4 ms·
By eye alone, I'm pretty sure that is not MS Sans Serif as rendered in Windows 95 and Windows 98.
by akx 2y ago
By eye alone, I'm pretty sure that is not MS Sans Serif as rendered in Windows 95 and Windows 98.
- vintagedave 2y agoThey’ve also kept the pixelated nature. The XP style sheet linked in another comment [1] draws at high res for its text and shapes and so retains the feel of the UI without the constraints. I — we? — like the 98 etc UI for its clarity and simplicity not its low resolution. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42056921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42056921
- exitb 2y agoThe fonts are pixelated, but those pixels don't appear to align with the physical ones, so they're blurry in some places. Meanwhile, on a real 98 you either had crisp fonts, or neatly and consistently blurred by the CRT.
- worble 2y agoRecreating old fonts in modern browsers is a hard problem https://web.archive.org/web/20230603234837/https://vistaserv.net/blog/90s-fonts-modern-browsers https://web.archive.org/web/20230603234837/https://vistaserv...
- akx 2y agoSure, but I refuse to call this a faithful recreation of the aesthetic until the fonts look correct. :D On a related note, I did start working on some tools to work with legacy .FONs for this exact purpose earlier this year, but the project is iceboxed for now...
- sbarre 2y agoSounds like it was a hard problem!
- akx 2y agoMostly figuring out the details of the old formats enough to be able to render them without having an actual Windows rasterizer... https://github.com/akx/winfont/tree/dev https://github.com/akx/winfont/tree/dev is half of it, the web `<canvas>` frontend is currently still private :)