It’s not that Apple or Microsoft is right or wrong, it totally depends on priority. If it’s design and staying true to the typeface is your goal, then Apple is clearly the way to go. If it’s readability, then Microsoft has it right.
Not everything is an Apple vs Window war
Here’s a good take on the different philosophies:
some comments mention that the “apple version” of text readability is better when one stands out 3 feet or so from the computer. I wonder since when people surf the web or interact with computers at that distance?? unless of course you are playing with a console gaming device.
I think it is not which technology is superior but rather each technology addresses specifics. The Apple font-rendering traditionally has from inception has been geared more towards “print-media” while MS clear-type is optimized for screen displays. Ultimately the legibility of type is going to be dictated by the medium in which it will finally display. Without being biased, clear-type is the clear winner when displaying type on screen. While the apple technology is superior for print medium.
i’ve always disliked windows font rendering, to me its incredibly distracting to have parts of individual letters antialiased and parts not, for instance, straights are hinted to the pixel grid, as are some curves, but larger curves and some serifs etc, arent/cant be and retain anything resembling the fonts original shape (which is already destroyed anyway) so they end up antialiased, which blows the weight of the font all to hell, you have thin straights, fat curves, and serifs. this, of course, is worst at small font sizes. but it just makes the letters look lumpy and unattractive. to me, windows font rendering just looks downright unprofessional and unattractive. while osx rendering is like looking at a page of text, windows font rendering is like looking at a circa 1994 computer display. i’d rather they just didnt antialias at all rather than using cleartype.
In my job as a web developer I run windows and OS X side-by-side all day everyday working on the same pages. OS X font rendering beats the pantsa off windows. The only exception is Firefox in OS X, but that’s their fault not Apple’s.
Safari has in Edit Preferences 3 options in Appearance for “Font smoothing” from Light to Strong.
My setup is Light - it doesn’t looks “dark blurry” and it looks better than IE 7.
Using Windows on a 1024x768 LCD, I find Safari’s font smothing bad for, say, Arial, and near-illegible for Courier New. On OSX (1024x768 CRT, safari 2.0.0.3) Arial and everything is perfect, but Courier New is still almost illegible.
Really, Apple needs to tone down the font smoothing.
I enjoy Apple’s font rendering more so than Windows. The pixelation that occurs in larger-sized fonts have always annoyed me. Although it’s not that important, Apple’s font rendering just looks better to me.
My friends would disagree. But I have better eye sight than them, and the blurriness dosen’t bother me.
If there were a way to have the same font rendering as the Mac has in every aspect of Windows, I would love Windows all the more.
It is proven that blurriness distorts your vision, especially in the aspect of text (naturally, becuase you focus more on it). Apple wants you to wear glasses for the rest of your life!! Freakin Mac junk…
lets not forget that it was Apple who brought us the variable-width font in the first place.
1280x1024 on 17" here so not high dpi… XP. i tried cleartype once, it wasn’t too bad, even though i didnt see what the great thing was about it. but it bothered me that one of my most used apps did not support it, so i had to constantly switch between that app and the rest of the OS and that switching was very bad for my eyes (this is a special app that is part of my big multitasking system so not something i’d be looking at for hours without a break). so since then, i dont have cleartype enabled.
i think cleartype, either apple or not, will only be useful when we will have high dpi, it will then be closer to reality.
just compare these crappy fonts to real printed stuff…
that said, i dont prefer either of the two screenshots (IE vs safari). maybe because both are bleh…as said above.
but there is one place where cleartype does look better than on my pc. i have a windows mobile pda with 192 dpi for the OS (the screen is 216 dpi according to a dpi calculator). similar screen size to the iphone crap, but this pda has VGA resolution, so twice the res. i tried to enable cleartype on it once - i was pleasantly surprised.
anyway my opinion doesnt matter much because after a while i will forget what it is like that i’m looking at, what matters is the content not the looks. that is another reason why i didnt prefer either of the screenshots. both are crap and neither bothers me.
Mick: “However on the iPhone with a 160 dpi, I’m sure a lot of users will like the font rendering better than what Windows Mobile currently offers. The iPhone will just feature something closer to printed typography.”
rofl… i have 192 dpi with windows mobile.
before you think i’m a fan of windows mobile. it (winmobile) sucks. but the iphone will suck even more due to its hardware… sorry for the OFF topic.
Why can’t we encourage both operating systems to support both styles of anti-aliasing on a customizable per application or per window basis.
Then all of us would be happier when working on either platform for whatever tasks we have to do?
The only reason Apple implemented their own antialias technology is because that’s what’s used in Mac OS X and the iPhone, and Safari is here obviously to facilitate that webapps work in the iPhone and, by extension, in OSX.
The browser works as close to the final representation as possible. Since Widgets and the iPhone have an emphasis in pixel-perfect representation then the antialias needs to be pixel perfect as well.
THAT"S WHAT PEOPLE ARE BITCHING ABOUT?!
There are people boycotting Safari, because of THIS!??!
Wow…
I’ve got my own take on font sizes. I try to set up my video displays so that fonts are displayed “actual size.” That is, the size of the fonts on the screen should be as close as possible to the size that they print on the page. Larger screens ( 19in) then are able to display more usable windows, rather than displaying the same number of windows at a larger size.
This is said fully realizing that not everyone uses their computer in the way I have described. For example, video applications such as HD video seem rather pointless to be relegated to a small window on a large screen. Clearly this requires larger screens to be viewed from a longer distance to be effective.
Bottom line, though, is that the best judge of whether a font is being displayed effectively is at the size it is intended to be rendered. I don’t see much merit in the argument that fonts are being too distorted when displayed in a small size and then critiqued when this rendering is merely blown up in size rather than rendered directly (albeit differently) in the larger size. (Blowing up the font to inspect differences between rendering strategy, as done above, is a valid exercise to show the differences more clearly – just not for comparing readability at the larger size IMHO.)
You can turn on ClearType on the Control panel.
Finally, what we’re talking about is hinting. On my Linux box at least I have the choice of whether I want hinting on or off. So, I can have my fonts as blurry as Apple or as distorted as Microsoft.
You should also note that MS only hints at certain sizes. Bigger fonts are not hinted.
Apple also respects pixel versions of text, Microsoft tries to smooth these with cleartype which is pointless because they’re already on the pixel grid
I totally dislike the way Safari for Windows renders fonts, they are just too blurry. I don’t really care if Apple developers tried to make their fonts look closer to their original typefaces, because I only care what is comfortable for my eyes and what is not.
Apple font rendering technology reminds me of freetype subpixel rendering without patented hinting improvements turned on.
Some acquaintances of mine have told me that MacOS font rendering is much different from what Safari on Windows has (shows).
For me, ClearType makes fonts better legible.
So now that we have Safari 3.0/Win (although a Beta), we can compare directly.
The point in font smoothing is not beauty, but legibility.
And on a (now) typical LCD screen, ClearType/WinXP makes wonders.
Apple’s approach is not bad, too, it’s just different.
But to me, ClearType makes fonts very crisp and legible. And Apple’s font smoothing makes them legible… and a bit blurry.
I prefer ClearType. Not because I am a Windows fan, but because it looks better:) At least, to me:)
PS http://www.optimiced.com/en/2007/06/14/apple-safari-3-beta-for-windows/
About the contrast issue, note that Macs use a different monitor gamma than on the PC.
A PC user looking at an Apple monitor usually says that images are too bright (in fact most web sites are made to look good on PCs).
It is possible that Apple has not taken this into account while rendering fonts on the PC…