Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > "cleartype" for OS X

"cleartype" for OS X
Thread Tools
mpancha
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 11:30 AM
 
Windows XP (2000 and Vista as well) have an option to enable a setting/configuration called "Clear Type". It basically makes text on LCDs look amazingly clear.

Is there an equivalent for OS X?

At this point, the text on my XP in Boot camp is stunning, and I can't say the same for the OS X side of things. If it makes a difference I'm running OS 10.4.10, all updates installed.
MacBook Pro | 2.16 ghz core2duo | 2gb ram | superdrive | airport extreme
iBook G4 | 1.2ghz | 768mb ram | combodrive | airport extreme
iPhone 3GS | 32 GB | Jailbreak, or no Jailbreak
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by mpancha View Post
Windows XP (2000 and Vista as well) have an option to enable a setting/configuration called "Clear Type". It basically makes text on LCDs look amazingly clear.

Is there an equivalent for OS X?

At this point, the text on my XP in Boot camp is stunning, and I can't say the same for the OS X side of things. If it makes a difference I'm running OS 10.4.10, all updates installed.
Clear Type uses subpixel rendering to make text look good on LCD screens. OS X uses subpixel rendering too, but with a different technique (primarily because of patents, etc).

Go to System Preferences and under the Appearance panel, there is a setting called "Font smoothing style": you can change it to anything. Avoid "standard" if you're on an LCD. Try out Light, Medium, and Heavy. You'll have to log out and back in to see the changes. Pick the one that looks best to you, and realize that you can't have the Microsoft way under OS X.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 11:49 AM
 
Microsoft and Apple had a patent exchange agreement until August 2002 and XP was released in 2001, so patents can not be the reason for the difference, can they?

I like OS X' text smoothing better than Windows ClearType since it more closely resembles the true shape of the glyphs.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 11:56 AM
 
Windows renders optimised for screen, OSX optimizes for keeping what it will look like in print. IIRC.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Windows renders optimised for screen, OSX optimizes for keeping what it will look like in print. IIRC.
That's correct. Windows makes text line up on pixel boundaries at the expense of making the font look wrong. Mac OS X uses WYSIWYG font rendering, which can make text look slightly less sharp, but keeps the shapes correct. OS X's font rendering looks fine to me — I think it's just a matter of what you're used to.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
mpancha  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 12:06 PM
 
Great information, thanks everyone who answered.

Personally, I rarely print anymore, I've almost completely moved to digital format for everything, so what looks clear on the screen is more important to me. Unfortunately, in the end to my eye the "automatic" setting looks better, but not as good as I'd like.

This all started b/c I've had a lot of headaches lately, and I"m attributing it to eye strain due to being on the laptop all day for the most part.
MacBook Pro | 2.16 ghz core2duo | 2gb ram | superdrive | airport extreme
iBook G4 | 1.2ghz | 768mb ram | combodrive | airport extreme
iPhone 3GS | 32 GB | Jailbreak, or no Jailbreak
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 12:06 PM
 
Windows font rendering still looks like ass to me compared to Mac font rendering.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by mpancha View Post
This all started b/c I've had a lot of headaches lately, and I"m attributing it to eye strain due to being on the laptop all day for the most part.
That makes sense, but it seems more likely to be from the laptop screen itself than from the text rendering. I've found even good laptop screens are often harder on the eyes than a desktop screen.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
mpancha  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 12:54 PM
 
Guess its time to invest in a good LCD. That covers home use, too bad I spend most of the day everywhere but home

As for LCDs... that's a whole new thread.
MacBook Pro | 2.16 ghz core2duo | 2gb ram | superdrive | airport extreme
iBook G4 | 1.2ghz | 768mb ram | combodrive | airport extreme
iPhone 3GS | 32 GB | Jailbreak, or no Jailbreak
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 01:48 PM
 
Puke.... Windows XP has horrible font smoothing, especially cleartype. OS X is a thousand times better. I spend a lot of time in Windows and OS X, so I get plenty of exposure to both rendering styles. OS X wins hands down.
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 02:06 PM
 
In my personal experience, I've always much preferred OS X font rendering myself. It's all about "Strong," baby—I don't care what monitor you're using. I love "Strong."
     
Tomchu
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 02:29 PM
 
I've long since learned never to bring up OS X's at-times blurry font rendering up on a Mac forum. Even worse is comparing it to Cleartype, and stating a personal opinion that favours XP/Vista over OS X.

You will be shot down, and your personal opinion will be labelled as ignorant.

Personally, I rarely ever print. I couldn't care less if the font is rendered 100% accurately. I'd much prefer something easier on the eyes, seeing as how ... well, I'm staring at a screen all day long, not a sheet of paper.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 02:58 PM
 
Yes. Some people really like the rendering for print, because it preserves the 'weight' of the font, or how dense it will appear on print.
     
jmiddel
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Land of Enchantment
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 03:15 PM
 
mpancha, if you are getting headaches from looking at the screen you need an eye exam fast, you either need glasses or your prescription is off. I talk from experience
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tomchu View Post
I've long since learned never to bring up OS X's at-times blurry font rendering up on a Mac forum. Even worse is comparing it to Cleartype, and stating a personal opinion that favours XP/Vista over OS X.

You will be shot down, and your personal opinion will be labelled as ignorant.
omg u mean pplz disagree wit d grate tomchu?!?!

Originally Posted by Tomchu View Post
Personally, I rarely ever print. I couldn't care less if the font is rendered 100% accurately. I'd much prefer something easier on the eyes, seeing as how ... well, I'm staring at a screen all day long, not a sheet of paper.
I've seen no good evidence that OS X's font rendering is hard on the eyes in any generally applicable way.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Tomchu
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
omg u mean pplz disagree wit d grate tomchu?!?!
With that response, I win.

No, but really ... font rendering preferences are highly subjective. Who here has the right to tell *anyone* that one technology is simply "better" than the other? Then again:

Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I've seen no good evidence that OS X's font rendering is hard on the eyes in any generally applicable way.


Vista on the left, OS X on the right. What I do know is that I wish OS X was as crisp as Vista in this regard.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 03:55 PM
 
It may be crisp but it looks like complete ****.

As in, the Times on the Mac actually LOOKS like Times New Roman.

Which is *kind of* the point of having so many different fonts.
     
Tomchu
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 04:00 PM
 
And who made you the authority on what Times is supposed to look like? :-?

I mean, you can barely see any glyph details when the Mac renders it at 9pt. Is that how it's supposed to look? Kind of fuzzy around the the extremities?
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tomchu View Post
And who made you the authority on what Times is supposed to look like? :-?

I mean, you can barely see any glyph details when the Mac renders it at 9pt. Is that how it's supposed to look? Kind of fuzzy around the the extremities?
Pretty much. If your display doesn't have the res to display the font accurately at that point size, OSX will preserve the visual impression of the text block, rather than change the font detailing to make the individual characters more readable. It's a design decision by Apple that some people appreciate and others don't
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tomchu View Post
No, but really ... font rendering preferences are highly subjective. Who here has the right to tell *anyone* that one technology is simply "better" than the other?
Without any context, I agree, it's fairly meaningless. From a typographic standpoint, the Mac's is definitely better. From the standpoint of absolute sharpness, Windows is definitely better — though I suppose no antialiasing at all is better than either.

Originally Posted by Tomchu View Post


Vista on the left, OS X on the right. What I do know is that I wish OS X was as crisp as Vista in this regard.
Your font menu may say those are the same size, but it looks like the Windows fonts are actually being rendered 2pt larger than the Mac fonts. Fonts on both systems look worse as they get smaller. Personally, I find OS X's 9pt text more readable (since it preserves the general forms of the letters) than the sharper 8pt text on Windows.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Tomchu
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 04:23 PM
 
peeb: That's fair, then. Good response. Chalk me up on the list of people who don't appreciate it, even though I better understand the situation now.

Chuckit: Vista's 8pt Times and OS X's 9pt Times look to be the same size. I can screenshot OS X Arial at 10pt, bringing it closer to Vista's 8/9pt, but trust me when I say that it only looks marginally better, and nothing like Windows still.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 04:35 PM
 
Bear in mind that point size is a print measure, and does not necessarily correspond to a particular size on a display independent of resolution.
This might help: It's the difference that makes the difference! | Web Page Design for Designers �
     
mdc
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY²
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 05:03 PM
 
I think the best way to see the difference is to open Safari on Windows. Safari for Windows uses Mac OS X's font rendering.

I *hate* cleartype to the point that while I was on XP I would turn it off. I'm not sure if you can turn it off on Vista; I haven't looked. Using Safari at work is great since, in my opinion, the text looks miles better.
     
sushiism
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 09:45 PM
 
Cleartype on XP and Vista is a crime against typography.
Their version doesn't antialias horizontal lines so the curve on an "a" has visible pixel steps where it should be rounded. Its complete bollocks and gives me a headache with its tacky blocky ugliness.

"Crisp" is bollocks, the correct term is "Blocky" because text shouldn't be "Crisp" because its made of curves.

When resolution independence hits OSX is going to look utterly beautiful typographically and Vista is going to look repulsive because Apple did the right thing in the first place, didn't disrespect font forms/metrics by snapping bits of them to pixels when a plain antialiased version is good enough



Its also laughable comparing "9pt" font on windows to a "9pt" font on a mac, because windows "9pt" is actually incorrect because they run judge type sizes to the wrong DPI.
Compare a "10px" sized font in IE7 vs Safari Mac and that should be a sensible comparison
     
Atheist
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 09:56 PM
 
I thought I'd chime in with support for ClearType. I really don't care about the integrity of the fonts... that's totally unimportant in my day-to-day work with computers. What's important is eye strain. For me, I've always found Windows ClearType easier on the eyes. It's purely subjective.... and as I always say, to each his own.
     
sushiism
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 10:02 PM
 
Ugh macnn resized my image so make sure you view it full resolution so you see the true horror of windows font "smoothing"

     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 10:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by sushiism View Post
Cleartype on XP and Vista is a crime against typography.
Their version doesn't antialias horizontal lines so the curve on an "a" has visible pixel steps where it should be rounded. Its complete bollocks and gives me a headache with its tacky blocky ugliness.

"Crisp" is bollocks, the correct term is "Blocky" because text shouldn't be "Crisp" because its made of curves.

When resolution independence hits OSX is going to look utterly beautiful typographically and Vista is going to look repulsive because Apple did the right thing in the first place, didn't disrespect font forms/metrics by snapping bits of them to pixels when a plain antialiased version is good enough



Its also laughable comparing "9pt" font on windows to a "9pt" font on a mac, because windows "9pt" is actually incorrect because they run judge type sizes to the wrong DPI.
Compare a "10px" sized font in IE7 vs Safari Mac and that should be a sensible comparison
Typography as an art is useless if it hurts my eyes. I LOVE good fonts, but I also want to read them without eyestrain.

Details of how Microsoft may or may not molest fonts aside, somehow you have to translate those lovely curves in the font into a rectangular matrix of on and off dots. The best ways to do that are both complex and proprietary, but they depend on how many different gray levels can be rendered and how close they can be to each other, and they're used to give "less than black" color to pixels adjacent to the ones that are either on or off. That means "compromise." To me, the best compromise is one that shows me the clearest and cleanest type on MY screen.

For what it's worth, when I moved up to XP, I was amazed at how clean the text looked as compared to Win95. On the other hand, until I tweaked my MBP's font smoothing style (moments ago), I was not terribly impressed by the way small text looked-particularly the tiny default display size of text here on MacNN Forums. Having changed from "automatic" to "medium", I'm seeing text as much clearer and smoother.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tomchu View Post
Vista's 8pt Times and OS X's 9pt Times look to be the same size. I can screenshot OS X Arial at 10pt, bringing it closer to Vista's 8/9pt, but trust me when I say that it only looks marginally better, and nothing like Windows still.
Windows assumes as screen resolution of 96 dpi while Mac OS X assumes a screen resolution of 72 dpi. If you want to compare fonts you need to take this into account. If you want to compare a 9 pt font with a font on the Mac you need to compare it to 9 pt * 96 dpi / 72 dpi = 12 pt font! Of course the Mac fonts look less readable in the comparison image you make since you made the Windows fonts ⅓ larger!
     
sushiism
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2007, 10:58 PM
 
To me its not even debatable when I'm sat over a foot away from my computer screen and still those blocky horizontal lines on that Cleartype "a" are like a cheesegrater scraping across my retinas.

Reading text in OSX is like reading a printed page to me, I sit at a comfortable distance and its completely natural. Windows I find the text taking on pixelly forms make me focus too much because its not trying to look natural so before I know it I'm leaning towards the screen and it takes a lot more effort just to read things.
Maybe cleartype fans need to move their chairs back a little and then they'll prefer something that looks like real text rather than pixelly blocky computer antiquated crap
     
Curiosity
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2007, 02:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by mpancha View Post
This all started b/c I've had a lot of headaches lately, and I"m attributing it to eye strain due to being on the laptop all day for the most part.
I suppose you are using document windows with white backgrounds? I used to get headaches from staring at a computer screen for hours as well, until I decided to try using a pastel coloured background instead. I found that much easier on the eyes. I am using Shapeshifter themes which have been tweaked to colour the Finder and list panes with pastel colours, and an extension for Firefox which dins the background colours of white pages. The text editors and word processors I use can also have the background changed. The result is a huge improvement.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2007, 03:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by sushiism View Post
like a cheesegrater scraping across my retinas.... pixelly blocky computer antiquated crap
No, no, don't be polite - tell me what you really think!
     
Gee4orce
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2007, 03:06 PM
 
Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic of funny here, if you are suffering eye strain and headaches after using your computer you should consult your optician. It's possible you have a vision problem that you're barely aware off, but your eyes are straining to adopt to.

Is Windows font rendering sharper on screen ? Yes - because they alter the font shape to hit pixel boundaries.

Is Mac OS X font rendering blurry or headache inducing ? No - not if you have normal vision.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2007, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by sushiism View Post
To me its not even debatable when I'm sat over a foot away from my computer screen and still those blocky horizontal lines on that Cleartype "a" are like a cheesegrater scraping across my retinas.

Reading text in OSX is like reading a printed page to me, I sit at a comfortable distance and its completely natural. Windows I find the text taking on pixelly forms make me focus too much because its not trying to look natural so before I know it I'm leaning towards the screen and it takes a lot more effort just to read things.
Maybe cleartype fans need to move their chairs back a little and then they'll prefer something that looks like real text rather than pixelly blocky computer antiquated crap
What app do you see these "blocky, pixelated" characters in? I am RIGHT NOW looking at this specific thread and YOUR post on both my MBP and my Windows desktop PC, and I do not see any significant difference between the two. I have gotten REALLY close to both, and really far away-no detectable difference. I'm using Firefox on both machines.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
0157988944
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2007, 12:20 PM
 
It's only at larger letter sizes, or at really small ones (4pt and below)
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2007, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
What app do you see these "blocky, pixelated" characters in? I am RIGHT NOW looking at this specific thread and YOUR post on both my MBP and my Windows desktop PC, and I do not see any significant difference between the two. I have gotten REALLY close to both, and really far away-no detectable difference. I'm using Firefox on both machines.
I can absolutely see the difference between Mac and Windows fonts - they look just like in the example post above. However, I personally like Windows Vista's font smoothing - currently on my HP Compaq nx9420 laptop, and the text in Firefox is razor sharp at smaller sizes. But, at 36 point on up, OS X looks better. Font rendering with Keynote 3 is way better than PowerPoint '07.
     
mpancha  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2007, 10:19 AM
 
I'm surprised how involved this discussion grew to be, but I did learn quite a bit.

End of the day though, to my eyes the Windows side looks better. Like many have already said, it doesn't matter how correct it is, in the end I want to go home in the evening without a headache, and Windows Clear Type covers that.

Its like how some people prefer a rear projection HD TV vs an LCD TV vs a Plasma. I personally can see the minutest of details on each, and end up choosing the Rear Projection for my needs and have the primal desire to rip LCDs and Plasmas off the wall and smash them to their doom. Most everyone else in my circle of friends though want the LCDs b/c they are so bright and the Plasma because the sales guy at *insert store of your choice* said its better.

Everyone's go their opinion, and font rendering and TV preference and Chevy vs Ford and...... are probably down there with the least important things to stress over.
MacBook Pro | 2.16 ghz core2duo | 2gb ram | superdrive | airport extreme
iBook G4 | 1.2ghz | 768mb ram | combodrive | airport extreme
iPhone 3GS | 32 GB | Jailbreak, or no Jailbreak
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2007, 11:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by mpancha View Post
Its like how some people prefer a rear projection HD TV vs an LCD TV vs a Plasma. I personally can see the minutest of details on each, and end up choosing the Rear Projection for my needs and have the primal desire to rip LCDs and Plasmas off the wall and smash them to their doom. Most everyone else in my circle of friends though want the LCDs b/c they are so bright and the Plasma because the sales guy at *insert store of your choice* said its better.
Actually, it seems to me that people prefer whichever one they were exposed to first and got used to first.

People who never used PCs before and only used Macs prefer the Mac way of doing it, and people who never used Macs before and only used PCs prefer the Windows way of doing it.
     
0157988944
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2007, 11:32 AM
 
Just to ruin your theory, the only Mac I had worked on before OS X was a Macintosh Plus and a Performa. I was all Windows otherwise. Since OS X, I like the OS X way except on the very smallest text, which can be turned off.
     
Visnaut
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2007, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by sushiism View Post
Apple did the right thing in the first place, didn't disrespect font forms/metrics by snapping bits of them to pixels when a plain antialiased version is good enough
Not entirely true. Apple did make it so that the baseline of the text is always on whole pixels. This makes it much more legible, in my opinion.

If you want to see examples of that principle at work, try creating a block of small-point text in Photoshop and setting the font smoothing to just "smooth". Or in Flash, make a block of text and author for player 6 and below. Unless you're very careful about where you place the text, the baseline will be on whole pixel coordinates, and the whole block of text will appear very blurry.

I can appreciate what Microsoft tried to do with ClearType, but in my highly subjective opinion, they sacrificed too much of the font metrics to acheive a result that they could have done through other, more accurate methods.
     
sushiism
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2007, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man View Post
Actually, it seems to me that people prefer whichever one they were exposed to first and got used to first.

People who never used PCs before and only used Macs prefer the Mac way of doing it, and people who never used Macs before and only used PCs prefer the Windows way of doing it.
I used pcs first for many many years before even touching a mac, yet strongly believe macs font smoothing to be superior.
However I am a typography fan so I appreciate the artistry of type and don't want it butchered like it is with cleartype.
     
Judge_Fire
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2007, 03:46 PM
 
High resolution displays are beautiful.

My phone has a screen resolution of 245 PPI and damn, even these miscalleneous Nokia fonts look beautiful, with no fringing or blurring. Oh when, when will there be decent, 15" screens for Macbooks at that density...
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2007, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Judge_Fire View Post
High resolution displays are beautiful.

My phone has a screen resolution of 245 PPI and damn, even these miscalleneous Nokia fonts look beautiful, with no fringing or blurring. Oh when, when will there be decent, 15" screens for Macbooks at that density...
Once the 245 dead pixels you would commonly get in the manufacturing process of said screen no longer happens
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:22 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,