Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Burke · 06:25 AM

Don't get me wrong, here, I love Mac OS X. I noticed this same issue in Panther as well as in Tiger: it seems that OS X "overbolds" certain fonts to where they become almost illegible or downright ugly, and it is usually worse the smaller the point size is (and yes, I know you can set a threshold, but if they don't look so bad in Windows, I'm curious as to why). I know that OS X tries to make the fonts "more like print," so perhaps that's the issue.

Trust me, I've tried tweaking the fonts via the standard options, downloaded third party tools, etc., but I believe this is just the way OS X renders fonts. Personally, I think the more common sans-serif fonts (save for Lucida Grande, heh) look awful on the Mac, but serif fonts look amazing, and vice versa with Windows.

Here are a couple of screenshots for comparison. They were taken at the same res and with all font smoothing settings at default (Windows) and automatic (Tiger):

Verdana on Mac OS X Tiger

http://www.burkehamblin.net/images/forums/sg_mac.jpg
Those images don't come any bigger, do they.

Verdana on Windows XP:

http://www.burkehamblin.net/images/forums/sg_pc.jpg
Those images don't come any bigger, do they.

Personally, I find the fonts to look better using ClearType in XP (pardon the JPG color shifts). They just seem "cleaner."

Now, to another one, Franklin Gothic Medium. This is where the font smoothing system in OS X baffles me.

Franklin Gothic Medium on Mac OS X Tiger

http://www.burkehamblin.net/images/forums/lj_mac.jpg
Those images don't come any bigger, do they.

Franklin Gothic Medium on Windows XP

http://www.burkehamblin.net/images/forums/lj_pc.jpg
Those images don't come any bigger, do they.

To me, there is no contest in the above comparison. The same font in Windows is much easier to read than in OS X. If you examine the OS X grab, you can also see little "hooks" coming off the letters. I made sure this wasn't a result of the JPG compression but looking at my PowerBook screen just now, and they're visible on-screen there as well.

I don't even LIKE comparing the two, but in this respect I think it's warranted. Surely I can't be the only one who thinks the way OS X renders some fonts is wonky. It's almost like OS X fattens them instead of smoothing them at times. Am I just being picky?

Please stick to the image guildelines.

:dragonflypro: · May 13, 2005, 10:41 PM

It does. You are right.

I have a Al 15 1.33Ghz and it is horrible.

I set mine for CRT in the Prefs after trying all other options (w/reboots) and calibration and it is at least bearable.

One hopes it is problem that is addressed by 10.4.1

T

Burke · May 13, 2005, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

It does. You are right.

I have a Al 15 1.33Ghz and it is horrible.

I set mine for CRT in the Prefs after trying all other options (w/reboots) and calibration and it is at least bearable.

One hopes it is problem that is addressed by 10.4.1

T

Maybe Apple could implement something like this little ClearType tweaking tool for XP, something we could use to further fine-tune things to our liking:

SMacTech · May 13, 2005, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro:

It does. You are right.

One hopes it is problem that is addressed by 10.4.1

T

Not fixed in latest builds of 10.4.1 that I can see.

However, it has been this way for a long time. There are times when the font looks better on XP then OS X and vice-versa.

dragonfly : I certainly wouldn't call it horrible, just a lot bolder

Thinine · May 14, 2005, 12:17 AM

It's not something that needs fixing, as it's not a bug. If your fonts appear too thick, adjust your antialiasing preferences. For what it matters, the OS X version is the more accurate one, especially in the top example. Also, make sure your screen is properly color calibrated if you're using an LCD.

Burke · May 14, 2005, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by Thinine

It's not something that needs fixing, as it's not a bug. If your fonts appear too thick, adjust your antialiasing preferences. For what it matters, the OS X version is the more accurate one, especially in the top example. Also, make sure your screen is properly color calibrated if you're using an LCD.

Thanks for the reply, but I have tried adjusting them, and it doesn't make them any less "overbolded." My screen is also calibrated. As far as accuracy goes, I would say that no measure of "accuracy" could possibly justify the extreme boldness of some fonts. Of course, it is also a matter of personal preference.

awaspaas · May 14, 2005, 02:14 AM

Are you restarting Safari after you adjust the antialiasing prefs? It took me a bit to figure out that it only applies to new apps that are launched after the change. I like the "Light" setting best on my LCD.

Also, for what it's worth, I think Verdana is the ugliest font ever. I always disable it in Font Book so a much nicer Helvetica or something takes its place.

mAxximo · May 14, 2005, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Burke

Maybe Apple could implement something like this little ClearType tweaking tool for XP, something we could use to further fine-tune things to our liking

“Fine-tune things to our liking”? LOL.
And don't expect Apple to fix the obvious font rendering issue they've been having since day one anytime soon. Discerning users have been pointing out this problem for years but, like some here, someone at Apple is failing to see anything's wrong with the current scheme.

Chuckit · May 14, 2005, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Burke

Thanks for the reply, but I have tried adjusting them, and it doesn't make them any less "overbolded." My screen is also calibrated. As far as accuracy goes, I would say that no measure of "accuracy" could possibly justify the extreme boldness of some fonts. Of course, it is also a matter of personal preference.

I've found that this "overbolding" of fonts is something that is unique to black backgrounds. On most pages, I don't see it, but pages with black backgrounds can somehow make text look really bold. Other times, it may look a little more bold than XP, but not to such a degree that I'm sure it's OS X that has it wrong.

osxisfun · May 14, 2005, 01:21 PM

that was bugging the frack out me too.

i changed to "font smoothing style: standard crt
turn off text smoothin.... 9"

much better. i agree though apple has to work on this. I am tping this on my apple 20" lcd. don't know if i will need to change things when i go to my powerbook screen only.

smithz4096 · May 14, 2005, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Burke

I don't even LIKE comparing the two, but in this respect I think it's warranted. Surely I can't be the only one who thinks the way OS X renders some fonts is wonky. It's almost like OS X fattens them instead of smoothing them at times. Am I just being picky?

No, you're perfectly right.

Apple needs to wake up and offer richer font-preferences for the end-user and update the rendering-engine and/or the fonts.

osxisfun · May 14, 2005, 07:27 PM

just wanted to chime in again. changing the prefs to the my settings above made a BBIIIIIIIGGGGGGG difference.
I love tiger font rendering ago.

visitng slashdot used to make my eye cringe with all those fat bold bad antialiased headings.

Burke · May 14, 2005, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by awaspaas

Also, for what it's worth, I think Verdana is the ugliest font ever. I always disable it in Font Book so a much nicer Helvetica or something takes its place.

Perhaps, but it is also one of the most ubiquitous fonts on the web, and I'd rather a website be displayed in the font the designer intended.

loki74 · May 14, 2005, 09:30 PM

I think that in comparing OSX to XP, the OSX font rendering is much better--the color fringing on the subpixel render is way bringt and obvious on XP. But I would agree, the overbolding is not cool. The first time I noticed it was when I tried to make an OSX look in Flash. Flash does not seem to overbold the fonts...

weezie · May 15, 2005, 05:41 PM

While agree that the 2nd sample you posted is easier to read in XP, I don't blame OSX's font smoothing. If you looked at Franklin Gothic Medium on paper, it is rather heavy. OSX is actually more accurate to the font shapes.

I realize that most people would rather have easy to read text than accurate reproduction of the character shapes, but as a designer, I for one, prefer accuracy combined with people making good typographic choices - something that is easier to do when the fonts are displayed as acurrately as possible.

However, I do think OSX's rendering engine has lots of room for improvement, especially when text is reversed out on a dark background.

Chris Grande · May 15, 2005, 05:55 PM

I hate all of this Sub-pixel mubbo-jumbo crap.. thery are all rather ugly and rather bad on OS X. I just hate all that annoying color fringing crap.

loki74 · May 15, 2005, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Chris Grande

I hate all of this Sub-pixel mubbo-jumbo crap.. thery are all rather ugly and rather bad on OS X. I just hate all that annoying color fringing crap.

not to mention that it totally screws up if its meant for RGB and someone happens to be using a BGR ordered screen, and is crappy on numerous levels if you happen to print a rasterized image of subpixeled text. Thank the Lord Photoshop doesnt do it. (at least not in my experience) ...Im just glad the color fringing on OSX is hardly noticeable compared to the eyesore of colors on XP.

DavidHossack · 08:09 PM

I think that XP makes the text look like a computer font still when X makes the font look as close as to a printed font as possible on a computer screen. Some fonts may not be handled perfectly but overall the effect is pretty good. I am working on a Pages Document for work just now and I feel that it gives a great feel of how the document will look.

I have to qualify this by saying that I really have only experienced XP's font rendering in the screenshot above since nobody has given me a XP computer to play with.

Burke · May 16, 2005, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by loki74

I think that in comparing OSX to XP, the OSX font rendering is much better--the color fringing on the subpixel render is way bringt and obvious on XP. But I would agree, the overbolding is not cool. The first time I noticed it was when I tried to make an OSX look in Flash. Flash does not seem to overbold the fonts...

The color fringing is a result of the save to .JPG. I do not see it on my monitor.

loki74 · May 16, 2005, 02:32 AM

it looks the same way to me as it did on my PC: bright, distracting, and ugly. From what I see, the JPEG artifacts and a negligible effect on the color fringing. Maybe my monitor settings were jacked up... Sometimes it would even occur that the color on the text would somehow become fully saturated, and I would have to either minimize it or drag it off the screen and back again in order for it to go back to normal. ....but thats an entirely different story, and thoroughly mundane.

mAxximo · May 16, 2005, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by weezie

While agree that the 2nd sample you posted is easier to read in XP, I don't blame OSX's font smoothing. If you looked at Franklin Gothic Medium on paper, it is rather heavy. OSX is actually more accurate to the font shapes.

Franklin Gothic Medium looks *a lot* closer to the printed page in the XP screenshot than in OS X's. The OS X example looks like it was printed on wet paper with an old inkjet printer.
For those who like it anyway, fine. But there should definitely be a well designed option for those of us who prefer highly readable, crisp screen fonts instead.

lookmark · May 16, 2005, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Franklin Gothic Medium looks *a lot* closer to the printed page in the XP screenshot than in OS X's. The OS X example looks like it was printed on wet paper with an old inkjet printer.

Well-put. There is some awful kind of problem with the Apple's sub-pixel rendering (Light/Medium/Strong, as opposed to Standard) and white text on dark colored backgrounds, i.e. inverse text. It looks dreadful -- so much so, IMO, I use "Standard" all the time ... even w/ LCD flat-panel displays.

I think OS X's version of Verdana looks slightly better in the OP, by the way, so all of this gets really subjective.

I do wish Apple, or some third-party, would either (a) address the horrible inverse text problem, or (b) introduce a utility the equivalent of ClearTweak for OS X. Having much finer, real-time control over this stuff would be a huge boon.

dviant · Jan 27, 2006, 07:04 PM

I know this is an older thread, so sorry for seemingly resurrecting it from the dead. I was doing some googling about this very problem and it really seems under reported and has been neglected by Apple for quite some time.

There is definitely a problem with the way Apple's sub-pixel font smoothing works with light text on dark backgrounds. It's so awful I just use the standard font smoothing on both the LCD at work (samsung) and at home (apple 20" cinema). Comparing black text on a white background vs the same text in white on a black background is like looking at two different font weights. The ones on the dark background appear over bolded as people are saying.

I deal with color everyday as a designer and both my monitors are hardware color-calibrated. This is not a subjective matter. It's a comparative one. I'd love to use sub pixel rendering as it looks great when it's dark text on a light background. When is Apple going to fix this???