On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:49:09 +0400, Vadim Plessky wrote: > >So far, Microsoft is a way behind FreeType in terms of quality for rendered >text.
This is an exaggeration. >Non-AA text in Win98/Win2000 is ugly, ClearType-rendered text is blurred and >not easy to read. I'm not sure what you're using for criteria. FreeType 1.x sucked at the small sizes typically used on desktops; FreeType 2.x is at least able to match the non-AA text in Windows, but it is not measurably better. Practically speaking, it CAN'T be; there just aren't enough pixels to tweak. ClearType text is glorious on an LCD, for which it was designed. It is not a net gain for a CRT, and I think that has damaged its reputation. For AA text, I agree with you. AA text in Windows is really a mixed bag. I run it on my laptop, but it is not a clear win. It seems to do a particularly bad job with thin verticals. -- - Tim Roberts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. _______________________________________________ Render mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/render
