Why can ONLY OSX do font rendering right?

Ubuntu has the same rendering right?

>>55320504
Because Steve Jobs really cared about typography and Macs are heavily used in the design industry.

>>55320574
>Ubuntu

>>55320574
freetype

Can someone tell me why don't rendering is important?

>>55320574
Ubuntu has better font rendering overall.
http://arunoda.me/blog/font-rendering-mac-vs-ubunut.html

With 'retina' DPIs Windows/Linux/Android aren't noticeably worse. But the difference was night and day back when resolutions were low.

>>55320777
if you spend all day shitposting you see a lot of text. it's easier on your eyes if the text is easily legible

>>55320504
everything just looks bold there, thats not 'good' font rendering

>post screenshot with a very high resolution/huge fonts
>hurr good font rendering
Winows' font rendering would look good to on a 4k screen

Stop making these dumb threads

>>55320848
They are noticeably worse in that all font rendering that isn't OSX looks like shit

>>55320504
>Ryan
What's your real name?

File: Untitled-1.png (473KB, 1918x1112px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 1918x1112px

>Only OSX can do good font rendering

Nice Me.me

>>55320988
It's a picture OP grabbed off of Google because he's too poor to own good hardware.

File: Screen Shot 2016-06-30 at 01.44.22.png (247KB, 1560x1478px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1560x1478px

>>55320898
Indeed, on retina Macs you absolutely should have 'LCD font smoothing' turned off both because it gets rid of the everything-is-bold bug, and because sub-pixel-antialiasing breaks with scaling. It just isn't needed anymore.

>>55320798
>4 year old article

>>55320988
Aryan

>>55320988
Bryan.

>>55320777
Font rendering being important is like screen resolution being important. You may think its not a big deal at all, until you get use to good font rendering/high resolution/whatever. Then you really notice how shitty everything else looks

>>55321006
My god those fonts look fucking horrible.

>>55320504
Because np one cares enough besides sperglords

>>55321006
blurry mess

>>55320777
people spend 99% of the time looking at text in front of their monitors you know

>>55321006
You can't seriously think this trash looks good?

>>55321006
You proved OPs point here. I'd almost forgotten how terrible Windows font rendering is. At least install 'MacType' or whatever it's called now.

>>55320970
>>55320970
>>post screenshot with a very high resolution/huge fonts
What would you want it on, a 800x600 screen?

>>55321006
I'm actually laughing because I think you genuinely thought this looked good

>>55321081
Is that supposed to look particularly amazing?

>>55321072
That would actually be better since the pixel density would be different. Pretty much every OS's font rendering looks good on a high DPI screen.

>>55321006
>he needs to zoom to hide his trash font rendering
nice one sandeep

File: no thank you.jpg (61KB, 380x380px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 380x380px

>>55321081
>that chinese
>that arabic

File: Untitled-2.png (169KB, 932x644px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 932x644px

>>55321036
>>55321045
>>55321061
On the 96 dpi screen you're on it will look bad, yes, thankfully I'm using a 185 dpi screen.

>>55321114
>zooming

Please.

>>55321145
Windows fonts are so fucking ugly

No taste

File: Milk Police.jpg (155KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 720x960px

>>55320798
>/blog/
>Citing a blog

>>55321111
not really just contributing friendo

>>55321145
>he actually, legitimaly, unironically thinks this looks good

>>55320898
Makes me sad that some people are so used to how Windows rapes fonts with its excessive hinting that they think that actual font rendering looks too bold.

File: Kerning the Pillow.png (250KB, 363x352px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 363x352px

>>55321168
>It's not Helvetica so its bad

not gonna lie back in the days of lion Mac font rendering was way ahead of anything else

But since Yosemite it looks like shit on non retina displays now because they fucked up the font size and contrast.
9pt proportional fonts might look good at 2880x1800 but it looks like a blurry mess on 1280x800

File: kerning cheeky.png (10KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 400x400px

>>55321199
Apple hasn't been using helvetica for years, friendo

>>55320848
OS X blows windows out of the water with lower pixel densities, but the gap is closer at higher pixel densities. it's still not that close, and windows definitely doesn't close the gap.

it's shocking when people talk like windows resolution scaling is on par or even in the same ballpark as os x. like i understand if you're a zealot who starts spasming when you walk into an apple store, but get yourself in front of a rMBP or something. just for like 10 minutes.

>>55321145
>that awful kerning
please stop embarrassing yourself

>>55321251
San Francisco is almost just a modified form of Helvetica.

>>55321318
Yes and 2 dimensional space is almost just 3 dimensional space

>>55321318
If you start like that, then you might just as well say that any neutral looking sans serif type looks the same. And if you reached that point of ignorance, then you might just as well not discuss font rendering at all.

If Ubuntu already has good font rendering. Is there a point in using infinality?

File: Screen Shot 2016-06-29 at 20.17.56.png (47KB, 628x584px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 628x584px

5k is gr8

>>55320798
>ubunut

>>55320777
It doesn't seem important until it's not done right.

>>55320504
Why can only macfags not poo in loo?

>>55320898
>>55321013
It's not "bold", it's how medium font weight looks at high-DPI. Turning off LCD font smoothing will actually make some text appear thicker.