| User | Post |
HyperLamer
Posts: 3448/8210 |
ClearType does smooth it out on CRTs, but works even better on LCDs. (It uses sub-pixel rendering, which CRTs can't do, but they still get a less effective anti-aliasing effect.) I use it, it's nice except when I want to edit a screenshot and there's all fruity colours around the text. 
It also made the text in one of my old layouts over a translucent GIF readable, whereas without it, it looked like crap.  |
Jesper
Posts: 2070/2390 |
I find ClearType and the sub-pixel antialiasing in OS X (anything other than the setting proclaimed best for CRTs) very much alike, so I'm astounded people manage to shit on ClearType while liking the other alternatives. Sub-pixel antialiasing works on CRTs to a lesser degree because they proposed 'subpixels' still form a shade of something and it's often (especially when converted to grayscale) a better take on "whole-pixel" antialiasing than most of the actual non-sub-pixel antialiasing algorithms. The standard algorithm in Windows stinks - it 'blurs' small fonts or doesn't apply it at all. If ClearType leaves a "colored fringe" around your text, the other way leaves a blur of your text, period.
I've been using Windows XP since early 2001 (one of those public Release Candidates) and I'm not going to lie to you - the first few weeks the colors in ClearType really showed. You adjust to it surprisingly quick, though, and with a higher pixel pitch display it's barely noticeable. There's also a way to adjust the strength of the 'colors', if I'm not mistaken, and there's definitely a way of changing the sub-pixel individual order for the few screens that arrange them differently. |
FreeDOS
Posts: 1182/1657 |
Originally posted by Acmlm
As for "Standard" (which came with Windows 98, not 95), I never really liked the fact it only works on bold/bigger text, and it just doesn't look as smooth and clean to me, so I never used that
I forgot that you need Plus! to get it in Windows 95... but I install Plus! on any computer I install Win95 on, so it's kind of automatic to say that it's in Windows 95. |
Acmlm
Posts: 1066/1173 |
I use ClearType on a normal screen, have been using it since 2002 (when I got Windows XP and found out about it), and it never annoyed me at all  I don't even notice the colors unless I zoom in or flip horizontally, and I use a fairly low resolution ...
There's just one setting you have to configure so that the antialiased text is neither too thin (like Karadur's example) or too bold, and then it looks good ...
ClearType also makes tiny text like this readable
As for "Standard" (which came with Windows 98, not 95), I never really liked the fact it only works on bold/bigger text, and it just doesn't look as smooth and clean to me, so I never used that |
FreeDOS
Posts: 1180/1657 |
BMF: I don't think any font smoothing is on by default in WinXP. OEM copies may be different though. My retail copy (original without any service pack. YAY) doesn't enable it, like bass' SP2 one.
It's advertised as being for LCDs, but a lot of people use it on CRTs none the less. I hate it for the reason BMF gave and it gives me a headache. |
||bass
Posts: 205/817 |
It's off by default in my copy of XP. I use XP pro that comes with sp2 built in.
As far as using the feature goes, I don't have an LCD and ClearType is NOT meant to be seen on CRT screens. |
BMF98567
Posts: 667/1261 |
Is ClearType the default smoothing method in XP or something? Nearly all the XP screenshots I've ever seen use it, and it looks really bad to me. I couldn't stand having a colored fringe around all my fonts, even if they did look less pixellated.
[EDIT]
 |
Surlent
Posts: 777/1077 |
*cough* |
FreeDOS
Posts: 1176/1657 |
See... that's why I don't like it. the colours.
Zoom into it to see the colour choices. |
Karadur
Posts: 855/1192 |
I believe it may be something depending on the font as well. I say that because I still see a difference on my desktop icons' text and the like depending on which mode I'm in Here's a picture I just made with Notepad, the ALT+Print Screen combination, and Paint:
Both were typed in the same size font as well |
Boom.dk
Posts: 270/392 |
Aha! So that's why it had sharp edges... I turned it of recently... I believe it smoothes very small text too. |
FreeDOS
Posts: 1175/1657 |
It only smooths out very large text |
Boom.dk
Posts: 268/392 |
I see no difference between "standard" and nothing...  |
Xkeeper
Posts: -2439/-863 |
Originally posted by Karadur
I'm using it right now, and I have been since about a month ago since I enabled it It may be designed for LCD screens, but I notice a difference on it here as well. All the text I see is smoother, and even more readable, but that's probably just me I can't say it gives me a headache either
I guess it's just one of those things that some people like and others don't 
I use it on a CRT, simply because there is a definite notice in the clarity of letters...
They're more normal (rounded), and when I turned standard the font used in the Classic scheme was more straightened... |
FreeDOS
Posts: 1170/1657 |
Originally posted by Ailure
I'm not using Cleartype, but i'm using something instead of Cleartype that is called standard. Boring name. And it looks smoother that way without it making uglier, I turned it on becuse a game recomended me to turn it on.
I just tired Cleartype and... is that made for LCD screens or what? Looks ugly on a CRT.
The "standard" smoothing comes from way back into Windows 95.
Microsoft says that ClearType is made for laptops (LCDs), although subpixel rendering was invented to make text clearer on any kind of screen. |
Karadur
Posts: 851/1192 |
I'm using it right now, and I have been since about a month ago since I enabled it It may be designed for LCD screens, but I notice a difference on it here as well. All the text I see is smoother, and even more readable, but that's probably just me I can't say it gives me a headache either
I guess it's just one of those things that some people like and others don't |
neotransotaku
Posts: 2424/4016 |
ClearType is designed for LCD, there is not much point of having it for CRT because CRT can do what ClearType does for LCD. |
Ailure
Posts: 8121/11162 |
I'm not using Cleartype, but i'm using something instead of Cleartype that is called standard. Boring name. And it looks smoother that way without it making uglier, I turned it on becuse a game recomended me to turn it on.
I just tired Cleartype and... is that made for LCD screens or what? Looks ugly on a CRT. |
Tarale
Posts: 1476/2720 |
Originally posted by FreeDOS
ClearType = No
Subpixel Rendering = Yes
ClearType, the one in Microsoft Windows, hurts my eyes and gives me a headache. The subpixel renderings in X.org and Mac OS X don't... and I can stand them.
What he said.  |
FreeDOS
Posts: 1169/1657 |
ClearType = No
Subpixel Rendering = Yes
ClearType, the one in Microsoft Windows, hurts my eyes and gives me a headache. The subpixel renderings in X.org and Mac OS X don't... and I can stand them. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
