4 ms·

It's weird when you run into people who prefer the spindly, rickety-looking fonts on Windows.

vladvasiliu 5y ago
Tastes and colors, right? I'm one of those people, and I'm not even a Windows user. What I like about them is that on crappy low resolution displays they are sharp. This seems less the case with Win10 though. Yes, I know about the whole font shape debate in Windows vs Mac rendering. And I don't care one bit. When I'm using the computer as a tool to read text all day, I want sharpness above all else. I don't care if the letters aren't exactly as their designer wanted them to be.
- flenserboy 5y ago
  I don't care if they're "exactly as their designer wanted them to be" — I don't want them to look weak and pixelated. I want my screen to appear as close as possible to print, with text equally easy to read. Windows does not provide such an experience.
  - vladvasiliu 5y ago
    Point is we both want different things, and doing something "in between" would look terrible for both. A choice has to be made. The issue is that you cannot obtain rendering on a low resolution grid that is both sharp and close to the shape on print [0]. As such, given this constraint, I prefer sharpness rather than fidelity. In my personal case, I actually use Linux on a high dpi display, so I can get both. But when I have to use a low resolution screen, like at work, I would actually prefer a font that is designed with these constraints in mind, such that it looks both good and sharp. For this I like bitmap fonts, but they seem to be few and far between these days. Overly fancy fonts need to be beat into shape with hinting, but then the flow looks all broken. Or else, they're a blurry mess. Terminus works great for my monospaced needs and Calibri (from Windows) seems to have bitmaps for low size fonts that look fairly pleasant. -- [0] I'm talking mostly of small-sized text, like for interface widgets. For larger font sizes, it seems easier to get a decent result even with fancier fonts.
- NBJack 5y ago
  Have to agree. Font rendering is one of the top reasons I don't favor the Mac experience at all. At least Windows and Linux give me options, and honestly Windows is the only one so far I believe gets the fluctuation in DPIs 'right' by giving me some control over it. I love being able to use a 4K TV as an extra monitor, regardless of size. Macs? Sorry; Apple says one size fits all these days, and you will likely have to shell out money to get it looking 'right' on an external display (i.e. higher dpi). Normally, this means just embracing the full Apple ecosystem of peripherals, which is only complicated further given Apple appears to have stopped producing external displays years ago.
  - vladvasiliu 5y ago
    > Macs? Sorry; Apple says one size fits all these days, and you will likely have to shell out money to get it looking 'right' on an external display (i.e. higher dpi). Normally, this means just embracing the full Apple ecosystem of peripherals, which is only complicated further given Apple appears to have stopped producing external displays years ago. You can use any 4k screen with a Mac, and it will work well. Before I switched to Linux full-time, I used to use a 24", 4K Dell on my MBP, and it was glorious. The screen wasn't even all that expensive, around €300 3 years ago, if memory serves.
    - NBJack 5y ago
      That puts you at roughly 180 dpi, which isn't that far from the 'retina' standard of roughly 220 dpi. But I imagine I can get you sharp text on a lowly 1080p 20 inch display with Windows or Linux at only 110 dpi (or worse) for roughly half the cost at today's prices.

Tastes and colors, right? I'm one of those people, and I'm not even a Windows user. What I like about them is that on crappy low resolution displays they are sharp. This seems less the case with Win10 though. Yes, I know about the whole font shape debate in Windows vs Mac rendering. And I don't care one bit. When I'm using the computer as a tool to read text all day, I want sharpness above all else. I don't care if the letters aren't exactly as their designer wanted them to be.

flenserboy 5y ago
I don't care if they're "exactly as their designer wanted them to be" — I don't want them to look weak and pixelated. I want my screen to appear as close as possible to print, with text equally easy to read. Windows does not provide such an experience.
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  Point is we both want different things, and doing something "in between" would look terrible for both. A choice has to be made. The issue is that you cannot obtain rendering on a low resolution grid that is both sharp and close to the shape on print [0]. As such, given this constraint, I prefer sharpness rather than fidelity. In my personal case, I actually use Linux on a high dpi display, so I can get both. But when I have to use a low resolution screen, like at work, I would actually prefer a font that is designed with these constraints in mind, such that it looks both good and sharp. For this I like bitmap fonts, but they seem to be few and far between these days. Overly fancy fonts need to be beat into shape with hinting, but then the flow looks all broken. Or else, they're a blurry mess. Terminus works great for my monospaced needs and Calibri (from Windows) seems to have bitmaps for low size fonts that look fairly pleasant. -- [0] I'm talking mostly of small-sized text, like for interface widgets. For larger font sizes, it seems easier to get a decent result even with fancier fonts.
NBJack 5y ago
Have to agree. Font rendering is one of the top reasons I don't favor the Mac experience at all. At least Windows and Linux give me options, and honestly Windows is the only one so far I believe gets the fluctuation in DPIs 'right' by giving me some control over it. I love being able to use a 4K TV as an extra monitor, regardless of size. Macs? Sorry; Apple says one size fits all these days, and you will likely have to shell out money to get it looking 'right' on an external display (i.e. higher dpi). Normally, this means just embracing the full Apple ecosystem of peripherals, which is only complicated further given Apple appears to have stopped producing external displays years ago.
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  > Macs? Sorry; Apple says one size fits all these days, and you will likely have to shell out money to get it looking 'right' on an external display (i.e. higher dpi). Normally, this means just embracing the full Apple ecosystem of peripherals, which is only complicated further given Apple appears to have stopped producing external displays years ago. You can use any 4k screen with a Mac, and it will work well. Before I switched to Linux full-time, I used to use a 24", 4K Dell on my MBP, and it was glorious. The screen wasn't even all that expensive, around €300 3 years ago, if memory serves.
  - NBJack 5y ago
    That puts you at roughly 180 dpi, which isn't that far from the 'retina' standard of roughly 220 dpi. But I imagine I can get you sharp text on a lowly 1080p 20 inch display with Windows or Linux at only 110 dpi (or worse) for roughly half the cost at today's prices.