<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Font Rendering: Apple vs Microsoft</title>
	<link>http://yamahito.net/blog/2007/06/12/font-rendering-apple-vs-microsoft/</link>
	<description>Tomos Hillman's mind-dump.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 13:06:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: yamahito</title>
		<link>http://yamahito.net/blog/2007/06/12/font-rendering-apple-vs-microsoft/#comment-481</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:52:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://yamahito.net/blog/2007/06/12/font-rendering-apple-vs-microsoft/#comment-481</guid>
					<description>Interesting follow up:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html

Paraphrasing, apple is optimised for print, microsoft for screen; apple is truer to the font, microsoft is easier to read.

I'm still with microsoft on this one: print views should be true to the font, but if something is designed for the screen, surely the most important thing is that it's readable?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting follow up:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html</a></p>
<p>Paraphrasing, apple is optimised for print, microsoft for screen; apple is truer to the font, microsoft is easier to read.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m still with microsoft on this one: print views should be true to the font, but if something is designed for the screen, surely the most important thing is that it&#8217;s readable?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: sadie</title>
		<link>http://yamahito.net/blog/2007/06/12/font-rendering-apple-vs-microsoft/#comment-475</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://yamahito.net/blog/2007/06/12/font-rendering-apple-vs-microsoft/#comment-475</guid>
					<description>The consensus seems to be that the Windows version of Safari ows it existence, at least partly, to people's need to have a testbed for the iPhone, and so its visual settings are made to match. Which doesn't answer the question why the iPhone would have soft, blocky rendering like that, or why they haven't made the thing programmable...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The consensus seems to be that the Windows version of Safari ows it existence, at least partly, to people&#8217;s need to have a testbed for the iPhone, and so its visual settings are made to match. Which doesn&#8217;t answer the question why the iPhone would have soft, blocky rendering like that, or why they haven&#8217;t made the thing programmable&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: yamahito</title>
		<link>http://yamahito.net/blog/2007/06/12/font-rendering-apple-vs-microsoft/#comment-473</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:43:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://yamahito.net/blog/2007/06/12/font-rendering-apple-vs-microsoft/#comment-473</guid>
					<description>Having downloaded a copy, I've found the three settings you're talking about.  Probably won't get time to compare the different options until I get home, though.

I think mac users still have more rights to complain about badly ported software than the other way around ;)

I wonder if the problem is related to the traditionally different white points of mac and windows screens?

Coding horror seems to be slashdotted: I'll try to find a little shot for comparison.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having downloaded a copy, I&#8217;ve found the three settings you&#8217;re talking about.  Probably won&#8217;t get time to compare the different options until I get home, though.</p>
<p>I think mac users still have more rights to complain about badly ported software than the other way around <img src='http://yamahito.net/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>I wonder if the problem is related to the traditionally different white points of mac and windows screens?</p>
<p>Coding horror seems to be slashdotted: I&#8217;ll try to find a little shot for comparison.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: SilentBob</title>
		<link>http://yamahito.net/blog/2007/06/12/font-rendering-apple-vs-microsoft/#comment-472</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:43:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://yamahito.net/blog/2007/06/12/font-rendering-apple-vs-microsoft/#comment-472</guid>
					<description>There's meant to be an option in Safari that lets you adjust (between 3 settings?) how text is displayed. Why it doesn't use the built in ClearType settings, I'm not entirely sure. Possibly because Windows versions of Mac programs tend to be rather poorly ported across.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s meant to be an option in Safari that lets you adjust (between 3 settings?) how text is displayed. Why it doesn&#8217;t use the built in ClearType settings, I&#8217;m not entirely sure. Possibly because Windows versions of Mac programs tend to be rather poorly ported across.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: yamahito</title>
		<link>http://yamahito.net/blog/2007/06/12/font-rendering-apple-vs-microsoft/#comment-471</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://yamahito.net/blog/2007/06/12/font-rendering-apple-vs-microsoft/#comment-471</guid>
					<description>Font smoothing can be adjusted (slightly) from System Preferences on the apple.  I'd imagine safari on the mac takes the relevant settings from there.

I wonder if safari on windows is using a default or a fall-back font smoothing setting?  I should really get off my ass and download a copy and see if there's something extra in the options.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Font smoothing can be adjusted (slightly) from System Preferences on the apple.  I&#8217;d imagine safari on the mac takes the relevant settings from there.</p>
<p>I wonder if safari on windows is using a default or a fall-back font smoothing setting?  I should really get off my ass and download a copy and see if there&#8217;s something extra in the options.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: SilentBob</title>
		<link>http://yamahito.net/blog/2007/06/12/font-rendering-apple-vs-microsoft/#comment-467</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:09:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://yamahito.net/blog/2007/06/12/font-rendering-apple-vs-microsoft/#comment-467</guid>
					<description>It doesn't have to be, it's just down to their implementation. You can fiddle with it on Windows too with the ClearType Tuner PowerToy for XP:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/7/0/b7019730-0fa3-47a9-a159-98b80c185aad/setup.exe

It took me a long time to get used to ClearType after loving crisp fonts for so long, but now I'm really used to it and wouldn't want to go back.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It doesn&#8217;t have to be, it&#8217;s just down to their implementation. You can fiddle with it on Windows too with the ClearType Tuner PowerToy for XP:</p>
<p><a href="http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/7/0/b7019730-0fa3-47a9-a159-98b80c185aad/setup.exe" rel="nofollow">http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/7/0/b7019730-0fa3-47a9-a159-98b80c185aad/setup.exe</a></p>
<p>It took me a long time to get used to ClearType after loving crisp fonts for so long, but now I&#8217;m really used to it and wouldn&#8217;t want to go back.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

