Filed under: OS, Odds and ends
Safari for Windows: Mac vs. PC Font smoothing
One of the first things users noticed about the new Safari for Windows beta is that Apple is using their own font smoothing technology (found in OS X) instead of the Windows standard ClearType. Joel Spolsky has an interesting discussion of the different approaches Apple and Microsoft use with respect to sub-pixel font smoothing. Basically his conclusion is that Apple, coming from a desktop publishing background, "believes that the goal of the algorithm should be to preserve the design of the typeface as much as possible" even if that means some onscreen blurriness, whereas Microsoft sacrifices letter shape "to prevent blur and improve readability." Joel notes that it's not entirely obvious which is the superior way of doing things, though predictably Mac users prefer the Apple way and Windows users the prefer the Microsoft way. In the end, however, this is likely as much a result of familiarity as anything else. For my part, I've always thought the Mac way of doing text just looked right. Thanks to Joel I now understand why; definitely worth a read.
[via Red Sweater Blog]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Ken said 9:22PM on 6-16-2007
Always been an Apple fan (and a Windows user), I was thrilled when Safari came to Windows, just as I was when iTunes for Windows was first introduced.
As a web designer I also appreciate the Mac-like page and font rendering. As soon as Safari leaves beta phase, I will be able to check my webpages in a Mac-like environment. Plus, I always appreciated Apple's way to render fonts. Text looks more "natural" as if it was printed on paper.
A common user though, should be a little bit annoyed. Safari behaves in every way as a Mac application, which is ok if you are on a Mac, but not so ok when you're on a Windows PC.
Safari sports its own skin, ignoring my Windows theme and colours. You can't minimize it by its button in the taskbar and you can only resize its window by the lower right corner.
Some may like the custom font rendering, others won't. What's for sure is that it ignores users' systemwide font rendering settings. It's bad behaviour for a piece of software and an indication that it fails (or refuses) to adapt to the new environment. Can it gain browser market share this way? I hope so, but I strongly doubt it.
One more thing to consider is monitor gamma. Windows use different gamma settings than Mac OS. On my old worn-out CRT, text in Safari looked thick and coarse. I had to increase monitor brightness to appreciate it. Did Apple consider the gamma difference between the two worlds?
Reply
Jared said 9:27PM on 6-16-2007
As a designer (web and print), we are continuously told that form should not detract from function. After all, we are hired to solve problems and make it easier for consumers. Despite being a strong mac fan, I have to side with MS here. Apple are placing form above function, saying it is alright to make fonts harder to read so long as they look good. I dont like that precedent
Reply
turkish said 10:17PM on 6-16-2007
The parent article is totally flawed and shows a lack of understanding about typography. Adhering to the original shape and from of the intended letter-form renders a much more readable font even if slightly more 'blurry' than a more crisp but ill-formed rendering of the original letter-form. Jared, the above poster, falsely buys into the idea that because MS uses 'crisper' forms that it is more legible, which is ludicrous. fonts 'looking better' means they are easier to read, and not the other way around.
The human brain doesn't read text by looking from letter to letter, but by quickly comparing the overall shape and characteristics of the word, for 95% of the words we encounter. Only when encountering unusual words, do we slow down and look at the individual letters. OS X's adherence to the true letter forms and spacing (kerning and tracking) means the the word blocks are much more easily recognizable and consistent across different sizes, faces, and mediums, in addition to being more purely aesthetically satisfying.
that said, familiarity also influences readability, and most of the poor souls of the world spend their days reading the terrible font rendering on Windows, where anti-aliasing isn't even turned on at all by default. obviously when they see the OS X way it is quite jarring. but judging from the comments i've read on public forums ove rthe last week, it is way, WAY more common to find people who use windows acknowledging that after some time they realized that OS X rendering was better than it is to find the reverse. Jared is the first person i've seen in any forum say that, as an OS X user, he finds the windows rendering more readable.
As a designer i am always amazed at how terrible the font rendering is on windows and wouldn't for a second say that i found it easier to read nor more pleasant in appearance. my favorite thing about Safari for windows is that now i can tell Windows users of my web sites (which do not cater to a broad general audience) that if they want to see the website as it was truly intended and to see the best presentation possible that they now have another, easier option besides buying a new computer.
Reply
futurepastnow said 10:42PM on 6-16-2007
As a Windows and Mac user, I prefer to have a consistent look throughout whatever system I'm using, and Safari's font smoothing just looks out of place next to the other programs on Windows. Of course it looks fine on a Mac, where all the programs are likewise the same.
Apple wants Safari on Windows to display web pages exactly the same as Safari on OSX (and presumably on the iPhone), but I think it will turn people off.
Reply
John said 11:12PM on 6-16-2007
I think Safari is a test run of "Cocoa on Windows" runtime similar to the original "Red box" idea from early Rhapsody. I think this is why it is so Mac like, it is just the mac code. This helps them see what concessions they'll need to add to get windows users buy-in.
If not that, then I think it is mainly to give windows dev shops a way to test on Safari. I don't think they care about competing in the windows browser world.
Reply
turkish said 11:18PM on 6-16-2007
Hey smqt, i'm not going to invest anymore time into a TUAW comment, but feel free to research it yourself. i am sure you'll be able to find all kinds of info as it is well-recognized principle.
Reply
Charles said 11:20PM on 6-16-2007
Joel is totally wrong. All Mac screen fonts make extensive use of "Hints & Tips" which are subtle tweaks to the onscreen representation to make the font more readable at low rez (i.e. the screen). Mac fonts look better because they are higher quality fonts with H&T from professional typographers. Microsoft OS does not use H&T during screen font rendering.
The reason we have H&T in MacOS X is that Apple decided it wanted to incorporate the screen rendering features that were only available in MacOS 9 through a third party software accessory: Adobe Type Manager. Adobe fonts make extensive use of Hints & Tips, I believe Adobe actually invented the technology.
Reply
Greg Hodge said 11:23PM on 6-16-2007
the article states.."...though predictably Mac users prefer the Apple way and Windows users the prefer the Microsoft way..."
I still support some legacy apps and systems running Mac OS 9.2.2. I absolutely prefer Apple Systems over PC systems, however I have always simply tolerated the fuzzy baggage that OSX brought along with it. When I stare at the OS9 screen every month or so I am constantly reminded how crisp text used to be.
Regarding OSX font smoothing, the choice to buy an Apple system should not be coustrued as a preference for fuzzy text.
Greg
Reply
Gordraf said 11:31PM on 6-16-2007
I find that Apple's font smoothing technology is far easier on my eyes than Microsoft's ClearType; which gives me headaches.
Reply
andrew harrison said 12:08AM on 6-17-2007
here's a screenshot of 8 browsers running in OS X and Windows that shows the slight rendering differences between them.
http://andrew.harrison.org/browsers.png
Top Row: Opera 9.21 Mac, Safari 3 Mac, Firefox 2.0.0.4 Mac, IE7 Win
Bottom Row: Opera 9.21 Win, Safari 3 Win, Firefox 2.0.0.4 Win, IE6 Win
I'm running Uno, so Safari on Mac doesn't look how it's supposed to. Windows browsers were running under VMWare with Unity, and nothing has been photoshopped or edited at all.
Reply
Sam Katz said 12:51AM on 6-17-2007
I prefer Microsoft's way. I also prefer the Mac OS X. I do most of my reading on-screen.
Reply
Jared said 3:33AM on 6-17-2007
Yes, true letter forms should be retained if they were designed for an appropriate purpose, but they weren't (well most weren't; there are some system fonts that were designed with displays in mind). But the third poster fails to realise most fonts out there were created for print, and hence some method is required to make them more workable for on-screen reading
The fact remains that humans do not perceive text in the same way between print and screen. Personally, I do all work on a Mac, because, as the article pointed out, fonts remain true to form, but I find Cleartype Text much easier to read - it is crisper.
Reply
sam said 4:13AM on 6-17-2007
I've been a windows user from the time my Apple IIgs died until about a year ago. I have to say that I've always thought the text in IE looked a bit crap - even when I was a somewhat-devoted Windoze user.
Reply
basscadet said 4:23AM on 6-17-2007
excuse me, but we are talking about the rendering of the following system fonts: Verdana, Georgia, Helvetica, Arial, Times. Maybe even Trebuchet and Courier. Should we fuss so much about the blurring or not of 5-7 fonts (of whom Verdana, Georgia and Trebuchet are designed to be viewed on screen)? These are not the expensive (and beautiful) Emigre, FontFont, Linotype etc fonts that one misses from not viewing in their original form, but simplified serif or non-serif fonts optimised for screen reading. 90% of all sites I see use Verdana because they are so much easier to read, not because they are pretty. And I do prefer sharper fonts when I read them as I think Apple's rendering results in blurred out letters contrasting with other crisp elements. Then again, MS solution is sharp but at the cost of truncating some characters (something I can live with when reading walls of text that have simple layouts).
Reply
Harry said 4:23AM on 6-17-2007
I much prefer the overall look of the type on OSX; Windows text handling just looks cludgy and ugly in comparison. But in marginal cases, like small, low contrast type, OSX text can start to look so blurry that it's difficult to read. It's all swings and roundabouts.
Reply
d said 6:04AM on 6-17-2007
all i will say on the topic is: 1. I've always hated windows type handling, especially the way it falls apart as you scale it. 2 If Apple ever go the windows way I will douse all my apple products in petrol, set them on fire and send the remains to Cupertino. (2.5 year mac user)
Reply
Dan said 6:18AM on 6-17-2007
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.
Reply
basscadet said 7:17AM on 6-17-2007
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.
Reply
smqt said 7:48AM on 6-17-2007
Could you cite your statements about the way humans read text?
Reply
smqt said 8:10AM on 6-17-2007
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 :)
Reply