[ripken204]

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]

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]

yea, the tuner still does not help, the text is actually more clear with cleartype off, very odd.
must just be me then.

[DigeratiPrime]

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]

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.

[jcarle]

ripken204, on Jul 14 2009, 11:21 PM, said:

must just be me then.

Looks like it's just you.

[cluberti]

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]

It does make a difference for me too. And that's on a 21" Viewsonic wide.

[JustinStacey.x]

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.

This post has been edited by JustinStacey: 02 August 2009 - 05:37 AM

[CoffeeFiend]

JustinStacey, on Aug 2 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

it tends to look better on LCDs and worse on CRTs

It's a technology made specifically for LCDs, so that's hardly surprising. CRTs don't have subpixels.

[meowing]

ripken204, on Jul 15 2009, 05:21 AM, said:

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.

This post has been edited by meowing: 21 December 2010 - 04:32 AM

[ripken204]

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]

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]

hmm, just found an old thread

http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=99675

[jcarle]

meowing, on Aug 2 2009, 01:57 PM, said:

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...sClearType.mspx

Someone 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.

[ripken204]

good to know how it works.
that "smooth" effect is what i don't like though.
the "hard" lines are what i do like.
and i can't notice any "jaggies" at 1920x1200.

i guess it may come down to personal preference or maybe our perception.

This post has been edited by ripken204: 02 August 2009 - 10:55 PM

[CoffeeFiend]

ripken204, on Aug 3 2009, 12:54 AM, said:

i guess it may come down to personal preference or maybe our perception.

That's what I was saying at the beginning. 94% prefer ClearType, but the others either don't care (1%) or don't like it (5%). Looks like you fall in that 5%.

Some people prefer aliased fonts, nothing wrong with that. ClearType looks much better IMO, a LOT easier to read, even at 1920x1200 on a 24" LCD.

[meowing]

ripken204, on Aug 3 2009, 06:54 AM, said:

good to know how it works.
that "smooth" effect is what i don't like though.
the "hard" lines are what i do like.
and i can't notice any "jaggies" at 1920x1200.

Same here. The smoothing is bulls*** to my eyes. Either cleartype never does it the way I would like it to, or I prefer hard lines over soft edges. Also, NOT being able to see where it goes wrong in fonts would be my preference over software regulated changes in displaying of them. My eyes can handle a jaggie here or there just fine, thank you very much. ;-)

And no, it does not make a difference what screen I see it on. I have owned about 10 different ones, and my latest favorite screen is a NEC 26 inch LCD. My eyes always notice cleartype-effects as something distracting and unwanted. Will not change for me ever, either.

[JustinStacey.x]

I don't feel that cleartype makes fonts sharper... to me it seems to make them slightly 'fuzzy'. The only thing I think Cleartype really solves well is jaggies in italicised fonts - it totally eliminates them. Everything else just looks smoothed down and sometimes it makes text 'sink into the page' more.

[woody.cool]

I absolutely ******* hate ClearType.
For something that was designed to make text look better on TFTs/LCDs, it's **** poor. It looks like crap.
Even more to my annoyance, the latest version of Windows Live Messenger forces the use of ClearType and it cannot be turned off (even though it can be turned off for the general OS and for IE)
Ah well, that's another MS program I've ditched in favour for a superior 3rd-party alternative.