Safari for Windows: Mac vs. PC Font smoothing

The way Windows has always rendered text is just ugly and hard to read. Maybe they'll get the hint on the correct way to do it.

Microsoft has a great (not biased, talks about word recognition independent of font smoothing etc.) article on their website at http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ctfonts/WordRecognition.aspx .

Ultimately, screen resolutions will persuasively mimic the printed page, and relics such as bit maps and screen fonts will go by the wayside.

Apple is in a better position for the long term.

I'm as happy as the next man to indulge in a bit of Microsoft bashing, but I think this time it's fair to concede that ClearType is actually a very elegant solution for rendering typefaces on screen, as it utilises the unique features of LCD screens. This is also a reason why it is not turned on by default in Windows XP as when XP was released, CRT monitors were far more common so to have this turned on by default would have left many with poorly rendered letter forms.

Microsoft commisioned Matthew Carter to design a fair few of their core fonts and spent many months hinting each character for screen use, it's slightly unfair to present Microsoft's solution as being the work of 'uncultured engineers', as some seem to be infering.

Personally, I'd like to see Apple incorporate some of the features of ClearType in their rendering of fonts on screen at small sizes, where currently fonts appear much greyer and the contrast of the typeface is lost.

I've never liked ClearType, I turn it off on my Windows computers. That form of subpixel rendering does smooth the edges, but at the expense of making the edges more rainbow-like. Instead of the left edge of a shape a certain color, and the right edge of a shape a different, ClearType gives edges, the edge color changes all the time.

Apple's system doesn't really seem to do subpixel rendering, but a simpler antialiasing.

For web browsing I would prefer no font smoothing at all on anything under about 14 points or so. I am just trying to get information and not admire how well the web designer's font of choice fits with the rest of the site.

I totally agree wit your interpretation small fonts looks nicer on win and large fonts nicer on mac.

Someone asked: "why bother this discussion about 5-7 fonts."
Many people still say that they don't like reading from a screen. At least where I am. So, they print out every word-doc, email and often websites to.

I think we should work towards reading from screens and more fonts and standard should (will?) be developed.
Paper is only one argument for that :)

the more I look on both screens (my G5 and an XP box) the more I'm convinced small text is read a lot easier on a Win renderer. Headlines, on the other hand look too sharp, too squared, almost chopped. So, just because there's a lot more body text than headlines, I'd prefer the Win way.

I prefer the Apple way, though I use both operating systems. I don't understand what people mean about the blurring - I never see fonts blur on my Macs (iMac and MBP)! In fact, occasionally I get blurring of fonts on the Desktop of my Windows machine.


P.S. Lucida Grande is sexy.