Apple is surely the leader of ergonomy in IT products.
It isn't however perfect in every aspects of that science.

This article describes pretty well, why I hate Apple font rendering:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html

Regards
Laszlo

In message <hkls3s$417$02$1@news.t-online.com>
     Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> wrote:

> Apple is surely the leader of ergonomy in IT products.
> It isn't however perfect in every aspects of that science.
> 
> This article describes pretty well, why I hate Apple font rendering:
> 
> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html

MS text rendering is primitive. Acorn was producing clear smoothed text on
jittery TV displays via sub-pixel anti-aliasing back in the early eighties.

-- 
Fred

In article <hkls3s$417$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
 Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> wrote:

> Apple is surely the leader of ergonomy in IT products.
> It isn't however perfect in every aspects of that science.
> 
> This article describes pretty well, why I hate Apple font rendering:
> 
> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html

....and why I, and millions of graphics professionals love Apple font 
rendering. It truly is much closer to WYSIWYG then Windows or Linux 
alternatives.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

On 07.02.10 17:24, Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article<hkls3s$417$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>   Laszlo Lebrun<lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Apple is surely the leader of ergonomy in IT products.
>> It isn't however perfect in every aspects of that science.
>>
>> This article describes pretty well, why I hate Apple font rendering:
>>
>> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html
>
> ...and why I, and millions of graphics professionals love Apple font
> rendering. It truly is much closer to WYSIWYG then Windows or Linux
> alternatives.
>
That is a valid argument if you _create_ text for _print_ media.
Although the font rendering is really awfully fat and blurry, Apple 
respects the overall dimensions of your text.

If you mostly _read_ or if you create media intended to be read 
onscreen, you might be better advised to stick to the way your readers 
will get your creation.

Jobs should let the user chose freely their rendering settings.
Linux does, you can set yourself whether you prefer a crisp or a 
print-safe reading.
Safari4 for Windows performs even both: leaves you the choice of the 4 
crappy MAC options plus Windows-rendering and renders with the later 
*much* better than on OSX, while keeping the text WYSIWYG_ with exactly 
the same LF's_ on a long text.

So it's doable, why not do it?

Laszlo

On 07.02.10 17:24, Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article<hkls3s$417$02$1@news.t-online.com>,
>   Laszlo Lebrun<lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Apple is surely the leader of ergonomy in IT products.
>> It isn't however perfect in every aspects of that science.
>>
>> This article describes pretty well, why I hate Apple font rendering:
>>
>> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html
>
> ...and why I, and millions of graphics professionals love Apple font
> rendering. It truly is much closer to WYSIWYG then Windows or Linux
> alternatives.
>
That is a valid argument if you _create_ text for _print_ media.
Although the font rendering is really awfully fat and blurry, Apple 
respects the overall dimensions of your text.

If you mostly _read_ or if you create media intended to be read 
onscreen, you might be better advised to stick to the way your readers 
will get your creation.

Jobs should let the user chose freely their rendering settings.
Linux does, you can set yourself whether you prefer a crisp or a 
print-safe reading.
Even Safari4 for Windows leave you the choice and renders *much* better 
than on OSX.

"Fred Bambrough" <fred@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message 
news:mpro.kxh793000034500ff@ypical.nospam.invalid...
> In message <hkls3s$417$02$1@news.t-online.com>
>     Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>
>> Apple is surely the leader of ergonomy in IT products.
>> It isn't however perfect in every aspects of that science.
>>
>> This article describes pretty well, why I hate Apple font rendering:
>>
>> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000885.html
>
> MS text rendering is primitive. Acorn was producing clear smoothed text on
> jittery TV displays via sub-pixel anti-aliasing back in the early 
> eighties.
>
Ha Ha!
Sub-pixel antialiasing is a technique only valid with digital (lcd, plasma, 
oled) displays, which did not even exist in the dreams of the early eighties 
techies.
On CRT displays, nobody was ever able to target a subpixel, not even being 
speaking about TV sets!

Returning on-topic: Sub-pixel antialising is today standard by Apple and MS 
altogether. The difference is however that Apple does not apply any hinting 
to the single characters, making many of them appear completely blurry, when 
the geometry falls between two pixels.

Regards
Laszlo

On 07/02/10 17:06, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:

> So it's doable, why not do it?

Because the Macintosh experience is not about letting you tweak every 
last possible setting; never has been, never will be.

If Linux or Windows help you do your job better, then fine; use Linux or 
Windows instead.  It's just a tool.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---