Interesting post of Joel’s blog…
Apple and Microsoft have always disagreed in how to display fonts on computer displays. Today, both companies are using sub-pixel rendering to coax sharper-looking fonts out of typical low resolution screens. Where they differ is in philosophy.
- Apple generally believes that the goal of the algorithm should be
to preserve the design of the typeface as much as possible, even at the
cost of a little bit of blurriness.- Microsoft generally believes that the shape of each letter should
be hammered into pixel boundaries to prevent blur and improve
readability, even at the cost of not being true to the typeface.Now that Safari for Windows is available, which goes to great
trouble to use Apple’s rendering algorithms, you can actually compare
the philosophies side-by-side on the very same monitor and see what I
mean. I think you’ll notice the difference. Apple’s fonts are indeed
fuzzy, with blurry edges, but at small font sizes, there seems to be
much more variation between different font families, because their
rendering is truer to what the font would look like if it were printed
at high resolution.(Note: To see the following illustration correctly, you need to have
an LCD monitor with pixels arranged in R,G,B order, like mine.
Otherwise it’s going to look different and wrong.)
The difference originates from Apple’s legacy in desktop publishing
and graphic design. The nice thing about the Apple algorithm is that
you can lay out a page of text for print, and on screen, you get a nice
approximation of the finished product. This is especially significant
when you consider how dark a block of text looks. Microsoft’s mechanism
of hammering fonts into pixels means that they don’t really mind using
thinner lines to eliminate blurry edges, even though this makes the
entire paragraph lighter than it would be in print.The advantage of Microsoft’s method is that it works better for
on-screen reading. Microsoft pragmatically decided that the design of
the typeface is not so holy, and that sharp on-screen text that’s
comfortable to read is more important than the typeface designer’s idea
of how light or dark an entire block of text should feel. Indeed
Microsoft actually designed font faces for on-screen reading, like
Georgia and Verdana, around the pixel boundaries; these are beautiful
on screen but don’t have much character in print.Typically, Apple chose the stylish route, putting art above
practicality, because Steve Jobs has taste, while Microsoft chose the
comfortable route, the measurably pragmatic way of doing things that
completely lacks in panache. To put it another way, if Apple was
Target, Microsoft would be Wal-Mart.Now, on to the question of what people prefer. Jeff Atwood’s post
from yesterday comparing the two font technologies side-by-side
generated rather predictable heat: Apple users liked Apple’s system,
while Windows users liked Microsoft’s system. This is not just standard
fanboyism; it reflects the fact that when you ask people to choose a
style or design that they prefer, unless they are trained, they will
generally choose the one that looks most familiar. In most matters of
taste, when you do preference surveys, you’ll find that most people
don’t really know what to choose, and will opt for the one that seems
most familiar. This goes for anything from silverware (people pick out
the patterns that match the silverware they had growing up) to
typefaces to graphic design: unless people are trained to know what to
look for, they’re going to pick the one that is most familiar.Which is why Apple engineers probably feel like they’re doing a huge
service to the Windows community, bringing their “superior” font
rendering technology to the heathens, and it explains why Windows users
are generally going to think that Safari’s font rendering is blurry and
strange and they don’t know why, they just don’t like it. Actually
they’re thinking… “Whoa! That’s different. I don’t like different.
Why don’t I like these fonts? Oh, when I look closer, they look blurry.
That must be why.“
Font smoothing, anti-aliasing, and sub-pixel rendering – Joel on Software
