ripken204 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 Cleartype is enable by default in vista and win7.It actually makes things harder to read for me and hurts my eyes.How about you guys?
CoffeeFiend Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 This e7 article (Win7 blog) says 94% of users seem to prefer cleartype (good read too).Anyhow. I like it, text looks great. I'm assuming you already went through the cleartype tuner and all that.
ripken204 Posted July 15, 2009 Author Posted July 15, 2009 yea, the tuner still does not help, the text is actually more clear with cleartype off, very odd.must just be me then.
DigeratiPrime Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 I like it enabled on LCD displays, but not on CRT monitors. IMO it works better on higher DPI displays. Cleartype is different on Windows XP, Vista, and 7. It also depends on what fonts, and font sizes, you're using.http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/06/2...-windows-7.aspx
ripken204 Posted July 15, 2009 Author Posted July 15, 2009 im using the default font and default font size, always have.and i have 24" lcds. even on my 1680x1050 15.4" laptop screen it looks horrible.
cluberti Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 I would have to agree - cleartype on all my LCDs makes a huge difference (in a positive way), especially on smaller laptop screens with lower resolutions. Really cleans it up.
nitroshift Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 It does make a difference for me too. And that's on a 21" Viewsonic wide.
JustinStacey.x Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 (edited) With me it seems to differ. On XP I can either take it or leave it depending on the monitor, it tends to look better on LCDs and worse on CRTs and since I use a CRT with XP at home I think I have it off right now. CRTs are pretty good at antialiasing text anyway. I don't really notice it in Vista because it's always there, but it seems better than XPs cleartype. More 'one size fits all'.I had a customer phone me up once complaining about IE 7 and how she couldn't read any of the text because it was incredibly fuzzy and 'illegible'. I asked her if she was using a CRT etc and after 5 minutes I just couldn't see why the Cleartype was making everything so bad. I eventually just gave her instructions to turn off Cleartype. I guess some people just really don't like it!BTW: Antialiasing of screen fonts on Apple Macs has been an option since Mac OS 8.6 I think, and OS X antialiases screen fonts like there is no tomorrow... yet I see no complaining there. Edited August 2, 2009 by JustinStacey
CoffeeFiend Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 it tends to look better on LCDs and worse on CRTsIt's a technology made specifically for LCDs, so that's hardly surprising. CRTs don't have subpixels.
meowing Posted August 2, 2009 Posted August 2, 2009 (edited) yea, the tuner still does not help, the text is actually more clear with cleartype off, very odd.must just be me then.No, I'm with you all the way. I have never understood the use of cleartype. It makes my fonts blurry (whatever other people say about it, blurring *is* what happens, on every screentype), which I really detest strongly. I've created truetype fonts for a living for a couple of years in the nineties, so maybe that has something to do with it. I always like my fonts to be displayed as sharp and original as they possibly can be. Edited December 21, 2010 by meowing
ripken204 Posted August 2, 2009 Author Posted August 2, 2009 good to know that someone understands what i mean.as you said, it is sharper with cleartype off. with it on it makes words stand out more but they are not sharp at all.
Colonel O'Neill Posted August 3, 2009 Posted August 3, 2009 I like Cleartype, most of the time. Not on CRT's, granted as they are fuzzy to begin with. However, I like them on LCD's, to an extent. Properly configured, it's great. Nonetheless, I prefer Cleartype more on some LCD monitors than other LCD monitors. The effect probably depends on the DPI of your LCD screen too.
ripken204 Posted August 3, 2009 Author Posted August 3, 2009 hmm, just found an old threadhttp://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=99675
jcarle Posted August 3, 2009 Posted August 3, 2009 I always like my fonts to be displayed as sharp and original as they possibly can be.Then you should prefer ClearType. The intent of ClearType is just that.Reference : http://www.microsoft.com/typography/WhatIsClearType.mspxSomeone who's familiar with the fact that vectors can't be accurately reproduced across square pixels should be able to appreciate how ClearType aliases the vector/pixel path to improve the font fidelity.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now