virtualbox.org

I am running a windows 7 x64 guest assigned 2048MB memory and 80mb video memory.
It is on a Ubuntu 12.04 x64 host with at total of 8GB meory.
I have installed guest additions and they seem to be working for most things.

My problem is that the screen resolution, especially noticable and bothersome in word processor text, is not so great on the guest. I have attached a few screenshots. though the problem is a lot more noticable in real life since the screenshot resolution isn't that great and maybe doesn't capture exactly what I see. Basically the text looks a bit more pixelated, as if the antialiasing isn't working as well on the guest. Also if I zoom in past 100% there is this jump where non-italisized text suddenly becomes more bold. If I do a similar thing on my host, test is a bit easier to read, and doesn't have this jump in boldness as I zoom in. Is this something fixable, or just a feature of virtualbox I need to accept?

I have attached screenshots of similar text in both the host and the guest. I realize the guest screenshot is lower size, but that seems to be how the picture comes out when I give the guest the same amount of screen real-estate. I'm not sure how to work around that.

When you installed the guest additions did you install the DirectX or the WDDM driver? It looks like the entire screenshot is bitmapped. A Windows guest shouldn't look like that. Also, do you have 2D and 3D enabled?

Shouldn't look bitmapped? All PCs with graphics interfaces (which basically means all PCs) have bitmapped interfaces.

GAs shouldn't have any influence on font quality. The OP might like to play with the ClearType settings in the guest. You might also check that the guest has the same fonts installed (and given that host and guest OSs are different, that seems unlikely).

Also consider the guest application: what WP package is being used? My bet is that it's a free Linux app and a naff Windows port of same.

Actually no it shouldn't look bit-mapped. But yes, all personal computers are bit-mapped. Poor wording on my part. The OP was correct, his guest screen looks as if anti-aliasing was turned off or he's running in such a low color depth it appears it's off. It's not just a font problem looking at some of the graphics elements in the shot. If any of my PC's or my guests for that matter looked that pixelated I would think something was wrong.

As far as ClearType normally it is enabled when when you install Windows 7. Even with it off it should look a little better than the screenshot. Different fonts look different but that is not what's going on here. The font shown in the guest looks terrible no matter whether it matches the host's or not.

edit: I should have mentioned it is possible that he happened to pick a bit-mapped font, as opposed to a TTF or OTF font, although I'm not sure any are included in Windows 7.

Ok, so it's just an issue of terminology. I assume you meant what I would if I had said pixelated. To me as a software developer "bitmapped" is an alternative to text mode or vector graphics mode, so to me all modern PC displays look bitmapped, because that's what they are.

Of course if I wanted to get really pedantic, rasterized would be the generic term and "bitmapped" would refer only to monochrome displays (e.g. black and white). Because that's the only time when all the pixels can be represented by an array of single bits.. i.e. bit mapped!

loukingjr wrote:It's not just a font problem looking at some of the graphics elements in the shot.

Yes, that's why I asked what the application was. It says Word, but doesn't look anything like any recent version (meaning the last 15 years!). IME that type of crude graphics is typical of an app which has been developed to use some kind of low rent portable graphics library. All the screen widgets would be part of that library, not using Windows much if at all.

And what is the "compatibility mode" on the caption bar referring to?

As I said, poor wording on my part. Regardless his guest shouldn't look that bad.

As far as the comparability mode, I assumed he is using some program that will open some types of .doc files but tries to eliminate elements in a document that it can't display properly. Just guessing.

mpack wrote:Yes, that's why I asked what the application was. It says Word, but doesn't look anything like any recent version (meaning the last 15 years!). IME that type of crude graphics is typical of an app which has been developed to use some kind of low rent portable graphics library. All the screen widgets would be part of that library, not using Windows much if at all.

I agree with you there. Maybe it's a version of Word for the Commodore Vic-20?

I think the word "Word" just means it's a Word document. I.e. .doc.
Certainly programs such as OpenOffice and LibreOffice look better than whatever is being used.

Below is a sample of a real version of Word 2003 running on an XP host. So this is what Word looked like a decade ago! Note the caption bar format <doc name> <hyphen> "Microsoft Word". Note that e.g. the menu bar is more or less following Windows CUA rules.

So the OP's app looks very different, but is following the caption bar convention, except that "Microsoft" is missing. If it isn't Word then calling itself that is a bit cheeky!

Is the screenshot from a host or guest? and yours certainly looks better.

Speaking of ClearType, I don't care for how one needs to adjust it at all. Reminds me of going to the eye doctor and being asked, "Okay which looks better, number 1, or number 2?".

Here's an MS support article about Word "compatability mode".
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2117661

The picture is from my host. I don't have Word installed in any VM.

There's a ClearType tuning app you can look for - it can make a big difference.

Looking at it briefly it would explain why the text looks so bad. No OTF support until the 2010 version.

I think I found the PowerToy you mentioned. I'm rarely in Windows but might be worth looking at. Thanks.