3 ms·
Eh, I don't get it. When looking at the before and after screenshots of Wikipedia, I greatly prefer the "before" fonts. It looks easier to read and less squishe
by swebs 6y ago
Eh, I don't get it. When looking at the before and after screenshots of Wikipedia, I greatly prefer the "before" fonts. It looks easier to read and less squished. Though they both suffer from the much bigger problem where the lower case L is indistinguishable from the capital i.
- fanatic2pope 6y agoI was going to make the same point that this only really makes sense if you are used to the way that Mac OS renders fonts. I switched back to Linux a couple of years ago and this is one reason why at this point I just couldn't go back.
- kijin 6y agoBack when flat-panel displays first became mainstream, Microsoft and Apple took different directions as to how to utilize subpixel rendering. Microsoft chose to align strokes as close as possible to pixel boundaries for a sharp, crisp look even if it meant distorting the shape of the glyphs. Apple on the other hand decided to render fonts as close as possible to their original shapes even if it caused some blurriness around pixel boundaries. Linux made its own flavor of both options, and left it to the user to decide which one they wanted. The default on many distros is closer to the Windows look, though. So if you are used to the Windows look, you will probably prefer the default option than the tweaked-to-look-like-Mac option.