@mouser: Regarding the difficult-to-read Options panel of FARR:
The FARR Options panel still has small fonts that are difficult-to-read.
The CHS Options panel has fonts that look a bit different, just as small, but which are not so difficult-to-read.
The ProcessTamer Options panel has fonts that look different again, just as small, but which are not so difficult-to-read.
The ScreenshotCaptor Options panel has fonts that look near-identical to the CHS Options panel.
After close inspection, I think the FARR fonts look as though they are less thick (maybe not so many pixels wide/dense?), but I can't be sure.
It occurred to me that these applications may not all use the same display output standards, and that if you were to standardise them to a common display output standard - (say) one that matched CHS or ScreenshotCaptor - then the problem for those users' displays affected might go away.
If you did that, then it might be a good idea to increase the font size used as a standard as well, since it could well be borderline-legible for many users wearing reading glasses or (like me) laptop-reading glasses. (The latter have lower magnification and a deeper depth-of-field to reading glasses.)