Why can't windows have nice fonts?

IIRC, they did a lot of research years ago and concluded most users prefer fonts to be more legible than to look smoother.

They chose practicality over aesthetics.

>>62342516
But smoother fonts improve legibility...

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

63KB, 1317x882px

just zoom in :)

>>62342719
Yup.
Windows rendering only looks bad if you're a farsighted jackass who only uses 8pt and 10pt bitmap fonts.

File: wew.png (30KB, 718x338px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 718x338px

>>62342775

File: me.jpg (6KB, 718x338px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 718x338px

>>62342802
reporting in from Arch Linux

it's how and where they do font processing in the critical system services and kernel

Comic sans

/thread

>>62342775
>Windows rendering only looks bad if you're a farsighted jackass who only uses 8pt and 10pt bitmap fonts.
Those fonts look like shit on Linux too. XP did those pretty gr8 tho.

>>62342486
>windows
problem is in their kernel

Just load up Roboto, get a high res monitor and turn off font smoothing.

>>62342486
Buy a high DPI monitor, they look amazing.

>Commodore PET > MacOS > Windows > Linux > Anything else
>[In terms of font rendering.]

File: gulim-regular_characters_876073.gif (16KB, 815x298px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 815x298px

>>62342486

Based Gulim or nothing at all

File: Untitled.png (124KB, 1092x613px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1092x613px

My Windows fonts look pretty good to me...

File: 2017-09-10-050658_1599x855_scrot.png (115KB, 1599x855px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1599x855px

Linux fonts have finally become perfect, especially after infinality died.

>>62342486
They look fine at higher resolutions. It's only 1080p and below where Windows font rendering looks like shit.

>>62346302
Luke?

>>62344790
>Buy a high DPI monitor, they look amazing.
yeah but only if you're on windows 10 or only have one monitor as the multi-monitor scaling options in windows 7/8.1 suck dick to the point that linux is ahead in this area for once

>>62346355
>linux is ahead
Ahead of 8 years old os? Sure thing.

File: Q33NY.png (32KB, 924x620px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 924x620px

>>62342486
Windows has Wingdings

>>62346355
Nobody scales multi monitors, they work as separate monitors. Unrelated to font rendering.

Also I agree, Linux is ahead of Windows 7.

t. LTSB 2015 fag

>dont set up your monitors correctly
>hurrr windows font rendering sucks D:

>>62342832
i kekd a bit.

>>62342486
Why does windows blur it's fonts so heavily while Linux just works? Is Microsoft trying to make people blind? Are they in a partnership with eyeglasses manufacturers?
I literally couldn't even look at my screen and had to set it to a lower resolution. Windows is garbage.

>>62346620
why are you talking out of your ass?
windows Fonts aren't blurry. Macos is way worse in that regard.

>>62342775
Wouldn't bitmap fonts look the same on any OS?

you can adjust the rendering . its called cleartype

>>62346686
Most people here have sharpen to 100 on their monitors.

File: 1493982308735.png (111KB, 933x768px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 933x768px

>>62342486
looks good to me

>>62346460
>Nobody scales multi monitors, they work as separate monitors. Unrelated to font rendering.
windows 7/8.1 doesn't treat them as separate monitors though, scaling options are global unlike windows 10 as far as I know, but I haven't installed windows 10 to verify that

>>62346446
>Ahead of 8 years old os? Sure thing.
>>62346460
>Also I agree, Linux is ahead of Windows 7.
even windows fags are pretending like 8.1 never happened
but point taken, windows 7 is ancient but linux has had better scaling than either windows 7 or 8.1 for 6 years now, maybe even up to 7-8 years, certainly longer than the 5 years since 8.1's release

>>62346645
They are on my screen.

>>62346740
mine was on 40. i set it to 100 wtf is this shit. words look like rgb instead of black now

>>62345187
How did you get your quick reply window to look like that?