Disable where? To disable anti-aliasing for text below a certain size, go to System Preferences: General, and at the bottom are a couple of choices for how to anti-alias and at what minimum size to stop anti-alising. If that doesn't give you enough flexibility, you can download Tinkertool from either www.versiontracker.com or www.macupdate.com .
Warning: OS X renders fonts expecting that they be anti-aliased, so when they're not, the spacing/kerning can be sloppy.
Disable where? To disable anti-aliasing for text below a certain size, go to System Preferences: General, and at the bottom are a couple of choices for how to anti-alias and at what minimum size to stop anti-alising. If that doesn't give you enough flexibility, you can download Tinkertool from either www.versiontracker.com or www.macupdate.com .
Warning: OS X renders fonts expecting that they be anti-aliased, so when they're not, the spacing/kerning can be sloppy.
thank you. i had already tried the system prefs. option as you suggested. this does not work for global settings. tinkertool does not offer global disabling of anti-aliasing beyond 10.1.x.
i've come across some scripts on other fora that claim to do the trick. working with these involves the terminal and i'm no programmer.
i take your point re: spacing/kerning. it seems the rock/hard place choice is either accept sloppy font display or have a high quality lcd screen that emulates a blurry crt display. for me, this practically renders OSX unusable. thanx apple.
i take your point re: spacing/kerning. it seems the rock/hard place choice is either accept sloppy font display or have a high quality lcd screen that emulates a blurry crt display. for me, this practically renders OSX unusable. thanx apple.
did you make sure to adjust your lcd color settings, the way apple ships the profiles for their lcd's are washed out and text is blurry, if you adjust the settings it will look great, I have an LCD IMac (17") and I remember people complaining about blurry text, until they went in and adjusted their properties for the display and it looks great
thanks everybody. i've taken on board all of your suggestions and had a play with all the settings that apple makes available to users. none of which makes an iota of difference.
according to my - admittedly non-expert - sources, having to put up with poor quality display of fonts in mac osx is the price users have to pay to accomodate the allegedly superior quality of the quartz rendering engine. (this logic doesn't make sense to me either.)
so, it's back to os9 and high contrast, sharply rendered - if a little blocky - fonts and other objects for me, at least until apple sorts this one out.
meanwhile, any further information on this question will - as always - be greatly appreciated.
thanks everybody. i've taken on board all of your suggestions and had a play with all the settings that apple makes available to users. none of which makes an iota of difference.
according to my - admittedly non-expert - sources, having to put up with poor quality display of fonts in mac osx is the price users have to pay to accomodate the allegedly superior quality of the quartz rendering engine. (this logic doesn't make sense to me either.)
so, it's back to os9 and high contrast, sharply rendered - if a little blocky - fonts and other objects for me, at least until apple sorts this one out.
meanwhile, any further information on this question will - as always - be greatly appreciated.
I have trouble understanding your complaints about the OSX anti-aliasing. If anything OSX's display of fonts is far superior to OS 9. And bitmap fonts are really just a product of poor screen resolution in the firstplace.
I have trouble understanding your complaints about the OSX anti-aliasing. If anything OSX's display of fonts is far superior to OS 9. And bitmap fonts are really just a product of poor screen resolution in the firstplace.
technically speaking, your assertion may be correct. i am speaking of the way anti-aliased text looks on screen when in osx, ie: "fatter', lower contrast, "blurred", unsharp etc etc . . . these effects can also be seen in many in application programme.
in os9 by contrast, text display is sharper and higher contrast, much easier on the eye.
i don't understand your comment about bitmap fonts. the differences in terms of text display between os9 and osx that i have attempted to describe exhibit themselves on the same (LCD) screen running @ the same resolution.
why does an os so allegedly smart as osx not simply allow the user the choice of whether to have anti-aliasing enabled or disabled?
I'm assuming you do have an LCD screen. What resolution is it on? For example, I have an iMac G4 15", and its native resolution is 1024x768, so that's what I leave it on. 800x600 is blurry, and not just text is blurry.
Change the resolution to the native resolution, if need be. m.
technically speaking, your assertion may be correct. i am speaking of the way anti-aliased text looks on screen when in osx, ie: "fatter', lower contrast, "blurred", unsharp etc etc . . . these effects can also be seen in many in application programme.
in os9 by contrast, text display is sharper and higher contrast, much easier on the eye.
i don't understand your comment about bitmap fonts. the differences in terms of text display between os9 and osx that i have attempted to describe exhibit themselves on the same (LCD) screen running @ the same resolution.
why does an os so allegedly smart as osx not simply allow the user the choice of whether to have anti-aliasing enabled or disabled?
While it might be correct that anti-aliased text is sometimes better on the eye, the opposite is also sometimes the case.
It really boils down to screen quality, as the poorer the screen (and the resolution) gets, the better bitmap fonts will work. Seeing how screen technology is improving rapidly, it seems clear that Apple is looking for forward compability with newer and higher resolution displays.
At a point in time screens will be of so good quality that the notion of bitmap fonts will seem strange. (exept as a design-statement).
But your point is valid, since we are not there yet.
That being said, having used OSX with both LCD and CRT displays, I STILL have a hard time accepting what you are saying. Have you tested OSX on different screens?
LCD screens have been known to be blurry if not set up correct. maybe this is the case?
The first osx version of Word did not support anti-aliasing, the upgrade did, and for me is far more usable. Same thing with explorer. Especially when it comes to italic text.
OSX fonts look way better than OS 9 fonts on the 1024x768 LCD of my PowerBook.
Keep in mind that if you are not using an LCD's native resolution, fonts will always be blurred, even in OS 9. If that is the case, use the display's native (usually max) resolution.
While it might be correct that anti-aliased text is sometimes better on the eye, the opposite is also sometimes the case.
It really boils down to screen quality, as the poorer the screen (and the resolution) gets, the better bitmap fonts will work. Seeing how screen technology is improving rapidly, it seems clear that Apple is looking for forward compability with newer and higher resolution displays.
At a point in time screens will be of so good quality that the notion of bitmap fonts will seem strange. (exept as a design-statement).
But your point is valid, since we are not there yet.
That being said, having used OSX with both LCD and CRT displays, I STILL have a hard time accepting what you are saying. Have you tested OSX on different screens?
LCD screens have been known to be blurry if not set up correct. maybe this is the case?
The first osx version of Word did not support anti-aliasing, the upgrade did, and for me is far more usable. Same thing with explorer. Especially when it comes to italic text.
before conceeding that each of us simply see things differently and there's nothing to be done, let me say that:
i'm using a high quality lcd screen as fitted to G4 powerbook
it is running it at apple's recommended settings for resolution, colour and font smoothing
the identical text displayed at apple's recommended settings in osx appears unsharp "blurred" and low contrast whereas in os9 it appears sharp and high contrast
i do not understand why this is so
if no one agrees there's a question here, we'll never get an answer
The problem here seems to be that some of us assume that your objections must be related on some error in your hardware. Since we do not agree that OS9 is better at displaying fonts.
However, If you are sure your hardware is good, then it is probably just a matter of taste, and we can just agree to disagree.
The aliasing preference discrepancy can sometimes be explained by font selection.
Some fonts look horrible at a particular size with anti-aliasing. Some look horrible at a particular size without anti-aliasing. This is especially true when dealing with small fonts.
IMHO, LCDs and sub-pixel addressing nearly triples horizontal resolution. If used according to user preferences, it should theoretically provide the most pleasing results. However, the current implementations could still use improvements in order to satisfy the greatest number of users.
Also, anti-aliased text is a complicated subject when considering such factors such as foreground and background colors with respect to the number of effectively addressable sub pixels.
Given the rather non-uniform ratio of Cone types in the average human eye, no sub-pixel rendering scheme will ever be perceived the same by all users. This is a common culprit for the displeasure with sub-pixel rendering. There are some shareware calibration tools that can counteract deviance from normal color perception. These, when used for each user and screen combination can have quite astounding effects.
Perhaps apple should release calibrated profiles for common types of color blindness. Did you know the genders perceive colors differently as do different races? While europeans have a high rate of RG color blindness in men, the chinese typically have different issues...
Color, and thus sub-pixel based anti-aliasing, are VERY complicated subjects. \ 8)
i don't understand your comment about bitmap fonts. the differences in terms of text display between os9 and osx that i have attempted to describe exhibit themselves on the same (LCD) screen running @ the same resolution.
Basically, OS 9 cheats. The difference is not that OS X renders fonts antialiased while OS 9 doesn't; the difference is that OS X renders fonts at all. OS 9 gets those nice, clear letters from hand-tooled bitmaps, not from attempting to render the actual font on screen. The tradeoff is that if a font definition didn't include those bitmaps, OS 9 either did a horrible job displaying it (as OS X does, if it can't use anti-aliasing) or failed to display it at all.
Unfortunately, if you force a rendered font to use whole pixels (i.e., if you ask it to display aliased) then it has to make all kinds of coarse approximations that distort the letters and ruin the kerning. So, to restore as much WYSIWYG as current (dismal) screen resolutions allow, OS X antialiases fonts. That's what allows it to render them in the first place. The benefit are true WYSIWYG, and the ability to display any font on screen that can be printed to a printer, etc.
You get used to it after a while. At least, I did.
The problem here seems to be that some of us assume that your objections must be related on some error in your hardware. Since we do not agree that OS9 is better at displaying fonts.
However, If you are sure your hardware is good, then it is probably just a matter of taste, and we can just agree to disagree.
the hardware is good. i cannot understand how so many good folks can look at, say, some black text on white ground - that in os9 appears crisp/well defined/high contrast - and then look at the same text - that in osx appears grey/ill-defined/blurry - and report that the latter is better at displaying fonts! please enlighten me.
Basically, OS 9 cheats. The difference is not that OS X renders fonts antialiased while OS 9 doesn't; the difference is that OS X renders fonts at all. OS 9 gets those nice, clear letters from hand-tooled bitmaps, not from attempting to render the actual font on screen. The tradeoff is that if a font definition didn't include those bitmaps, OS 9 either did a horrible job displaying it (as OS X does, if it can't use anti-aliasing) or failed to display it at all.
Unfortunately, if you force a rendered font to use whole pixels (i.e., if you ask it to display aliased) then it has to make all kinds of coarse approximations that distort the letters and ruin the kerning. So, to restore as much WYSIWYG as current (dismal) screen resolutions allow, OS X antialiases fonts. That's what allows it to render them in the first place. The benefit are true WYSIWYG, and the ability to display any font on screen that can be printed to a printer, etc.
You get used to it after a while. At least, I did.
all that makes some kind of sense, apart from your closing comment.
Comments
Warning: OS X renders fonts expecting that they be anti-aliased, so when they're not, the spacing/kerning can be sloppy.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Disable where? To disable anti-aliasing for text below a certain size, go to System Preferences: General, and at the bottom are a couple of choices for how to anti-alias and at what minimum size to stop anti-alising. If that doesn't give you enough flexibility, you can download Tinkertool from either www.versiontracker.com or www.macupdate.com .
Warning: OS X renders fonts expecting that they be anti-aliased, so when they're not, the spacing/kerning can be sloppy.
thank you. i had already tried the system prefs. option as you suggested. this does not work for global settings. tinkertool does not offer global disabling of anti-aliasing beyond 10.1.x.
i've come across some scripts on other fora that claim to do the trick. working with these involves the terminal and i'm no programmer.
i take your point re: spacing/kerning. it seems the rock/hard place choice is either accept sloppy font display or have a high quality lcd screen that emulates a blurry crt display. for me, this practically renders OSX unusable. thanx apple.
Originally posted by ichroma
i take your point re: spacing/kerning. it seems the rock/hard place choice is either accept sloppy font display or have a high quality lcd screen that emulates a blurry crt display. for me, this practically renders OSX unusable. thanx apple.
did you make sure to adjust your lcd color settings, the way apple ships the profiles for their lcd's are washed out and text is blurry, if you adjust the settings it will look great, I have an LCD IMac (17") and I remember people complaining about blurry text, until they went in and adjusted their properties for the display and it looks great
Originally posted by Scott
The "X" stands for ten. It's not an alias.
too cryptic for me. please explain.
thanks everybody. i've taken on board all of your suggestions and had a play with all the settings that apple makes available to users. none of which makes an iota of difference.
according to my - admittedly non-expert - sources, having to put up with poor quality display of fonts in mac osx is the price users have to pay to accomodate the allegedly superior quality of the quartz rendering engine. (this logic doesn't make sense to me either.)
so, it's back to os9 and high contrast, sharply rendered - if a little blocky - fonts and other objects for me, at least until apple sorts this one out.
meanwhile, any further information on this question will - as always - be greatly appreciated.
Originally posted by ichroma
thanks everybody. i've taken on board all of your suggestions and had a play with all the settings that apple makes available to users. none of which makes an iota of difference.
according to my - admittedly non-expert - sources, having to put up with poor quality display of fonts in mac osx is the price users have to pay to accomodate the allegedly superior quality of the quartz rendering engine. (this logic doesn't make sense to me either.)
so, it's back to os9 and high contrast, sharply rendered - if a little blocky - fonts and other objects for me, at least until apple sorts this one out.
meanwhile, any further information on this question will - as always - be greatly appreciated.
I have trouble understanding your complaints about the OSX anti-aliasing. If anything OSX's display of fonts is far superior to OS 9. And bitmap fonts are really just a product of poor screen resolution in the firstplace.
Originally posted by New
I have trouble understanding your complaints about the OSX anti-aliasing. If anything OSX's display of fonts is far superior to OS 9. And bitmap fonts are really just a product of poor screen resolution in the firstplace.
technically speaking, your assertion may be correct. i am speaking of the way anti-aliased text looks on screen when in osx, ie: "fatter', lower contrast, "blurred", unsharp etc etc . . . these effects can also be seen in many in application programme.
in os9 by contrast, text display is sharper and higher contrast, much easier on the eye.
i don't understand your comment about bitmap fonts. the differences in terms of text display between os9 and osx that i have attempted to describe exhibit themselves on the same (LCD) screen running @ the same resolution.
why does an os so allegedly smart as osx not simply allow the user the choice of whether to have anti-aliasing enabled or disabled?
Change the resolution to the native resolution, if need be. m.
Originally posted by ichroma
technically speaking, your assertion may be correct. i am speaking of the way anti-aliased text looks on screen when in osx, ie: "fatter', lower contrast, "blurred", unsharp etc etc . . . these effects can also be seen in many in application programme.
in os9 by contrast, text display is sharper and higher contrast, much easier on the eye.
i don't understand your comment about bitmap fonts. the differences in terms of text display between os9 and osx that i have attempted to describe exhibit themselves on the same (LCD) screen running @ the same resolution.
why does an os so allegedly smart as osx not simply allow the user the choice of whether to have anti-aliasing enabled or disabled?
While it might be correct that anti-aliased text is sometimes better on the eye, the opposite is also sometimes the case.
It really boils down to screen quality, as the poorer the screen (and the resolution) gets, the better bitmap fonts will work. Seeing how screen technology is improving rapidly, it seems clear that Apple is looking for forward compability with newer and higher resolution displays.
At a point in time screens will be of so good quality that the notion of bitmap fonts will seem strange. (exept as a design-statement).
But your point is valid, since we are not there yet.
That being said, having used OSX with both LCD and CRT displays, I STILL have a hard time accepting what you are saying. Have you tested OSX on different screens?
LCD screens have been known to be blurry if not set up correct. maybe this is the case?
The first osx version of Word did not support anti-aliasing, the upgrade did, and for me is far more usable. Same thing with explorer. Especially when it comes to italic text.
Keep in mind that if you are not using an LCD's native resolution, fonts will always be blurred, even in OS 9. If that is the case, use the display's native (usually max) resolution.
Originally posted by New
While it might be correct that anti-aliased text is sometimes better on the eye, the opposite is also sometimes the case.
It really boils down to screen quality, as the poorer the screen (and the resolution) gets, the better bitmap fonts will work. Seeing how screen technology is improving rapidly, it seems clear that Apple is looking for forward compability with newer and higher resolution displays.
At a point in time screens will be of so good quality that the notion of bitmap fonts will seem strange. (exept as a design-statement).
But your point is valid, since we are not there yet.
That being said, having used OSX with both LCD and CRT displays, I STILL have a hard time accepting what you are saying. Have you tested OSX on different screens?
LCD screens have been known to be blurry if not set up correct. maybe this is the case?
The first osx version of Word did not support anti-aliasing, the upgrade did, and for me is far more usable. Same thing with explorer. Especially when it comes to italic text.
before conceeding that each of us simply see things differently and there's nothing to be done, let me say that:
i'm using a high quality lcd screen as fitted to G4 powerbook
it is running it at apple's recommended settings for resolution, colour and font smoothing
the identical text displayed at apple's recommended settings in osx appears unsharp "blurred" and low contrast whereas in os9 it appears sharp and high contrast
i do not understand why this is so
if no one agrees there's a question here, we'll never get an answer
javascript:checklength(document.vbform);
However, If you are sure your hardware is good, then it is probably just a matter of taste, and we can just agree to disagree.
Some fonts look horrible at a particular size with anti-aliasing. Some look horrible at a particular size without anti-aliasing. This is especially true when dealing with small fonts.
IMHO, LCDs and sub-pixel addressing nearly triples horizontal resolution. If used according to user preferences, it should theoretically provide the most pleasing results. However, the current implementations could still use improvements in order to satisfy the greatest number of users.
Also, anti-aliased text is a complicated subject when considering such factors such as foreground and background colors with respect to the number of effectively addressable sub pixels.
Given the rather non-uniform ratio of Cone types in the average human eye, no sub-pixel rendering scheme will ever be perceived the same by all users. This is a common culprit for the displeasure with sub-pixel rendering. There are some shareware calibration tools that can counteract deviance from normal color perception. These, when used for each user and screen combination can have quite astounding effects.
Perhaps apple should release calibrated profiles for common types of color blindness. Did you know the genders perceive colors differently as do different races? While europeans have a high rate of RG color blindness in men, the chinese typically have different issues...
Color, and thus sub-pixel based anti-aliasing, are VERY complicated subjects.
Originally posted by ichroma
i don't understand your comment about bitmap fonts. the differences in terms of text display between os9 and osx that i have attempted to describe exhibit themselves on the same (LCD) screen running @ the same resolution.
Basically, OS 9 cheats. The difference is not that OS X renders fonts antialiased while OS 9 doesn't; the difference is that OS X renders fonts at all. OS 9 gets those nice, clear letters from hand-tooled bitmaps, not from attempting to render the actual font on screen. The tradeoff is that if a font definition didn't include those bitmaps, OS 9 either did a horrible job displaying it (as OS X does, if it can't use anti-aliasing) or failed to display it at all.
Unfortunately, if you force a rendered font to use whole pixels (i.e., if you ask it to display aliased) then it has to make all kinds of coarse approximations that distort the letters and ruin the kerning. So, to restore as much WYSIWYG as current (dismal) screen resolutions allow, OS X antialiases fonts. That's what allows it to render them in the first place. The benefit are true WYSIWYG, and the ability to display any font on screen that can be printed to a printer, etc.
You get used to it after a while. At least, I did.
Originally posted by New
The problem here seems to be that some of us assume that your objections must be related on some error in your hardware. Since we do not agree that OS9 is better at displaying fonts.
However, If you are sure your hardware is good, then it is probably just a matter of taste, and we can just agree to disagree.
the hardware is good. i cannot understand how so many good folks can look at, say, some black text on white ground - that in os9 appears crisp/well defined/high contrast - and then look at the same text - that in osx appears grey/ill-defined/blurry - and report that the latter is better at displaying fonts! please enlighten me.
Originally posted by torifile
Troll.
it's not a psychological issue.
Originally posted by Amorph
Basically, OS 9 cheats. The difference is not that OS X renders fonts antialiased while OS 9 doesn't; the difference is that OS X renders fonts at all. OS 9 gets those nice, clear letters from hand-tooled bitmaps, not from attempting to render the actual font on screen. The tradeoff is that if a font definition didn't include those bitmaps, OS 9 either did a horrible job displaying it (as OS X does, if it can't use anti-aliasing) or failed to display it at all.
Unfortunately, if you force a rendered font to use whole pixels (i.e., if you ask it to display aliased) then it has to make all kinds of coarse approximations that distort the letters and ruin the kerning. So, to restore as much WYSIWYG as current (dismal) screen resolutions allow, OS X antialiases fonts. That's what allows it to render them in the first place. The benefit are true WYSIWYG, and the ability to display any font on screen that can be printed to a printer, etc.
You get used to it after a while. At least, I did.
all that makes some kind of sense, apart from your closing comment.