5 ms·
MacType was pretty popular about 10 years ago (along with GDI++ and some others) but I personally always feel they look terrible. I don't particularly "like" C
by thrdbndndn 4y ago
MacType was pretty popular about 10 years ago (along with GDI++ and some others) but I personally always feel they look terrible.
I don't particularly "like" ClearType but I think it gets the job done. Fonts are clear and sharp, albeit a little bit too "noisy". MacType looks blurry as hell, at least on non HiDPI screens.
I don't use Mac, so I don't know how it compare to the native one during the non-retina times.
- gfody 4y agoif you were to do something crazy like say use a 48" oled tv as a monitor, then MacType is perfectly necessary because cleartype looks terrible on rgbw subpixel and the only alternatives (switch cleartype to grayscale or disabled aa) look even worse. freetype looks beautiful on rgbw.
- NBJack 4y agoStrange, I've had just the opposite experience. If anything, at least for my vision, the 'fuzziness' of Mac font rendering becomes even more pronounced and harder on my eyes on larger screens. I always assumed it was just optimized for smaller high DPI monitors.
- gfody 4y agocome to think about it, I left out the part where I spent an hour customizing my settings. none of the bundled profiles looked very good on my screen.
- AnthonBerg 4y ago55” OLED here – it’s great!, and not at all crazy. And Ican confirm that MacType works really well.
- deafpolygon 4y agoIf you crank your scaling up (so you have more screen realestate) on a Mac, the fonts get blurrier. At least, it did for me in the past. Clear Type is crisp and clear at pretty much all resolutions for me. It's not the best, but it's clean.