[Allenzi35]

I have been using my powerbook since July and I like it even though I know almost nothing about the hardware or software in this side of the fence. I am not a quitter and I am putting up with alot of things. Some of my problems are most likely just me not knowing how to use this thing but there is one thing that I just cannot see myself living with much longer. OSX makes the fonts on this computer look like garbage. Everything is so blurry but when you turn AA off then you get the typical LCD jaggieness. This is something that I noticed in the store before I bought it and I just thougt that the settings were wrong. (Like XP with Cleartype turned off) I just cannot live with this and I have not found a solution. Does anyone know what I'm talkin about or is it just me and that's how it is? It really takes away from the beauty of OSX.

[CorpITGuy]

Are you talking about font-smoothing and anti-aliasing? The whole world is going that direction, including Microsoft. I hate to seem un-sympaththetic, but.... nobody cares. ;-) It's something you're going to have to live with if you want to use a computer.

[crispinwilliams]

Yes - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.. and I like the antialiasing offered by OSX.. you can tune it a bit using the system preferences - general - where they offer various options for smoothing and a font size for cut off.
Tinkertool allows further settings for font smoothing - but I haven't messed with them since I like the standard settings. Microsoft Word also does its own font smoothing - so if you use this program (I try not to use Word) you should get into preferences and mess with that..

[Allenzi35]

nstehle, I think you misunderstood.

I will say it this way even though I don't want to for fear or starting a MS vs. Mac thing and getting called a troll. I am all for font smoothing and think it's the best thing for LCD's. What I am trying to say is that since using ClearType since XP came out and then making the switch, OSX's font smoothing can't hold a candle to XP's cleartype as far as making words on the LCD screen look good. I have played with all the setting and it doesn't seem to make a difference. Is this just the way it is?

[nobitacu]

Really? I've used Windows up to XP Pro for more than 10 years before I switched, and I've used cleartype. Unlike you, I like the fonts in OS X better, the pictures, display, image, all much better than my near top of the line Windows machine. The image on my Mac just looks a lot brighter, sharper, and better than Windows. Oh well, I guess everyone looks at it different. If you don't like the fonts in the OS X, good thing you've never used Linux than. You won't be able to stand a second of looking at the font Linux has. It doesn't bother me though when I used it.

Ming

[Allenzi35]

Ming, I think everything that you mentioned minus the words is alot better than XP. All the pictures, icons, etc. Just words only look blurry and uneven. I really like the detail of everything else though. How they make that little hard drive icon really look like HD.

[LfGrdMike]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Go to www.versiontracker.com I am sure you will find something to overcome this shortcoming.

[nagromme]

If you could post screenshots (not your own even, just find some) that show text you like in XP vs. text you don't like in OS X, we might understand better what you are saying. Plus it would let you compare the text on the SAME screen which might tell you if the screen or brightness is a factor for you.

I haven't noticed what you describe. Apple uses subpixel antialiasing at about 50%--I can't imagine what mathematically could define characters any better than that.

I do like the OS 9 smoothing (try SimpleText) that "snaps" horizontals and verticals to the nearest pixel, so those parts don't need AA at all. Fonts aren't accurate that way, but it's nice for the UI. I haven't seen that kind of AA in either Windows or OS X though (except Classic).

Do get SuperCal from versiontracker.com. It doesn't affect text as much, but it does improve the color accuracy and sharpness of the UI details as a whole--on ANY LCD. And it just makes a new profile for the list, so you can always decide for yourself afterward whether to use that profile or stick with the old.

[adrianl]

I think I know what you mean. I've been a Mac fan and user since 1991 and to me one of big disappointments of OSX is how blurry fonts look, no matter what settings I try for AA, cut-off point etc (at elast you can turn off AA since 10.2). I really do prefer the way text looks on LCD under OS9.

Just find it staggering that fonts look like this when the 'creative pro' sector is so important for Apple. Weird when as other posters have said everything else looks 'lickable' in the gui.

Adrian

[Jan Van Boghout]

Allenzi, you say you have tried all the settings, but keep in mind that font smoothing settings only take effect in apps you start after you have changed the settings. I personally like the subpixel anti-aliasing in X a lot, but you might disagree

[Stuphalina]

This might not be what you mean, but ...
Try silk by Usanity. It makes all your fonts look smoother. The free version also does the job if you don't want to hack all your fonts. I find it makes a nice, subtle change. Try it, it might be what you're looking for.

[offbalance]

ugh, the blurry fonts in osx is one thing that annoys me as well. i miss having sharp text. i know i can turn off the AA at a defined size, but it seems to not always work for me on safari. and when it does, the letters are sometimes stuck to the next letter or don't display properly. anyone else see that? also, even if i set safari to display verdana, some sites still use helvetica or something. am i missing a setting or something?

[djjava]

come on people, OS X is so great is so many ways, must we complain about the itty bitty things? boo hoo... cry me a river. It's better than running a Wintel Box.

[bigben1024]

first off, I don't have a mac, yet, but I'm already getting involved with the forums to help me decide. BTW- I'm heavily leaning toward the powerbook 15". The reasons why? well, that's too long for one post. Also off topic.

Panther is supposed to have better fonts right?

Also, will anti aliasing text mean that I can finally look at websites through s-cable/tv? To date, it is so difficult to read from my tv.

[John123]

Originally posted by Allenzi35:
nstehle, I think you misunderstood.

I will say it this way even though I don't want to for fear or starting a MS vs. Mac thing and getting called a troll. I am all for font smoothing and think it's the best thing for LCD's. What I am trying to say is that since using ClearType since XP came out and then making the switch, OSX's font smoothing can't hold a candle to XP's cleartype as far as making words on the LCD screen look good. I have played with all the setting and it doesn't seem to make a difference. Is this just the way it is?

Ahh, you've found one of my biggest pet peeves about OS X! In OS 9, I can still read just about everything on my PB without my glasses, but that's hopeless in OS X.

Here's the deal with PowerBooks: what you are seeing is the effect of using antialised fonts with low-resolution screens. Low resolution screens mean larger pixels, which makes for a larger PERCENTAGE of your pixels around the letters of words being shades of gray (or even worse, sometimes funky colors like red -- look at lower-case L's in the words in the menu bar) as opposed to black.

The problems are less noticeable when higher resolutions are used, but the problem there is that on a higher resolution screen, the words "File, Edit, etc." are all small in the menubar...if they were larger words, it would look fantastic.

[cambro]

To each their own, but I really like font rendering in X.

In anything sensual, nothing is going to please everyone.

[John123]

Originally posted by cambro:
To each their own, but I really like font rendering in X.

In anything sensual, nothing is going to please everyone.

An option to turn it on/off would....

[nagromme]

Actually there's no difference in the percentage of pixels used for AA in PowerBooks. Pixel-for-pixel, the same AA settings will display the same pixels on ANY display. (The effect of subpixel AA is lost on CRT of course.)

Regarding text on TV: TVs are MUCH worse quality devices than ANY computer display. That's why text on TV credits is so big. Nothing will solve that. To browse the web on TV, you must simply reduce your screen res and boost the font size really big. TVs are best for presentations and games, not text.

I think the 9 vs. X issue is valid--read what I said about snapping to the nearest pixel, and see how SimpleText does that. It's a clever "hybrid" of AA and non-AA, and very readable. A better choice for UI and menu text--as I have submitted to Apple before. It does NOT, however, display fonts accurately--they end up squared off a bit, and variations in stroke width get lost. So it is NOT good for designers. OS X font rendering is accurate and best for designers.

Having said that, I'd still rather have OS X's subpixel AA than OS 9's "snapped" AA. Both would be ideal, of course I'd hardly call OS X rendering "blurry" and I can imagine no better way to render fonts with accuracy. But personal preferences vary.

I think what many people would like is simply a UI font designed just for UI use and nothing else. One that never has partial-shades in vertical and horizontal strokes. Like the vertical part of the E in Edit. A custom screen-only flavor of Lucida Grande could be a good move, for instance.

[nagromme]

For discussion... here's an image comparing unsmoothed text, OS 9 smoothing with "snapping" or "rounding" to the nearest pixel, and OS X smoothing. (Ignore comparisons between 10.0 and and 10.1--the image is that old!)

Note that OS 9's method (called "hinting" or something?) is sharper, but much less accurate than X's. You can clearly see how OS 9 makes oval O's squarish, and otherwise distorts the "character" of a typestyle. But both methods have their advantages! I like OS 9's method for UI/menus.

BTW NONE of these images use subpixel AA, which OS X uses in every mode except "Best for CRT." Subpixel AA will sharpen text better than you see here--but only on LCDs. (SPAA approximately doubles the resolution. It would triple it--three subpixels per pixel--but Apple applies the effect at about 50% to reduce color artifacts. So the result is more or less like doubling the res horizontally. You can see this on diagonals and curves--like the V in the View menu. But you MUST log out and back in to see system-wide changes to your OS X smoothing setting.)



If the original poster would like to post images to compare XP vs. X, I think we'll at least have identified the issues pretty well!

It will always come down to personal preference though. Looking at how weird that OS 9 smoothing makes the fonts look, I find it really bothers me, which it never did when I only had 9. I prefer the OS X version now. Guess I'm just used to it.

In any case, for Mac OS X on a PowerBook I highly recommend "Best for Flat Panel" smoothing in Preferences > General. Last I checked, this is not the default, and it should be for any LCD! That gives you SPAA, like Windows ClearType or Adobe Acrobat CoolType.

[bigben1024]

cambro:
--------------------------------------
To each their own, but I really like font rendering in X.

In anything sensual, nothing is going to please everyone.
--------------------------------------

speak for yourself.

just kidding.

how do I do quotes here?

[Allenzi35]

I appreciate everyones reply's. The good and the bad. I do not know how to post screen shots. Sorry, I'm still learning. Older Mac users can comment on 9 vs. X. I can't. I have however installed virtual pc with XP and have confirmed that it has nothing to do with the screen itself or hardware. With XP running in VPC, I can definetly tell the difference when you turn on cleartype and then turn it off. The easiest way to tell is to keep your eye on the start button and the click apply to turn cleartype on. The letters START are somewhat slanted and jagged at first and then it makes it smooth on every outer edge of each letter. Anyone with VPC and XP can easily do this and see what I mean. Look at the words in VPC with XP cleartype (START in particular) and then look at words outside the window in OSX. To my eyes the fonts aren't evenly smoothed on all surfaces of each letter and seem almost spaced incorrectly. Look at the E in Edit at on the bar next to the blue apple. The one vertical part of the E seems thicker than the three horizontal parts of the letter E. That's the best I can do at describing it.

I hope what someone said is true about the new version having better smoothing. That would be great.

To the people that say boo hoo and quit crying about small stuff, The battery not being flush on the bottom of my $2500 computer is small stuff and the rubber feet that have fallen off, creaking case and gap under my drive are all small stuff. Words on the screen that I look at every second of using my computer is not small stuff to me. Some people don't notice this or don't care. Other (like me) do.

[gskinner]

ClearType screen shots:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...tunerstep2.asp

Cheers.

[Allenzi35]

I took a screenshot but how do I post it?

[superlarry]

Originally posted by gskinner:
ClearType screen shots:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...tunerstep2.asp

Cheers.

ahhhh headache!! ;c)

[jgcan]

Originally posted by Allenzi35:

I hope what someone said is true about the new version having better smoothing. That would be great.

[/B]

New in Panther:

Finer LCD Font Antialiasing With �Micro-pixel Positioning� Read text more easily on flat panel displays.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/newfeatures/

[stevesnj]

Steve Jobs said there is a big fix for font displaying on Panther..if you want to wait until Panther this is a prob apple has been aware of and Panther is a fix for it.

[Allenzi35]

I am happy to hear that they are enhancing the font smoothing in the new update. The fact that they addressed it and are enhancing it admits that someone at Apple thought it needed improving. Even if most people can't tell.

I have taken a screenshot of a good example but I still cannot figure out how to post it.

Thanks

[Chemmy]

Originally posted by gskinner:
ClearType screen shots:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...tunerstep2.asp

Cheers.

For the love of God, my eyes!

[nagromme]

Allenzi--you must find web hosting and put the image there. it's probably easier to find some screenshot already ON the web showing what you like in XP.

New font smoothing in Panther sounds nice--BUT I have never seen a user report of any big difference, and I've read a lot of Panther reports! We'll see. Also, I don't see what Apple could do to improve sharpness unless they render fonts less accurately--as in the image I posted above. There's no free lunch. And Apple already uses micro-pixel rendering in Jaguar. So any changes seem like they'd be minor to me. Can anyone who has tried Panther comment on this?

Again, I don't see the OS X fonts as a problem or bug--they are choosing accurate rendering intentionally. That has a cost, though, so alternatives would be welcome.

[michael_on_mac]

Although I don't have a screenshot yet to offer I must agree with Allenzi.

To my eyes, the WinXP AA looks very, very clear and smooth. The OSX pendent looks not quite so clear, just smooth.

Another really big annoyance (maybe that'll change with Panther) is the "Finder", which really has no mode to handle both deep trees and many files, something that unfortunately comes up all the time in my job.


@Chemmy, what's your point??


Best,
Michael.


Edit: Here's an example: Click here. Download it and zoom in.

[nagromme]

Looks to me like Windows is simply using a different font for the UI--one purely for UI and not for print, as I suggested--no bad thing. That may be combined with less-accurate font rendering, though: that font doesn't look like one that would print as you see it.

As for the Finder... I can't imagine what the three different views, combined with your choice of one or multiple windows side by side, wouldn't be able to handle well. Panther will be a big step up, with the new side-bar, and the current Finder IS flawed in many ways. But expect no new view modes in Panther. It will be the same three.

Don't forget that in Icon view, you can shrink everything (icons & test) down to small sizes and put the names on the side instead of below. That packs a lot into a window if that's your goal.

[Allenzi35]

http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/...47141_osx1.jpg

Here it is. This is what my problem is. Look at the H in history and then look at the H in help. Clearly they are not consistant even though they are the same capital font. The H in history is thicker on the left side of the H than on the right. The H in help does not have the same thickness as the H in history does. Also look at the i in O'Reilly. It's not centered between the E and the L. It's noticeably closer to the L. And, look at two L's in O'Reilly and look at the L in help. The two L's in O'Reilly are noticeably thicker than the L in help. There is nothing accurate or consistant about how these fonts are displayed. Hopefully Panther can do a better job.

[michael_on_mac]

Originally posted by Allenzi35:
http://images.andale.com/f2/115/106/...47141_osx1.jpg

Here it is. This is what my problem is. Look at the H in history and then look at the H in help...

Ah, I can imagine.
Using a JPEG is a bad choice if you want to illustrate such subtle details for its compression artifacts.

I believe Nagromme has a strong point there with the fonts for printing vs. screen only.

BTW, I used Word v.X yesterday for the first time - all the fonts there are really ugly to look at! No fun using it for writing even a short letter!
Would "silk" help in that case?

Best,
Michael.


PS: For the Finder issue: The explorer's split folder/files view (see the link I attached) is so useful to drag things around (the filesystem is my main database for sorting my work stuff out). I switched to WinXP on my main machine recently - if you turn the teletubby stuff off, you see what it is: the update Windows 5.0 (W2k) -> Windows 5.1 (XP), nothing more.

[Graymalkin]

An important factor to remember is a lot of websites use points for their font size. On Windows that is dandy because the system renders fonts at 96dpi. A point on a Windows system is 33% larger than on the Mac. This means ClearType is using 33% more screen real estate to draw the same block of text. That offers a lot more space to do subsampling with.

[Allenzi35]

It started out as a PDF file but I couldn't figure out how to post it so I had to save it as JPG. Either way you should see what I mean. I will look into that Silk program. Seems interesting.

[nagromme]

Good news, Allenzi--I think something IS wrong with your display, and can be fixed!

I immediately notice something's not right with your OS X screen grab... something above and beyond the minor JPEG distortion.

The menu bar and all the text are LARGER than in reality. The menu bar is 26 pixels high... but the real OS X bar is only 21! And your text looks MUCH blurrier than on any OS X Mac I've ever seen--which is exactly what wold result from scaling an image larger. Variations in stroke width--which I do NOT see on my Mac--would result too.

Now... HOW on earth you got your whole display scaled bigger is beyond me! Using a non-native res on an LCD would do that... but wouldn't show in a screengrab. And so would Unniversal Access Zoom--but you'd hardly fail to notice all the scrolling!

Something is wrong, probably something in software? Some hack added to the system? Some setting I can't think of? Try booting your OS X CD and see what the text looks like. It's a mystery--but rest assured our Macs' text does NOT look as bad as you posted. I don't blame you for complaining!

If anyone wants to verify this issue with his image, just compare it to your own menu bar. Zoom in on a screenshot and the difference is clear: his text is artificially enlarged as a bitmap, which is a very blurry effect. Weird.

In addition, I can see from your shot that you do NOT have your smoothing set to "Best for Flat Panel", which is like Cleartype. You should change that, then log out and back in.

Hope this helps you!

[michael_on_mac]

Originally posted by nagromme:

In addition, I can see from your shot that you do NOT have your smoothing set to "Best for Flat Panel", which is like Cleartype. You should change that, then log out and back in.

Nagromme, I ave been fiddling with the smoothing setting forth and back - to me, there was no difference whatsoever between "optimized for CRT" and all the others.

Maybe it's just the LCD of the 12" PB that not so crisp in either way?

Best,
Michael.

[nagromme]

The difference is subtle but good--and you must log out and back in to see it everywhere. All the settings except Best for CRT use subpixel AA.

Set it to Best For CRT, log out/in, take a screenshot (Cmd-Shoft-3), then change it to Best For Flat Panel and log out/in again. Look at the screenshot (zoomed to normal size) and compare to the menu bar. Look at the "V" in View for instance. Less jaggies.

[michael_on_mac]

Originally posted by nagromme:
The difference is subtle but good--and you must log out and back in to see it everywhere.

The latter was the point I missed up to now - thanks!

Michael.

[fraeone]

Hmm.. I have two LCD screens attached to XP and I have always thought Cleartype looked like crap- it adds color to my black and white fonts, which is completely unacceptable.

[michael_on_mac]

Originally posted by fraeone:
Hmm.. I have two LCD screens attached to XP and I have always thought Cleartype looked like crap- it adds color to my black and white fonts, which is completely unacceptable.

Interesting - you are right, it's colored!
But I can't believe you see that and are troubled by this.
BTW, the subpixels of each of your LCD's pixel are really badly colored!



Michael.

[slffl]

Originally posted by michael_on_mac:
To my eyes, the WinXP AA looks very, very clear and smooth. The OSX pendent looks not quite so clear, just smooth.

Another really big annoyance (maybe that'll change with Panther) is the "Finder", which really has no mode to handle both deep trees and many files, something that unfortunately comes up all the time in my job.

I agree 100%. IMO everything in OSX looks more blurry compared to winXP. Also Finder sucks and I don't think Panther will fix it. All I'd like to do is be able to delete, move, rename files whenever i bring up a save/open dialogue box.

[Allenzi35]

I have never noticed any colors in cleartype on several LCD screens. Maybe that's a hardware thing. Video card or something. I have managed to make some adjustments in OS X to improve the look but IMHO it still is not up to par. I can only hope Panther will clear things up.

[Love Calm Quiet]

Major thanks about the LOGGING OUT/IN hint !

I thought I was totally clueless because although I the General Sys Pref gave me IMMEDIATE feedback when I turned *off* text smoothing, I could see no diff on my TiBook when I changed from Standard to Medium smoothing.

Thanks - bEEEEg improvement - even looking at this forum in Safari with text shrunk WAY down it's readable.

Here's were Apple fell down on that one: should be a warning in the panel that "changes take effect after restart" like Sys 9 so often had to tell us.

[michael_on_mac]

Originally posted by Allenzi35:
I have never noticed any colors in cleartype on several LCD screens.

I just looked again at the screenshot I had put on the web (click here). When you zoom in, you see the different colors.

CU,
Michael.

[GeneShifter]

Well, I am one of those anti-anti-aliasing people. I found that text is blurry in OSX. In fact, I didn't buy an Apple laptop until recently because I always though the text was a bit blurry and that apple displays were bad. I only recently discovered tinkertool, and that program allows one to turn off AA totally. After that, the laptop screens look very very good. This is something I never saw on my G4 tower since I use a CRT for it (again, until recently). Now, I'm waiting on my PB12in to arrive.

First item of business upon arrival: turn off AA!

[Allenzi35]

Originally posted by michael_on_mac:
I just looked again at the screenshot I had put on the web (click here). When you zoom in, you see the different colors.

CU,
Michael.

I don't know how to zoom in on that link but I would never zoom it anyway. It looks like black text to me. Personally I wish that OS X would display the fonts EXACTLY the way the are in that link. I don't zoom any text. I want to view it at native resolution and have it look like that. I assume you have to zoom that text to see colors. You don't have to zoom OS X text to see the blur. it's there at native res.

[:XI:]

Originally posted by Allenzi35:
I don't know how to zoom in on that link but I would never zoom it anyway. It looks like black text to me. Personally I wish that OS X would display the fonts EXACTLY the way the are in that link. I don't zoom any text. I want to view it at native resolution and have it look like that. I assume you have to zoom that text to see colors. You don't have to zoom OS X text to see the blur. it's there at native res.

I'm looking at that image at 100% I can see the colours and it looks blurry, not smooth like OS X.

Get thee to an eye doctor!

[thePurpleGiant]

For those who can't zoom into the XP shot to see the colours:



then zoomed in:



But AFAIK, OS X 'best for flat panel' uses colours too! They look the same to me?

[thePurpleGiant]

Okay and here is OS X on 'light' antialiasing:



then zoomed in:




Colours - I still see colours