2 ms·
I think the typical summary of the difference in Mac and Windows font rendering is that the Mac tries to get the fonts to look closer to the printed page and Wi
by kalleboo 3y ago
I think the typical summary of the difference in Mac and Windows font rendering is that the Mac tries to get the fonts to look closer to the printed page and Windows tries to fit the lines to the pixel grid more exactly.
The Mac does it's job with no regard to the sharpness or fuzziness of the rendering - e.g. it will happily render you a "one-pixel line" as two gray lines just so that it ends up aligned beautifully with the rest of the letterform, but people without HiDPI displays will complain that this is "blurry".
Windows tries to fit the pixels more exactly into the pixel grid of the display to ensure sharpness and a 90's sensibility of readability. The problem here is that for any font that is not hand-hinted well at the required size, this often falls flat on its face and looks terrible. And the art of font hinting seems to have gotten lost in the 90's.
- dahwolf 3y agoWell put!
- heleninboodler 3y agoAs display resolutions get higher, you get further away from needing pixel-level tweaks and hints, so it's arguable that the resolution-independent approach is better long-term. Tie yourself too closely to pixel sizes and you paint yourself into a corner so things like super-high-resolution displays (like retina) become a huge engineering problem. Back when Display PostScript was introduced, the idea of 300dpi monitors was almost ludicrous (300dpi being a standard laser printer back then), but here we are.