/font rendering/ general

Firefox font rendering depends on your system's font rendering

>>56963429
but chromium didn't have this problem

>>56963438
That's because Chromium has its own
Which is blurry as fuck by the way

>>56963438
>use system/user defined font rendering scheme
>this problem
chrom* blurry half-assed font rendering is better? even the "window controls" are all custom
image if every application used its own fixed "skin", or do you just let jewggle cuck you?

File: render.png (29KB, 857x247px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 857x247px

Fix your system font rendering dude

>>56963497
which OS do you use?

>>56963511
GNU Linux.

>>56963516
and which DE?

>>56963419
Szia zsolt
If someone can make a tutorial of how to install infinality and use the osx settings i would literally pay a few dollars worth of btc for it

File: ff on xp.png (23KB, 818x657px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 818x657px

>>56963487
forgot pic

>>56963531
No DE, I haven't really used one for an extended period of time before but I dunno why that would affect your font rendering unless they come bundled with patched libs too now days. I use Debian/infinality/croscore fonts, though it looked pretty fine without infinality too.

Jesus fucking christ you guys are autistic as fuck. Worrying about font rendering? Seriously? Kill yourselves.

>>56963593
found the microsoft user lel

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-07 at 12.30.59.png (154KB, 886x636px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 886x636px

Feeling pretty /comfy/

File: Untitled.png (68KB, 1131x688px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1131x688px

I can turn off font smoothing and blame my browser for it too.

Nice try Google shill.

File: 2016-10-07 13_34_01-.jpg (535KB, 3840x2080px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 3840x2080px

Windows 10 Firefox Standard

>>56963654
How do I know that's a Chromium based browser?
>vomit_chan_bloody.jpg

>>56963706
>friendly fire

>>56963697
But it's Firefox on MacOS

>>56963681
>he uploads a jpg screenshot in a font rendering thread
>he doesn't know how jpg works
leave this board you tech illiterate

>>56963544
>not using Classic

for what reason?

File: fuck.png (135KB, 1125x595px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1125x595px

>Firefox on XP
>with ClearType enabled

How do I fix this crap? Text on certain sites are nigh unreadable.

>>56963593
Look at my screenshot and tell me the light grey text looks good.

>>56963487
This. Fuck Chrome. Fuck Chromium. Fuck Electron foremost. I fucking hate all these hipster fucks pushing web technologies as viable platform for desktop programs only to rape my eyes with disgusting font rendering. Fuck off back to California you retarded scum.

>>56963801
KEK
furrytard btfo

>>56963810

Spotted the autist.
There is no visible difference between a jpg and a png. There is a technical one, yes, but if you think you can actually see a difference, you are kidding yourself.

>>56963801
heh, no, tis' not, m'lady

>>56963917
>everybody has shitty eyes like I do

Not even that guy, but with simple colours (read, not photos) PNG does so much better it's not ever funny.

File: 1452488450467.jpg (25KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x600px

>>56963917
kek, kill yourself

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-07 at 13.11.40.png (180KB, 1392x885px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1392x885px

>>56963933
No it's Firefox, this is Chrome on MacOS

File: Capture.png (149KB, 1157x556px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1157x556px

>>56963836
I'd blame the "designers" for that. Grey on off-white is great for .. what is it good for? Pic related for reference why the design is poor, as it is still a terror to read with the most common OS+browser combo (Win 14393.222 with Chrome 55.0.2881.5). See how much easier it is to read "Florian Seiche" to the right, regardless of font rendering. Now compare that to the word "Subject" in the body, right after the lead. Nokia had some nice design even a couple of years ago. Can they not afford better than their 'artistic' young cousin?

For you aspiring designers out there: black on white is the most contrast you can get. Make the website pretty in any other way, but keep the content as content. Flourish it up with better style. It's better to hire an editor for text than to mess it up. It's like throwing glitter on a car's front window because you think it makes it look more pretty, while reducing the ability to drive the car.

File: hmdick ff xp.png (61KB, 975x606px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 975x606px

>>56963836
?

>>56963917
It's easy to spot the difference. Look for the 8x8 DCT blocks, and the mosquito noise around edges.

>>56963681
Zoomed in to 100% the mosquito noise around the text is very visible.

>>56963965
Nice try, thank you for playing.

>>56963917
Please stop embarassing yourself.

>>56963917
>browses /v/
>doesn't know shit about technology

Why am I not surprised?

File: firefox_2016-10-07_17-26-15.png (43KB, 1427x311px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1427x311px

guess OS+browser

File: blah.png (64KB, 419x558px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 419x558px

>>56963419
>keeping font smoothing enabled at all
I don't get this meme.

File: Typical JPEG.jpg (4KB, 400x412px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 400x412px

>>56963917

File: 1463438365158.png (98KB, 1017x632px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1017x632px

I'm using the same setup on two different systems and my fonts look worse on this one. I believe it is due to the font size.

File: Screenshot_7.png (25KB, 866x304px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 866x304px

>>56963497
looks like hot garbage

File: tlgrfont.png (1KB, 262x28px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 262x28px

>>56966438
My nigga
But I don't know what to do with this.

>>56968998
that's just slightly more grey and the smaller text is a bit harder to read

>>56963537
We only accept rupees. Thank you.

>>56963965
>using chrome on a mac

what's wrong with you?