Why is Linux font rendering so fucking ugly compared to Windows?

>>57088902
i believe you can change it. i have no idea how to do it, tho.

because you can't bother to configure it, apparently.

But it's windows that has the ugly font rendering, OP.

>>57088969
It's a matter of taste, really. I personally likee both fonts.

>>57088969
Then why is top the one that is cleaner and easier to read?

File: Screenshot from 2016-10-15 22-21-50.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>57088902
Why is Windows font rendering so fucking ugly compared to Linux?

File: anime.png (29KB, 486x270px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 486x270px

>>57088951
You can configure it with hinting. Xfce have comfy tools for it. Looks awesome. pic related.

>>57089071
xfce and mate are the best DE IMO.

>>57089013
What font is that?

I personally don't like ClearType and I like to see crisp and bright pixels.
Too bad Segoe UI and other modern fonts render like shit whitout ClearType.

File: no_cleartype.png (50KB, 610x707px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 610x707px

>>57089235
Oh fug I lost a picture

>>57088902
you'll love font rendering once you turn HWA on in firefox :^)

File: Selection_018.png (1MB, 1916x1071px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1916x1071px

>>57088902
You got it all wrong. Xfce is shit out of the box.

>>57088902
>compares 2 rendering engines.
>does not use the same fonts
# apt-get install ttf-mscorefonts-installer
-or-
# pacman -S ttf-ms-fonts

File: Screenshot from 2016-10-15 22-49-21.png (208KB, 1789x829px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1789x829px

>>57089147

>>57088902
This is literally the only reason I haven't switched to Linux.

>>57089428
?

>>57088902
Linux font rendering is better than Windows font rendering if you use a good DE, like Mate, and a good font, like Droid Sans. Surprise!

>>57089428
>I want shittier font rendering, so I stay on Windoze

you get what you pay for

Tbh I love Clear Type. Also I hate apple and Linux default blurry abominations that are supposed to be 'more beautiful' or some shit
Maximum clarity always wins

>>57089501
>maximum clarity
Use bitmapped fonts if you want clarity or get an XHDPI display and don't use hinting.

>>57088992
Cleartype and a fuckton of improvement over the years? That's probably where all the Vista R&D went, hence all the bugs.

File: 1475963733661.jpg (13KB, 720x415px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 720x415px

>>57089582
>bitmapped fonts
>clarity

>>57088902
I never really see the difference.

>>57089501
mah nigga

>>57088992
because OP is using a shitty font config...
try configuring windows or osx font rendering, oh wait, you can't... too bad

>arguing which font blurring has the prettiest rainbow edges

>>57089645
>try configuring windows or osx font rendering, oh wait, you can't

No need to as it looks good OOTB.

Font rendering -- one of those things only Linuxtards need to think about because the rest of us don't have to spent hours fixing it.

>>57089645
Actually you can, but why would you even bother? Windows fonts actually looks good out of the box, unlike Linux.

File: 1458387357643.png (72KB, 978x726px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 978x726px

>>57088902
Why is Windows font rendering so fucking ugly compared to Linux?

File: 2016-10-15-16:12:26-scrot.png (495KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1366x768px

>>57089428
If you're serious, the newest version of freetype fixed it up to nigh-apple quality. version 2.7.0. There's probably a PPA for ubuntu if you want an easy switch. I would go with Gnome or KDE versions.
Pic related for the font rendering, on Arch.

>>57089304
It's shit out of the box, but once you take 5 minutes to configure it properly, it's the winner

>>57089687
defaults on linux got fixed.

File: Untitled.png (36KB, 1108x766px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1108x766px

>>57089692
Because you turned off Clear Type, now here's what it actually looks like.

>>57088902
Why is ${SUBJECTIVE_OPINION} ${OBJECTIVE_CLAIM}?

~/.config/fontconfig/fonts.conf

<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM 'fonts.dtd'>
<fontconfig>
 <match target="font">
  <edit mode="assign" name="rgba">
   <const>rgb</const>
  </edit>
 </match>
 <match target="font">
  <edit mode="assign" name="hinting">
   <bool>true</bool>
  </edit>
 </match>
 <match target="font">
  <edit mode="assign" name="hintstyle">
   <const>hintslight</const>
  </edit>
 </match>
 <match target="font">
  <edit mode="assign" name="antialias">
   <bool>true</bool>
  </edit>
 </match>
 <match target="font">
  <edit mode="assign" name="lcdfilter">
   <const>lcddefault</const>
  </edit>
 </match>
</fontconfig>

>>57089716
wx is eyecancer. How the fuck can anyone watch it at night?

File: werks for me.png (756KB, 1887x706px) Image search: [Google]

756KB, 1887x706px

>>57089013
>>57089692
git gud

>it's an "I'd rather spend hours on /g/ arguing why I use Windows rather than spend hours learning about Linux" episode

captcha: loos

File: 2016-10-15-16:16:15-scrot.png (563KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 1366x768px

>>57089699
and now apples to apples

>>57089681
it works fine with nice defaults on all major distros... in addition to that you're free to customize it the way you want

enjoy your pixelated font rendering with bad kerning on Windows

>>57089741
You don't even have to "learn Linux". Ubuntu has better font rendering by default than Windows.

>>57089757
Are you joking? Ubuntu's fonts are hideous.

>>57089755
Nah according to the screenshots I see in this thread, the fonts still look as awful as when I tried that abomination of an OS ten years ago.

Don't really feel like spending time fixing something as basic as font rendering, I work for a living.

>>57089772
I'm talking about font rendering, not the actual Ubuntu font, which aren't even that bad.

I'm used to very good fonts on my Linux box (Debian/Mate/Droid Sans). When I have to use Windows for something, the first thing I notice is the badly-spaced, oddly-shaped, less-legible fonts.

Mate fonts are good out of the box. It takes about 30 seconds to make them even better by switching to Droid Sans in Mate settings.

You seem to be living in the past.

>>57089799
Then don't? Why are you wasting your precious time telling others what you don't like?

>>57089724
You can use just one <match> tag.

<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM 'fonts.dtd'>
<fontconfig>
 <match target="font">
  <edit mode="assign" name="rgba"><const>rgb</const></edit>
  <edit mode="assign" name="hinting"><bool>true</bool></edit>
  <edit mode="assign" name="hintstyle"><const>hintslight</const></edit>
  <edit mode="assign" name="antialias"><bool>true</bool></edit>
  <edit mode="assign" name="lcdfilter"><const>lcddefault</const></edit>
 </match>
</fontconfig>

>>57089862
Whoa, thank you.

>>57089862
or just install the fontconfig-enhanced-defaults package from the AUR
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/fontconfig-enhanced-defaults/

>>57089902
AUR finds a way again.

>>57089902
Which does exactly the same thing as what I posted. Do you really need a package just for 1 file? Not only that but if want to add other rules you would have to make your own fonts.conf anyway.

>>57089946
It also fixes issues with Java applications and patches your gconf settings
https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/?h=fontconfig-enhanced-defaults

>>57089969
Didn't notice that, makes more sense.

>>57089699
This is comfy

??? nobody uses infinality bundle anymore ?

>>57090732
I do. I'm autistic about fonts to the point I don't like single example of "good" rendering in this thread. There's always too much or too little antialiasing for my taste, weird hinting, weird kerning, fucked-up pixel-snapping etc. so the only way to satisfy my autism is infinality with a config I literally spent days crafting.

>>57090732
Defaults look good enough now.

>>57088902
Different web fonts. You can install the microsoft fonts onto your linux system with corefonts.

File: macos-sierra-siri-screenshot.jpg (283KB, 1200x750px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1200x750px

Why is everyone else's font rendering so shit compared to macOS'?

File: FontRendering.png (282KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1366x768px

Unmodified Debian Sid vs Windows 10 from like a week ago:

They're hardly different.

>>57091249
The text looks kind of blurry to me. The text on my Slackware install are nice and crisp.

>>57091261

Its because its on a non-retina device and its a shitty jpeg. I can't find any pictures that look as crisp as the actual thing. Unless a Mac user posts a screenshot here.

>>57089740
SHARE!

>>57091310
My text looks nice and crisp so I don't think it's my display. Probably the picture if you just pulled it off of google. I have heard that those mac displays are supposed to be nice.

>>57091249
>fuckton of antialiasing
>all fonts look 50% thicker than their designers intended
>except for white on black, in which case it's close to 100%
>good rendering

>>57091261

I found some but the good ones exceed the 4MB upload limits.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-16 at 00.22.56.png (3MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1600px

>>57091261
That screenshot has been scaled down. Here's the text rendering on my 2015 MacBook Pro.

>>57091371
It does look pretty good. Can you change the fonts used in the Macs?

>>57091402
Not natively, but there are ways if you hate yourself or are a recovering Linux user. :)

File: Screenshot from 2016-10-15 16-26-50.png (715KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 1366x768px

how do i fix my font? regardless of what font i change it to it looks like this

>>57091412
Doesn't sound worth it. I don't have money for a Mac anyways.

>>57088902
Correction: Why is XFCE font rendering so fucking ugly compared to Windows?

>>57091367
optipng

>>57091423
download the freetype 2.7.0 tarball

>>57091932
That screenshot was taken in KDE though.

>what is infinality

>>57091257
Debian has, like, the worst font rendering in all of Linux! It always drove me fucking nuts.

>>57094582
>Debian has, like, the worst font rendering in all of Linux!
the irony is that Debian ignores patents, so their freetype is capable of decent font rendering. it's just turned off.
bonus points for having MS fonts in their actual repo, which is still widely used in the web like on 4chan.

Has anyone figured out how to get Roboto working properly in Linux? It's a beautiful font, but I've had a lot of issues with it using the wrong font weights.

File: 2016-10-16-00:05:45-scrot.png (5KB, 832x352px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 832x352px

>>57094860
looks like so, will report back

>>57094989
Is this how you're supposed to do it? I'm not very experienced with Linux, I've been using the .zip download from https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Roboto

>>57094860
>Has anyone figured out how to get Roboto working properly in Linux?
install ChromeOS

File: 2016-10-16-00:10:06-scrot.png (206KB, 995x526px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 995x526px

>>57095020
It just points me at a tarball that someone else put together. you can probably find it by name.
Anyway, reporting. I had a harder time telling that it had changed at all than I would like to admit.

>>57095133
you can clearly see its shitty kerning, like between 15 and fi

File: Sun Oct 16 00:45:13 2016.png (187KB, 994x481px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 994x481px

>>57095201
Arial isn't much better desu

>>57089716
>not naming your drives

File: SS_2016-10-15_17.png (387KB, 1184x1024px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1184x1024px

>>57094860
What flavor of Roboto are you trying to get working? I'm on Roboto Condensed, on Windows.

>>57095345
I'd like to have the whole range of Roboto available. Whenever I tried using them, all of the standard Roboto became a heavier weight that looked pretty gross. However, ttf-roboto-fontconfig might be the solution to my problem, haven't tried it yet.

File: Sun Oct 16 00:53:31 2016.png (179KB, 927x529px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 927x529px

>>57095392
condensed is a little much imo.

>>57094989
what's that -fontconfig actually doing?
did they just autogenerate some metadata that freetype would do anyway?

>>57095392
Roboto is clearly designed for hidpi, so that's expected.

>>57095415
Apparently out of the box, Roboto's font weights conflict, so Linux assigns them the wrong places and forces the standard weight to a heavier one, and so on.

File: 2016-10-16-01:11:04-scrot.png (25KB, 466x462px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 466x462px

>>57095471
>>57095415
there's like six different weights here

File: 2016-10-16-01:11:16-scrot.png (28KB, 466x462px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 466x462px

>>57095493

Linux people posting screenshots of 4chan in Tomorrow style

>>57095501
It's late.