Comments on: Font smoothing: a not-so-sharp distinction

By: donald

donald — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:47:40 +0000

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?

By: jm

jm — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:07:03 +0000

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.

By: Tom A

Tom A — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:16:10 +0000

This is a good read:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000884.html

seems that it’s a subjective thing.

By: Tom A

Tom A — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:55:58 +0000

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!

By: muck

muck — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:56:50 +0000

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.

By: Jean

Jean — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:38:45 +0000

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?

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:14:28 +0000

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.

By: muck

muck — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:10:57 +0000

Now you’ve upset a fanboy. See where your journalism gets you.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:08:31 +0000

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.

By: Saad

Saad — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:36:41 +0000

“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.”