Hmm. Seems to a be glitch with .FON types. When I installed the new version, I had it set to use 10pt, which is the size listed 'in' the MODTerm.FON I use, but the new method you use for selection apparently compares its 'real' size and shows it as 9pt. Not a major problem, except that your new font management also decided that since no 10pt version existed, it should instead look as the font family and load a 'compatible' one from the TTF fonts. This means that instead of the high visibility, but perhaps mislabeled font I was using, I ended up staring at the thin and hard to read Lucida font. Going into the settings for both windows and 'fixing' it to use 9pt solved the problem.
Not sure if this is 'fixable'. It seems pretty standard behaviour for windows to, if the specific size is missing, to substitute a ttf equivalent. This would be fine, if they where really equivalent... You see the same thing in the DOS window when you change font sizes. Some are the Terminal font, others are Lucida, substituted in for the 'missing' sizes in the Terminal font. You might want to make a note about it in the help files or the like, just so people know why their fonts suddenly get messed up, if they are using certain ones like Terminal or my MODTerm font.
Not sure if this is 'fixable'. It seems pretty standard behaviour for windows to, if the specific size is missing, to substitute a ttf equivalent. This would be fine, if they where really equivalent... You see the same thing in the DOS window when you change font sizes. Some are the Terminal font, others are Lucida, substituted in for the 'missing' sizes in the Terminal font. You might want to make a note about it in the help files or the like, just so people know why their fonts suddenly get messed up, if they are using certain ones like Terminal or my MODTerm font.