What’s your type?

The entire idea of comparing screenshots is kind of ridiculous. Part of the point of both technologies is that slightly different techniques are used based on whether you're viewing on a CRT or LCD. The only fair comparison would be to run both operating systems while using the same monitor and "optimal" settings, and even then the screenshots would only be a true comparison if you used the same monitor to view them. While OS X has settings that tune for specific monitor types, there's a web page for Windows XP that allows you to pick from a selection of differently "tuned" text samples. On LCD monitors, both look pretty good after making the right choice. If I remember correctly, there was still a lot of debate when Windows XP was released whether ClearType should be on by default, and whether it should ever be used on a CRT. My guess is that the setting will be pushed to the forefront, and future versions of the "Welcome to Windows" program that runs on new systems will include a step to select the text rendering that's optimal for your configuration. With a tablet pc or laptop the manufacturer should be able to make this decision and change the defaults accordingly. Ideally, this should probably be in the monitor profile. I fairly regularly use both and they're both acceptable to my eyes. While tweaking the setting in Windows XP isn't straightforward, it's not by any means arcane. Changing the setting isn't going to affect stability.

A few thoughts: 1. Windows XP has the open type setting is a stupid spot. I doubt many people even turn it on 2. OS X has displays AND appearance in Control Panel. Both have different tweak settings. 3. Windows makes the fonts look thinner. Perhaps because people were used to single pixel wide fonts before 4. Windows can kern to aggresively. 5. Don't forget that TrueType is an Apple technology even if it is on Windows 6. The most impess application of anti aliasing that I have ever seen anywhere is the zooming of icons on the Apple dock.

n/t

I'd like to see a screenshot of this "NO CONTEST between the screen shots" that he claims. Send us a pic so we can judge for ourselves. =)

Arial vs. Helvetica: The battle continues. Seriously though, ClearType is NOT turned on on XP by default and the settings for it are buried really deep in the system. Yes as a matter of fact I do have have an XP computer and at 600 x 800, anti aliasing of small fonts is useless.

Hmmm, so the ClearType looks better at home on a fixed resolution LCD that has been "tuned" to favor ClearType...a statement which I'll assume means he's muddied his settings to remove the painfully obvious aliasing issues that ClearText has...a move which would make the Quartz text look pretty fuzzy. On my 21" Nokia workstation monitor or the LCD in my iBook...the ClearType text looks jagged and aliased while the Quartz is smooth. The 21" Nokia hooked up to my Windows box also seems to feel that ClearText looks like ass in comparison to Quartz also...I guess I should stop calibrating my monitor the correct way and do it the MicroScoble way.

Just a data point, but Scoble's most certainly a partisan on M$'s side. He kind of gets paid to say M$ is better at stuff.

It makes much more since to me to have nice looking fonts and type right out of the box....I'm sure you could do a lot of things with the pc if you tuned it right....but will it be stable?....and what if you tune up your mac? I have a pc....and....I use both....so...yeah...I still like my mac better for everything. It's just ready to do me right.

I had read his post earlier today and had not had a chance to post on my own... It's ridiculous to think that you have to configure your system to have nice clean fonts. It should just work, which we know it does and very well in OS X.