5 ms·

> I prefer Mac to Windows. This is a subjective thing. Mac and Windows are optimized towards different use cases. Mac is optimized towards WYSIWYG display for d

by bhauer 8y ago

> I prefer Mac to Windows. This is a subjective thing. Mac and Windows are optimized towards different use cases. Mac is optimized towards WYSIWYG display for desktop publishing. OS X displays fonts exactly as they'd appear on a page. Windows makes adjustments to character positions to align them to the pixel grid. This results in clearer text, but at the expense of things being slightly off as they'd appear in print. I strongly prefer Windows to Mac for font rendering. As you say, it's subjective. However, in today's world, the overwhelming majority of my computer use is screen-oriented. Printing accounts for a vanishingly small set of use cases for me, easily lower than 1%. And if the fonts were a few pixels off when printed, would I even notice? No. I'm not doing typesetting when I print; I'm merely creating a hardcopy of something so that I can read it when I'm not at a computer or printing a legal document to sign. In 2019, it seems odd to prioritize print layout at the expense of screen legibility. When I use a Mac (on a normal ~100 dpi screen), the text looks softened with bad anti-aliasing and I feel like I've stepped through a time machine to the amazing year 2000. On high-DPI displays the difference is less notable. But even there I think Windows does a better job at legibility; I find text more readable on-screen on a modern Surface than a comparable Mac laptop.

wlesieutre 8y ago
It's not about whether you're actually printing it, the print version is just an accurate reference to the correct shape of how the font is designed. That shape doesn't necessarily line up on the pixel grid, so you can smush it around to get sharper edges on a computer screen at the expense of changing the shape/size/spacing of the font. Or you can follow the designed shape more correctly at the expense of smearing some stuff across multiple pixels. There are pros and cons to each, and which one you prefer is where it gets subjective. Some comparisons and discussion over here: https://damieng.com/blog/2007/06/13/font-rendering-philosophies-of-windows-and-mac-os-x https://damieng.com/blog/2007/06/13/font-rendering-philosoph... The Windows text has sharper edges but it looks funny to me in comparison.
- tobr 8y ago
  That comparison is very enlightening. The Windows version is very sharp, but the letter forms are completely distorted and it looks like it’s switching typeface as the point size changes, or even within the same sample. Look at the horizontal lines in the “z” in the larger sizes, they are very clearly too thin and don’t harmonize with the surrounding letters. Look at the relationship between the top of the “u” and “a” in “quartz”. The straight lines in the “u” serifs end at the exact same height as the curved top of the “a”, making the “u” appear, visually, to extend higher. You can clearly see in the Mac sample that there is some antialiasing on the “a” to fix this issue. I can understand how years of Windows will make the Mac sample look fuzzy, but I’m convinced the correct and harmonious word shapes on the Mac are much more important for reading flow.
theandrewbailey 8y ago
Back when Apple had Safari on Windows, I tried it out. I remember noticing the blurrier text right away, and wondered what happened. No, I wasn't imagining things, as Firefox had much sharper text. I couldn't stand it, and I stopped using it after 5 minutes. Years later, I stumbled across Jeff Atwood's series on the topic. https://blog.codinghorror.com/whats-wrong-with-apples-font-rendering/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/whats-wrong-with-apples-font-r...
- ams6110 8y ago
  Yes, I remember Safari for Windows also, and FWIW I preferred it. Of course in those days, I had CRT monitors so none of this really mattered, everything was slightly blurry anyway.
tathougies 8y ago
> In 2019, it seems odd to prioritize print layout at the expense of screen legibility. When I use a Mac (on a normal ~100 dpi screen), the text looks softened with bad anti-aliasing and I feel like I've stepped through a time machine to the amazing year 2000. In 2019, what seems most odd is insisting that there is 'one best way'. The fact is that I fall into that vanishingly small base of users that notices the colors in windows fonts. I find Mac and Linux easier. I like the Retina displays. I'm not sure how you can argue against my preference for them. I did not say you should not have fonts you can read; merely that there is no one way that ought to be said to be better.

by bhauer 8y ago

wlesieutre 8y ago

It's not about whether you're actually printing it, the print version is just an accurate reference to the correct shape of how the font is designed. That shape doesn't necessarily line up on the pixel grid, so you can smush it around to get sharper edges on a computer screen at the expense of changing the shape/size/spacing of the font. Or you can follow the designed shape more correctly at the expense of smearing some stuff across multiple pixels. There are pros and cons to each, and which one you prefer is where it gets subjective. Some comparisons and discussion over here: https://damieng.com/blog/2007/06/13/font-rendering-philosophies-of-windows-and-mac-os-x https://damieng.com/blog/2007/06/13/font-rendering-philosoph... The Windows text has sharper edges but it looks funny to me in comparison.

tobr 8y ago
That comparison is very enlightening. The Windows version is very sharp, but the letter forms are completely distorted and it looks like it’s switching typeface as the point size changes, or even within the same sample. Look at the horizontal lines in the “z” in the larger sizes, they are very clearly too thin and don’t harmonize with the surrounding letters. Look at the relationship between the top of the “u” and “a” in “quartz”. The straight lines in the “u” serifs end at the exact same height as the curved top of the “a”, making the “u” appear, visually, to extend higher. You can clearly see in the Mac sample that there is some antialiasing on the “a” to fix this issue. I can understand how years of Windows will make the Mac sample look fuzzy, but I’m convinced the correct and harmonious word shapes on the Mac are much more important for reading flow.

theandrewbailey 8y ago

Back when Apple had Safari on Windows, I tried it out. I remember noticing the blurrier text right away, and wondered what happened. No, I wasn't imagining things, as Firefox had much sharper text. I couldn't stand it, and I stopped using it after 5 minutes. Years later, I stumbled across Jeff Atwood's series on the topic. https://blog.codinghorror.com/whats-wrong-with-apples-font-rendering/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/whats-wrong-with-apples-font-r...

ams6110 8y ago
Yes, I remember Safari for Windows also, and FWIW I preferred it. Of course in those days, I had CRT monitors so none of this really mattered, everything was slightly blurry anyway.

tathougies 8y ago

> In 2019, it seems odd to prioritize print layout at the expense of screen legibility. When I use a Mac (on a normal ~100 dpi screen), the text looks softened with bad anti-aliasing and I feel like I've stepped through a time machine to the amazing year 2000. In 2019, what seems most odd is insisting that there is 'one best way'. The fact is that I fall into that vanishingly small base of users that notices the colors in windows fonts. I find Mac and Linux easier. I like the Retina displays. I'm not sure how you can argue against my preference for them. I did not say you should not have fonts you can read; merely that there is no one way that ought to be said to be better.