×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 12:47 PM x y <xy6581@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
IMO, Client Access for Windows always presented better. The characters
looked sharper and the kerning was better. Oh well...
While that's tangential to the subject of this thread, I want to
express strong support for this opinion. So many ACS users seem to
think it's "just as good" visually, and I have to imagine that *for
them* it really is, because their eyes/brains work in such a way that
they don't really notice, or they use fonts that *do* render well in
ACS[1].
I will just quibble with the term "kerning" because 5250 screens are
monospaced grids of characters, and thus no kerning could occur, even
theoretically.
John Y.
[1] I've spent WAY more time than I care to admit trying to get a
setup that looks as good to me in ACS as my current iSeries Access
setup. I think I *might* have encountered some fonts that looked about
as good as *those fonts* can look, when rendered in ACS. I'm not sure,
because even if I did find such fonts, they didn't work as well *for
me* as my choice in iSeries Access.
midrange.com
