Anybody else like the way topaz 8 looked on a 640x200/256 display?

[Karlos]

...but utterly hate it on any 1:1 aspect ratio?

Perhaps it's only me, but I was feeling nostalgic:


click for gallery entry

Does anybody know if there'd be any issues with releasing a font like that? Aside from lots of people hating it, that is :lol:

[Karlos]

Yeap. Call me retro, but i like topaz/8.
In fact, this the font i have set for my Workbench and other screens. All in 800x600 resolution.

That's just it though. I stop liking it the instant it is displayed on a square pixel display. It just looks ... crushed up. So, I created a special "double height" topaz font that at 16x8 pixels, looks just like topaz did on Hires PAL

[Karlos]

Looking retro-good. Wasn't there a different Topaz look in the pre-2.0 versions of the OS? A Topaz font with seriffs?

Yep, there was. I probably have that font somewhere, but I kind of prefer the 2.0 version.

[Karlos]

@Karlos,

Forgot to ask; What's that icon-set you're using... Looks amazing...

Mike.

That's just the default O4.1 Update 1 set.

[Karlos]

I like topaz/8 on Hi-Res non laced screens
/me hides

Me too. No need to hide

[Karlos]

If anybody wants a copy of this double height topaz font, let me know

[Karlos]

Font archive here (.tar.gz)

[Karlos]

I did the exact same thing 20 years ago (1990) when I bought my A3000 with flickerfree rock solid  640x512 mode.

Then I quickly threw my Topaz 16 in the trash and switched to Pearl 16.

Burn the heretic!

[Karlos]

has anyone noticed how 1024x768 on amiga offeres slightly more screen real estate than 1280 1024 on windows? It's weird.

Not really, the windows chrome uses up a fair bit of space. On XP you have fairly thick window titlebars, then there are the menu strips in every window (as opposed to a screen based menu), generally larger fonts etc. It all adds up.

[Karlos]

When I created this thread I didn't actually think I'd get a single reply :lol:

[Karlos]

That's what I mean. windows just doesn't use the screen efficently at all.

Ah right, I get you now. For some misbegotten reason I thought you were implying that windows couldn't use all of the 1280x1024 "screen estate" :lol:

Yeah, windows is pretty cluttered in that regard.

Regarding the double height 3.1 icons, that was going to be my next move as well. I'm torn between an exact reproduction or a 32-bit "inspired by". Love of the retro look can go too far, perhaps