George Ou puts an image of Vista’s sub-pixel anti-aliasing next to Mac OS X’s non-sub-pixel anti-aliasing and declares Vista the winner. No shit, Sherlock. How about a level playing field?
I cannot be responsible for Apple’s “automatic” settings. Those are the settings I’m comparing it to.
But just to be thorough, a second Mac sample was added on 8/17. While it’s better (for LCD) than the first sample, it’s still not as clean and crisp as the Vista sample.
George, I don’t believe Apple defaults to non-subpixel antialiasing. I could be wrong, but I’d certainly love to see a source on that, if you think you’re right.
The other problem with your comparison is that it’s totally subjective. You declare Vista the winner, but that’s based purely on how you prefer your fonts to look, not how they should look. You ought to be comparing them to professional printed output of the same fonts. Now those results would be interesting to see.
001 // George Ou // 08.19.2007 // 6:42 PM
I cannot be responsible for Apple’s “automatic” settings. Those are the settings I’m comparing it to.
But just to be thorough, a second Mac sample was added on 8/17. While it’s better (for LCD) than the first sample, it’s still not as clean and crisp as the Vista sample.
002 // Jeff Croft // 08.19.2007 // 8:52 PM
George, I don’t believe Apple defaults to non-subpixel antialiasing. I could be wrong, but I’d certainly love to see a source on that, if you think you’re right.
The other problem with your comparison is that it’s totally subjective. You declare Vista the winner, but that’s based purely on how you prefer your fonts to look, not how they should look. You ought to be comparing them to professional printed output of the same fonts. Now those results would be interesting to see.