled pref to false and gfx.direct2d.disabled pref to true, none of which made any difference.
    Any suggestions would be appreciated.

    Hello,
    Some help articles:
    *[http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/ Check plugins]
    *[http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ Last Firefox]
    *[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/upgrade-graphics-drivers-use-hardware-acceleration Upgrade your graphics drivers to use hardware acceleration and WebGL]
    *[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/websites-look-wrong-or-appear-differently Websites look wrong or appear differently than they should]
    *[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-firefox-issues-using-safe-mode Firefox in safe mode]

  • [SOLVED] Fonts and themes look strange in xfce

    Hi all,
    I've recently installed Arch Linux on my laptop and I've installed xfce4 as desktop environment. It's all ok except that the fonts and themes.
    Here some screenshots:
    http://architetturearoma.altervista.org … arch/2.png
    http://architetturearoma.altervista.org … arch/3.png
    The first one is with the clearlooks theme, the second one with graybird.
    Do you see how fonts looks weird?
    Why graybird is rendered in this way?
    I may have forgotten some essential packages?
    Last edited by giuliom_95 (2014-10-22 07:55:45)

    There is no need to bump your thread: use the edit button https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Fo … te#Bumping
    Please remember to mark your thread as [Solved] by editing your first post and prepending it to the title.

  • Dreamweaver text looks fine in Safari but not Firefox NEED HELP!!!

    Dreamweaver text looks fine in Safari but not Firefox, all my text goes out of alignment and the fonts look like different sizes. Please let me know your thoughts. Here is a link to the page I'm having problems with. http://www.alexandrasantibanez.com/bio.html

    I had the same problem for days what a waste of time trying
    to figure out code... the code was fine. I was running flash player
    7.0 Upgrade your flash plugin to 9.0 and it should work fine in
    Firefox and IE. It did for me.

  • In v.4 fonts look blurry. Can you solve this shortcoming ?

    Fonts look blurry in the overall menu in this new version of browser (v.4). I tried all the options that you specified with the ClearType an so on... It seems that the problem is not from Windows 7 because the old version looks ok. Can you solve this shortcoming ?
    Until you resolve it I'll stay with the previous version (3.6.16) which it looks really good.

    Yea, when I actually install my applications and launch them from GNOME Shell's menu or launcher the fonts look as blurry as they do when I launch them from Anjuta. Other applications look fine and with the workarounds I described above, my own applications display nicely too when launched from either GNOME Shell or Anjuta.

  • Font on Facebook looks different on Firefox than IE?

    On IE, the font looks clearer, darker and smoother but on Firefox it looks bigger, fader and rigid. Why?
    I previously fixed this problem by tweaking the about:config on Firefox. Changed the value of
    gfx.font_rendering.cleartype_params.rendering_mode to 0.
    But now it doesn't work anymore. I am using Windows 8 OS.

    How it looks on IE and Firefox respectively:

  • The font on these forums looks terrible

    The font on these forums and many other parts of the Adobe.com site look terrible on my computer. This is on Windows XP, and I tried it on all the big browsers, and they all look like this:
    (Click the image to see it actual size..)

    Dave Merchant wrote:
    We know there are some combinations of browser and OS that break the anti-aliasing system - early versions of Chrome and remote desktop installations both have problems.
    This is a known problem? So that means you would rather use a web font that looks pretty much like any other commonly available font for most people, knowing that for others it is a pain to read. It doesn't seem worthwhile. You end up with a font that is marginally (if at all) "better" for most people, and much worse for the rest.
    Dave Merchant wrote:
    Please reply with details of your system configuration.
    You can blame my system configuration, and if other sites looked this bad on my browser I would agree. But the rest of the internet does not look like this, as far as I've seen, so I don't think of it as my problem. I suppose this makes me sound stubborn, but consider the user experience; I'm browsing the internet, everything looks fine, then I get to your site and it looks bad. And I'm supposed to think something is wrong with my computer?

  • Firefox fonts look different from Chromiums

    Hi, my Firefox fonts look different than the ones Chromium uses:
    Left is Firefox, right is chrome. As you can see, the placement of characters is somewhat different.
    This is NOT the issue mentioned on the Firefox Wiki page, at least it is not fixed with the fontconfig.
    What happens here?
    Thank you,
    Jan Oliver

    I have "serif" , "sans serif" and "monospace" in the selections, "serif" being the default.
    I applied the fix from here, and it did smoothen the fonts, but the letter placing is still bad as in the screenshot.

  • Turned my computer on and Firefox/Thunderbird fonts look weird all are set to default...

    Turned my computer on and Firefox/Thunderbird fonts look weird all are set to default... Ive disabled all addons/extensions/themes ran it in safemode reinstalled firefox. Nothing changed... the font looks like a crappy version of the default font. Also all my font settings are correct.

    Can you attach a screenshot?
    *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screenshot
    *https://support.mozilla.org/kb/how-do-i-create-screenshot-my-problem
    Use a compressed image type like PNG or JPG to save the screenshot.

  • [Solved] Font settings reverts with logout

    <rant>
    I am really sick of font troubles!
    </rant>
    Ok, now with that of my chest ...  I have hat similar issues couple of time before and it was always a big pain in the ass to solve those.
    I am using XFCE. I also have a few KDE apps running. I also use cairo-ubuntu, freetype2-ubuntu, fontconfig-ubuntu and libxft-ubuntu.
    All was fine with my fonts until upgrade on 2011/12/22.
    Packages that were upgraded:
    [2011-12-22 18:51] starting full system upgrade
    [2011-12-22 18:54] upgraded unixodbc (2.3.0-2 -> 2.3.1-1)
    [2011-12-22 18:54] upgraded apr-util (1.3.12-3 -> 1.3.12-4)
    [2011-12-22 18:54] upgraded firefox (9.0-1 -> 9.0.1-1)
    [2011-12-22 18:54] upgraded qt (4.7.4-3 -> 4.8.0-2)
    [2011-12-22 18:54] installed gperf (3.0.4-4)
    [2011-12-22 18:54] installed qtwebkit (2.2.0-3)
    [2011-12-22 18:54] upgraded kdelibs (4.7.4-1 -> 4.7.4-2)
    [2011-12-22 18:54] upgraded redland (1:1.0.15-1 -> 1:1.0.15-2)
    [2011-12-22 18:54] upgraded libreoffice-en-US (3.4.4-3 -> 3.4.4-4)
    [2011-12-22 18:55] upgraded libreoffice-common (3.4.4-3 -> 3.4.4-4)
    [2011-12-22 18:55] upgraded libreoffice-calc (3.4.4-3 -> 3.4.4-4)
    [2011-12-22 18:55] upgraded libreoffice-extension-pdfimport (3.4.4-3 -> 3.4.4-4)
    [2011-12-22 18:55] upgraded libreoffice-impress (3.4.4-3 -> 3.4.4-4)
    [2011-12-22 18:55] upgraded libreoffice-writer (3.4.4-3 -> 3.4.4-4)
    [2011-12-22 18:55] upgraded luminancehdr (2.1.0-5 -> 2.1.0-6)
    [2011-12-22 18:55] upgraded pyqt (4.8.6-1 -> 4.8.6-2)
    [2011-12-22 18:55] upgraded python2-pyqt (4.8.6-1 -> 4.8.6-2)
    [2011-12-22 18:55] upgraded redland-storage-virtuoso (1:1.0.15-1 -> 1:1.0.15-2)
    [2011-12-22 18:55] upgraded wine (1.3.35-1 -> 1.3.35-3)
    Since then my KDE apps had different fonts. I do regular backups of my configuration and have not found any differences that would look like suspects (I suspect QT/KDE upgrade though) apart from contents of /etc/fonts/conf.d directory.
    Currently these configuration files are linked there from conf.avail:
    10-antialias.conf
    10-hinting.conf
    10-hinting-slight.conf
    10-sub-pixel-rgb.conf
    11-lcd-filter-lcddefault.conf
    20-fix-globaladvance.conf
    20-unhint-small-dejavu-sans.conf
    20-unhint-small-dejavu-sans-mono.conf
    20-unhint-small-dejavu-serif.conf
    20-unhint-small-vera.conf
    30-metric-aliases.conf
    30-urw-aliases.conf
    31-cantarell.conf
    40-nonlatin.conf
    45-latin.conf
    49-sansserif.conf
    50-user.conf
    51-local.conf
    53-monospace-lcd-filter.conf
    57-dejavu-sans.conf
    57-dejavu-sans-mono.conf
    57-dejavu-serif.conf
    60-latin.conf
    65-fonts-persian.conf
    65-nonlatin.conf
    69-unifont.conf
    70-no-bitmaps.conf
    80-delicious.conf
    90-synthetic.conf
    Before I had NO links there, which is suspicious. I tried to remove those links but after that all my fonts looked completely terrible.
    I tried to fiddle with settings in XFCE and also KDE settings and nothing seemed to help.
    Here is the difference - top = GTK, bottom = KDE. I want KDE fonts to look the same was as GTK fonts do.
    Last edited by Raqua (2012-04-01 20:01:01)

    For XFCE, I use my cairo-respect-fontconfig.patch. This has been mentioned many times.
    Thankfully, I don't use KDE - I'd suggest to try KDE's bugzilla. Probably something even more bizarre in QT 4.8's font handling. Also see cairo patch for QT 4.8.
    Edit: Arch bug.
    Last edited by brebs (2011-12-27 17:02:12)

  • Issues with 1920 resolution, fonts look tweak and broken

    i just bought a new led display, wich allows 1920x1080 resolution.
    With this resolution fonts looks like tweak and broken, very annoying.
    Firefox is the only application that suffers this problems. Opera and Internet Explorer looks perfect, and also all the others applications installed.
    Clear Type option is activated, and works perfectly.
    The only way to solve the probleme is to reboot firefox and execute in safe mode.
    I have no extensions nor personal preferences (bookmarks either). I've just uninstalled Firefox with all personal data and reinstalled. And the issue stays.
    In safe mode all looks perfectly.
    I'm running windows 7 64bits
    Graphics: RADEON HD 6950

    I did a test using Chunk and a few other fonts that are similar plus one I know works well and the fonts that are similar to Chunk tend to look very pixelated when viewed in Firefox. Look fine in Chrome and Explorer...
    This might be something that the techs at Adobe (Type Kit) would have to look at.
    I posted an image, but not sure if it shows the problem that well.

Maybe you are looking for