5 ms·

Windows has the worst font rendering of all modern operating systems. Wanting anything like Windows font rendering is insane. Windows 10 makes it near impossibl

Windows has the worst font rendering of all modern operating systems. Wanting anything like Windows font rendering is insane. Windows 10 makes it near impossible to properly turn off subpixel hinting without also turning off all anti-aliasing, which on a QD-OLED screen makes for horrific color fringing. Windows 11 is better, but still pretty weak. Linux is roughly as good as Mac OS, both of which are miles better than Windows. Mac OS dropped the subpixel garbage (it really is garbage if you're at all sensitive to fringing or use anything other than a standard LCD) in favor of high pixel density screens. Sharp, readable text and zero color fringing. This is the way.

Night_Thastus 1y ago
With OLEDs with funky pixel layouts starting to become more popular, I hope Windows starts making their system less crap...
dartharva 1y ago
Heavily disagree as a longtime Linux user. I don't know about MacOS but Windows has always had better font rendering than Linux in my experience.
- b3orn 1y ago
  I'm currently using a Mac for private stuff, used to use Linux for work stuff, currently forced to use Windows. My font rendereing ranking is MacOS > Linux > Windows.
  - tgv 1y ago
    I rate it macOS > Windows > Linux. iOS is pretty good too, mobile Windows wasn't. But I'm only experiencing Linux graphically on a rather old monitor or through a terminal emulator, and macOS and Windows on a nice monitor, so that probably skews my perception. I wonder how many people observe the three OS'es through the same (or very similar) monitors.
- TLLtchvL8KZ 1y ago
  I feel exactly the same, the font rendering in Linux drives me absolutely insane. The amount of hours I've spent over the past 15 years tweaking fontconfig, having to compile special patched packages etc etc doesn't bare thinking about. I don't even have to edit anything on Windows now, and when I did a few years ago it was only on a clean install going through I think what was called cleartype config, you had a panel of 6 images/samples to choose from and after going through it all everything looked pretty damn perfect.
forrestthewoods 1y ago
> in favor of high pixel density screens I wish I could download an OS update that gave me a high pixel screen! But, uhhh, that’s not how it works.
- carlosjobim 1y ago
  Do yourself a favour and go out and purchase a high pixel screen. I don't understand why people who spend a good part of their days in front of a computer (or employ others to do it), but refuse to get quality hardware. Is it worth destroying your eyes, posture, and joints to save this money? Not to speak of just the personal pleasure of using good hardware. Restaurants spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on equipment so that their staff can work more efficiently. Why doesn't IT people take inspiration from them and get a bit better equipment. It's not a luxury item.
  - forrestthewoods 1y ago
    I’m currently running a 4K 32” monitor. What exact monitor do you recommend I buy for my Windows desktop?
    - carlosjobim 1y ago
      Then why are you saying you want a high pixel screen, if you already have it?
      - forrestthewoods 1y ago
        4K @ 32” is not particularly high density. It’s waaaay lower density than a phone or MacBook.
        carlosjobim 1y ago
        Then buy a high pixel density screen if you want to have one. They're really good for working with text and other computing related stuff, and they're not expensive. Philips have a very good one at 27 inches.
not_a_bot_4sho 1y ago
I suppose this is a subjective area. I would rank Windows on top, Mac as a close second, and Linux ... well, I love Linux for reasons other than UI.
- type0 1y ago
  it's not subjective if you use OLED screen
  - eddythompson80 1y ago
    I have an OLED desktop monitor and have the same preference order as OP
- exe34 1y ago
  Yeah I don't understand this difference of opinion here - Linux looks fine to me, Mac looks pretty and Windows looks like it's been driven over a few times.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- adrian_b 1y ago
  While the font rendering method matters, the differences between operating systems are typically much smaller than the differences in quality between typefaces. Linux had a very bad appearance in the past with a default configuration, and it still does not look good in most distributions, but that is not due to bad rendering algorithms, but it is due to the fact that the default free typefaces are usually not very good. For several decades, the first thing that I have always done after installing Linux was to delete all default typefaces and replace them with some high-quality typefaces, most of which I have bought, with a couple taken from a Mac OS and a Windows that I had bought in the past (which I have stopped using many years ago, except for the few typefaces that I have kept from them). Because of this policy, any text on my Linux computers has always looked much better than on any of the Windows or Mac OS computers that I have used at work.
namibj 1y ago
> (it really is garbage if you're at all sensitive to fringing or use anything other than a standard LCD) Human eyes have higher spatial brightness resolution than spatial color resolution. At the cost of software complexity and mild computation overhead, a screen like a Bayer matrix or technology-appropriate similar subpixel layouts together with software that properly anti-aliases content by clamping brightness and color resolution separately to appropriate values ensuring the screen will remain capable of showing the limit frequency and that the two limits are sufficiently close to not disturb the eyes/viewer, will result in better viewing than if you lazily forcibly clamp the brightness and color resolution to the same value as Apple did. If you have a non-"default" screen subpixel layout then you need to remain able to drive each subpixel individually from the computer and to have the antialiasing algorithm be aware of the specific arrangement you have. And no, until you can point me to a sub-2000$ (and at that price and that poor contrast, a minimum of 120 Hz) 35~55" screen with at least 2500:1 static contrast, a vaguely 16:9 aspect ratio (though I'll accept 4:3 with the same pixel count and density and accordingly scaled dimensions), and at least 10k individually addressed (and anti-aliased onto by the font rendering) horizontal pixels, I'll happily stay with my 11520 horizontal (sub-)pixels that I paid about 700$ for (43", 5000:1 static contrast, 60Hz).
perching_aix 1y ago
[flagged]
- lp0_on_fire 1y ago
  > The only way for me not to accuse you of just straight up lying is to just wrap my thoughts into the cushion of subjectivity. This was unnecessary.
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    I really don't mean it as an insult, it legitimately just comes off like people are lying. The difference in experience is really just that stark that I honestly cannot fathom these claims actually being truthful, certainly not in the absolute sense they are presented. So, subjectivity remains.

Night_Thastus 1y ago

With OLEDs with funky pixel layouts starting to become more popular, I hope Windows starts making their system less crap...

dartharva 1y ago

Heavily disagree as a longtime Linux user. I don't know about MacOS but Windows has always had better font rendering than Linux in my experience.

b3orn 1y ago
I'm currently using a Mac for private stuff, used to use Linux for work stuff, currently forced to use Windows. My font rendereing ranking is MacOS > Linux > Windows.
- tgv 1y ago
  I rate it macOS > Windows > Linux. iOS is pretty good too, mobile Windows wasn't. But I'm only experiencing Linux graphically on a rather old monitor or through a terminal emulator, and macOS and Windows on a nice monitor, so that probably skews my perception. I wonder how many people observe the three OS'es through the same (or very similar) monitors.
TLLtchvL8KZ 1y ago
I feel exactly the same, the font rendering in Linux drives me absolutely insane. The amount of hours I've spent over the past 15 years tweaking fontconfig, having to compile special patched packages etc etc doesn't bare thinking about. I don't even have to edit anything on Windows now, and when I did a few years ago it was only on a clean install going through I think what was called cleartype config, you had a panel of 6 images/samples to choose from and after going through it all everything looked pretty damn perfect.

forrestthewoods 1y ago

> in favor of high pixel density screens I wish I could download an OS update that gave me a high pixel screen! But, uhhh, that’s not how it works.

carlosjobim 1y ago
Do yourself a favour and go out and purchase a high pixel screen. I don't understand why people who spend a good part of their days in front of a computer (or employ others to do it), but refuse to get quality hardware. Is it worth destroying your eyes, posture, and joints to save this money? Not to speak of just the personal pleasure of using good hardware. Restaurants spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on equipment so that their staff can work more efficiently. Why doesn't IT people take inspiration from them and get a bit better equipment. It's not a luxury item.
- forrestthewoods 1y ago
  I’m currently running a 4K 32” monitor. What exact monitor do you recommend I buy for my Windows desktop?
  - carlosjobim 1y ago
    Then why are you saying you want a high pixel screen, if you already have it?
    - forrestthewoods 1y ago
      4K @ 32” is not particularly high density. It’s waaaay lower density than a phone or MacBook.
      - carlosjobim 1y ago
        Then buy a high pixel density screen if you want to have one. They're really good for working with text and other computing related stuff, and they're not expensive. Philips have a very good one at 27 inches.

not_a_bot_4sho 1y ago

I suppose this is a subjective area. I would rank Windows on top, Mac as a close second, and Linux ... well, I love Linux for reasons other than UI.

type0 1y ago
it's not subjective if you use OLED screen
- eddythompson80 1y ago
  I have an OLED desktop monitor and have the same preference order as OP
exe34 1y ago
Yeah I don't understand this difference of opinion here - Linux looks fine to me, Mac looks pretty and Windows looks like it's been driven over a few times.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
adrian_b 1y ago
While the font rendering method matters, the differences between operating systems are typically much smaller than the differences in quality between typefaces. Linux had a very bad appearance in the past with a default configuration, and it still does not look good in most distributions, but that is not due to bad rendering algorithms, but it is due to the fact that the default free typefaces are usually not very good. For several decades, the first thing that I have always done after installing Linux was to delete all default typefaces and replace them with some high-quality typefaces, most of which I have bought, with a couple taken from a Mac OS and a Windows that I had bought in the past (which I have stopped using many years ago, except for the few typefaces that I have kept from them). Because of this policy, any text on my Linux computers has always looked much better than on any of the Windows or Mac OS computers that I have used at work.

namibj 1y ago

> (it really is garbage if you're at all sensitive to fringing or use anything other than a standard LCD) Human eyes have higher spatial brightness resolution than spatial color resolution. At the cost of software complexity and mild computation overhead, a screen like a Bayer matrix or technology-appropriate similar subpixel layouts together with software that properly anti-aliases content by clamping brightness and color resolution separately to appropriate values ensuring the screen will remain capable of showing the limit frequency and that the two limits are sufficiently close to not disturb the eyes/viewer, will result in better viewing than if you lazily forcibly clamp the brightness and color resolution to the same value as Apple did. If you have a non-"default" screen subpixel layout then you need to remain able to drive each subpixel individually from the computer and to have the antialiasing algorithm be aware of the specific arrangement you have. And no, until you can point me to a sub-2000$ (and at that price and that poor contrast, a minimum of 120 Hz) 35~55" screen with at least 2500:1 static contrast, a vaguely 16:9 aspect ratio (though I'll accept 4:3 with the same pixel count and density and accordingly scaled dimensions), and at least 10k individually addressed (and anti-aliased onto by the font rendering) horizontal pixels, I'll happily stay with my 11520 horizontal (sub-)pixels that I paid about 700$ for (43", 5000:1 static contrast, 60Hz).

perching_aix 1y ago

[flagged]

lp0_on_fire 1y ago
> The only way for me not to accuse you of just straight up lying is to just wrap my thoughts into the cushion of subjectivity. This was unnecessary.
- perching_aix 1y ago
  I really don't mean it as an insult, it legitimately just comes off like people are lying. The difference in experience is really just that stark that I honestly cannot fathom these claims actually being truthful, certainly not in the absolute sense they are presented. So, subjectivity remains.