Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

jmatero · Mar 25, 2001, 02:47 PM

Well, last week I purchased Apple's INCREDIBLE (can't say enough about this puppy) 15" LCD display for my office and couldn't wait to see OSX on it.

Well, I got my first taste of things to come when I installed it on a Powerbook G4: the text ANYWHERE is VERY blurred... to the point where if one did not have OS9.1 to use as a comparison, he/she might consider their PowerBook display "defective".

Needless to say, I HAD to drive into the office and install OSX on my G4 tower.

Boy... this isn't going to work... is this a bug or is this the best LCD users can ever expect?

Mar 25, 2001, 03:08 PM

I agree on a lime iBook, the antialiasing looks TERRIBLE. I didn't like it in os9 either so I turned it off there. They really need an option to turn it off. I'm guessing since it's rendering PDF to the screen ,there probably is no way to turn it off though an only people with 1600x1200 screens are going to be happy with this. It just looks muddy on an ibook.

bitfly · Mar 25, 2001, 03:19 PM

Looks fine on my 15' Studio Display.

Mar 25, 2001, 03:24 PM

looks amazing on my LCD screen...

JayX · Mar 25, 2001, 06:26 PM

Looks GREAT on my 22" Cinema and my 18" LCD at work.

Marshall · Mar 25, 2001, 06:49 PM

I saw OS X on a ViewSonic 17" LCD and it looked incredible. It was so much better than the iMac screen I'm using at home that I wanted to buy an LCD right then and there. When they come down in price...

Marshall · Mar 25, 2001, 06:51 PM

[Dang double-post...]

[This message has been edited by Marshall (edited 03-26-2001).]

tz3gm · Mar 25, 2001, 11:08 PM

how come there's so much difference in opinion.....?

i wonder why...

guess it's a preference....

johnnyhotrod · Mar 25, 2001, 11:12 PM

And maybe that's why they should have the option to turn it off in system preferences.

tz3gm · Mar 25, 2001, 11:23 PM

today i saw OSX GM at CompUSA, it looked fine on a CRT, but they didn't have it on the LCD's yet...

the siren · Mar 25, 2001, 11:29 PM

What reolution do you have your LCD set to? @ 1024x768 it looks great on my 15" studio. If you have it at 800x600 it will look shitty because of the software adjustment to make the LCD render 800x600. LCD's cant do 800x600. they use and approxiamtion which totally smears the screen. try it in OS 9. you'll see that it looks bad.

zeltrio · Mar 26, 2001, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by the siren:
What reolution do you have your LCD set to? @ 1024x768 it looks great on my 15" studio. If you have it at 800x600 it will look shitty because of the software adjustment to make the LCD render 800x600. LCD's cant do 800x600. they use and approxiamtion which totally smears the screen. try it in OS 9. you'll see that it looks bad.

Well, that, at least the way I'm interpretting it, is wrong. An LCD screen can have any resolution, however that resolution is fixed. They have solutions to 'scale' down the resolution which makes it look fuzzy.

However, in response to what this thread is about...I have a powerbook 'bronze' 333mhz...stock everything except it has 128MB of RAM.
I agree that almost all of the text looks a bit blurry(at the fixed 1024x768 rez) however I think I've gotten used to it, but when i hook it up to my 19" monitor it looks absolutely beautiful! Not sure why it looks so different on the LCD screen but it deffinately looks different.

-z

------------------
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, there you long to return."
- Leonardo da Vinci (1452 - 1519)

cmoney · Mar 26, 2001, 12:30 AM

It seems those with PowerBooks are the ones not liking anti-aliasing. I know this is where I'm coming from. For some reason though, there are always 1 or 2 iBook users who seem to be fine with the anti-aliasing in OS X. I've gotta say it sucks!!

michaelb · Mar 26, 2001, 12:42 AM

I have a PowerBook (G3/500 Pismo) and a G4 with a 15" studio display LCD.

To my eyes, Mac OS X antialiased fonts look beautiful on both.

I find the text very readable and quite restful on the eyes. I was up till 2 am last night and normally at that point my eyes start stinging when confronted with large passages of text.

It's a fine argument for Mac OS X text when instead the text had a soothing effect.

asxless · Mar 26, 2001, 01:02 AM

Are you guys, who like the OSX fonts, using IE5.1 to post your replies? Do you also like the look of the fonts in that dialog window as you type?

FWIW I'm running a PBTi500 and can't wait for an option to turn off this font smoothing. It has turned my fantastic "mega-wide"LCD screen into a blurry mess. When I launch a Classic app everything goes crisp and clear. - asxless

Mar 26, 2001, 01:25 AM

At some point, hopefully OSX v1.1, I expect Apple will implement subpixel font smoothing, as Microsoft has done in Windows XP, for those with LCD displays.

Kristoff · Mar 26, 2001, 01:34 AM

I have to agree with Michaelb.
It lookes great on my Pismo 500.
I stare at this thing all day, and I have no problems.
Looks sharp to me, but I have 20/20 vision.
Perhaps a trip to lense crafters is in order?

SirCastor · Mar 26, 2001, 01:40 AM

Can somebody take a physical picture of their screen so the rest of us can see the LCD problem? I'm curious
-Aaron

Gametes · Mar 26, 2001, 01:50 AM

I think OS X's fonts look great on my iBook's 12.1" 800x600 screen.
And yes, I agree that it (antialiasing) should be an option; that is not the same as the opinion the founder of this thread and his minions had: sitting around whining and proclaiming "OS X looks like $hite" as if it were a fact is presumptuous, disrespectful, and ignorant.

------------------
you are not your signature

zeltrio · Mar 26, 2001, 03:44 AM

I don't think it is a problem with their vision. With my glasses I have 20/20 vision

However after looking at the fonts again...Most of them really don't bother me. Maybe I've gotten used to them I don't know. However the fonts that are smaller and anti-aliased do bug me. I believe this is why in OS 9 by default fonts weren't 'smoothed' unless they were font pt 12 or higher...we'll see what happens.

------------------
"Fight and fear not for the gates of paradise lye under the shade of the sword!"

moki · Mar 26, 2001, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by SirCastor:
Can somebody take a physical picture of their screen so the rest of us can see the LCD problem? I'm curious
-Aaron

I'm using OS X on an LCD, and everything looks fine to me.

In any event, if they want to make it look better, they can adjust their monitor's gamma.

Mar 26, 2001, 03:53 AM

I find the fonts in OmniWeb to be very blurry. However, the fonts in IE are not as bad. Agreed they are much worse than the Classic fonts on my Ti/500. My screen seems much smaller in OS X than it did in 9.1. I would like small, crisp fonts please...

Kestral · Mar 26, 2001, 04:06 AM

OS X fonts (and anti-aliased on OS 9.1) look very blurry on my Pismo 400 screen. I had an opportunity to compare it on a couple of friends' CRT monitors (one a Sony Trinitron and another a CRT) and I find that the anti-aliased fonts definitely look better on CRTs than on an LCD. This concerns me in that the Apple fan in me hopes that all the things I am dissatisfied with in OS X will at some point be fixed and I can migrate from OS 9.1 but if it's going to look blurry on an LCD vs. a CRT, I hope at least they come up with a way to turn off the anti-aliasing because it really does look back on LCDs IMO, but at the same time, I have sworn I will never use a CRT monitor again, so unless something new and better comes out (plasma screens?) that makes the anti-aliasing look nice, it's going to be a concern.

cmoney · Mar 26, 2001, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by SirCastor:
Can somebody take a physical picture of their screen so the rest of us can see the LCD problem? I'm curious
-Aaron

http://homepage.mac.com/cmoney/PhotoAlbum.html. It took some time to actually get pictures that showed the problem. This a big jpg (1 MB) since you lose the subtleties in jpg or gif at lower resolutions. It's not a perfect picture either, but I think it represents the problem.

I haven't touched the pictures for color, brightness, scaling, etc.

First glance, the LCD (lower picture) looks sharper. However, upon closer inspection you'll notice some differences.

Probably the most glaring and noticeable on LCDs is the menu text. Antialiased text at that size seems to get muddy, letterforms lose shape, round areas are no longer perfectly round (notice the 'd' in Edit or the 'o' in Format) and definition is lost (the dot in the 'i' in Edit is no longer distinguishable).

Contrast this to the CRT on top. The image may seem a little blurred, but you end up with more subtle gradations, leading to more consistent letterforms.

Larger text doesn't display the irregularities in shape that smaller text does, but the antialiasing is more obvious there. Notice the 's' on the LCD (bottom) compared to the CRT (top). Much smoother and softer on the CRT.

Edited to make link more noticeable.

[This message has been edited by cmoney (edited 03-26-2001).]

JohnD · Mar 26, 2001, 04:23 AM

to SirCastor

quote:
Originally posted by SirCastor:
Can somebody take a physical picture of their screen so the rest of us can see the LCD problem? I'm
curious

I can make a picture but if you put it on your CRT it looks good :-)
It's the LCD itself, not the pixels.
I used omniweb a while but on a forum like this with small text you get pain in your eyes in no time.
I use a Ti400 with 15.2" TFT (1152x768 ) and a Cube with Samsung 17" TFT (1280x1024 ).
Both give the same effect because the shadow line is much "harder" compared to a CRT

cmoney · Mar 26, 2001, 04:25 AM

Oh yeah, anyone who disagrees that irregular shapes slows down reading comprehension should go read any basic book on typography. Go read on why Adobe has special type faces made just for viewing on a screen. It's a human factor issue, something that Apple didn't take into account when the required antialiasing to be turned on (barring any technical issues like it was faster to develop etc.)

Gee4orce · Mar 26, 2001, 04:46 AM

suggestion: why doesn't someone who claims OS X on an LCD looks bad take a good quality photograph and post it here to illustrate. Someone who claims it looks good can do the same.

It could be that they are both looking at exactly the same thing with different eyes.

Jamie_H · Mar 26, 2001, 04:53 AM

Look great with my Apple Studio Display 15"

King Kong · Mar 26, 2001, 05:14 AM

A friend called me claiming that OS X has "messed up" his Apple LCD and when I went over I discovered it had just been set to the wrong resolution. Resetting the resolution fixed everything. This can also happen in OS 9 if the resolution is set to anything other than the native LCD resolution.
----
I have a dual headed monitor setup with an SGI LCD and a radius CRT. The only problem I have is that there is no driver for the Formac card used by the SGI and hence things are very very slow. Otherwise there were some slight color and contrast problems, which I fixed by recalibrating a color profile.

Side by side with CRTs, LCDs tend to be a bit crisper.

I understand why everyone is complaining about the anti-aliasing. While OS X does it better than most, it still is a matter of preference and many think it sucks. I pray Apple listens to user complaints and lets us control this. Lack of anti-aliasing control, lack of finder font size, and speed have been the complaints I have heard over and over again....

Mar 26, 2001, 05:32 AM

I think anti-aliasing looks worse on LCD because the CRTs have more step on the tone curve, I mean they can display 90, 91,92% white and LCDs have bigger steps, so the fine increases on grayscale are better on CRTs. Also the razor-sharp LCDs emphasize the differences between grays.

angstmann · Mar 26, 2001, 07:56 AM

At last a sensible and technical answer to the LCD/CRT differences. I admit that it is down to preference, as such their should be a System PREFERENCE to turn of antialiasing.

Richard

jamesa · Mar 26, 2001, 09:18 AM

After viewing OS X on a 22' cinema display, I can only say this: the two were made for each other.

jeffs7364 · Mar 26, 2001, 09:25 AM

On my SGI 1600SW OSX looks as sharp as paper...but I do have to say, if you're not used to it it does look weird on an LCD. I have it on a PBTi500 and it's fine, but I'm used to the look and can deal with it. CRTs will definately have the advantage here.

Aldie G · Mar 26, 2001, 11:54 AM

Ok, cmoney, I'll bite.. The image of the LCD looks way sharper then the iMac one.. Even after you arguments.

jmatero · Mar 26, 2001, 12:47 PM

Well, I started this thread and I just want to say that the MAIN problem on my TiBook and 15" LCD is with the menu-bar text in OSX. As described by a person above, it is QUITE muddy. The problem here is that most of the people posting replies have only the LCD and therefore see no problem. But having both side-by-side, I can tell you that the menu text on a CRT is MUCH better/cleaner than on my LCD's. I have perfect vision and the OSX text is TOO blurred. When I use classic, the text is perfect.

I'm sure they'll add an "on/off" option soon.

cmoney · Mar 26, 2001, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Aldie G:
Ok, cmoney, I'll bite.. The image of the LCD looks way sharper then the iMac one.. Even after you arguments.

So the fact that the letterforms in menu text gets distorted doesn't bother you one bit?

Sharper yes, but sharper also means pixelated...A blurred soft edge helps with the paper look. That's the whole point of antialiasing - to smooth the text out and remove the sharpness of the individual pixels. And on my CRTs, OS X is absolutely beautiful, the NYTimes looks like the paper copy! (ok, exaggerated...)

When text is meant to be pixelated (ie antialiasing is turned off), the designer controls the shape of the letter. Because LCDs don't have as large a color gamut as CRTs (except for the Cinema Display and SGI) when the computer says "pixel 1 75% black, pixel 2 85% black, pixel 3 100% black," the CRT displays this correctly and the LCD displays it as three 100% black pixels (for example).

End result? It's distorted! On small text this problem is exaggerated because an individual incorrectly displayed pixel could make the difference between a square and a circle! As I said, on larger text it's not a problem. It's ugly (which is subjective), but the letterform is still readable because the incorrectly displayed pixels no longer affect shape.

If that's not enough of an argument for turning off antialiasing for LCDs, I don't know what is! BTW Gametes, I am stating this not as opinion, but as a factual argument...

jblakeh1 · Mar 26, 2001, 01:22 PM

Try this experiment:

Print any text document you can find. Now open the document in SimpleText. Then open the document in TextEdit. Which one best reflects the printed version?

What I'm getting at is this: those of you complaining have just gotten used to crappy anti-aliasing. Honestly, does 12-point helvetica on OS 9 look anything like helvetica? No way. Not even close.

I do sympathize, though. It should be an option. My only complaint is that carbon apps still use OS 9 anti-aliasing, while cocoa apps use the new (as many of you have noticed switching from Omniweb to IE).

------------------
.b
http://homepage.mac.com/jblakeh1
http://www.sit3.com

jblakeh1 · Mar 26, 2001, 01:36 PM

the CRT displays this correctly and the LCD displays it as three 100% black pixels (for example).

No, this has nothing to to with color gamut. On an LCD, it is possible to focus on individual pixels, whereas on a CRT, it is impossible. The CRT comes out looking better because there was never anything you could really focus on in the first place.

Also, the menubar text is shadowed, which is probably why a lot of people are seeing mud.

------------------
.b
http://homepage.mac.com/jblakeh1
http://www.sit3.com