Font limitations in Vista

[Gene Hora]

I opened up the Vista Font manager and was shocked to find there were over
1700 fonts installed on my system. Won't this many fonts impact the my
system's capabilities just as it does in other Windows versions? I suspect
most of these were installed as a result of 2 word processing programs and a
couple of graphic programs installed.

Would it be wise to uninstall some of these? I"m certain I can pinpoint
many of them that I will never use. Or I could copy them to a media device
for storage before deleting from the hard disk in the event they should be
needed later.

 

[Malke]

I opened up the Vista Font manager and was shocked to find there were
over 1700 fonts installed on my system. Won't this many fonts impact the
my system's capabilities just as it does in other Windows versions? I
suspect most of these were installed as a result of 2 word processing
programs and a couple of graphic programs installed.

Would it be wise to uninstall some of these? I"m certain I can pinpoint
many of them that I will never use. Or I could copy them to a media
device for storage before deleting from the hard disk in the event they
should be needed later.

Actually, having lots of fonts installed hasn't mattered since Win9x/ME.
XP and Vista handle fonts completely differently; so no, having 1700 of
them - or even lots more - won't make a bit of difference to your
system. Enjoy your fonts.


Malke

 

[Mike]

Hi Gene,

Fonts eat up memory.

When most programs load they have to read every font that is in the Windows
Fonts folder.

When it comes to font quantity, fewer *active* fonts is better.

Mike

 

[Malke]

Hi Gene,

Fonts eat up memory.

When most programs load they have to read every font that is in the
Windows Fonts folder.

When it comes to font quantity, fewer *active* fonts is better.

This is incorrect with XP and Vista. Things have changed since Win9x/ME.
Your comment about "active fonts" was applicable to Win98 but not
NT-based systems. I can't find a font limitation in XP in the MS
Knowledge Base but Googling around gets me this answer to someone on a
forum from MVP Chris Quirke:

"AFAIK one of the factors that limited this to 1000-or-so fonts in Win9x
(limited
size of registry key that holds the paths and names to fonts) is not
an issue in NT (XP is NT 5.1)."

And this from MVP Alex Nichol in a newsgroup post
(http://tinyurl.com/2r72ln):

"It was the case in Windows 3 - it is *not* the case in Windows 9x,
except for the small number in use by the system itself. Fonts there
are only loaded on coming into use - meaning in practice that all do
if anyone Opens Word and looks at the Font menu

"Win95 had a limit on the number of fonts that could be installed, set
by the maximum size of he registry key containing their names and file
names. Win98 avoided that, but has a limit on the active ones - in
the sense above - set by the size of a 'resource' table for their
names. I do not think either of those limitations would apply in XP."

This question comes up regularly in the newsgroups and here are a few
links to archived ng posts (TinyURL'd for convenience) supporting that
font handling is different in NT-based operating systems and that there
are no limitations in XP. Vista is an NT-based operating system and you
can assume font handling to be similar to that in XP as opposed to
Win9x/ME (and earlier).

http://tinyurl.com/2raoxj

This was a thread in this ng (vista.general) from2/07:
http://tinyurl.com/3bpwte


Malke

 

[Gene Hora]

This is incorrect with XP and Vista. Things have changed since Win9x/ME.
Your comment about "active fonts" was applicable to Win98 but not NT-based
systems. I can't find a font limitation in XP in the MS Knowledge Base but
Googling around gets me this answer to someone on a forum from MVP Chris
Quirke:

"AFAIK one of the factors that limited this to 1000-or-so fonts in Win9x
(limited
size of registry key that holds the paths and names to fonts) is not
an issue in NT (XP is NT 5.1)."

And this from MVP Alex Nichol in a newsgroup post
(http://tinyurl.com/2r72ln):

"It was the case in Windows 3 - it is *not* the case in Windows 9x,
except for the small number in use by the system itself. Fonts there
are only loaded on coming into use - meaning in practice that all do
if anyone Opens Word and looks at the Font menu

"Win95 had a limit on the number of fonts that could be installed, set
by the maximum size of he registry key containing their names and file
names. Win98 avoided that, but has a limit on the active ones - in
the sense above - set by the size of a 'resource' table for their
names. I do not think either of those limitations would apply in XP."

This question comes up regularly in the newsgroups and here are a few
links to archived ng posts (TinyURL'd for convenience) supporting that
font handling is different in NT-based operating systems and that there
are no limitations in XP. Vista is an NT-based operating system and you
can assume font handling to be similar to that in XP as opposed to
Win9x/ME (and earlier).

http://tinyurl.com/2raoxj

This was a thread in this ng (vista.general) from2/07:
http://tinyurl.com/3bpwte


Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Thank you so much for this information. Saves me a lot of editing trouble. I
did a lot Googling on this subject but could come up with nothing
applicable -- guess I didn't use the right descriptive words

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I opened up the Vista Font manager and was shocked to find there were over
1700 fonts installed on my system. Won't this many fonts impact the my
system's capabilities just as it does in other Windows versions?

No. The number of installed fonts hasn't affected performance in a
long time--not since the Windows 9X days. Fonts are handled completely
differently these days.

I suspect
most of these were installed as a result of 2 word processing programs and a
couple of graphic programs installed.

Would it be wise to uninstall some of these? I"m certain I can pinpoint
many of them that I will never use. Or I could copy them to a media device
for storage before deleting from the hard disk in the event they should be
needed later.

From a Windows performance standpoint, it doesn't matter, as I said.
However, I personally think that if you get rid of fonts you don't
use, it makes it much easier and faster to search through the list for
the fonts you do want.

Fist copying anything you delete to a CD can't hurt, and gives you the
opportunity to get it back should you later change your mind.

 

[Mike]

Hi Malke,

I didn't realize I was that far behind on how Windows handles fonts. Thanks
for the info.

Mike

 

[huwyngr]

Going back to your original question and a suggestion you asked about
-- if you do identify fonts you know you will not use why not move them
onto media or a safe place on a hard drive. It may not affect Windows
but it makes it quicker to locate the fonts you want from one of the
drop lists and you can still copy them back if you do find you need
one.

Just make sure you do not move any of the required fonts -- marlett in
XP was an example, but I don't know if that is still required in VISTA,
and there are a bunch of new fonts introduced for VISTA some of which
are used by the system and some of which are just plain nice fonts!

You may find more information if you do a search on microsoft.com for
[typography].

 

[Guest]

Also, I came across a very useful URL while trying to figure out which fonts
exactly are native Vista fonts that you should be careful about deleting...
See if it helps you as well!

http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2007/02/06/1607855.aspx