Apr 21, 2008 If your designers were using Type 1 fonts from Adobe (the Windows users using the Windows version of the font family and the Macintosh users using either the Macintosh version or the Windows version of the same font family - Adobe applications on the Macintosh can use the Windows Type 1 format), the results with Adobe applications should be identical.
Jeff Atwood asked What’s Wrong With Apple’s Font Rendering? and as I answered in the comments it comes down to philosophy:
The primary difference is that Microsoft try to align everything to whole pixels vertically and sub-pixels horizontally.
Apple just scale the font naturally – sometimes it fits into whole pixels other times it doesn’t.
This means Windows looks sharper at the expense of not actually being a very accurate representation of the text. The Mac with it’s design/DTP background is a much more accurate representation and scales more naturally than Windows which consequently jumps around a lot vertically.
Jeff and Joel both wrote follow up posts agreeing that it is one of philosophy but both are of the opinion that the Windows pixel-grid approach is the better whilst our displays are only capable of low dots-per-inch (DPI).
What they don’t seem to appreciate is the compromise this causes.
Here is an example of Times New Roman on Windows (left) and Mac OS (right) scaled over whole point sizes with sub-pixel precision:
The two thing to note here arising from this “pixel-grid is king” approach are
- Windows does not scale fonts linearly as the rough line points out
- Windows scales the height and width but not the weight of the font
Neither of these may matter to a casual user but for professionals preparing material destined for high DPI (film or print) then it’s a world of difference. How can you layout a page on-screen and expect the same result on the page when the font isn’t the same width?
The issue is reminiscent of the “I hate black bars on wide-screen films” brigade who believe that the film should be chopped, panned, scaled and otherwise distorted from the artists original intention simply so that it fits better on their display.
Typography has a rich and interesting history developed and honed over centuries. It is a shame to misrepresent typefaces especially as the pixel-grid approach becomes less relevant as displays reach higher resolutions.
Update
Some additional comparisons and a note that the gamma differences between Windows and Mac will affect how you see the “other” systems rendering on your machine.
Further update (21 August 2007)
Thanks to Daring Fireball and ZDNet we’ve had a few more great comments which I’ve summarized here:
George thinks the philosophy idea is wrong because “What percentage of Mac users sit around all day doing nothing but pre-press work?” but as Fred points out Microsoft’s desktop-user optimized rendering ends up on images and videos all over the web, thus escaping the environment for which it was crippled.
George also claims that Vista’s rendering is improved, I can’t vouch for that one way or another but from looking at his screen shots the difference there could simply be the contrast level as adjusted by the ClearType tuner.
Nathaniel believes that it’s not Microsoft’s job to manipulate a typeface and that if you want on-screen readability then choose a font designed for that such as Microsoft’s own Tahoma or Apple’s Lucida Grande.
I’d go further and say that Microsoft’s own aggression in sticking to the grid kills font choice at the regular reading size of 10/11 point by optimizing everything to a generic sans or serif look:
Windows XP
Mac OS X
James points to an article called Texts Rasterization Exposures that proposes a combination of using vertical hinting only and calculating horizontally to 256 levels and has some convincing screen-shots showing the benefits. Probably too late for Leopard or Vista SP1 though.
[)amien
Windows has never been the prettiest operating system. Up until recently, eye candy has mainly been the forte of Mac and certain distributions of Linux. While Modern UI (formerly known as Metro) has tried to play catch up, Windows still lacks in one important area: fonts.
As of now, Windows uses DirectWrite technology – which is based on their ClearType technologyHow To Make Text Easier To Read In WindowsHow To Make Text Easier To Read In WindowsMost of us spend hours reading on the computer every day, but our computers probably aren’t optimized for reading. The text on our monitors may not be sharp enough or may be too small, especially...Read More – to render fonts but many consider it inferior to the FreeType-based font rendering system used in Mac, Linux, and Android. Sure, there are some who prefer the Windows aesthetic, but they are the exception and their numbers are few.
If you’ve ever wanted the beautiful font smoothing of Mac and Linux on Windows, then you’re in luck. There are two free programs that will replace DirectWrite with FreeType, resulting in cleaner, sleeker font graphics.
GDIPP
What Is It?
Back in 2006, there was a Japanese developer who was fed up with the font rendering in Windows and decided to remedy the issue. He started writing a program called GDI++ to be a replacement for ClearType. Development didn’t last very long and the project was discontinued, but a couple of other developers managed to get their hands on the source code.
Under the new name of GDIPP, these developers began working on a spiritual successor that added more features, improved performance, and reduced compatibility issues between the various versions of Windows. To be clear, GDIPP does not use the same code that powered GDI++.
GDIPP works on both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of WindowsWhat's the Difference Between 32-Bit and 64-Bit Windows?What's the Difference Between 32-Bit and 64-Bit Windows?What's the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows? Here's a simple explanation and how to check which version you have.Read More.
How Do I Use It?
It’s incredibly simple. Near-zero effort required.
- Visit the GDIPP project site.
- Download the latest version from the left sidebar.
- Run the downloaded installer file.
- Done!
Anything Else?
GDIPP runs in the background as 4 separate processes and these processes will automatically start up with Windows:
- gdipp_svc_32.exe
- gdipp_svc_64.exe
- gdipp_hook_32.exe
- gdipp_hook_64.exe
On 32-bit versions of Windows, you won’t see the 64-bit processes. On 64-bit versions of Windows, all four processes are necessary; the 32-bit processes will replace font rendering on 32-bit applications and the 64-bit processes will replace font rendering on 64-bit applications.
While GDIPP is reported to work on Windows XPUpgrade From Windows XP to a Modern OS in 7 Simple StepsUpgrade From Windows XP to a Modern OS in 7 Simple StepsIt's time to say goodbye! Microsoft is ending official support for Windows XP on April 8 2014. Are you at risk? If you are still running this ancient operating system, it's time to upgrade.Read More and 2003, there are structural differences in those versions of Windows that may cause font rendering instability. If you run into those issues, it’s recommended that you try ezgdi, which is another project that aims to bring GDI++ font rendering on Windows.
MacType
What Is It?
Like GDIPP, MacType was also inspired by the death of the GDI++ project. The core functionality is the same – bringing FreeType’s font smoothing capabilities to Windows – but there are some advanced customization options that we’ll cover soon.
GDIPP is the easier program, so if you don’t want to deal with font engine tweaks and all that jazz, stick with GDIPP. MacType is more powerful and meant to be used by those who want control over the minor details.
How Do I Use It?
Installation and usage is slightly more complicated than GDIPP.
- Visit the MacType project site.
- Download the latest version at the bottom.
- Run the downloaded installer file.
- When prompted, choose “Complete” install.
- Done!
Anything Else?
After installation, you should have two new shortcuts on your desktop that may be labeled in Chinese. One of them will be the MacType Wizard where you can select how MacType launches and which font smoothing profile you want to use.
The Default profile is a good one to start with.
The other shortcut will be the MacType Control Panel where you can create new font profiles or edit existing ones. Font profiles determine which components are involved in the font smoothing process. Feel free to experiment here to discover which settings you like the best.
Of course, font smoothing will only look good on good-looking fonts. Get started with some of these awesome free fontsSpruce Up Your Website With These 12 Beautiful Google Web FontsSpruce Up Your Website With These 12 Beautiful Google Web FontsOver the past decade, I've started a number of personal blogs that I never really followed through with, but some of my fondest memories rest on theme design and font tweaks. There’s something satisfying when...Read More and keep yourself organized with these font management toolsHow To Download Free Fonts & Manage Them In WindowsHow To Download Free Fonts & Manage Them In WindowsFonts are the building blocks of digital aesthetics. Since Windows doesn't come with a font manager, we've looked at third-party alternatives.Read More.
And there you go! Now your ugly Windows fonts will be ugly no more. Do you prefer this new look or will you stick with ClearType? I know my answer. What about you?
- Okay, jeer if you will, but the Mac fonts look great, right up until the time you start trying to read. Then I infinitely prefer the clean rendering (I do not use ClearType) of the fonts in Windows. As a matter of fact, I've never been a fan of heavy font-smoothing in any way shape or form and have no idea why people prefer it. A little anti-aliasing goes a long way in my book and OS X overdoes it even when you turn it off.
- Now the fonts in win 10 looks worse
- Hey thanks, It worked fine!. Now fonts look rendered.
But I have a slight issue with java based IDEs like pycharm,webstorm (jetbrains) the '=' (equal) sign is not displayed instead '-' (dash) is displayed
for an example (int x=10 is displayed like int x-10)
but not in eclipse,netbeans or other IDEs. This is not a big issue for normal users ,but thought this would be helpful for developers to make an update in next versions.- The two projects are really not continued. You are out of luck.
- I can't seem to find a way to download Mactype anymore, it seems the site is down. Has anyone had luck finding a source to download, or have any details I am missing?
- Here, I'll mirror it myself since this is one of the first things I install when I'm forced to use Windows. Most browsers render things themselves and so this won't make much difference, and as people have mentioned, Microsoft changed Office 2013, but Office 2010 still uses GDI and thus, this fixes it.
- You're a live saver. Was so bummed when I formatted my computer earlier and found that the file is missing on their project page :(Thank you!
- Fantastic! Works very well.
- Nice one mate, there's a reward in the after life for doing this.
- Thanks a million!
- You can force Firefox and Chrome to use MacType by disabling DirectWrite.
- the link is not working man.
- As of right now, I can't get MacType to work in any browser with exception to Firefox, in software mode. I wish we could do a crowd fundraiser, aka a kickstarter.
- I am also getting issue with Office 2013. I have tried MacType and it does not work. The fonts in Office 2013 looks terrible, simply terrible. As much as I have tried to ignore it, it comes back and haunt me (seriously). Just can't get over it. Please someone update MacType!
- MacType only works on the areas in Windows that use GDI font rendering. Office 2013 and later use DirectWrite instead of GDI, so MacType will have no effect.
- I was ready to buy two new monitors before I found this article. Thanks for saving me $1,000. ClearType was driving me nuts.
- There's a problem concerning MacType rendering in Chrome, beginning with version 41. Although only the font rendering for the Chrome interface has been changed, the rendering in websites has also changed. For instance, some characters are not rendered at all on websites, I think that the character space reserved by Chrome for a character is too small for the size provided by MacType. I tried to change the rendering system of MacType, but this fixed it only temporarily.Did you guys find the same problem like me? Did you find a workaround for that?
- I have never had a problem with Windows fonts. That was before the horrible interface in Win 8 and I started using Linux as my Primary OS. My new job forced me back to Windows as a company standard. While waiting for my PC for the first 2 weeks I used a Mac, which was ok, but I'm more familiar with Win/Linux. After 3 weeks of coding I realized how much the fonts actually bugged me especially when trying to fit a lot on a screen to get the big picture. Booting into Linux again just highlighted to me how bad the Windows fonts really are. Cleartype does basically nothing for small fonts. Mactype is a life saver!
- Glad to hear that MacType is helping you out! I agree, ClearType needs a big kick in the rear to get on the same playing field as Mac/Linux.
- I don't understand how people can't see a difference. Windows rendering is all jagged and thin (yes, with ClearType enabled). Mac/Linux rendering is smooth and has the appearance of a printed page. Windows feels 15 years old. As screens get bigger and have more pixels, Windows will look worse and worse. Microsoft needs to fix this in Win 10.
- MacType doesn't work under Windows 8 on some applications. Is it the same case for you? And as @Tom said gdipp looks outdated will it work on latest Windows version?
- MacType does not support DirectWrite rendering in IE (who cares) and Office 2013/365, which I do care about, because suddenly the jaggies are back after upgrading from Office 2010. It's Microsoft's fault. It doesn't sound like the MacType people are going to add this functionality. I suspect gdipp (which hasn't been updated since 2010) does not work either but I haven't tried.
- Thanks for this. I'm running a Dell monitor and a cheap Siemens monitor, and GDipp seems to give an appreciably sharper font display, at least on the Dell. Oh, and I also used to own a 17' MacBook Pro but I gave it away when I found reconfiguring it to my own taste to be too much hassle:)
- Your screen capture comparison clearly has ClearType disabled under the 'Clear Type' panel.
- Why is that?
- Because it's too jagged and thin. I have cleartype and fonts don't render like that under cleartype. Only when it's off.
- That's really awkward.
What font were you using for the demonstration?
- Hmnnn...I didn't know that I was looking at something that was 'ugly' on my screen. I work with Macs, too, and I have never found myself saying, 'Gee, I wish my Windows PC looked this great!' Oh well, guess I'll just continue in ignorant bliss!
- Do you appreciate Windows the way it is? If not, what do you wish Windows could do that you can do on a Mac (or vice versa)?
- 'Sure, there are some who prefer the Windows aesthetic, but they are the exception and their numbers are few.' Really? And you're basing this on what scientific evidence again? Has there been a huge hue and cry over Windows font rendering?These kinds of comments really just point out the obvious biases of an author and have no bearing on reality. Nice try, though.
- I guess Windows users simply aren't as obsessed with aesthetics as Mac users. That would include me. I like a nice layout and a nice font, but I'm not obsessed with it and I certainly don't compare Windows to Mac at every turn. Hence, I didn't object this statement when editing the article.
- John,You seem to be an 'average' person who is happy with an 'average' wife and 'average' children and an 'average' life. Probably had an 'average' childhood and will pass away in an 'average' manner from this world.No doubt you love 'Average' windows fonts.
- ^ And if you don't even have that, then buying Mac is the best choice for you to finally feel superior and live with a noble purpose to tell about it ;-)
- ClearType looks better on my Dell monitor.
- I've always had good results with ClearType, even on CRT screens (when adjusted for the best look).
- Based on the example images, to my eyes Cleartype is obviously better. The alternates both look simply bolded, which obscures detail. What is it you prefer about these alternates?