4 ms·

Agreed. I made this in the past: http://i.imgur.com/4dGbR.png http://i.imgur.com/4dGbR.png (Ubuntu) http://i.imgur.com/mfyjw.png http://i.imgur.com/mfyjw.png

Agreed. I made this in the past: http://i.imgur.com/4dGbR.png http://i.imgur.com/4dGbR.png (Ubuntu) http://i.imgur.com/mfyjw.png http://i.imgur.com/mfyjw.png (OS X) http://i.imgur.com/BqOdg.png http://i.imgur.com/BqOdg.png (Windows 7)

acdha 13y ago
Interesting: in terms of visual quality, I would rank those in order of decreasing preference as OS X, Windows 7, Ubuntu.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- rlanday 13y ago
  Is Windows even using the same font? I think Windows prioritizes making the text look sharp over getting all the character strokes in the right place. OS X and Ubuntu look very similar except for the line spacing, and the lowercase ‘a’, which looks kind of strange/vertically compressed on Ubuntu.
  - drivebyacct2 13y ago
    They should all be using Verdana, as per HN's CSS. I have the font installed in each OS so it should be a fair fight unless I screwed something different up.
    - velodrome 13y ago
      The font in the Ubuntu image is not Verdana. Ubuntu does not install Microsoft fonts by default. It will fallback to Ubuntu's default font.
      - drivebyacct2 13y ago
        I always have msttcorefonts installed which includes Verdana. It's part of the script that is the first thing I run on a new install... (Like, a half hour ago, I checked that Verdana was installed and then recreated the screenshot from the original post and it's identical as far as I can tell.
        sp332 13y ago
        The fonts are similar, but you can see the numeral "3" is different. They're not the same font. Right-click the text and choose "Inspect element". In the right-hand column, make sure "Computed" is selected at the top, then look to see what font-family is being rendered. (If you click "Rules" at the top, you can see which rules are active.)
        drivebyacct2 13y ago
        Yeah, it says Verdana: http://i.imgur.com/50Sx6c3.png http://i.imgur.com/50Sx6c3.png The '3' doesn't look any more different than other chars due to rendering difference, to me. And KDE's font manager's take on Verdana: http://i.imgur.com/4c5cSe3.png http://i.imgur.com/4c5cSe3.png And Firefox on my system, just as a reference: http://i.imgur.com/a2yZ7UQ.png http://i.imgur.com/a2yZ7UQ.png
        velodrome 13y ago
        Your right, my mistake. I verified with my ubuntu install. My Verdana looks the same as yours. There are differences with how the text is rendered. Maybe it has to do with kerning and subpixel optimizations.
        sp332 13y ago
        Thanks for double-checking. The 'a' looks very different on the Windows 7 sample!
        blaenk 13y ago
        In my experience, this doesn't necessarily give the correct font. Some distros have font aliases in fontconfig. I've found that `fc-match` can easily find the true font being used for a given font name/pattern, e.g. fc-match monospace might give DejaVu Mono
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - Recoil42 13y ago
    >I think Windows prioritizes making the text look sharp over getting all the character strokes in the right place. Yup, pretty much. A trio of Spolsky/Atwood posts from 2007 worth reading: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/06/whats-wrong-with-apples-font-rendering.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/06/whats-wrong-with-ap... http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/06/font-rendering-respecting-the-pixel-grid.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/06/font-rendering-resp...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wfunction 13y ago
I find Windows 7 the most appealing (and sharpest). The others are just way too blurry.
- grey-area 13y ago
  Windows has distorted the font here hasn't it? If you're rating fonts on sharpness, Windows would win here, but by any other criteria (distortion, kerning, adequate aliasing, legibility), it fails. The Windows rendering almost looks like a monospaced font. You're throwing a lot out in order to get things sharper at small sizes, and for many people, that matters far more than perceived sharpness.
  - wfunction 13y ago
    > legibility Seriously? I could agree that it may not fully represent the intended font, but the entire point is that it's more legible when it sacrifices that, and I find it hard to believe that you find Windows's text to be less legible than Mac's/Ubuntu's. i.e. I think Windows sacrifices the fontmaker's intent in order to please the reader, who couldn't care less about the fontmaker's intentions rather than the actual output (unless the reader is the fontmaker himself). Do you really think it's failing in that too?
    - grey-area 13y ago
      Kerning, character spacing and character shape are all designed to help legibility, and I think frankly that the Windows approach is a naive attempt to optimise one aspect of legibility at the expense of all others. So yes, I'm afraid I do disagree that it is more legible, I think it sacrifices too much, as these screenshots make clear the font is deformed so much it looks like a different font, spacing is all off, and glyphs are uneven. This is somewhat subjective, and you might have a different opinion, but there is more than one variable in play when it comes to legibility, it doesn't just come down to how sharp the text is.
      - wfunction 13y ago
Scene_Cast2 13y ago
For anyone wanting the Linux font rendering on Windows - check out MacType (https://code.google.com/p/mactype/ https://code.google.com/p/mactype/). Works best on high-dpi monitors, and it's a matter of taste on low-dpi (little blurrier, but the fonts are more authentic).

acdha 13y ago

Interesting: in terms of visual quality, I would rank those in order of decreasing preference as OS X, Windows 7, Ubuntu.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rlanday 13y ago
Is Windows even using the same font? I think Windows prioritizes making the text look sharp over getting all the character strokes in the right place. OS X and Ubuntu look very similar except for the line spacing, and the lowercase ‘a’, which looks kind of strange/vertically compressed on Ubuntu.
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  They should all be using Verdana, as per HN's CSS. I have the font installed in each OS so it should be a fair fight unless I screwed something different up.
  - velodrome 13y ago
    The font in the Ubuntu image is not Verdana. Ubuntu does not install Microsoft fonts by default. It will fallback to Ubuntu's default font.
    - drivebyacct2 13y ago
      I always have msttcorefonts installed which includes Verdana. It's part of the script that is the first thing I run on a new install... (Like, a half hour ago, I checked that Verdana was installed and then recreated the screenshot from the original post and it's identical as far as I can tell.
      - sp332 13y ago
        The fonts are similar, but you can see the numeral "3" is different. They're not the same font. Right-click the text and choose "Inspect element". In the right-hand column, make sure "Computed" is selected at the top, then look to see what font-family is being rendered. (If you click "Rules" at the top, you can see which rules are active.)
        drivebyacct2 13y ago
        Yeah, it says Verdana: http://i.imgur.com/50Sx6c3.png http://i.imgur.com/50Sx6c3.png The '3' doesn't look any more different than other chars due to rendering difference, to me. And KDE's font manager's take on Verdana: http://i.imgur.com/4c5cSe3.png http://i.imgur.com/4c5cSe3.png And Firefox on my system, just as a reference: http://i.imgur.com/a2yZ7UQ.png http://i.imgur.com/a2yZ7UQ.png
        velodrome 13y ago
        Your right, my mistake. I verified with my ubuntu install. My Verdana looks the same as yours. There are differences with how the text is rendered. Maybe it has to do with kerning and subpixel optimizations.
        sp332 13y ago
        Thanks for double-checking. The 'a' looks very different on the Windows 7 sample!
        blaenk 13y ago
        In my experience, this doesn't necessarily give the correct font. Some distros have font aliases in fontconfig. I've found that `fc-match` can easily find the true font being used for a given font name/pattern, e.g. fc-match monospace might give DejaVu Mono
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- Recoil42 13y ago
  >I think Windows prioritizes making the text look sharp over getting all the character strokes in the right place. Yup, pretty much. A trio of Spolsky/Atwood posts from 2007 worth reading: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/06/whats-wrong-with-apples-font-rendering.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/06/whats-wrong-with-ap... http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/06/font-rendering-respecting-the-pixel-grid.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/06/font-rendering-resp...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

wfunction 13y ago

I find Windows 7 the most appealing (and sharpest). The others are just way too blurry.

grey-area 13y ago
Windows has distorted the font here hasn't it? If you're rating fonts on sharpness, Windows would win here, but by any other criteria (distortion, kerning, adequate aliasing, legibility), it fails. The Windows rendering almost looks like a monospaced font. You're throwing a lot out in order to get things sharper at small sizes, and for many people, that matters far more than perceived sharpness.
- wfunction 13y ago
  > legibility Seriously? I could agree that it may not fully represent the intended font, but the entire point is that it's more legible when it sacrifices that, and I find it hard to believe that you find Windows's text to be less legible than Mac's/Ubuntu's. i.e. I think Windows sacrifices the fontmaker's intent in order to please the reader, who couldn't care less about the fontmaker's intentions rather than the actual output (unless the reader is the fontmaker himself). Do you really think it's failing in that too?
  - grey-area 13y ago
    Kerning, character spacing and character shape are all designed to help legibility, and I think frankly that the Windows approach is a naive attempt to optimise one aspect of legibility at the expense of all others. So yes, I'm afraid I do disagree that it is more legible, I think it sacrifices too much, as these screenshots make clear the font is deformed so much it looks like a different font, spacing is all off, and glyphs are uneven. This is somewhat subjective, and you might have a different opinion, but there is more than one variable in play when it comes to legibility, it doesn't just come down to how sharp the text is.
    - wfunction 13y ago

Scene_Cast2 13y ago

For anyone wanting the Linux font rendering on Windows - check out MacType (https://code.google.com/p/mactype/ https://code.google.com/p/mactype/). Works best on high-dpi monitors, and it's a matter of taste on low-dpi (little blurrier, but the fonts are more authentic).