Why is windoze font rendering so terrible?

>>62318446
Because it's microshit. Linux nor mac have this issue

File: 1501371009606.gif (88KB, 10000x10000px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 10000x10000px

>>62318446
because their engineers are uneducated troglodytes who don't even know what a font is... let alone what a good font rendering should look like.
and windows users are low IQ idiots who don't know any better.

It litteraly hasn't changed sinces atleast the early 2000s. I cant remember when they introduced cleartype. 98? Me?

>>62318535
Why you have to be med. It's only font rendering.

>>62318583
>only font rendering
you might as well then buy the shitties LCD screen money can buy.

>>62318528
Ubuntu doesn't have it.
Mac absolutely has its own blurry as fuck problem.

That doesn't happen on my 4K monitor maybe you just need to stop being poor OP :^)

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-08 at 3.25.00 PM.png (3MB, 2880x1800px)

3MB, 2880x1800px

>>62318667
Nothing looks blurry to me 

>>62319467
Is that a hackintosh?

>>62319467
hi kevin

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-08 at 3.35.23 PM.png (4MB, 2880x1800px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2880x1800px

>>62319500
Nope

System Information: Model: MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2016, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports) • CPU: Intel Core i5-6267U (4 Threads, 2 Cores) @ 2.90 GHz • Memory: 8.00 GB • Uptime: 4 days • Disk Space: 250.03 GB • Graphics: Intel Iris Graphics 550 • Display Resolution: 2880 x 1800 • OS: macOS High Sierra (Version 10.13, Build 17A360a)

>>62319527
Hi

>>62319554
>2016
>shitty 2 core i5 @2.90ghz
>intel graphics

This is litteraly worse than the laptop i bought for my mom in 2010, and i bet it costs 3 times as much. Why would anyone buy a m*c?

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-02 at 2.08.36 PM.png (2MB, 1532x1580px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1532x1580px

>>62319600
Faster than my quad core i7 hq with Nvidia graphics from 2012, as well as a better OS, wayyyy better battery life, and a stunning screen, as well as a way better keyboard, trackpad, and the touchbar and Touch ID is awesome.Also it's intel iris graphics, which is much better than intel hd. Faster RAM than any machine I've owned or built, and the fastest storage I have ever used (pic related). Also it's wireless connectivity is second to none.

Also
>comparing 2 laptops to each other based only on cpu and gpu
wew lad

File: 1491165103629.png (664KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 1920x1080px

>>62319467
>>62319527

>>62318571
XP

>>62319690
Oh shit you found my old screenshot.

>>62318446
In 1995 it would have used bitmap fonts, so it would look better.

Once again, computing is making problems that never used to exist.

>>62319682
>using laptops at all
I'm bery familiar with all intel graphics. They are complete garbage. The cpu is litteraly something out of a phone.
You do know that just because something says "i7" it doesnt mean its better than all i5s, right? There are a lot of variables at play. Same with "nvidia graphics". What nvidia graphics exactly? You obviously know nothing about computers. >fast memory. Kek.
>fast storage?
Faster than my pcie ssd? Dont think so.
>touch id.
Yeah, enjoy apple having your retina scan and finger prints.
The only good thing about that macbook is the screen, but the apu is too shit to even utilize it for anything other than browsing.

>>62318528
linux has the worst font rendering issues in the history of fonts.

Mac has the best font because it is for designers and Desktop Publishing

>>62319709
we know everything about you, kevin

>>62319787
Sorry, the old quad core i7 was a 4 core 8 thread i7-3630QM @3.4GHz, and my Nvidia GPU was a Quadro K2000M.

>you obviously know nothing about computers
wew lad, nice bait. I used to work at a computer repair store in high school, was president of computer club, and head of tech team, and now I'm at a STEM uni studying cyber security.

Also, my storage is a pice ssd, so mine is likely faster.

>retina scan
lol what? Also Touch ID is amazing.

Your entire reply reads exactly like this
>t.poorfag

>>62318528
>linux doesn't have this issue

lol can't tell if you retards are even trolling at this point

>>62319863
I know.

>>62319862
Fonts are either optimized for screens or for print.

Mac optimizes for print, to cater to designers and publishers yes.
On lower dpi screens those fonts looks like ass, which is why Apple has always pushed for higher dpi screens.

File: 20170907_203844.jpg (2MB, 5312x2988px)

2MB, 5312x2988px

>>62319917
>poorfag.
Ive got tripple 4k monitors, the latest pc hardware and perriferals. Dont make me take another picture

>>62319974
I'm sorry, but all I see is a blurry mess.

>>62319787
>I'm bery familiar with all intel graphics. They are complete garbage.
You clearly aren't.
>The cpu is litteraly something out of a phone.
>Phone
>~30watt TDP
> but the apu is too shit to even utilize it for anything other than browsing.
So you're just a shit gaymur fag, get outta here.

>>62318446
Funny story, xfce has option to use AA with greyscale only.

>>62320035
You do realize sub-pixel rendering doesn't look like colors at normal size..........right?

File: grayscale antialiasing.png (8KB, 490x129px)

8KB, 490x129px

>>62318446
Funny how a CRT monitor from 1995 using grayscale antialiasing looks better than that crap.

>>62320113
It does though. It has a slight visible brownish tint. Its more apparent on low res monitors.

>>62319554
Gee Billy, your mom lets you have FOUR Thunderbolt 3 Ports?

>>62320147
Unless you fucked up the calibration (which is probably true for all people complaining about truetype) it really shouldn't.

It's just shifting 1/3rd of a pixel to the left/right.

>>62320020
Pretty much, yeah. Did you see his mic?

File: 1413703924892.png (88KB, 666x474px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 666x474px

>>62318446
>hurr why does something that's supposed to work on SUB-pixel level look like shit when zoomed in 500%?

>>62320290
It's sadly the absolute state of /g/

>>62320290
Compare windows cleartype to font rendering on a mac or android or w/e and tell me windows looks just as good. The picture in op has no other purpose than to show how cleartype works, its obviously not representative of the state of windows font rendering /op.

>>62319467
It would be really bad if font's looked blurry on that meme resolution, Kevin

>>62320449
Windows looks better. Mac and Android (Mac especially) only look good because of high dpi screens.

>>62320449
I use Linux.
But I genuinely like Windows font rendering best. - wish someone would copy it.

>>62318446
its bad in some areas and fine in others

some browsers make it look like shit like firefox

>>62320133
No it doesn't. It objectively does not. Grayscale anti aliasing is what subpixel rendering replaced.

God why am i replying to such an obvious bait thread

>>62318446
It's decent enough, they just need to add other pixel arrangements to choose from into to the mix.

>>62318446
their subpixel rendering algorithm is shit
the fonts are too heavily hinted
the fonts are too thin

>>62320290
not the point. it still looks shit when zoomed out

Any Windowsfags use Mactype? I've seen some screenshots where it looks pretty good, but mine looks a bit too blurry. Setting advice would be nice. Thanks

>>62322957
>Mactype
Awful malware.

File: adjust cleartype.png (43KB, 628x799px)

43KB, 628x799px

>>62322901
adjust your cleartype then, fag

looks fine here

>>62323024
All of those are awful.

File: 1456369108742.gif (33KB, 300x250px)

33KB, 300x250px

>>62323052
>screenshots from a monitor-specific setting utility, with values for someone else's monitor, looks bad

>>62323172
NONE of the options look good.

>>62318446
because it's using subpixel antialiasing

>>62323236
subpixel antialiasing IS SHIT

>>62323024
or trust me I tried every adjustment I could. only mactype worked, but only in some programs. and then in 2013 I switched to linux for good

there's color fringing on every single one of those in your picture. and they're all hinted the exact same way (too aggressively for my taste)

>>62323247
that's what I was saying, retard

File: uh.png (63KB, 1317x882px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1317x882px

>>62322957
mactype is exclusively meant for japanese fonts, you won't get much out of it otherwise

>>62318446
I hate when fonts have this shit blue/red shift. Why do they do this? Why not use grays instead, so it doesn't look like shit when zoomed in?

>>62318446
I booted into windows after a year of using Linux exclusively. I thought I would go blind. Good thing I didn't use it for over an hour. How can you fuck up something so simple is beyond me.

File: mactype.png (236KB, 1561x878px)

236KB, 1561x878px

>>62323321
that's false

>>62323321
What, like Noto CJK? Which profile do you use?

>>62323458
It's not though, the creator literally stated such.
If you actually noticed on the right, you've squashed the sidebar fonts vertically and unnecessarily made it blurry.
Actually use it on a full japanese page and you'll see the intended use.

>>62323327
>Why do they do this?
see >>62320290

>Why not use grays instead, so it doesn't look like shit when zoomed in?
you're not supposed to zoom in on screenshot images, you retard
if you want bigger text, use a larger font or higher DPI so the sub-pixel AA stays at sub-pixel level

>>62323438
Sounds like user error to me.

>>62323458
that mactype thing looks absolutely horrible with all that vertical blurriness

the cleartype is slightly off for this screen but still not as bad as the macshit

>>62323458
the MacType kerning is atrocious

File: mac type meme.jpg (813KB, 1200x1006px)

813KB, 1200x1006px

>>62323458
Do you have their shitty kerning on, or something?

>>62323521
So, you're saying, windows doesn't just werk? thanks for confirming.

>>62323495
I don't give shit about your vietnamese characters. the rendering on the right is much better, but as far as I can remember there were even better presets available because it's still far from perfect. can't say for sure because I haven't been on windows long enough to have to install it for half a decade

>>62320290
>that perceived image
would be great if it looked like that, but with microsoft's algorithm there's so much color fringing that it really looks more like the zoomed in version

>>62323552
>>62323564
yes, it's not amazing, but I would still take it any day over microsoft's rendering

>>62323568
not my screenshot

Mactype is literally just Freetype. Same shit Linux uses

>>62323248
firstly, font hinting is not a matter of "taste" you homo hipster

secondly, it's not even all the setup screens. the first two only determine the sub-pixel layout and general text thickness

>>62323591
>rendering on the right is much better
just blur the ever loving fuck out of my fonts thanxxx nip

>>62323591
>would be great if it looked like that, but with microsoft's algorithm there's so much color fringing that it really looks more like the zoomed in version
the algorithm is fine, works all proper on my screen. maybe get a better display yourself, or at least calibrate it properly

>>62323568
for future reference, you want to use png when quality actually matters for example in comparisons or if it's basically just text anyways
jpg for absolutely everything else

>>62319467
Fuck you, Kevin, I'm getting really tired of your shit.

>>62319836
If you are going to say obvious nonsense then at least do it in a funny way or fabricate some evidence. Take a windows screenshot with obvious shitty windows fonts and let hilarity ensue when they admit that it looks bad.

>>62323597
>firstly, font hinting is not a matter of "taste" you homo hipster
I know, but I figured that stating the objective truth (that everyone who doesn't run unhinted is either aesthetically retarded or blind) would be too rude

>secondly, it's not even all the setup screens. the first two only determine the sub-pixel layout and general text thickness
might be, I don't remember. what I remember is that none of the settings were acceptable

>>62323623
never seen it look good and I've seen plenty of windows machines because they're common

>>62323327
>I hate when fonts have this shit blue/red shift. Why do they do this?

It's called sub-pixel rendering.
It triples the horizontal resolution.
ie: 1920x1080 becomes 5760x1080.

>Why not use grays instead

That makes it blurry.

They do use some blurring in addition to sub-pixel rendering to make it even less jagged.
But you need less blur if you have higher resolution, and less blur means easier to read.

>>62323702
>take a screenshot of a font render tailored to a specific screen.
>expect it to look identical on a completely different screen.

Really?

>>62323712
font hinting is not about aesthetics you shitstain

>>62318446
>If you blow up sub-pixel rendered text it looks bad
>If you view sub-pixel rendered text calibrated to a different monitor it looks bad
>If you don't properly calibrate sub-pixel rendering it looks bad

Whoa... so this... is the power of... /g/

>>62323822
it's applied aesthetics. everyone would just deform every font to look like https://www.dyslexiefont.com/en/dyslexie-font/ if it weren't so

>>62323712
>the objective truth (that everyone who doesn't run unhinted is either aesthetically retarded or blind)
on high dpi screens, maybe. on 96dpi, you have multiple options that all suck more or less: make everything bold and blurry (mac style), make everything blurry (windows / linux no or light hinting), alter glyph shapes (linux full hinting) - which is the most readable, but pisses off font hipsters.

>>62324053
I'm on 96 dpi. most of the "MOMMY IT'S TOO BLURRY" is due to brain-damaging prolonged exposure to shitty windows rendering

>>62324053
>>62324184
also I don't agree that hinting and deforming glyph shapes makes text more readable. the individual glyphs might be less blurry, but good fonts have the exact shapes designed carefully so that the text is readable

>>62323667
Lmao

File: Screenshot_2017-09-08_21-29-57.png (84KB, 251x420px)

84KB, 251x420px

>>62319467
>>62319527
>shitposting under your real name
kek

>>62324300
>not shitposting under your real name
kek

>>62324347

wtf

>>62324206
>but good fonts have the exact shapes designed carefully so that the text is readable
which works well on 200+ dpi screens and 300+ dpi print, but causes eye bleed on 96 dpi. same reason why you don't use serif fonts (which are more readable by design) when targeting 96 dpi screen.

>>62324357
?

>>62324347
>why is that not green texted. test

>>62324376
>Wait... why is yours green texted? test

File: ??.gif (2MB, 460x259px)

2MB, 460x259px

>>62324376
>>62324393

>>62323921
>muh aesthetics
great, what's next that you're going to shit out? that texture mip-mapping is an abstract art form?

>>62324393
u have computer aids get away from me or you'll steal my ability to green text

>>62324441
>test
>test

I think you're the one with computer aids if you don't have the ability to normal and green text.

>>62324364
welp there must be something wrong with me then because I don't use hinting at 96dpi and I use PT Serif when reading epubs

>>62324437
what did he mean by this?

>>62324347
>failing at greenposting

apex kek

>>62324347
How tall are you

>>62319836
Only if you're not using Ubuntu. Everything looks fine on it.

i literally cannot see the difference between those 2 at all and i have a window and mac that share the same monitor with kvm switch
what the fuck am i suppose to be looking for or is this one of those shitty shit post like the audiophile thread?
what do you call this thread then? visualphile? fuck, you guys are pretty retarded