2 ms·

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 shap

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.