>I have to say I agree.  With all due respect, I think Squeak has 
>generally taken a large step backwards in look and feel between 3.6 
>and 3.7.  It's not a huge deal, but it is a bit of a shame.  For me 
>personally, it's especially annoying that two of the changes I 
>dislike (New York font gone, new scrollbar arrows) don't have any 
>easy preference setting to undo them.
>
>Ah well.  I think I'm in the minority, and I can live with that.
>
>Avi

The minority? I guess you are absolutely in the majority, people just 
became tired of complaining about the default look of Squeak. If you 
count in the rest of the world, which yet has to make acquaintance 
with Squeak, it will be an overwhelming majority. 

The actual default font is simply the smallest and most unreadable 
font I ever saw on a complete system installed out of the box ( OS, 
app suite etc. ). 

This really is a SHAME.

Discussing on which system and monitor we can distinguish a comma and 
a period or an I and a l, is like making a bad joke ignoring the 
obvious answer: 

The font is not what it should be: easily readable.

So I would opt for at least 14 points of default size. And when I say 
at least, I mean at least. You sharp eyed programmers out there can 
turn on the smallest size of font Squeak offers, if you like that. But 
to generate interest in the rest of the world, Squeak has to advertise 
itself a bit, or the rest of the world is - after a quick look of say 
10 sec - turned off. 

Advertising itself with microscopic letters? No, default Squeak has to 
use big fonts. 

Regards
Martin