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
I will just quibble with the term "kerning" because 5250 screens are
monospaced grids of characters, and thus no kerning could occur, even
 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.
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.