Printed from www.pcpro.co.uk
Posted on March 5th, 2009 by Darien Graham-Smith
Font smoothing: a not-so-sharp distinction
I’m just road-testing Safari 4, and I’ve come across this interesting claim on the What’s New in Safari page:
“Safari now uses Windows standard fonts, but you can choose to use Apple’s crisp anti-aliased fonts if you prefer.”
Now, if you didn’t know any better, wouldn’t you take that to mean that Windows’ fonts aren’t anti-aliased? And that this was a special way in which only Safari could improve your life? Of course, you and I do know better, but… well, the libel laws of this country restrain me from further comment.
The bit that particularly gets me is the way they emphasise the word “crisp”, as if to suggest that, next to Apple’s font rendering routines, Windows type just looks like a smeary blur. For the record, here’s a close-up on that fell phrase with standard Windows font smoothing:
And here it is again, this time using Apple’s specially imported ne plus crispior type engine:
You have to admire their chutzpah, really. What are they going to come up with next? “Buy a Mac because it’s great for games”? Oh, wait…
Tags: apple, fonts, libel, safari, spin
Posted in: Random
Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
13 Responses to “ Font smoothing: a not-so-sharp distinction ”
Leave a Reply
Categories
- About the bloggers
- Green
- Hardware
- How To
- Just in
- Microsoft Office 2010
- Newsdesk
- Online business
- Random
- Rant
- Real World Computing
- Software
- View from the Labs
- Windows 7
Authors
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
advertisement
March 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
That has always been something that has bugged me with Apple. The fonts are “optimised” for displaying on paper, fair enough, but that means they look dreadful on screen. The Macarati claim that it is supposed to look dreadful on screen, blurred, characters with blodges in etc. because it is closer to how it will look on paper…
Fine for print previews, but if I am working on a long document, I want crisp, clear types ala everybody-but-Apple, so that my eyes don’t get tired and I don’t get a headache…
At least using the Windows rendering in Safari 4 makes the browser half way usable on Windows… Now to get the Windows font rendering working on my iMac under Leopard!
To be fair, it does look a lot better on a Mac than it does under Windows, but that could be down to the fact that all of the characters are blurred, sorry made crisper, in the same way.
March 5th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Apple’s specially imported ne plus crispior type engine:
Don’t you mean “sine crisp non”?
March 6th, 2009 at 12:34 am
I still prefer the OS X font smoothing compared to ClearType that is used in Windows. Firstly the fonts are forced into a grid structure like ClearType, thus preserving the stylistic qualities of the font. You can see from the example the curves are much prominent than the mangled Windows one. A more grown-up discussion, which the PC Pro staff are incapable of doing, is done here: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html
March 6th, 2009 at 12:36 am
“Firstly the fonts are forced into a grid structure like ClearType, thus preserving the stylistic qualities of the font.”
What I was meant to say was: “Firstly the fonts are *not* forced into a grid structure like ClearType, thus preserving the stylistic qualities of the font.”
March 6th, 2009 at 9:08 am
For me the Apple font treatment makes everything look like it’s bold.
Therefore, it’s unusable.
Couldn’t give a monkey’s that it represents print better, I want text on screen to be as easy to read as possible.
But as with most of these things, it’s subjective and some are going to prefer Apple’s way.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Now you’ve upset a fanboy. See where your journalism gets you.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:14 am
I find the Apple rendering on XP easier to read – there’s much less colour fringing. Something that this monitor seems to show up very badly.
March 6th, 2009 at 9:38 am
I already knew the Joel On Software article. Great piece. Seems to me the Windows optimize-for-screen approach is more suitable for general use than Apple’s optimize-for-print. How often do you print from a web browsers? Even if you do font fidelity is not likey to be your main concern.
Maybe Apple should licence Cleartype (I think i’t one of the things Microsoft is happy to sell you) and give developers a way to use the Apple anti-aliasing engine in their DTP applications. Would be best of both worlds. Microsoft makes a buck, Mac’s finally makes proper use of their high-end screens.
Sounds good. Anybody know where I can drop this great idea at Apple?
March 6th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Sorry but ..
“Which is why Apple engineers probably feel like they’re doing a huge service to the Windows community, bringing their “superior” font rendering technology to the heathens, and it explains why Windows users are generally going to think that Safari’s font rendering is blurry and strange and they don’t know why, they just don’t like it. Actually they’re thinking… “Whoa! That’s different. I don’t like different. Why don’t I like these fonts? Oh, when I look closer, they look blurry. That must be why.” ”
and that is a more grown up discussion..
It seems Apple biased which is why you like it. Face facts.
March 6th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Great screen based fonts are a major reason I like Windows. A part of me says switch to Linux and take the benefits of free software, a good security architecture and clever package management – but every time I try, I just can’t cope with the poor font rendering. Windows is just so much better in this regard. I can feel my anti Microsoft feelings starting to crumble and becoming a pro Windows advocate. Youch!
March 6th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
This is a good read:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000884.html
seems that it’s a subjective thing.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I prefer the windows font rendering when it’s small. It’s a lot easier to read, and I’m used to it. Where it starts to look bad is when the text size increases. You get so big and it starts looking terrible, while the Mac version looks great.
..So basically, Cleartype is a lot more readable on a small level, in my opinion. Bigger stuff doesn’t look as pretty, though.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
i got myself an apple some days ago and these blurry fonts are bugging me.
i have tried to google for a way to get clearer fonts (simialr to what it looks like on Windows), but havent found anything yet, i only bump into discussions where people
argue whichever is better.
it really is a subjective matter, and i dont care about the discussions, i just want to find a way to get the fonts more like on a windows machine, can any give any tips?