locked
Internet Explorer 9 Clear Type Disable?

    Question

  • So far I'm impressed with IE 9 but I haven't found a way to turn off ClearType.  In the previous versions I was given this option.  I can't use IE 9 because ClearType hurts my eyes for some reason.  Is there an option somewhere that I'm missing?

    Thanks for your help.

    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:50 AM

Answers

  • Hi all

    We have re-released core fonts (Arial, Verdana and Tahoma) to alleviate the issues people have reported. We've observed that most of the issues are caused at small point size.

    As a reminder wew do still recommend running the ClearType Tuning Wizard and making use of Internet Explorer 9's zoom (ctrl+ in ctrl- out) to assist with viewing pages with very small font sizes.

    The update is marked as important on Windows Update and would install automatically if you have selected that option. If you'd like to download the update yourself please see the following article and download the appropriate package for your OS. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2545698

    Look forward to hearing from you how these new fonts work out. Send mail to IE9PQ@microsoft.com

    Many thanks & Regards

    Mark


    Mark Feetham Senior Program Manager Internet Explorer Product Quality
    Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:47 PM
    Owner

All replies

  • I feel the same, i feel much more tired quickly and make my vision kind of wired ..

    where is this option ??

    I stay on chrome without this option for sure.

     


    Sanhaji Alexandre aka SpeGase (.NET expert)
    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:45 AM
  • I've been using IE for years now, & was really looking forward to IE 9, however I'm affraid It's now time for me to choose another browser. I just can't get used to, or adjust properly, the way IE 9 displays it's font... It's awful!

    I've tried every different combination of settings for 'True Type' and the 'Smooth edges of screen font' adjustment, but IE 9 is still blurred.

    As soon as I go back to IE 8 or Install Opera... it's Perfect again. What have you done to IE 9 MS :(

    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11:21 AM
  • Cleartype is just the worst "fix" for a non existing problem ever.

     

    This is the first thing turned off on every windows 7 install I know off.

     

    Now IE9 has no way of turning the cleartype OFF, it does not even register the setting in the registry, which IE8 was using, it is there, set to "off" but the horribly ugly cleartype so called smoothing is still on.

    I just use Chrome, but the new IE9 is very nice, and fast and everything, but HOW FOR THE NAME OF GOD can we turn the Cleartype OFF.

    Microsoft wants as all to go blind or what? And yes, I am using native resolution for my monitor. 

    I just read the interesting testing they did for Cleartype, they used 30 or so test subjects to show them two laptops and asked which one looked better. 

    THey should have used a 1000 and put them all to work in a cleartype enabled monitor for an hour or so, and then ask the same question. 

    Surprised they would be I am sure at the amount of people complaining what did they do with their eyes. 

     

     

    • Proposed as answer by Seyon Jo Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:08 AM
    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:23 PM
  • Please make it possible to disable Cleartype in IE9 like it was possible in IE7 and 8,it is just pain for eyes.
    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:57 PM
  • It's indeed unbelievable that Cleartype can't be disabled in IE9.

    The only time Cleartype makes things clear is when it is disabled.

    Switched back to IE8. No IE9 for me as long as Cleartype can't be disabled.

    I don't want to use a browser which continuously gives me the feeling I have to pay a visit to an opticien.

    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 4:55 PM
  • Please fix this and give us the option to turn ClearType off, otherwise there's no reason to use IE9.

    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:12 PM
  • I'm not using IE9 without the option to turn off ClearType, either.  This is ridiculous.
    Thursday, March 17, 2011 5:30 AM
  • I'm not using IE9 without the option to turn off ClearType, either.  This is ridiculous.

    Same.

    Ever since IE first came out on Windows 95 it has been my default browser.

    Now.. I just can't tolerate the pain it gives my eyes. The latest versions of Chrome and Opera don't give eye pain.. so I can't understand how Microsoft can allow this feature in the final release? I thought such a large feature as giving users eye pain would have been removed from the final version.

    Please be reading this Microsoft, and release a fix to have the fonts like you did in IE8/Chrome/Opera. Until then IE9 is no longer my default browser, and I'll be trying to stay clear as long as there is no fix for the eye pain that IE9 gives you.

    Thursday, March 17, 2011 6:28 AM
  • computer 1: hp l2245w lcd 1680x1050 - no problems
    computer 2: lenovo x61s lcd 1024x768 - no problems
    computer 3: BenQ lcd 1920x1200 - pain in the eyes!!!

    it's weird how cleartype can look really good or really painful.
    i want to have option to turn it on/off!

     

    Thursday, March 17, 2011 7:57 AM
  • Hi,

     

    ClearType is a Microsoft feature that enhances your display by smoothing the edges of screen fonts. ClearType works especially well on Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) devices, including flat screen monitors and laptop computers.

     

    However, as far as I know there is no option to disable it in IE9. If you have any feedback about the product, welcome to let Microsoft know.

     

    https://connect.microsoft.com/IE

     

    Best Regards,

    Niki


    Please remember to click "Mark as Answer" on the post that helps you, and to click "Unmark as Answer" if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.
    Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:35 AM
    Moderator
  • Hi,

     

    ClearType is a Microsoft feature that enhances your display by smoothing the edges of screen fonts. ClearType works especially well on Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) devices, including flat screen monitors and laptop computers.

     

    As far as I know, there is no option to disable it in IE9. If you have any feedback about the product, welcome to let Microsoft know.

     

    https://connect.microsoft.com/IE

     

    Best Regards,

    Niki


    Please remember to click "Mark as Answer" on the post that helps you, and to click "Unmark as Answer" if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.
    Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:54 AM
    Moderator
  • Thanks Niki.  I'll provide feedback to the link you provided.  In the meantime I'll have to switch to another browser until there is a fix for this.  Hopefully there will be as IE9 is an excellent browser.
    Thursday, March 17, 2011 1:39 PM
  • @Andy504 (and anyone else who is frustrated with the inability to turn off Cleartype in IE9) -

    Please see this Microsoft Connect bug report:

    https://connect.microsoft.com/IE/feedback/details/598107/cleartype-is-always-used-even-when-disabled-in-ie-options-and-window-7

    If you want to encourage Microsoft to re-enable the option to turn off cleartype, log into Microosft Connect and select "I can too" link in the upper-right-hand portion of the page.

    Don't bother filing another bug report in connect, that will only dilute votes.


    Justin Grant
    Thursday, March 17, 2011 7:29 PM
  • Thanks Justin.  I made a comment on an existing entry.
    Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:19 PM
  • God bless you! I have NO clue why on earth these folks at MSFT did this! (Enable C.T. and not turn it off) I have a 1900x... monitor and all the fonts SUCK!!!!!!!!!
    Friday, March 18, 2011 2:45 AM
  • This is the first thing turned off on every windows 7 install I know off.

    Now IE9 has no way of turning the cleartype OFF, it does not even register the setting in the registry, which IE8 was using, it is there, set to "off" but the horribly ugly cleartype so called smoothing is still on.


    It may help to be more specific about the settings that you have changed.  Disabled ClearType in W7 how?   And you do have  IE's UseClearType hacked to "no" in HKCU?...  Check with ProcMon if that is accessed when you start IE, both 32- and 64-bit?...

    No sign that  UseClearType  is accessed in 64-bit mode but I have ClearType enabled in the OS.


    HTH

    Robert Aldwinckle
    ---

    Friday, March 18, 2011 4:09 PM
    Answerer
  • ClearType should be forced on every one of Muammar Gaddafi's computers.
    Friday, March 18, 2011 10:09 PM
  • Every state that still has a death penalty, should replace it with "stare at IE9 with ClearType for 8 hours a day, for the rest of your life".

    I'm dead serious.

    Friday, March 18, 2011 10:12 PM
  • why do they make up forums and the connect stuff if nobody answers...

    the connect link doesnt work for me -.-

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 1:24 PM
  • doesnt work for the IE9


    Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop] "FontSmoothing"="0" "FontSmoothingGamma"=dword:00000000 "FontSmoothingOrientation"=dword:00000001 "FontSmoothingType"=dword:00000001 [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Avalon.Graphics\DISPLAY1] "ClearTypeLevel"=dword:00000000 "EnhancedContrastLevel"=dword:00000000 "TextContrastLevel"=dword:00000001 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Avalon.Graphics\DISPLAY1] "PixelStructure"=dword:00000000 "GammaLevel"=dword:0000076c [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main] "UseClearType"="no"

     

     

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 1:27 PM
  • I'm willing to bet money that they are not going to enable users to turn off ClearType in Internet Explorer 9, ever.

    For some reason Microsoft's knuckle-head bosses came to a conclusion that the only defense from Apple competition in PC market is to make Windows look similar to this Apple sh**. What they should be doing instead, is making their products more reliable, feature-rich, and user friendly. That includes ability to turn off ClearType. They should be listening to their customers.

    To protect my eyesight, the only way I have now is to start buying monitors with as small dot pitch as possible.

    Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:20 PM
  • Just installed IE9, and am about to uninstall it.  Cleartype sucks, and has always sucked.  There must be some VP at Microsoft who is pushing this wretched technology, otherwise IE8 wouldn't have had the checkbox "Always use Cleartype".  Why say "Always use cleartype" when you could just say "Use Cleartype"?  That's marketing bordering on propaganda.

    Sorry IE9, I'm going back to IE8 until you fix this monstrosity.

    Monday, March 21, 2011 1:20 AM
  • I will also remove IE9 due to the impossibility to deactivate cleartype. 

    Wednesday, March 23, 2011 5:42 PM
  • There is a workaround to disable the cleartype,

    1. Open Start Menu

    2. Type the following text in the start box

    cttune.exe

    [ this is the executable for clear type text tuner located in the system folder C:\Windows\System32\cttune.exe ]

    3. Click to start it cttune in the search result in the clear type text tuner

    http://www.technixupdate.com/enable-disable-clear-type-in-windows-7/

     

    Thursday, March 24, 2011 2:16 AM
  • I believe the topic of the discussion is "how to disable ClearType in Internet Explorer 9".

    I'll pay 20 USD to a person who shows me how to effectively do that.

    Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:45 AM
  • There is (of course) a way to turn it off - you should goo .. uhm .. bing more before posting so many replies.

    This registry key turns it off :

    [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main]
    
    "UseClearType"="no"

    What is left is the font smoothing (aka sub-pixel rendering), and that is the "blurring effect" you still see after turning cleartype off.

    In case you were wondering, there is a way to turn that off too.

    The method i used to turn off the sub-pixel wonder is to build a simple wrapper for dwrite.dll which intercepts and forwards calls to the real dwrite.dll, disabling font smoothing in the process.

    You can find the code at https://softwareninjas.kilnhg.com/Repo/Open-Source/Group/DWrite-dll-Wrapper

    Surprisingly, after disabling it, i realized that most fonts actually look better with font smoothing (an example is exactly this page which is much more easy to read with font smoothing on).

    However, there is no excuse for removing the cleartype option present in the beta version, and not providing an option to disable font smoothing. And is exactly this company's attitude that finally convinced me to use Firefox.

    I am curious tho, how were you intending to pay up the $20 ?

     

    Thursday, March 24, 2011 2:50 PM
  • I'll verify first - if successful, I'll set up a temporary email account and post it here. You can contact me there, and then I'm thinking Paypal.

    UPDATE: Installed IE9 and then checked the registry key: the "UseClearType"="no" key is already there. Text in the browser still makes me want to kill someone. Will try the wrapper later today.

    ANOTHER UPDATE: It works (for the most part - distances between letters are out of whack in some cases, but overall it's good enough). My email is fontsmoothingsucks at hotmail dot com. I will give it until Monday to respond, in case there's any tricksters out there. And thanks.

    Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:34 PM
  • @Roodyster, you are my hero. I just cloned your repo, compiled your fix, and installed it. It worked perfectly on my Windows 7 x64 machine (using 32-bit IE9).  Really impressive work. Now I can use IE9!

    BTW, the reason why this is so important to me is that I have a vision problem making it hard to read anti-aliased text.  Without your fix, I wouldn't be able to use IE9 for anything more than casual use, since more than a few minutes of reading anti-aliased small text gives me bad eyestrain which forces me to use reading glasses. Reading equally-small aliased text is not a problem, though. 

     


    Justin Grant
    • Edited by justingrant Thursday, March 24, 2011 9:16 PM
    Thursday, March 24, 2011 6:21 PM
  • I just can't figure out how to use this hack... and I don't see why I should hack my OS just so I can make this browser work. This is plain stupid. Will continue using Firefox and Chrome. That was my IE9 trial... looks like the same old garbage from MS. Might try another IE realease years from now... maybe they'll have figured out a way to make their browser do what it's intended for by then. [enable users to read web pages... duh!]


    Note: Using a graphics-grade LCD monitor in 1:1 resolution mode. I've done my part... MS just messed up theirs, as always. So long IE9.
    Thursday, March 24, 2011 6:27 PM
  • The claim that ClearType was tested on just "30 or so" subjects is obviously bogus; I'm curious where you heard it?
    Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:28 PM
  • I wonder if you confuse ClearType and sub-pixel positioning. I've started to use ClearType more than ten years ago on CRTs. Even on most good CRTs ClearType is much superior and better readable than pixelated type. Since then I've not seen a single LCD monitor that didn't show better results with ClearType on. You will find that most of the world doesn't even know what ClearType is, they just enjoy it.

    IE9 uses sub-pixel positioning in addition. Sub-pixel positioning tries to render the characters more like print, so that the difference between the printed and the screen version shrinks (hopefully). Depending on the hardware and graphics driver used this can lead to slightly less readable type, especially with smaller font-sizes. There is a way to disable sub-pixel positioning by its own, but it comes with a price. IE9 uses sub-pixel positioning only in IE9 standards mode. Pages that are displayed in compatibility mode, IE8, IE7 or Quirks mode are not rendered with sub-pixel positioning. So, if you want you can add single pages or all pages to the IE9 compatibility list. You can do that from the menu bar in Tools > Compatibility View Settings. As I wrote, this has a price. The compatibility view is basically the view of IE7, so if a page is not compatible with IE7 or uses features that IE7 doesn't support then you may get a less satisfying result.

    Here's an article on IE9's use of sub-pixel positioning: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/11/03/sub-pixel-fonts-in-ie9.aspx


    IEFAQ: http://iefaq.info
    Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:21 PM
  • @EricLaw - I suspect he's referring to the research cited here: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~ct/. These studies had 2 groups of 25-30 participants each.  Note that these studies focused on short-running (<1 hour) tasks, large fonts (12pt+), and non color-blind participants with 20/20 vision.

    So it's disputable what these studies have to say about users like me who have sub-par vision and who work 40+ hours per week reading small fonts all day.

    But, even in these limited studies, there's one important conclusion I want to quote, from the second-to-last page of http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~ct/chi_p618.pdf:

    The issue of individual differences remains a source of
    interest. With 19 out of 51 users experiencing some
    disadvantage in a ClearType condition one cannot
    uniformly endorse ClearType and there is a need to
    determine what factors may be at work here.

    These studies suggest that "ClearType On" should be the default. But if a large minority (1/3) of users did *worse* with ClearType enabled, this research suggests that Microsoft is doing a disservice to that minority by making it hard to turn off anti-aliasing in IE9 (and Visual Studio 2010, and Office 2010, etc).


    Justin Grant
    Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:59 PM
  • not that i have any moral objection to compiling a hack for my OS, i wouldn't really justify it solely to use a browser when there are alternatives. 

     

    Kai's link is interesting:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/11/03/sub-pixel-fonts-in-ie9.aspx

    the part where it says IE9 Sub-pixel Sizes / IE8 Whole Pixel Sizes / Your Browser

    when i view in ie9, the Your Browser text looks exactly like the IE9 Sub-pxel, which is blurry.

    (even though i have clear type disabled in win7x64)

    when i view in firefox 4, the Your Browser text looks pixel-perfect great!  way to go!  problem solved.  :0)

     

     

     

     


    -=cj=-
    Friday, March 25, 2011 8:43 PM
  • @Roodyster:  Thank your for spreading the word about my DWrite.dll wrapper that fixes IE9's use of ClearType, although you forgot to mention we provide freeware binaries at http://www.softwareninjas.ca/dwrite-dll-wrapper (there's no need to have everybody compile from source code).

    Also, in case anybody's curious about how it works, I blogged about how I ported and adapted the extension that does the same thing for Firefox at http://blog.softwareninjas.ca/2011/03/how-to-take-control-of-internet.html

    I'm already looking into how I can solve the accompanying "funny character spacing" problem that is due to the fractional pixels being rounded up/down.

    Cheers,
    Olivier Dagenais
    http://softwareninjas.ca
    Saturday, March 26, 2011 1:51 PM
  • see link - it solves 32 bit IE 9, nor 64 bit version

    http://www.softwareninjas.ca/dwrite-dll-wrapper

    I hope it helps.

    Monday, March 28, 2011 3:58 PM
  • @Olivier Dagenais - found a workaround for the "funny character spacing" problem :

    - Go to Tools -> Compatibility View Settings

    - Check "Display all websites in Compatibility View"

    This will use the original spacing algorithm.

     

     

    Tuesday, March 29, 2011 6:16 AM
  • Hello, this workaround is working great!
    Friday, April 01, 2011 2:26 AM
  • Every time I try to print something from IE9 supplemented with the wrapper, Internet Explorer crashes. Which makes the wrapper unusable.

    So long, Internet Explorer.

    Friday, April 01, 2011 4:40 PM
  • @Wes68:
    I have good news:  the "crash when printing" bug has been fixed in version 1.4.8.

    You can update your copies of the DWrite.dll wrapper to be able to print again.

    I apologize for the inconvenience this defect has caused you.

    Cheers,
    Olivier Dagenais
    http://softwareninjas.ca
    Saturday, April 02, 2011 6:51 PM
  • So far I'm impressed with IE 9 but I haven't found a way to turn off ClearType.  In the previous versions I was given this option.  I can't use IE 9 because ClearType hurts my eyes for some reason.  Is there an option somewhere that I'm missing?

    Thanks for your help.


    I just got a beautiful new 32" monitor and love surfing the Web with IE8.  I was excited about a better performing IE9, but had to uninstall it because the blurry text made the new monitor seem like garbage!

    I always disable ClearType / font smoothing to get sharp text.  ClearType looks like smearing to me.

    Please, Microsoft, do not make us use weird fixes that we have to download from third parties.  The current ones might be safe, but within weeks, most of these .dll files will be malware.

    Thanks!


    Thursday, April 07, 2011 5:35 PM
  • Is anyone from Microsoft listening?  People are waiting for a solution for this problem.  So far there are only two workarounds: A) enable compatibility mode for all pages (with compatibility mode having it's own problems in IE9 anyway), or B) use the DWrite.dll wrapper mentioned above (which is much better, but still not perfect).  Currently I've uninstalled IE9, gone back to IE8, and have hidden IE9 from automatic updates on all of my computers until this issue is corrected.  As said before, I welcome a majority of the changes and speed, but those do not compensate for having to deal with the poor text.
    Sunday, April 10, 2011 6:05 PM
  • Hi Olivier,

    I just wanted to convey my thanks to you and your team for providing a fix to this blatant problem.

    You have made IE9 useable as Microsoft has clearly made a mistake in thinking that the majority won't mind about this font smoothing / clear type issue.

    I recall seeing this issue mentioned in the RC feedback forum, however I have not seen a single Microsoft Employee mention that it will be looked into. Microsoft, you need to listen to your users more! The people who are commenting on these forums (providing you with valueable feedback) are the ones that are championing these products in their organisations and businesses!

    Kind Regards,

    James Heath

    Tuesday, April 12, 2011 2:23 AM
  • Since the MS Connect topic seems to have been deleted (?!), I am posting here to add my vote against whatever makes text unreadable in IE9 (ClearType, sub-pixel positioning or whatever) and express my dissatisfaction of Microsoft for attempting to force people to do something they don't like when it is very easy to leave it an option.

    Kamen

    P.S. Looking a little deeper, it appears the future will be quite scary. I think there is a reason why MS is pushing ClearType, sub-pixel positioning, etc. - it is how WPF graphics work (defining everything in vector-based terms and then rasterising it). This is madness as it could only work well on the highest resolution, best quality displays, and will be a nightmare on the rest.
    K.


    Using VS 2005 SP1, native/managed C++ and C#, about to transition from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7 and VS 2010; Mountain time zone.
    Thursday, April 21, 2011 4:05 PM
  • Any plans to fix this in IE 10 ? I'm using IE8 for now but maybe migrate to firefox if this not solved.

    I truly hope that this cleartype force-feeding doesn't spread to whole windows 8 OS.

    Friday, April 22, 2011 7:51 AM
  • If you have feedback on this topic, please write to me at IE9PQ at Microsoft.com. Details I’m looking for are:
    GPU make model and driver version.
    Do you have Adobe Creative Suite or Adobe Photoshop installed?
    Do you use a CRT or LCD monitor?
    What Make / Model of CRT or LCD do you use?
    Please send me the URL of one or more sites/pages where the fonts look particularly bad.

    Regards
    Mark


    Mark Feetham Senior Program Manager Internet Explorer Product Quality
    Monday, May 02, 2011 11:59 PM
    Owner
  • Mark,

    Are answers to all those questions really needed to make ClearType/sub-pixel positioning/whatever this feature is called OPTIONAL?


    Removing an alert on this topic. Special thanks to Olivier.
    Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:03 AM
  • Mark:
    Thanks for the info, but the problem of the IE9 and ClearType is obvious and 100% reproducible.
    1) ClearType makes eyestrain / headache with some people’s eye (like me). Thus ClearType is turned off on their computer for desired user experience.
    2) IE9 somehow hard-coded ClearType ON, regardless system cleartype setting, nor provide an option to disable ClearType in IE.

    Yadong

    Wednesday, May 04, 2011 6:32 PM
  • 2) IE9 somehow hard-coded ClearType ON, regardless system cleartype setting, nor provide an option to disable ClearType in IE.


    You could try Zooming in a bit.   E.g. I find  112%  gives me sharper text in general.
    Thursday, May 05, 2011 3:08 AM
    Answerer
  • Mark,
    We really appreciate your attention to this subject. However, resolving this problem is not a mater of optimizing ClearType in IE9. You can say there are two parts of it: 1) some text looks less readable than other, 2) in all cases, ClearType text looks fuzzy. While the former could be subject to optimization, the latter is not. My monitors (a dual setup) have a 82 DPI resolution (27.5" 1920x1200) and all text appears fuzzy and unpleasant. Trying the same on a 86 DPI monitor (an older 19" SXGA) appears slightly better, so I can imagine that on today's typical 100 DPI monitors (a 22" 1920x1080) it would look rather acceptable, if not preferable to some people. However, as long as there is a significant number of people who are adversely affected by it, there should be an easy to way to turn it off. Since there are unauthorized solutions (hacks) to this problem, I can imagine that Microsoft should have the ability to offer it as an OS option and no application should be forcefully overriding this. That's it.

    Kamen


    Just jumped from VS 2005 SP1 to VS 2010, native/managed C++ and C#, transitioning from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7; Mountain time zone.
    Friday, May 06, 2011 6:26 PM
  • these days, a lot of people have laptops with 15.6" 1366 x 768 screens.

    IE9's hardcoded font looks like ABSOLUTE BLURRY GARBAGE. In fact, all clear-type font looks like garbage on our laptops. The letters don't fit within pixels. they spill over between pixels and create a blurry mess.

    It's like watching a 3D movie........ WITHOUT the frickin 3D glasses.

    You know how painful it is to watch a 3D movie without the 3D glasses ?????

    absolute FAIL.

    Since you can't take a screenshot simply by pressing Print Screen........I took a picture with my digital camera to show you how crappy IE9 font rendering is. It will show you how blurry it is.

    Blurry letters include l,r,h,i,n,F. There's absolutely NO REASON the letter "L" should be blurry. It's a damned straight line! It's supposed to fit within the pixels. Same goes for capital "F". Why is there a 'shadow' to the left of it ?

    see picture below......

    http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/8434/assrg.jpg



    • Edited by pman626 Saturday, May 07, 2011 10:44 PM
    Saturday, May 07, 2011 4:46 AM
  • I can't read ClearType over an extended period of time.  In my travels everyone that likes ClearType all seem to wear glasses - its a personal deduction, not scientifically factual.

     

    Please Microsoft give us a way to turn off ClearType in IE9.  I'm going back to Firefox and Safari.

    Saturday, May 07, 2011 7:56 AM
  • @pman626 Users MedalsUsers Medals

    I'd love to think the screen shots would convince the MSFT team but they aren't listening. We're being force fed this whether we like it or not. Firefox allows you to turn off cleartype. Microsoft won't allow it to be turned off.Users MedalsUsers Medals For some reason @
    EricLaw [MSFT] has a personal vested interest in forcing features on users which are not wanted.Users MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers MedalsUsers Medals

    Saturday, May 07, 2011 7:18 PM
  • How can we write to you?  Do you have an email I can send a screenshot to?
    Tuesday, May 24, 2011 6:03 AM
  • I do NOT want to know how to tune ClearType.  I want it off entirely!  No amount of tuning will make ClearType acceptible to me.  I have the latest and greatest video adapter and LCD display and it still looks terrible.  I suffered painful eye strain for years until I figured out how to disable ClearType and now MSFT wants to force me back to those agonizing days.  I don't think so!  I have rolled back to IE8 and I will start experimenting with other browsers until IE9+ allows me to easily disable ClearType.  Program Managers are you listening???? A large amout of your users find IE9 unusable because of this.  Please don't ask for hardware specs and sample web pages to repro fuzzy fonts.  The hardware doesn't matter for those bothered by ClearType.... To us, every web page looks aweful no matter what the hardware is.  Please let us turn it OFF!

    Friday, May 27, 2011 2:07 AM
  • I've been figiting ClearType in various forms over the past several years and am just getting sick of hacking the OS and IE to turn it off.  I hate it. I don't understand why MS insists on forcingit on everyone.  I'm not going to hack IE to turn it off this time. It is not worth my time.  There is no wonder that IE market share continues to decline.  Firefox 4.0 here I come. So long IE 9!  And shame on you Microsoft!
    Sunday, May 29, 2011 7:19 PM
  • 12345
    Friday, June 03, 2011 12:33 PM
  • Firefox

    http://imageshack.us/f/109/firefoxif.png/

     

    IE9

    http://imageshack.us/f/190/ie9w.png/

     

    Friday, June 03, 2011 12:44 PM
  • never used any browser other than internet explorer before but when i discovered that is impossible to turn off horrible clear type feature in IE9 which plays some nasty visual tricks with my eyes and brain-i decided to uninstall it and gave chance to chrome-and man what a good desicion that was,text is finally sharp,clear (yes,clear) and readable,no more fuzziness,no more headache...
    Friday, June 03, 2011 4:09 PM
  • Hi

    Everyone seems to agree that sub-pixel fonts look worse on THEIR computers. I'm worried about my customers' computers. Here's why:

    I have around 70 websites. For years, I've had to deal with browser-specific issues in an attempt to give all users the same-looking webpage. Long hours spent with margins, padding, borders, line height, fonts, pixel sizes, relative repositioning, tables, css, etc etc ...

    At last, with the latest browsers and html 5, all the text aligned with other objects, was readable, didn't look gappy, fitted exactly in spaces, justified well ... Everything looked great, in all the browsers - I could relax a bit and spend less time at the screen. Until IE9 ...

    Now, every word, phrase, line, title etc takes slightly fewer pixels than before. It all looks messy, things don't align, text like '20mm x 30mm' are now wrapped to the next line, the whole neatness of pages has gone, text in small containers has gone gappy, lines don't end where they did ...

    What has been the point of the whole excercise, the 'standards', the long hours, the learning, the research, the tests, and all my time and money to create neat page layouts when they're now harder to read and messy.

    It's heart-breaking. There should be a style-sheet line:   font-fiddling: none;

    So, I too use FireFox most of the time.

    Rob

    Wednesday, June 08, 2011 3:11 PM
  • Hi

    To add to the previous email:

    I created a justified line of 12px high words, upper and lower case, 762px long. It looked great in FireFox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera.

    In IE9 it looked gappy - as if a short word had gone missing. However, many of the inter-word spaces that were 8px are now 10px ???

    I then created a block of text 14 lines long. The gappy effect was so bad that it left rivers of spaces running down the page. And the letters look smaller. And they're harder to read.

    I guess this means that ALL the designers who've spent a lot of time making web text look good in a diverse range of contexts, are all pretty annoyed. I hope Microsoft is paying attention.

    If anyone's interested, a comparitive test doesn't need any links, system specs, coding, style sheet adjustments, etc. Just look at a good line of text in Firefox and IE9.

    Rob

     

     

     

     

    Thursday, June 09, 2011 11:50 AM
  • Window 8 may only use ClearType anti-alisased fonts.  :-) 
    So if you find IE9 unusable because of subpixiled text as I do, you may soon find all of Windows to be unusable.

    What irks me is, we wouldn't have so many obscene jagged edged fonts if it weren't for anti-aliasing... fonts would look great unsmoothed like Tahoma, Verdana, Cabri, etc...

    Thursday, June 09, 2011 11:25 PM
  • Everyone seems to agree that sub-pixel fonts look worse...

    That's a pretty sweeping statement. Of the tens of millions of users of IE9 around the world, a handful complain here and elsewhere that ClearType makes things worse. As your post points out, there are so many variables at work when optimizing a web page for reading that it's impossible to cater for all possible variants of eyesight, hardware and software, so some lowest common denominator has to be found to satisfy most users. As an ordinary user suffering from the long-sightedness that affects many people over a certain age and using a bog-standard 17" LCD display [1], I can only say that using the display options available to me in my display adapter, my OS (W7) and my browser (IE9) gives me as good a reading experience as I could expect to get when reading a well-designed and -printed book. It doesn't get better than that.

    I can only imagine that those of you having trouble with the display of text are using hardware optimized for some other purpose like viewing still images or video, or else you haven't explored all the options at your disposal.

    The full-size screenshots below show three views of your post, the first with my normal IE settings, the second with the IE settings I would use for a troublesome page and the third as I suppose the designers intended. Clicking the images should reveal them as I captured them.

    [1] A Toshiba L670-11D laptop using ATI Mobility Radeon HD5650 at 1600 x 900

    Noel

     

     

     


    Noel
    Friday, June 10, 2011 10:47 AM
  • I should mention that the three captures above all look significantly better than how IE9 would render it on my setup (had I not used the hack a few posts above to disable it), but still, none of them look nearly as good as what it looks now with Clear Type disabled. The problem with the hack is, well, it's a hack and although it makes the individual letters appear clear, the spacing is still messed up on some pages because of the use of the wrong fonts.

    Undoubtedly, Clear Type (sub-pixel rendering,etc.) has its place and uses, no one is asking for it to be abandoned. What we are all saying, though, is it should be made optional. Now, how hard would that be?

    Kamen


    Just jumped from VS 2005 SP1 to VS 2010, native C++ and C#, transitioning from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7; Mountain time zone.
    Friday, June 10, 2011 2:29 PM
  • You've proved my point. Thanks.

    They all looked worse than the same text on an HTML5 page in FireFox: they all look blurred and shadowy.

    And much worse than the window I'm typing in now which is crystal clear: because it's not IE9.

    And you can see how, in the last example, the line lengths are different. Which brings me back to my main point: all our attempts to get things to line up and justify well are now undermined. All my carefully written 1000 web pages look gappy with odd line breaks in numbers, dimensions, split hyphens, poor justification, rivers of space ... any designer looking at the same text had it been laid out for a paper ad would say it looked careless.

    However, the issue is not how ClearType slightly improves Andale Mono in NotePad++  -  it's how IE9 has changed my web pages for the worse, made the text slightly smaller, and made the 12px Verdana harder to read. Many of the glyphs look ugly and just, well, out of focus.

    For most people the web page is the thing they look at most. But they won't complain because they don't know where to complain to, it's always fobbed off, and no one does anything. Which is why bugs and anomalies persist over versions.

    If IE developers had listened more we wouldn't have had the browser wars, conflicting 'standards', and proprietory features. And 10 years of frustrating browser sniffing and version-coding. What a waste of my valuable irreplaceable lifetime ...

     

    Friday, June 10, 2011 2:55 PM
  • I hate IE9. Both my kids hate it. My wife just told me she hates it. If my kids' gerbil could talk, it would tell me she hates it.

    Is this some kind of twilight zone with this IE9? Are aliens preparing for an attack on a fabric of society using this thing?

     

    Do they have IE9 in Canada? How about New Zealand? Where's my passport...

    Saturday, June 11, 2011 1:31 AM
  • As expected, this is yet to be fixed.

    Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:50 AM
  • I've been using IE since IE6 way back when.

    EVERY time a NEW IE comes out...there are ALWAYS massive problems...which is why I NEVER switch within the 1st 1-2 years of the new IE.

     

    IMHO...MS's software QA is one of the worst in the business.

     

    WHY do you think there are ALWAYS MASSIVE updates...other than them adding to their TRACKING / data collection software???

    Thursday, June 16, 2011 1:08 AM
  • I was using Firefox for most things, looks like I'll be using it for all things now.  I can't believe you can't disable clear type.  Mind = Blown
    Monday, June 20, 2011 2:09 PM
  • @Olivier Dagenais: Thank you so much for helping me get rid of cleartype in IE9 and other apps that embed MSHTML.dll (Google Talk)




    It's fine if those of us are a small minority that very much dislike cleartype, but that does not give MS the right to totally disable the ability to turn it off if we prefer not to use it at all.  Why force anything on anyone that does not want to use it? Thanks a lot MS :(



    Wednesday, June 22, 2011 8:05 PM
  • Well, technically, Microsoft has a right to do whatever it wants with its product, even if it's as stoopid as this.
    Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:33 PM
  • And we all have the right to not use it :) FF5 is so much better, I've used IE for years but now I'm using FF, well done MS
    Friday, June 24, 2011 1:42 AM
  • Recently updated to IE9. Instantly noticed the marked degradation of font clarity.

    When I ran across a CNET article about fixing blurry fonts in Firefox, I thought "Great! Maybe I can fix my IE fonts!". Did my Bing search and found this blog/thread.

    This string of posts has me concerned disheartened and questioning my ability to continue using MS products (don't get me wrong, I'm the pro-windows guy in every venue. Learned on it, love the products, use A LOT of them, buy every 2 years like a good boy).

    I'm not an IT guy. I am a physician, who must carry around a tablet (currently a Lenovo X61 - 1024x786) 10+hours/day. I can't carry around a 19" monitor, and I'm not going to hack my OS.

    My electronic medical record software uses IE in some way or another, making it just as painful as browsing in IE9. The eyestrain related headaches are really starting to get to me (something not experienced prior to the font issue). Further, I find myself posting to this site using Chrome, and using it more often to avoid the discomfort. Using Chrome is something I thought I'd never do. All else considered, I'd rather be using IE9. However, this font blurring issue is a really big deal.

    It actually pains me to say it... but without a true fix/option available for the font issue, I'm going to start migrating my workflow out of Microsoft products. I'm sure I don't understand the entirety of the issues associated with the font situation, but if my next tablet's resolution (likely 1366x768 or 1280 x 800) doesn't fix it or some fix doesn't come from MS, I'm left with no choice but to jump ship.

    (If I could figure out how to insert it, I'd show a screen shot of side-by-side web pages from IE9 and Chrome showing the marked difference)

    Sunday, June 26, 2011 7:21 AM
  • Hi all

    We have re-released core fonts (Arial, Verdana and Tahoma) to alleviate the issues people have reported. We've observed that most of the issues are caused at small point size.

    As a reminder wew do still recommend running the ClearType Tuning Wizard and making use of Internet Explorer 9's zoom (ctrl+ in ctrl- out) to assist with viewing pages with very small font sizes.

    The update is marked as important on Windows Update and would install automatically if you have selected that option. If you'd like to download the update yourself please see the following article and download the appropriate package for your OS. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2545698

    Look forward to hearing from you how these new fonts work out. Send mail to IE9PQ@microsoft.com

    Many thanks & Regards

    Mark


    Mark Feetham Senior Program Manager Internet Explorer Product Quality
    Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:47 PM
    Owner
  • I just noticed KB2545698 and hurried here to post the news, but Mark already took care of it. Installing right now, let's see if it helps... (Although, from what Mark wrote, and mostly from the notes of KB2545698, it seems like the character spacing issues might not get resolved by this update.)

    Kamen


    Just jumped from VS 2005 SP1 to VS 2010, native C++ and C#, transitioning from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7; Mountain time zone.
    Wednesday, June 29, 2011 12:35 AM
  • hi

    like a billion other people, i look at web pages in internet explorer.

    like most web designers, i put a lot of time into layout: text aligned, justified neatly (even if i have to change a few words), text didn't look gappy, aligned with images and on buttons, overlaid text worked well ...  and all sorts of things that a graphic designer producing a paper advert would work hard on and be proud of. in fact, every single thing was pixel-perfect on all the popular browsers - with html5 and good css, it wasn't that difficult because you knew that a word that took up 31pixels would stay at 31, not suddenly change to 28/29. and, at last, i thought browsers were all in agreement and everything wouldn't need browser-sniffing.

    with ie9, all the above were ruined. flicking between browsers, a popular font like 12px verdana, looks  slightly smaller, is blurred, looks gappy and awkward. some of the letters look like half-bold. and this is how my customers see the sites i've written for them and they use to sell their products/services.

    whatever reasons ms has for 'improving' readabilty (although the old implementation of verdana was pretty good) it shouldn't result in the font looking smaller and blurred, and words taking up fewer pixels than before, leading to all the issues above. what's the point of css working in pixels when everything has now gone a bit wrong. is it sub-pixel fonts, because i had clear type switched on before ie9 and it was ok-ish.

    as far as i can tell, the update has done nothing. absolutely nothing. and yes, i did restart my notebook.

    i've checked this widely. it's nothing to do with my set up, my web pages, my pc specs ... it's a result of installing and trying to use ie9. i'm absolutely amazed that the designers didn't look at the result and dismiss it immediately, instead of messing up years of work by hundreds of thousands of web designers, spoilng millions and millions of web pages. AND THEY'RE ALL HARDER TO READ. AND I DON'T WANT MY CUSTOMERS TO THINK MY SITES LOOK MESSY.


    everyone is talking about how it looks on their personal computers. i'm concerned about how my web pages look on my customers' pages who simply don't think of turning off cleartype or wouldn't know how, or don't know what it is. i use 5 pcs, my customers use 000s.

    can we, as YOUR customers, have a clear answer to what's gone wrong and what's going to be done.

    thanks

    robin cameron
    Wednesday, June 29, 2011 8:09 AM
  • Hello

    I still wanted to test a time, I said that maybe after the update KB2545698 fonts are correct, but to no avail. It was the last time I installed IE9 until it is completely possible to disable ClearType

     

    The Seven Gadget

    IE8

    http://www.pixyup.com/uploads/291259334e0b05956d285.jpg 

     

    IE9

    http://www.pixyup.com/uploads/291300234e0b05c7043c1.jpg

     

    Windows mail

    IE8 

    http://www.pixyup.com/uploads/291423164e0b193441712.jpg


    IE9  

    http://www.pixyup.com/uploads/291423524e0b19589e18d.jpg

     

    Forum

    IE8

    http://www.pixyup.com/uploads/291303294e0b06816a614.jpg

     

    IE9

    http://www.pixyup.com/uploads/291303444e0b0690c0167.jpg

     

     

    IE8

    http://www.pixyup.com/uploads/291304244e0b06b81be23.jpg

     

    IE9

    http://www.pixyup.com/uploads/291304344e0b06c236345.jpg

     

     

    IE8

    http://www.pixyup.com/uploads/291307334e0b0775d965d.jpg

     

    IE9

    http://www.pixyup.com/uploads/291307544e0b078a810e2.jpg

     

     

    That's why I never install it IE9 until it is completely possible to disabled ...












    Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:09 AM
  • Installed IE9... and uninstalled it again.
    Thursday, June 30, 2011 5:35 PM
  • Same

     

    Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:24 PM
  • After finding out about KB2545698 I gave it a 2nd chance. How stupid could I be.

    Back at IE8 again. Won't try IE9 anymore at all now wasting my time for nothing.

    Friday, July 01, 2011 3:41 PM
  • Well, at least Microsoft is now admitting there is a problem, so that's a step in the right direction.  However, like the users above, KB2545698 didn't seem to change anything that I'm able to tell.  The fonts in IE9 don't appear any less blurry with the update than they did without.
    Friday, July 01, 2011 6:42 PM
  • hi

    to follow my earlier replies and posts, i've attached a small pic showing two enlarged screen shots (grey verdana on black).

    see www.designarcade.co.uk/ie9.htm

    half close your eyes and sit back:

    top one firefox: looks blanced and easy-ish to read

    bottom one ie9: hard to read, feels smaller, and looks half-bold? all a bit odd - e.g. two letters c  look different. and what's happened to the h, l, and i?

    worse though, the ie9 word is shorter by a few pixels. this screws up every bit of alignment/justification etc etc i've worked so hard at for years.

    even if i could turn it all off on my pc, i want my customers to see what i've designed, not what ms has tinkered with.


    it's like a magazine changing the graphic design of my ad to make it less legible and less neat - it's just not acceptable.

    rob

    Sunday, July 03, 2011 7:30 PM
  • screw your ClearType updates..

    are you blind?

     

    I want to disable ClearType not make it better.

    Stop ClearType dictatorship!

    Sunday, July 10, 2011 12:49 PM
  • Of all the people I know-no one is still using Internet Explorer any more,they all switched to Firefox or Chrome and why is that? Because text in Internet Explorer is unreadable beyond any common sense,who wants to get pain it the eye while suffering with blurry fonts? Just ridiculous... 





    • Edited by vtamb Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:22 AM
    Friday, July 15, 2011 11:44 AM
  • That's actually not an exaggeration.  Because it seemed nobody was listening on this problem, I made the switch months ago to another browser (Chrome) for the first time.  Also blocked the IE9 update from the rest of the computers in the house, left them at IE8, and installed Chrome on them too.  Spent too much time already trying to tweak things to look right, and external .dll's that helped a lot, but still didn't bring the fonts back to where I wanted them. The last update that was supposed to help with fonts, didn't work here, so not going back to IE9 any time soon.  In fact, I find Chrome working so well for me, that even if a "real" fix (ever) comes out , I may just stick with my current setup...and I never thought I'd switch browsers.
    Saturday, July 16, 2011 12:43 AM
  • I blocked the IE 9 update on my 4 home computers and have made the switch to Chrome.  I don't like being forced into something, I myself am a software developer and one of the most important things in software development is that you need to listen to your users.  I agree with you PC Guy, even if a fix comes out I am liking Chrome way too much and will probably not bother switching back to IE.  Thanks Microsoft for showing me the light that there are other great browser options out there.
    Monday, July 18, 2011 12:32 PM
  • Go on the Intel website and look what they have done!

     

    Ugly on all the browsers, except IE9 and is crappy sub pixel antialiasing, whatever they call it.

     

    Intel are really dummys to tune their web site for a browser that keep losing market share.

     

    This is crasy.

     

     


    Friday, August 12, 2011 3:17 PM
  • Hi all

    We have re-released core fonts (Arial, Verdana and Tahoma) to alleviate the issues people have reported. We've observed that most of the issues are caused at small point size.

    As a reminder wew do still recommend running the ClearType Tuning Wizard and making use of Internet Explorer 9's zoom (ctrl+ in ctrl- out) to assist with viewing pages with very small font sizes.

    The update is marked as important on Windows Update and would install automatically if you have selected that option. If you'd like to download the update yourself please see the following article and download the appropriate package for your OS. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2545698

    Look forward to hearing from you how these new fonts work out. Send mail to IE9PQ@microsoft.com

    Many thanks & Regards

    Mark


    Mark Feetham Senior Program Manager Internet Explorer Product Quality
    Is there some reason you're not fixing the feature bug itself? Is there some reason that, despite the consistent reports of how your bad choices are causing many users eye strain, you persist in forcing your personal choices on other people, driving people away to other products?
    Friday, August 26, 2011 12:41 AM
  • jvarszegi wrote: Is there some reason you're not fixing the feature bug itself?...

    Please stick to your own, new thread in Answers forum to avoid confusion. THX
    Friday, August 26, 2011 3:34 AM
  • hi

     

    re the new core fonts release, it's made no obvious difference - not surprising, as my system said i already had the update!?. it's not just the readability, it's that words take up slightly fewer pixels lengthwise, undoing years of web design aligning text, justifying, text on buttons ... it's like a  magazine ad designer taking great care to make everything look right but the typesetter changes it.

    if a sentence takes say 300px (in length) in all the other browsers, i want it to take 300 in ie - not 292. some text which looked great is now gappy, necessary hyphens (as in six-year old child) are split over lines, equations with spaces are broken - all after hard work to make sure everything looked good. in fact, with html5, and the new css, everything could be made pixel perfect - at last. until ie9 ...

    and it still looks slightly smaller and blurred ....

     

    it's really surprising that, in graphic design, such a change to fonts (to letraset even!) would never be released, or used. but with ie 9 we're just told it's better.

     

    rob

    Friday, August 26, 2011 7:17 AM
  • jvarszegi wrote: Is there some reason you're not fixing the feature bug itself?...

    Please stick to your own, new thread in Answers forum to avoid confusion. THX

    I'm going to repost here my answer to you there.  You seem to want to sweep this serious flaw under the rug and ignore it.  Here's my answer:

     

    "Pa Bear, I'm astounded by Microsoft's attitude in the face of this serious design flaw that affects many users.  You should simply be acknowledging your mistake and working to fix it."

    Friday, August 26, 2011 7:51 AM
  • I STRONGLY AGREE that there need to be options in IE9 for:

    • Disabling / Enabling sub-pixel character positioning.
    • Disabling / Enabling ClearType (in this case, IE9 should obey the system-wide setting).

    There is personal preference involved, hence the need for settings.  In the case of this particular feature, preferences run very strong.

    However, I have become convinced - because these ClearType features evoke such a love/hate response from different folks - that at least some people are not seeing their fonts rendered as clearly and sharply as they should be with ClearType enabled possibly because they haven't properly tuned the settings (the ClearType Text Tuner was mentioned earlier in this thread), they have their desktop set to the wrong resolution, or they have specific monitor characteristics or problems that yield blurry, color-fringed, unpleasant text on THEIR monitors.

    Keep in mind not everyone sees ClearType-enhanced text as unpleasant or more difficult to read.  For some it greatly improves their visual experience.

    Posting a screenshot grabbed digitally from your desktop isn't helpful, because it eliminates the monitor and some parts of the video card and cabling from the display process.

    Monitors differ in the way they display things.  More than you might think.

    ClearType enhancement has components that pre-compensate for monitor characteristics, and folks whose systems DO render ClearType-enhanced text well generally see the ClearType screenshots as looking better than the non-ClearType versions.  I believe these differences are why emotions tend to run high in these discussions.

    Most folks own a decent digital camera nowadays, so... 

    Please capture a MACRO PHOTOGRAPH of ClearType-enhanced text on YOUR monitor, and ideally the same non-enhanced text and post it here.

    It needs to be a magnified macro photo at a high enough resolution so that it is at least 4 times larger than the actual displayed text - ideally much larger.  This will supersede individual monitor characterstics, and I believe looking to such photographs to express what you are actually seeing on your monitor is the only way for you and others to determine whether you're getting the best possible display out of your system.  Someone might be able to suggest a setting change that clears everything up!

    This image is an example of the kind of macro photo I'm describing:

    On the assumption that Microsoft isn't going to provide the requested options any time soon, and assuming using the competitive browsers isn't to your liking, putting in a little effort to try to clear up your ClearType renderings may be time well spent.

    -Noel

    Monday, August 29, 2011 3:09 PM
  • "some parts of the video card and cabling"

     mmm ... that explains it all. it's the cabling - why didn't we all realise.

    especially the 'cabling' on my sony notebook.

    and all my tests on 8pcs and four browsers, and the pixel measurement, bluryness, perceptions of size, etc etc, all count for nothing.

    AND, perhaps more importantly, re my commercial websites. what's the point of 'fixing' my computer if my users/customers are stuck with this weird font rendering. i need to know that they see what i see.

    rob

    Monday, August 29, 2011 4:33 PM
  • Don't look now but there IS a cable inside your notebook that carries signals from the display adapter to the display.

    My point is that not all hardware is created equal.

    And as much as you are saying "weird font rendering", I say "superior font rendering" with conviction, because that's how it looks to ME on MY hardware - which is clearly what Microsoft intended. 

    I'm not trying to force it on you, I'm just trying to understand why your perception is so very different from mine.

    -Noel

    Monday, August 29, 2011 5:34 PM
  • hi

    if my short cable screws up my screen to that extent, i might as well give up on computers for the next few years. however, i think that all decent pc manufacturers would disagree with you.

    and, if it was just me complaining, i might reluctantly shift my opinion. however, there are just too many unhappy users - including everyone i know who's on ie9. and loads and loads who don't know how to use a forum for this even if they knew there was one. and loads like this:

    a friend bought a new high-end notebook, but took it back as the fonts 'looked' weird and there MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT. sorry mate, said the salesman - it's just ie9.

     

    it's pretty easy to do a net test. put together a nice justified paragraph in verdana 12/14. run it in firefox. zoom in a lot. take a screen shot. do the same with ie 9.

    the comparison is pitiful. and, there's a good chance in ie9, the justification goes gappy, especially if you've carefully positioned things like:

    six-year old

    45 x 50cm

    the day melted away ...

    450 000 000

    cups/saucers

    ( who knows? )

    United States

    and lots of other less usual bits of text that are now in a slightly different position in the line, and often split or produce gaps, because:

    12 words that took up, for example 800px, now take up 786px, upsetting all the careful text arrangement and css alignment.

    although i've posted before, no one from microsoft has replied about why their efforts have changed an important dimension of text - necessary to layout text with precision.

    rob

     

    Monday, August 29, 2011 6:13 PM
  • it's pretty easy to do a net test. put together a nice justified paragraph in verdana 12/14. run it in firefox. zoom in a lot. take a screen shot.


    Therin lies the problem...  If you think any two people can compare screen shots then you don't understand how ClearType is supposed to work, and/or you're unwilling to believe the exact same pixels can and do look different on two different monitors.  This is why I have been asking for photos of the actual screen, but so far no one seems willing.

    And of course the cabling can make a difference in how two different systems perform.  It's not a variable on a laptop, but then not everyone has a laptop do they?  Some folks hook their VGA cable up and run their desktops at resolutions different from the native monitor resolution.

    -Noel


    Monday, August 29, 2011 9:44 PM
  • put together a nice justified paragraph in verdana 12/14. run it in firefox. zoom in a lot. take a screen shot. do the same with ie 9.
     
    ... in ie9, the justification goes gappy, especially if you've carefully positioned things ...
     
    bits of text that are now in a slightly different position in the line, and often split or produce gaps, because: 12 words that took up, for example 800px, now take up 786px, upsetting all the careful text arrangement and css alignment.
    I think you're trying too hard to achieve the unattainable. You will never be able to carefully position things so they will look the same for all users, regardless of which browser they're using. There are just too many variables involved over which you have no control.
    • a nice justified paragraph in verdana 12/14. What if the user doesn't happen to have Verdana installed? Will the paragraph remain nicely justified in all of the fallback fonts?
    • 12/14. What if the user finds 12pt text too small and uses one or more of the Windows/IE settings available to him to make the text larger? Or do you use every subterfuge at your disposal to prevent poor-sighted users from being able to read your careful text arrangement? I have in mind settings like:
      • IE Text Size. What do your pages look like with Larger or Largest text size in IE?
      • IE Zoom. What do your pages look like at 150% zoom?
      • Screen DPI (a misnomer for PPI). What do your pages look like at a DPI of 125?
      • Screen size in pixels (often called resolution, another misnomer). What do your pages look like at 800 x 600?
      • ... and probably some more that I can't think of at the moment.
    • What if the window is resized horizontally. Do your pages shrink sideways so that the text remains visible, or do you expect users to scroll sideways to read your careful text arrangement?
    The only way I know of to guarantee that users will see your justified text as you intend it to be seen is to convert it to an image and place that. This will of course introduce problems of its own. And the minute changes in character width and spacing introduced by ClearType or sub-pixel text rendering are negligible compared with all the other factors affecting line length on a web page.
     
    One factor which Noel C hasn't mentioned (AFAICS) is display driver settings. I have learnt since the introduction with SP1 of widespread GPU rendering in W7 (and programs running under W7 like IE9 and Windows Live Essentials) that display adapters optimized for high-speed graphics (like gaming) sometimes have to trade off static text quality against video effects. For an example, see this thread.

    Noel
    Monday, August 29, 2011 11:15 PM
  • One factor which Noel C hasn't mentioned (AFAICS) is display driver settings. I have learnt since the introduction with SP1 of widespread GPU rendering in W7 (and programs running under W7 like IE9 and Windows Live Essentials) that display adapters optimized for high-speed graphics (like gaming) sometimes have to trade off static text quality against video effects. For an example, see this thread.


    Yes, it's possible the driver settings could influence how ClearType is rendered, though I honestly don't know whether it does so I have avoided the subject to some extent.  Microsoft may have written code to run right on the GPU to do the rendering, vs. sending it through the more typical interfaces DirectX games or OpenGL applications might use, so it's not clear whether driver settings can affect the results.

    I do know that early on the Visual Studio 2010 implementation of font handling caused the rendering of some fonts to be tremendously blurry.  That got fixed pretty quickly as I recall.  I have been wondering whether that's what could be happening with some people using IE9.

    Do you have any references describing how Microsoft does font rendering?  I'd love to know more about how they're actually using the GPU.

    -Noel

    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:59 AM
  • Note: This is a response to the post BELOW. Derosnec is up to some silliness now with deleting his posts and reposting in an alternate order.

    Mr Authority sez:  Screenshots are not valid.

    Assuming you're being a smartass (again) and referring to me, I said nothing of the sort.

    What I said was that one cannot capture a screenshot taken on one system and view it on another and claim this conclusively shows anything about what is being seen on the monitor with human eyes.  Your repeated attempts to show screenshots, especially magnified ones, and claim that they prove that ClearType causes color fringing, for example, are completely bogus, which is why everyone ignores them.

    I'd love to hear you try to explain why the ClearType Text Tuner display panels translate so asymmetrically to the photo of the same, below.  The only difference is the order of the colors at the edges of the text.

    As you can see with your own two eyes here, clearly a screenshot does NOT give an indication of what the user is actually seeing.  To think it does implies you don't yet understand how a monitor actually works.

    You can easily duplicate this on your own system by the way.

    Click here to see the whole image.

    -Noel


    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 6:43 AM
  • so now it's not just cables, it's cameras, the lack of verdana, video cards, font sizes, clear-type tuning (done) ...

    let's confine this to most people using most computers - they have verdana and just use normal resolution and no zoom. nearly all can read verdana 12/14 easily just as most people can read normal books and newspapers. using zoom obviously changes the text a bit, as it would with images.

    BUT, ON ALL MY TEST MACHINES, THE FONTS LOOKED OK UNTIL IE9. in line with scientific experiments, change one thing and see what happens. well, we know now.

    several people asked for screenshots. i posted this before but probably no one bothered to look. if you're really intertested, take a look ...

     

    i've tested a quick web page (on a site i use to test things) - http://www.designarcade.co.uk/ie9.htm - on a wide range of computers, including, top-end notebooks, cheap notebooks, internet cafe monitors, my kid's pc, a fairly good games pc, friend's computers, lab computers, sales desktops, a pc in a legal office, several computers at school ...

     

    it's a light grey font on black. it's quite 'clear' using firefox 6 and ie9 that, with ie9, the normal font looks smaller and in fact must be smaller as it squeezes in 18 more characters in the complete line (on my 1366 wide screen) !!! doesn't anyone ever notice this as no one comments?

    also, the firefox version looks like normal verdana. the ie9 looks like half-normal half-bold?

    the larger image (half-close your eyes) shows how the 'a' sort of squares off, the 'r' and 'l' look too fat, the 'c' has a narrow inside, etc etc. and the ie9 word takes up 4 pixels less.

     

    so, if a test on over 20 computers produces as-good-as identical results, pre ie9 and with it, isn't that enough to make this a meaningful criticism?

     

    rob

     

    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:02 AM
  • if you're really intertested, take a look ...

    I looked.  And I believe what you're sensing is the difference between pixel aligned rendering and the new IE9 sub-pixel rendering.

    Font rendering, prior to IE9, did not do sub-pixel positioning of characters.  Instead, the major parts of each character were moved over to align on a pixel boundary.  This created visibly inconsistent spacing and resulted in text which could be wider than it should be, and some folks perceive it as more blurry (you called it clunky).

    Virtually all font rendering was done like this pre IE9, which explains your "identical results" across different apps and different machines.

    Now IE9 renders each character using real numbers, not on pixel boundaries - almost as though it was being painted on an image at a big point size then downsized.  Thus the a might start on a pixel boundary, but the r might actually start 7.7 pixels to the right, the c 5.2 pixels to the right of that, etc.

    I believe it's supposed to make the same text take up exactly the amount of space proportional to its point size.  We'll be able to see it as words that fit the same space no matter what the zoom setting, for example.

    So ideally, if you were to view your screen showing a web site at 100% zoom, then set the zoom to 200% and move back so that you're twice as far away, they should look virtually identical.  Or if you zoom out, subpixel-aligned text should still look exactly the same - just smaller.

    Quoted from the web page I linked to above:

    Text in your Web page will lay out the exact same way across different display resolutions and zoom factors when measured and rendered using sub-pixel fonts. Sub-pixel ClearType font positioning offers the most accurate spacing of characters on screen, especially at small sizes where the difference between a sub-pixel and a whole pixel represents a significant proportion of glyph width. It allows text to be measured in ideal resolution space and rendered at its natural position. This means that line breaks in text on your Web page will not shift around between different users’ configurations.

    So yes, this is a case where all predecessors were inaccurate, and IE9 is now accurate.

    -Noel

    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:47 AM
  • hi noel

     

    thx for replying - do you work for microsoft? interesting 'explanations'. however, the reason might be on your side but the proof is on mine. it just looks worse and undoes years of css and care with text, which is why so few people have said 'great - what an improvement' and why so many have said 'turn it off'.

    and i feel i should repeat that, with my fairly extensive tests, and experiments with web pages, the results were pretty consistent - no one liked it. interestingly, i just showed firefox and ie9 to a shop customer on a sony vaio - instant response: ie9 looked smaller and blurrier.

    what i'd really like is a bit of css/js/whatever that temporarily turns off this 'feasture' and allows my commercial web pages to be viewed by my customers as i designed them, not as microsoft redesigns them them.

    as a loose analogy, i can't image the full-page-ad designer for microsoft spending ages on spacing and alignment to find that the finished ad had gone manky in the magazine.

    rob

     

    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:07 AM
  • do you work for microsoft? 


    Not hardly!  But I am a software developer (I have my yown business) and do my share of web work, and since I do graphics software I'm very interested in technology that wrings things out of the display.  I've been reading up on ClearType over the past couple of days, and it's fascinating to see that some people loathe it while others love it.

    I'm sure you've put a lot of effort into making your page layouts work just right, and I imagine you tweaked them until they looked good in the browsers of the day, but I can tell you right now that existing web pages do get messed at zoom levels other than 100%.  Text DOES wrap in different places in FireFox, or just not fit.  A little while ago I found several sites where I was able to get that to happen.

    I think the idea is that if you develop your site to look right in IE9, it's supposed to look more consistently right in more places in the future, as the inaccuracy we came to expect and designed around has been eliminated.  A transition like this could be tough, but I'm going to make a wild guess that the other browsers are going to follow suit.

    I haven't looked into it, but it seems that there are Browser and Document Modes that interact in IE9 (look in the F12 developer tools).  I know you can set the Document Mode from a document (this site, for example, sets it to IE9 standards, while Adobe's forums set it to IE7 standards). 

    What I don't know is whether you can affect the Browser Mode from within a page, or that's strictly left up to the user.  I do know that the font rendering reverts back to the look you know and love if you manually set the Browser Mode to Internet Explorer 8.  Might be worth poking around.

    -Noel

    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:34 AM
  • interesting noel, thanks.

    i did ask my test cases about zoom levels. of course they were normal computer home and business users, not experts or developers. none of them uses zoom, and only a few even knew it was there. i suppose it's a bit like asking how many people use a magnifying glass when they read the newspaper?

    for all the reasons/explanations, we're still stuck with the widespread perception that it looks worse for nearly everyone - not better. that message alone, should be enough for microsoft. if their idea is also to do with mobile devices, why does it have to affect pcs?

    i'm also selling my products and my sites, so i'm very concerned that for many people the text looks worse than a year ago. unless they know about ie9, it looks as though (like a graphic designer) i've just not taken enough care. in fact, a recent customer said they loved the site for their small hotel, but why did the font look blurred. yes, why??

    interestingly, 'pixel perfect' was real. i learnt how to micro-manage every part of a web page. it was quite satisfying, and i learnt a lot about fonts work, and how css and html 5 are now pretty good. and all the audio-visual elements were great (i use jwplayer). it's just this awful text rendering ...

    anyway, i better get on with some work now. thanks for your replies.

    rob

    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:04 AM
  • Hello

    I compared IE8 and IE9 on different site that I frequent, I think the difference is not visible?

    This will be simple enough to put an option to disable ClearType, right?

     


    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:13 PM

  • This will be simple enough to put an option to disable ClearType, right?
     


    Unfortunately, I don't think so.  The more I read about IE9 development, the more it sounds like sub-pixel rendering was a prime design goal to be able to achieve consistent rendering of text sizes at different zoom levels, among other things.

    And I believe a majority of people who have participated in studies actually seemed to prefer the more fully-formed characters, despite the additional sense of smoothing, which some call blurring.  I guess these people must be the silent majority.  Whatever feedback they've gotten, and whatever their goals are, Microsoft seems to feel comfortable in not even offering an option to choose an alternate character rendering scheme.  That's a shame because the people who don't like it really do hate it with a passion, and for them an option to fall back to an alternate scheme would be welcome.

    Your best bets now, given that it can't be turned off, are to calibrate your system so that your monitor is displaying a gamma of 2.2, run the ClearType Tuner to set your specific system to render the best possible view, and if all that fails possibly also to configure IE9 to run in IE8 mode (F12 developer tools).

    Good luck.

    -Noel

    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:46 PM
  • I made more simple, I uninstall IE9 and I will never do the update and I recommend to anyone who asks me my opinion.

    Long live Firefox and IE8
    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:30 PM
  • Good for you!

    It's good that you have alternative browsers to choose from, especially one as good as Firefox.  There will always be advantages to one over the others at any given time.  But they all seem to copy one another, so don't be surprised if one day a FireFox update makes it work the same as IE9.

    -Noel

    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:52 PM
  • And I believe a majority of people who have participated in studies actually seemed to prefer the more fully-formed characters, despite the additional sense of smoothing, which some call blurring.  I guess these people must be the silent majority.  Whatever feedback they've gotten, and whatever their goals are, Microsoft seems to feel comfortable in not even offering an option to choose an alternate character rendering scheme.  That's a shame because the people who don't like it really do hate it with a passion, and for them an option to fall back to an alternate scheme would be welcome.

    Your best bets now, given that it can't be turned off, are to calibrate your system so that your monitor is displaying a gamma of 2.2, run the ClearType Tuner to set your specific system to render the best possible view, and if all that fails possibly also to configure IE9 to run in IE8 mode (F12 developer tools).

    Good luck.

    -Noel

    People who are bothered by Microsoft removing the option not to have ClearTYpe (CT) in IE9:

    1) have legitimate grief since they have the right to prefer a pixel-rending technology that has been used for decades,

    2) are not in any way trying to impose on others their preference - they simply want to have an option,

    3) can not be called a "vocal majority" until it is proven that those who have not yet complained have not done so because they really like CT (highly doubtful).

    People who defend the opposite position:

    a) are fighting a cause (wittingly or not) that would actually hurt others because it would deprive them from something good,

    b) do not stand to gain anything - ClearType is there and no one wants it gone

    c) are likely to be a minority because of (a) and (b) and no other reason.

     

    Our best bet is to use alternatives (the IE9 hack that I use has been working just fine for me) and keep fighting the cause, or who knows what the next big blow is going to be.

    Kamen


    Just jumped from VS 2005 SP1 to VS 2010, native C++ and C#, transitioning from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7; Mountain time zone.
    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:04 PM
  • The day Firefox will be an upgrade like this, I will put this out of date browser.
    Moreover, for the moment in Firefox 6.0, just off the hardware acceleration to find a very clear policy because unfortunately on some site that is designed to blur IE9 some police are ... (example: Intel Site)
    Anyway, there are also many IE8 which are working. It is slower yes, but you can disable ClearType and there is a separate search bar in the address bar, but that's another debate ...
    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:09 PM
  • If you're referring to me, I'm fighting no cause other than to try to help people get the best possible experience out of their computers.  Why else would someone be here helping others on this forum?  I do learn a lot of things in the process - that's my take away from this activity.  And it would be a shame to think that people trying to help others are a minority.  Look around, there are a lot of people on this forum helping others.

    But I'm with you, unfortunately the implication with there being no option in IE9 is that one wonders whether there may be no option in the next OS release either, and that IS a disturbing thought.  Microsoft seems to be trying to reduce their cost of maintenance by eliminating things they think have gone obsolete (reference, for example, the loss of the Classic Start Menu).  If they think just having ClearType-based sub-pixel font smoothing always on in all places helps them reduce service calls and code their various OS pieces more easily, then we may well lose the options.

    -Noel


    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:11 PM
  • Noel, I don't know what you believe you are fighting but if you took an objective look, you would see that the result of many of your posts in this and the other thread come down to anything but helping. Granted, many other posters here and there have shown childish maturity in their responses to your posts (to say the least), but you have to admit that your attitude has something do with it. Trust me, your posts appear condescending and patronizing in the attempts to dismiss the knowledge and ability of others to objectively judge for themselves and tend to provoke such reactions. Let's try to focus and respect others, including those who do not show respect to you.

    To change the subject, I am using Windows 7 x64 and I was able to get my start Menu to look pretty darn close to the Classic Start menu (in Windows 2000). It is arranged slightly differently but it works just about the same. Here's a peek:

    I don't remember the steps but I can help with getting it to that point.

    As for the truly serious fears that I have with letting Microsoft dictate their preferences on users: I don't even mean convenience features, like what we just talked about. I mean technologies with serious implications on the developers' world, like their constant tendency to drop development libraries before they have been finished and replace them with the "next big thing". I dread the couple of weeks remaining until the Build Conference when Microsoft could announce that they are dropping WPF in favor of some mix of HTML5 and JScript. Now, that is something that needs to be prevented!

    Kamen


    Just jumped from VS 2005 SP1 to VS 2010, native C++ and C#, transitioning from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7; Mountain time zone.



    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:42 PM
  • I appreciate your advice on how to word things so people don't feel I'm being condescending.  I tend to write very matter-of-factly, as I am a career engineer like you and I do know a thing or two.  Psst, your posts are no different, by the way.

    And let me just say your screenshot above is very clear, though the letters seem kind of anemic and pixelated to me.  :)

    There are a few good ways to reconstitute the Classic Start Menu, though I've switched to the Windows 7 one and no longer miss the other.  I don't know why they think it's better to traverse the menu structure inside that little window, but at least it is possible to organize the thing hierarchially (and to REorganize it after virtually every install or update).

    This is off topic for this thread, but as a fellow software developer you might appreciate some of the things Ivo Beltchev has done in the ClassicShell package.  It can reproduce the original Classic Start Menu almost perfectly (though I don't use that piece), and also does some very pleasant things to Explorer.  I reviewed all the source to see that it isn't doing something nefarious back before I chose to install it, and it's surprisingly stable.

    -Noel


    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:03 PM
  • Oh, and by the way, on a kind of related subject, what font for code do you use in Visual Studio?

    Have you tried FixedSys Excelsior?

    -Noel

    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:14 PM
  • Noel, my Windows 7 with CT turned off looks sharp enough to me. In Visual Studio I use Courier New and it looks sharp enough, as well. I don't have FixedSys on my system.

    Kamen


    Just jumped from VS 2005 SP1 to VS 2010, native C++ and C#, transitioning from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7; Mountain time zone.
    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:21 PM
  • FixedSys Excelsior is a free download, not from Microsoft.  You'll probably have noticed the Visual Studio 2010 no longer even allows raster fonts - that's another app with much the same kind of font rendering implementation IE has, except that I think it follows your system preferences for rendering.

    I like FixedSys Excelsior because it thickens the characters to some extent, which is my preference (that's the part that's pertinent to this thread).

    Note that this screen grab is from my system where ClearType font smoothing is enabled.  I'm not trying to show that off, but just to give you an idea how this font looks like the FixedSys font of old, yet is compatible with Visual Studio.

    -Noel


    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:28 PM
  • Thanks but it's still ClearType and , although better than most other ClearType  fonts, it's still too blurry for me. I'll stick with my clear pixel-aligned fonts.

    Kamen


    Just jumped from VS 2005 SP1 to VS 2010, native C++ and C#, transitioning from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7; Mountain time zone.
    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:22 PM
  • No, no, no.  The font is not ClearType.  The font is a font, and this one is perfectly pixel-aligned as long as you set it to 12 points AND it's compatible with Visual Studio 2010 (which the standard Microsoft FixedSys is not).

    I happened to have ClearType font smoothing on when I did the screen grab above, but nothing about this font requires that, and like I said (unlike IE9) Visual Studio DOES obey your system preferences for font smoothing.  If it didn't your Courier New would be smoothed!  Honest!  See what I mean about screen grabs being lousy for sharing things?

    Just because you're a great guy I recaptured my display showing this font WITHOUT font-smoothing enabled.  :)

    But hey, if you don't even want to try it, that's certainly your call. I'm just trying to help a fellow software developer who likes to see things clearly.

    -Noel


    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:50 PM
  • So the blurriness that I saw was not from ClearType effects but from the JPG compression, enhanced by the black background. Screen capture has nothing to do with this. I still don't see why I should have a reason to want to try this font since that would mean turning ClearType on my entire system, which would make things worse (for me). Or you meant to use this font without turning ClearType on, but like I said, I'm perfectly happy with my Courier. 

    Kamen


    Just jumped from VS 2005 SP1 to VS 2010, native C++ and C#, transitioning from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7; Mountain time zone.
    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:13 PM
  • No, the JPEG was saved at a high enough level that it did not visibly degrade the display.  Would you like me to post a ClearType-enhanced PNG to prove it?

    And please try to read more carefully... 

    I could not have been more clear that using the FixedSys Excelsior font has NOTHING TO DO WITH with turning on ClearType.  How could you imply that IN ANY WAY from what I've written above?

    Like I said, it's up to you whether you want to try it.  But I sure wouldn't be happy editing code with Courier New, I know that.  How do you easily tell an uppercase O from a 0 in Courier New?

    -Noel

    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:26 PM
  • No, the JPEG was saved at a high enough level that it did not visibly degrade the display.  Would you like me to post a ClearType-enhanced PNG to prove it?

    And please try to read more carefully... 

    I could not have been more clear that using the FixedSys Excelsior font has NOTHING TO DO WITH with turning on ClearType.  How could you imply that IN ANY WAY from what I've written above?

    -Noel



    You edited your post above. Now you are saying that ClearType was enabled on your system. Either way, the screen capture on your first post had the text with that font blurry and that's what I saw. That is why I thought that font was optimized for CT since you were showing it with smoothing. And since I am perfectly happy with my system, including Visual Studio, using pixel-aligned fonts, I did not see a good reason why you would suggest another non-CT font when I said I'm perfectly happy with what I have. Clear enough?

    Kamen


    Just jumped from VS 2005 SP1 to VS 2010, native C++ and C#, transitioning from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7; Mountain time zone.

    • Edited by Kamen Wednesday, August 31, 2011 2:27 AM
    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:36 PM
  • Fine, maybe the font can help someone else.

    Think of me next time you confuse an O for a 0.

    -Noel

    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:41 PM
  • I use color coding in the VS editor, so my numbers are of different color than my text. Something else would have to remind me of you. :-)))))

    Kamen


    Just jumped from VS 2005 SP1 to VS 2010, native C++ and C#, transitioning from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7; Mountain time zone.


    Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:48 PM
  • You edited your post above. Now you are saying that ClearType was enabled on your system.


    I want to point out something about this forum software to those who may not know...  Any post that's edited after it's been responded to shows an "Edited by ..." tag on the bottom.

    -Noel

    Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1:45 AM
  • hi

     

    re fixed width fonts, i use andale mono 10 for all my net coding in notepad++. any comments anyone?

     

    rob

    Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:17 AM
  • RobinAVC wrote:

     i use andale mono 10 for all my net coding in notepad++. any comments anyone?

    Pretty nice, but a bit thin for my tastes.  A bold variant can be had, but not for free.

    -Noel

    Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:03 AM
  • hi

     

    i rather like it's thin-ness and clarity - and it doesn't remind me of cleartype etc.

     

    the zero has a dot in the middle to distinguish it from 'O'.

     

    rob

    Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:06 AM
  • You mean, like, what if the user doesn't happen to have Windows installed?
    Verdana may well be present on most Windows systems these days, but it can become corrupted or be uninstalled like almost any other font.
    PS. Nice big font, Noel. Dark too. Segoe UI Semibold. What made you change your mind?
    That post was made using CommunityBridge. It's my default font for HTML email and has been for several months. I haven't changed my mind.
    If you're just trying to prove something here, I think it's a pretty dishonest way to do it. Again.
    I wasn't trying to prove anything at all - just pointing out a few more things that can affect the way text is displayed.

    Noel
    Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:56 PM
  • Do you have any references describing how Microsoft does font rendering?  I'd love to know more about how they're actually using the GPU.


    Sorry, no. There is so much information out there that my head's spinning after an hour or two's googling, but no clear and concise overview.

    I would think you could tell whether GPU rendering was affecting the appearance of type by turning off Aero, which IIUC will cause Windows to bypass the GPU.

    One thing I did learn recently, though, is that W7 automatically ups the DPI to 120 if it detects a 'large' monitor on installation. This also means that it will install different versions of some bitmap fonts (MS Serif, MS Sans Serif and Courier), and it takes a registry hack to get the DPI 96 versions back again if you don't like DPI 120. [From the MSDN blog Developing for Dynamics GP under Windows 7, bitmap fonts and Microsoft Dynamics GP: "A change was made for Windows 7, to set the screen resolution to the monitor's native resolution and if the screen is over a certain resolution to default the font size 120 DPI (dots per inch). This is approximately 125% of normal 96 DPI (100%). When the system defaults to 125% DPI it also adjusts the MS Sans Serif font to be bigger. If the user then decides to set the DPI back to 100%, then TrueType fonts, which are scalable, adjust as expected. But the bitmap MS Sans Serif font does not: it remains at the larger size, ... "]

    Text rendering is a complicated business...


    Noel
    Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:49 PM
  • Edit:  Note that the post I responded to here was subsequently deleted.

    I see lighter text in the small screenshot bubble on the left, as though it's thinner than the text in the bubble to the right of it, and/or colored gray instead of black.  The text in the right bubble appears a good bit darker, though on my system the text in both bubbles appears to me to be sharp and readable

    As it turns out, my impression that the font in the left bubble is lighter because it's more accurate is exactly correct - the Segoe UI font that I'm seeing has a fairly thin weight (less than 1 pixel thickness at this size) but more importantly is being rendered at RGB value (51, 51, 51) decimal, so it SHOULD be seen as a fair bit lighter than pure black.  

    Here's the CSS segment that governs the text in the posts here:

    body {
        color: #333;
        font-family: 'Segoe UI', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
        font-size: 84%;
        line-height: 125%;
        text-align: left;
    }

    In your magnified bubbles, because they are magnified, we can begin to see the methods being used to achieve sub-pixel rendering and ClearType smoothing in the two browsers, which includes character segments that cross pixel boundaries and coloration of the edges. 

    However, no judgment about how well sub-pixel or ClearType rendering works or looks can be made from magnified screenshots.

    That the original-sized text appears lighter with sub-pixel precompensation is a testament to how well the sub-pixel rendering works on a font / color that may not be the best choice for use at this size on this forum.  But even so it's actually still quite readable and acceptable when viewed on a properly set up system, which is probably why they don't change it.

    Consider, for example, the font in this paragraph - Arial 10 point rendered in pure black.  Doesn't it seem darker and more contrasty than the default font?

    In trying to make the forum font more readable, some people may be overcompensating with their monitor or ClearType Text Tuner settings, when in fact they ought to be asking Microsoft to use a better font size and color for it.  Maybe they've made these choices to try to subvert the other browsers from showing it very well - we can only guess.

    This is the reason Noel C has been insisting that screenshots are invalid. Because his own screenshots prove him wrong.

    But Derosnec, for some reason you're trying to prove that everyone should have the same perceptions as you.  Isn't it becoming clear to you that this isn't going to happen?  No one's criticizing you for your views, but you'll find life more rewarding if you stop trying to somehow show that everyone else whose views differ than yours must be wrong.  The concept does not apply!  Please look up the word "bigotry" some time.  Most folks agree that bigotry is not good.

    -Noel

    Thursday, September 01, 2011 1:22 PM
  • [OT]
    body {
    ...
      font-size: 84%
    ...
    }

    If you dig a bit deeper, can you find what that 84% is of? I think it's (in some circumstances, at least) of 85% of something unspecified, which is a serious flaw in the site design that I've pointed out before.
    Noel
    Thursday, September 01, 2011 4:12 PM
  • That link didn't work for me - either it's restricted to only some people, or you've made a typo.

    I hadn't thought about the 84% too hard...  I try to keep things simple with my site designs, with a flat style sheet instead of so many levels of CSS.  I (perhaps naively) assumed that it's 84% of whatever the chosen font face and point size are at the time it's rendered, but maybe it's not.  I do know that this site confuses Safari!  Though IE9 and Firefox 6 seem to interpret it the same way, consider how small Safari renders the default fonts here:

    Note that the Arial 10 point, which I explicitly specified, is still right, but the Segoe UI default post font is simply TINY!

    Perhaps Microsoft doesn't want all the Apple people reading all the complaints here.  :)

    -Noel


    Thursday, September 01, 2011 4:45 PM
  • That link didn't work for me

    Sorry about that. Try this: How to avoid the microscopic print when posting to the forums.


    Noel
    Friday, September 02, 2011 7:52 AM
  • The day Firefox will be an upgrade like this, I will put this out of date browser.
    Moreover, for the moment in Firefox 6.0, just off the hardware acceleration to find a very clear policy
    I agree wholeheartedly with you G_HZ. Firefox have the decency to turn off clear-type when hardware acceleration is disabled. Firefox suffers from much worse, hardware-accelerated, cleartype problems than IE9's clear type debacle. A cursory glance at their bug forums is indicative of this. If you test a 64-bit version of Firefox Aurora with hardware acceleration on (with cleartype) the problem is absent.
    Friday, September 02, 2011 8:32 AM
  • Actually, Firefox 6 follows your system settings for Font Smoothing and ClearType as well.

    -Noel

    Friday, September 02, 2011 2:08 PM
  • I honestly cannot imagine how you can prefer that spindly text and 15 year old layout, but à chacun son goût, I suppose. Here's my equivalent, some of which may be thanks to Classic Explorer:


    Noel
    • Edited by iFiredog Friday, September 02, 2011 6:33 PM
    Friday, September 02, 2011 6:28 PM
  • I honestly cannot imagine...

    It's a really extreme love/hate relationship, and that's what's got me so intrigued by this subject...  I can easily understand personal preferences and differences in perception play a big part, but I still feel the fact that feelings run so strong must at least partially have roots in other things, such as an improperly set up or miscalibrated monitor, or one whose RGB characteristics simply don't suit ClearType.

    While I think the Start menu screenshot you're showing in your post above looks great (if perhaps tuned a hair darker than the way I like it), I'm sure there are people ready to throw things at you just for making them look at it on their monitors with their eyes.

    -Noel

    Friday, September 02, 2011 7:36 PM
  • I honestly cannot imagine...

    It's a really extreme love/hate relationship, and that's what's got me so intrigued by this subject...  I can easily understand personal preferences and differences in perception play a big part, but I still feel the fact that feelings run so strong must at least partially have roots in other things, such as an improperly set up or miscalibrated monitor, or one whose RGB characteristics simply don't suit ClearType.

    While I think the Start menu screenshot you're showing in your post above looks great (if perhaps tuned a hair darker than the way I like it), I'm sure there are people ready to throw things at you just for making them look at it on their monitors with their eyes.

    -Noel


    I don't think this is a matter of perception or hardware setting. I'm using HMDI monitor which doesn't require calibration, and I'm seeing the same problem as most of the posters. I can honestly say that when ClearType is ON the font looks better, but somehow I find my eyes getting tired quicker when reading long text on IE9 compare to the blocky display of Firefox or Chrome.

    Yes, look wise the ClearType is better, but I will say that it needs more clarity and reduce fuzziness specially ghosting. To me, each letter looks like I'm looking at something in which the edges are out of focus. It feels like my eyes is trying to acquire focus all the while I'm reading. It's quite tiring. 

     

    Tuesday, September 06, 2011 11:19 PM
  • I'm using HMDI monitor which doesn't require calibration 

    What gave you that idea?

    Let me ask you this:  Expand your browser and make sure it's at 100% zoom so that this image isn't resized...  When this is viewed at 100% original size, do you see the two large vertical bars in this chart as smooth gray gradients?

    -Noel

    Tuesday, September 06, 2011 11:48 PM
  • Here's what I see on my monitor:

    This is a cropped image of the left bar:

    The left bar has two columns: one a raster, the other - a grayscale transition. The right bar has three columns, and although from a distance they look gray (as they should), the contrast is so high that from up close I do perceive a colored hue (depending on viewing angle, etc.) If I were to reduce contrast, maybe the color perception would diminish but my monitor, as all others, would never be perfect, so this compromise would make other things worse, and those are more important to me.

    And, by the way, I don't know what the actual transfer function for my display is (involving all factors, from digital source to optical output), and no one knows until they use a quality colorimeter to measure it, but the gamma correction in my NVIDIA card is currently set to 0.75, while my monitor has settings for brightness, contrast, color temperature, etc., that differ quite a bit from factory (which is common for this model). This calibration gives me the optimal quality for my needs and as long as text remains perfectly black and white, I'll be just fine, thank you.

    Kamen


    Just jumped from VS 2005 SP1 to VS 2010, native C++ and C#, transitioning from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7; Mountain time zone.
    • Edited by Kamen Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:04 PM
    Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:01 PM
  • This is a cropped image of the right bar (the forum would not let me put two images in one post, and it would also reduce the resolution of the original image, so I had to change that):

    Kamen


    Just jumped from VS 2005 SP1 to VS 2010, native C++ and C#, transitioning from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7; Mountain time zone.
    Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:06 PM
  • The point, with this chart, is that the opposing colors that make up every other row of pixels should visually "average out" so that the bars look like gray gradients.  In practice, if your monitor is sharp and you look closely, you will see the individual lines that make up the bars.  So stand back a little.

    If the bars are close to looking like an even gray, as shown in this mock-up, your gamma response is about right at 2.20.

    -Noel

    • Edited by Noel Carboni Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:54 PM
    Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:48 PM
  • If I wanted to look at gray bars on my monitor, I'd stand back. If I wanted to get some work done with source code, I'd get closer.

    Kamen


    Just jumped from VS 2005 SP1 to VS 2010, native C++ and C#, transitioning from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7; Mountain time zone.
    Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:49 PM
  • What gave me that idea? 

    Windows 7 says so.

    Also people don't work 10 feet away from their computer monitor.

    The truth of the matter is that the text in IE9 needs some more clarity and reduce the edge fuzziness. That a person has to go through all this calibration just to get IE9 to display correctly is a hogwash. It should display good on factory default.



    • Edited by JRQ Thursday, September 08, 2011 8:56 PM
    Thursday, September 08, 2011 8:44 PM
  • If you're not seeing the calibration test image above as I have described it should look, then your monitor is NOT displaying things at gamma 2.20 as expected, and your display experience will be compromised.  Whether Windows or President Obama himself tells you it doesn't need calibration is inconsequential - its calibration is off!

    Hogwash?  I think it's funny that a person who is not seeing rendered text as intended should be trying to tell a person who IS seeing it clearly what is or isn't important!  :)  Thanks for the laughs.  In all seriousness, I try to learn from people who can do things well that I'm having trouble with - you might want to consider a change of approach.

    I have no doubt you're seeing text rendered in a manner that you don't like (fuzzy or whatever).  I'm not criticising you for it, but I *AM* giving you some bona fide reasons why it may be so and guidance on what you can change to make it better.  I'm also the first to admit that it may be possible that it will not produce acceptable results on some monitors and/or for some people - which is why I am in 100% agreement that the font-rendering process in IE9 needs to be configurable.

    But just being another user like you, I can't add such configuration to IE9 - I can only try to help you make your system work properly with the software as it is, using what I know and have successfully applied to a number of systems. 

    But hey, if you don't really want to see your IE9 text renderings more clearly, but instead just want to complain to make yourself feel better, that's fine with me.

    Have a nice day.

    -Noel

    Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:32 PM
  • If you're not seeing the calibration test image above as I have described it should look, then your monitor is NOT displaying things at gamma 2.20 as expected, and your display experience will be compromised.

     

     

    I can only try to help you

    -Noel

     

     

    That screenshot looks fabricated, Noel.

     

    Have a nice day.

    Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:54 PM
  • That screenshot looks fabricated, Noel.

    It's not a screenshot.  It's a mock-up, just as I have described, of what the calibration test chart should look like on a properly calibrated monitor.  You can create one yourself directly from the test image by converting it from sRGB IEC61966-2.1 to a linear (gamma 1.0) color profile, making it 50% of original size in each dimension so that adjacent rows are averaged, then converting the result back to sRGB.

    Can't you find something more productive to do than heckling me, Mr.  AKA derosnec?  All your posts got removed before because you couldn't keep yourself from doing this.

    Forum Moderator / Admin, I am reporting the above post as abusive, as I have recently had to do with this very same user, because of his abnormal stalking and disruptive behavior.

    -Noel

    Friday, September 09, 2011 12:14 AM
  • Here's a photo of what the calibration test image looks like on a pair of reasonably well calibrated monitors...  You can see some slight imperfection there if you look hard.

    -Noel

    Friday, September 09, 2011 12:35 AM
  •  

    Why should we believe that one isn't photo-edited too?

    Give us a straight-on closeup, like Kamen did above.  If you dare.

     

    You sure must be bothered by how hazy this TechNet font is, Noel.
    You are the one who has resorted to posting in a larger darker font.
    Admit it Noel.  The haziness is driving you crazy.

     

    Friday, September 09, 2011 1:10 AM
  • I'm very sorry, but I'm through responding to you.  Instead I think I'll have a nice day, as you have wished.

    -Noel

    Friday, September 09, 2011 1:31 AM
  • I'm very sorry

    -Noel



    You are apologizing for the wrong thing, Noel.

    Friday, September 09, 2011 1:56 AM
  • hi

     

    can we stick to the subject, instead of discussing one person's monitor set up. most people (probably over 95%) never adjust their monitor and wouldn't know how. and nearly everyone i know has notebooks.

     

    most people just buy a computer and use it. on every single pc i've looked at - mine, work, kids, gamers, school, friends, businesses etc etc etc - cleartype and sub pixel looks worse. a lot worse.

     

    rob

     

     

    Friday, September 09, 2011 6:28 AM
  • What subject is it you'd like to stick to?  I'm sticking to why ClearType sub-pixel rendering, as done by IE9, looks so disappointing to some.

    Can we infer that your monitor is not calibrated and you're not seeing the chart as intended, then, RobinAVC?

    I'm starting to think more and more that monitor miscalibration is a central reason why people don't see optimum font rendering, and yes, you can even calibrate a laptop display.  Virtually any system where the video driver offers controls can be brought closer to an ideal gamma 2.2 response.  A difference that's left can be handled by the ClearType Text Tuner.

    If your PC manufacturer doesn't tune up your display to have the proper response, shame on them.  Maybe they consider this a "feature" that differentiates their more expensive models.  If they have provided controls and you refuse to consider tuning it up yourself, and you see your display isn't working optimally, well then whose fault is that?

    -Noel

    Friday, September 09, 2011 1:32 PM
  • well

    in my world, and that of almost everyone i know, it's NOTEBOOKS. i haven't had a monitor for eight years. maybe people who work in telesales or help desks ...

    as for 'tuning up the display', i, like most people, buy something like a sony vaio notebook, turn it on and use it.

    in our businesses we do web design, music, photos, moves, php, vb, html5, js .... everything was ok until ie9.

    i would like to think that sony 'tuned' the lcd - whatever that means.

     

    rob

     

    Friday, September 09, 2011 1:56 PM
  • I don't blame you for wanting it to "just work" perfectly right out of the box.  But the problem is you also want it to be cheap.  And you don't want to be bothered with tuning it up yourself...  I think you're fantasizing a bit about how things should be, not the way they really are in the PC world. 

    You don't need to "think that sony 'tuned' the lcd - whatever that means" - all you need to do is look at the calibration test chart above to know.  Sorry if it bursts any bubbles about the quality of your system right out of the box.

    Can we infer further, from your responses, that you're not seeing the test target above as even gray bars?  Have you even run the ClearType Text Tuner?   I'd guess not, from your comments.  If not it's becomming pretty clear why you're not getting the best results from IE9.

    Ask yourself why some high-end systems offer self-calibration as a feature the manufacturer feels differentiates their gee-whiz model from the crowd.  Ask yourself why companies selling hardware/software packages to calibrate and profile displays are in business and doing fine.

    Hey, I'm all for continuing to ask Microsoft to add a way to deconfigure the sub-pixel rendering in IE9.  I'm not debating that.  They fell down by not anticipating the need to do so.  But for right now we don't have a way, and we can't change that, short of hacking into the application. 

    I'm just amazed that people - even technically-oriented ones - would seemingly rather throw up their hands in disgust and vehemently resist trying to make their own systems work better given the way things are.  Hopefully there are also people reading this thread who are going off with some of the information and suggestions I've posted and making their displays work better.

    Over the past few days I've been casually asking folks I know with computers whether they a) use IE9, and b) like or dislike the text they're seeing in the browser.  I have not had one (of about 8 people who use IE9) who feel there's anything wrong with the text in the browser.

    -Noel

    Friday, September 09, 2011 3:48 PM
  • hi

    it should work out of the box - like my tv, the freeview box, my guitar effects box, the x box, the halogen cooker top, my lawnmower, the visa terminal ...

    sony vaios, at least not the spec i use, aren't cheap. and are always well reviewed for their screens. 

    you said - "Have you even run the ClearType Text Tuner?   I'd guess not, from your comments.  If not, it's becomming pretty clear why you're not getting the best results from IE9" -  i've run clear type tuning - a good few times.

    so, how many people have improved their monitors as you suggest - let them speak up. and how many think clear type etc is just worse - they've already spoken all over the net.

    and, as i said before (although no one seems to bother to agree/disagree except you) - it looked ok for years - now it doesn't.

    tuned monitors or not, firefox looks better. therefore: problem with ie9 not the monitor?

    i'm not really interested in profiles, calibrations, charts, tuning ...  just like i don't want to put a go-faster stripe on my car. the world of 'monitor tuning' is for the enthusiast.

    this is what worries me: one of our employees brings in a new good-spec acer notebook. why is the screen blurred (only used ie9 for the first hour or so) - should i take it back. i tuned the clear type - not very different - hard to tell.

    luckily, firefox, opera, safari for pc, chrome etc fixed it.

    the reason is on your side, but the proof on mine.

    anyway, as you seem to be the only contributor nowadays, i'll give up. i might need to tune my samsung phone screen ..........

    rob

    Friday, September 09, 2011 4:15 PM
  • People who perceive a problem complain.  People who do not have a problem generally don't go online and say "Wow, I've not seen any degradation with IE9!"  :)  A few, like me, try to help the people who have problems.  I'm sorry I couldn't help you, Rob.

    Anyway, I hope Microsoft increases the configurability so that more folks can be happy with their text in IE.  It really is the best browser, in my opinion.

    -Noel

    Friday, September 09, 2011 4:54 PM
  • I have not had one (of about 8 people who use IE9) who feel there's anything wrong with the text in the browser.

    -Noel


    http://www.google.com/#q=IE9+blurry+text

    About 72,400 results (0.08 seconds)

     

    Noel, did you get called a troll by 3 different people in this thread

    • Noel... Please don't be a TROLL and keep posting nonsense
    • To ignore Noel is the simple answer, he is trolling
    • It is absolutely staggering that someone can be so profoundly ignorant of the basic issue at hand, and yet continue to post over a span of two years in a topic that has no direct relevance to him. At this point you've obviously shown your true colors as nothing more than a troll. Congratulations on polluting yet another thread on the internet.

     

    Friday, September 09, 2011 5:00 PM
  • "Gamma" is not some transcendental concept, whereas achieving some magical value of 2.20 will help you achieve visual bliss.

    Unfortunately, it is not a strict  scientific concept, so its definition is open to interpretation, but its origin is as a coefficient in the optical density transient curve used by astronomers to calibrate their photographic film images. It is in the relationship between the input and output luminance of an image (depending on the recording and display methods). In computer displays, the input is the digital image information and the output is the luminous intensity of the monitor (the end result ultimately involving the subjective human visual perception). When this relationship is standardized, certain norms are established, such as the response for Windows systems (where the value of 2.20 has been defined; it is different for other systems). This norm is as general as it is imprecise as it is subject to a multitude of variables: actual sensitivity of the human eye (which is highly non-linear), particularities of the display system, and the specifics of the image contained on the screen.

    Most monitors suffer from multiple imperfections, mostly non-linearity (in intensity, viewing angle, etc.), which would make any calibration questionable, to say the least. The typical gamma correction is an exponential (or logarithmic, depending on how you look at it) curve, but the human visual response is actually a more complex curve (for many people). I could go on and on but the point is, in reality there is no such thing as "perfectly calibrated display". And, most importantly, considering that the standardized calibration is a big compromise - one designed to "work  best" for the vast variety of image types one can have on their screen (text, photographs, drawings, etc.), it is unwise to claim that some particular monitor calibration should work for every purpose. Thus, if the "gamma 2.20" scenario works as a good compromise (actually, it is mostly geared towards photographic imaging), it is far from guaranteed to work well for every purpose.

    Staying on the subject, while it is true that a good calibration for grayscale imaging would give you better results with smoothed text (or blurred, it is the same concept, just sounds different when used in this context) over a different calibration, that does not mean that a good calibration for high black-on-white contrast would not give you even better results with pure back text (i.e., unsmoothed). Thus, one has the right to claim that they should not have to adjust their monitors because ClearType only looks good with perfect monitor calibration, when they can choose to stay away from ClearType and enjoy decent text quality with just about any calibration, or have even better text quality with a good high-contrast calibration. And suggesting (albeit, indirectly) that most people just don't know better seems like a weak argument.

    Kamen

     


    Currently using Visual Studio 2010, native C++ (Windows API) and C# (.Net, WPF), on Windows 7 64-bit; Mountain Time zone.
    Friday, September 09, 2011 5:49 PM
  • Most monitors suffer from multiple imperfections, mostly non-linearity (in intensity, viewing angle, etc.),

    And while minimizing those imperfections (in part by getting your gamma right) is key to getting a better display, it just may not be possible to have IE9's font rendering look good on some systems to some people.  No one's disputing the fact that the configuration option is missing.

    But some people seem to think that somehow software should be able to make everything look perfect no matter whether their monitor is top quality or is misadjusted and has the characteristics of a wet noodle.

    Ever hear of "you get what you pay for?"  Does your economy car drive as well as an expensive sports car?  Do you go online and bash the people who designed the powertrain control module in your Prius for not making it outrun Ferraris? 

    But we still do tune up our economy cars, because we want them to run as well as possible.

    -Noel

    Friday, September 09, 2011 6:37 PM
  • Noel, you seem to have hard times realizing that there no such thing as "getting your gamma right" - your "right" is not everyone else's right. And that the old font technology made most systems work just fine, while the new one only works when certain adjustments are made. Why not give it a rest? If I took your analogy, it wold be as follows: suddenly engine technology is changed so that cars only work well if they are in perfect tune, but work pretty badly with the slightest deviation from that tune. While before, cars worked just fine even when they were slightly out of tune. And, by the way, some people are faster with their old technology cars than even those who have perfectly tuned their new-technology cars (even if that were a subjective category).

    Kamen


    Currently using Visual Studio 2010, native C++ (Windows API) and C# (.Net, WPF), on Windows 7 64-bit; Mountain Time zone.
    Friday, September 09, 2011 7:02 PM
  • hi

     

    noel said: "But we still do tune up our economy cars, because we want them to run as well as possible."

    i think i'm in a different world, because i don't know anyone who tunes up an economy car (unless they're an enthusiast).

    same with monitors.


    my toyota previa just works, but then it didn't get a dose of ie9 in the diesel.

     

    rob

    Friday, September 09, 2011 7:32 PM
  • So say folks whose systems deliver fuzzy text.  You've both given me a great laugh just now.  Thanks for that!  :)

    Old proverb:  "Man who say it cannot be done should not stand in way of man doing it."

    Have fun, guys.  I don't have much more to say here that hasn't already been said.

    -Noel

    Friday, September 09, 2011 7:38 PM
  • There goes a man with an unwavering faith in his own perfection... :-) The trouble is, "it" has sometimes been tilting at windmills.

    Our systems do deliver crisp text - and have been for many years. We just don't want one particular program to get in the way of that.

    Kamen

     


    Currently using Visual Studio 2010, native C++ (Windows API) and C# (.Net, WPF), on Windows 7 64-bit; Mountain Time zone.
    Friday, September 09, 2011 8:30 PM
  • All I can say is I wish I could have you over for a beer and show you how it's supposed to look.

    Oh, and I'm not perfect - but parts of me are excellent! :)

    -Noel

    Friday, September 09, 2011 8:47 PM
  • So, you're saying I couldn't possibly have it adjusted as well as you have? Right there, folks, right there...

    Maybe if you saw how good text looked on my system you'd change your mind. But, then again, I'm not expecting you to do anything.

    Kamen


    Currently using Visual Studio 2010, native C++ (Windows API) and C# (.Net, WPF), on Windows 7 64-bit; Mountain Time zone.
    • Edited by Kamen Friday, September 09, 2011 8:55 PM
    Friday, September 09, 2011 8:55 PM
  • Heh, it wasn't me who came on here and claimed "text [is] unreadable in IE9", now was it?  Frankly, I think it looks spectacular!

    -Noel

    Friday, September 09, 2011 9:56 PM
  • Yes, it is unreadable, without special circumstances (monitors/configurations/eyesight), and less readable than without the bother of ClearType, under any circumstances.

    Kamen


    Currently using Visual Studio 2010, native C++ (Windows API) and C# (.Net, WPF), on Windows 7 64-bit; Mountain Time zone.
    Friday, September 09, 2011 10:29 PM
  • hi

     

    noel, i suspect your eyes need 'tuning' and your neuro-gamma needs a reset to the factory default? then everything would be clear (or not clear using ie9).

     

    rob

    Friday, September 09, 2011 11:03 PM
  • Guys, let's leave it at that - the arguments have been laid out, nothing new is likely to come out of this. I, personally, am watching this thread in the hopes of hearing something from Microsoft (e.g., Mark).

    Kamen


    Currently using Visual Studio 2010, native C++ (Windows API) and C# (.Net, WPF), on Windows 7 64-bit; Mountain Time zone.
    • Edited by Kamen Friday, September 09, 2011 11:19 PM
    Friday, September 09, 2011 11:18 PM





  • llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
     llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
      llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
       llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
        llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

    TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
     TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
      TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
       TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
        TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
         TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT



    Would anybody care to offer a critique of the test samples above?

    First view with IE9.  Then switch to Document Mode: IE8 Standards (F12 Developer Tools).


    Tip:  Open two tabs, and toggle between them.
    Saturday, September 10, 2011 10:27 AM
  • I can detect no difference at all. IE9 regular on the left, IE9 in IE8 document mode on the left:

    IE9-comparison

    Should I be able to?


    Noel
    Saturday, September 10, 2011 12:16 PM

  •  

    Thanks Firedog.

    When I clicked your link, it took me to your original (non https) image, which is even more vibrant.  I'll see after submitting if it stays so colorful.

    You are seeing those colors, aren't you?

    I haven't any idea why your IE8 mode looks like IE9 mode.  What I did in my post is to shift over the rows by a fraction of a pixel.  (How much exactly I don't know, because this forum doesn't let us explicitly do that, so I just squeezed in a filler char).  IE8 mode is pixel-aligned and shouldn't show any difference between rows.  On my setup, IE8 doesn't.  Each row is identical.  And very different from IE9 mode.

     

    To be clear, my original post which you screenshot contained only black text.

     

     

    Here's my screenshots.  The right one is IE8.



    • Edited by Tuesday, September 13, 2011 2:41 AM width
    Saturday, September 10, 2011 2:54 PM
  • Firedog, try changing both the Browser Mode and the Document Mode to IE8 to see the difference, then refresh the page.

    These examples CLEARLY show the tradeoff of positional accuracy in sub-pixel vs. pixel alignment.  Note the big difference in overall width between the banks of capital T characters when rendered each way.

    This is exactly what you'd expect.  The sub-pixel rendering is doing a more accurate job of displaying a far too tiny font that's much smaller than the number of pixels available to display it clearly will allow, and so the spacing/positioning are sacrificed in IE8 mode to increase contrast. 

    The problem is, the IE8 rendering, while arguably more readable with this font at this point size, is simply hugely inaccurate!

    That there is such a noticeable difference really just says that the Microsoft forum development people have made a poor choice of fonts to use here.  It's rather ironic.  This is why I have been posting using the Arial font.

    By the way, Firedog's screen grabs look pretty colorful to me here.  Apparently he prefers more color fringing precompensation than I do - presumably because his monitor is different than mine.  Keep in mind the ClearType Text Tuner's 3rd page allows you to select how much color fringing precompensation you want in the rendering.  I'm betting Firedog has chosen the leftmost panel.  I prefer the middle one.

    Now how about making the same comparison with two sets of Arial 10pt renderings...  Notice not such a big difference in the apparent weight of the font.

    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
     llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
      llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
       llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
        llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

    TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
     TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
      TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
       TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
        TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

    -Noel


    • Edited by Noel Carboni Saturday, September 10, 2011 3:49 PM
    Saturday, September 10, 2011 3:02 PM
  • Noel, the fact that you are now using 10 Point Arial does not somehow change reality.

    If you make that font big and fat enough, you won't even need cleartype.
    Its intended benefit is to make small thin fonts (like this TechNet page) more legible.


    Your proclamation that subpixel positioning is "more accurate" is distorted.
    Pixels form a grid, and that is a fundamental design constraint that cannot be neglected without introducing inaccuracy.
    The question is, can we cheat and neglect the grid, and still have good quality.
    That's what subpixel positioning is all about, Noel.

    So quit steering things off topic.  Your loud headline posts are obnoxious, and they're drowning out everyone else.
    You already started your own thread on the topic.  Why don't you just go back there and wait for another victim?

    Saturday, September 10, 2011 3:36 PM
  • Thank you for pointing out my typo.

    Yes, I am using 10pt Arial, because 7 or 8 pt Segoe UI (or whatever the default font here is) is just too small and thin to be comfortable.

    That IE9 is able to render it at the sub-pixel level so that it is still clean-looking for anyone who sets up his display properly is a testment to how well sub-pixel rendering works.

    As for your abuse, it won't be tolerated!

    -Noel


    • Edited by Noel Carboni Saturday, September 10, 2011 3:53 PM
    Saturday, September 10, 2011 3:50 PM



  • llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
     llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
      llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
       llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
        llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

    TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
     TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
      TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
       TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
        TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
         TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT



    Would anybody care to offer a critique of the test samples above?

    First view with IE9.  Then switch to Document Mode: IE8 Standards (F12 Developer Tools).


    Tip:  Open two tabs, and toggle between them.

     

    You too are invited to provide a screenshot, Noel.
    Or photos.  Provided you don't edit them, like you did earlier.

    Saturday, September 10, 2011 3:53 PM
  • You need to stop with the false accusations.  Sooner or later you're going to run out of accounts to use after being banned again.

    -Noel

    Saturday, September 10, 2011 4:01 PM

  •  

    Thanks Firedog.

    When I clicked your link, it took me to your original (non https) image, which is even more vibrant.  I'll see after submitting if it stays so colorful.

    You are seeing those colors, aren't you?

    I haven't any idea why your IE8 mode looks like IE9 mode.  What I did in my post is to shift over the rows by a fraction of a pixel.  (How much exactly I don't know, because this forum doesn't let us explicitly do that, so I just squeezed in a filler char).  IE8 mode is pixel-aligned and shouldn't show any difference between rows.  On my setup, IE8 doesn't.  Each row is identical.  And very different from IE9 mode.

     

    To be clear, my original post which you screenshot contained only black text.

     

     

    Here's my screenshots.  The right one is IE8.




    • Edited by Tuesday, September 13, 2011 2:38 AM width
    Saturday, September 10, 2011 4:18 PM
  • You are seeing those colors, aren't you?

    My first reaction was What colours? Then I zoomed in, and at 4-500% I could see that each stroke had a different 'shadow' colour. The shadow colour varies from line to line. However, at 100% zoom, I could see no colours at all - just grey. 

    my original post which you screenshot contained only black text

    How did you manage that? All body text (including your ls and Ts) is rendered by the CSS at only 80% black (#333). You can see the difference clearly if in the dev tools window you select the <p> tag containing your test samples. Then in the right-hand pane select Trace styles and deselect the 'color' attribute. This will turn all the body text on the page black instead of grey. You could also, more drastically, select Ignore colors specified... at Internet Properties > General > Accessibility.

    Black is easy (for thin vertical and horizontal lines like in your samples) - just turn the pixels off. Grey is more complicated, but with some particularly smart CT jiggery-pokery, the rainbow colours I see at 400% zoom look evenly grey at 100% - regardless of which sub-pixels the stroke starts and ends on.


    Noel
    Saturday, September 10, 2011 7:58 PM
  • Those ls and Ts are not black, they're gray exactly as you have said, which just exacerbates the problem of the font being too small and thin to be a good choice for use on this forum when rendered accurately.  But most of the problem is that the the Segoe UI font is just darned thin!  Well below 1 pixel in thickness when rendered at the tiny point size this forum uses.

    Note how thin Segoe UI is when rendered large, even in black.

    And regarding the differences in perceived color, I was going to point out how Firedog's monitor must be different from those of others in the way it displays the ClearType color, but on second thought I guess I won't, since folks hate to hear how monitors are not all created equal.  ;)

    Oh, and another minor issue that should be pointed out, lest anyone be thinking the positionally-inaccurate IE8 pixel-aligned method is just the greatest thing since sliced bread:  Note that the tops of the capital T characters are all run together, with no spaces between.  Yeah, that helps with readability.

    -Noel

    Sunday, September 11, 2011 12:37 AM





  •   iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #fff
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #eee
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ddd
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ccc
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #bbb
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #aaa
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #999
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #888
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #777
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #666
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #555
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #444
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #333
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #222
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #111
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #000



    Noel(s), tell us what difference you perceive between #333 and #000 with this font, with IE9.

    None.

     

    Do you perceive any difference in the vertical stems on the left, versus the rounded letters on the right?

    Of course you do.

     

    Now switch to IE8 Doc Mode and compare.

    The difference will again be obvious.

    Tip:  Open two tabs, and toggle between them.

    Sunday, September 11, 2011 1:46 AM
  • Regarding the color...

    The pixel-aligned font in your block of characters to me appears to become slightly greenish as it gets near the bottom, while the subpixel-rendered text stays neutral colored.  This is because the subpixel rendering process is using more accurate math and is taking the expected monitor gamma into consideration in its color calculations, while the pixel-aligned rendering assumes no gamma precompensation.

    Sure enough, consider the following blurred and color-over-saturated screen grabs of the two different rendering methods, done in linear color space and gamma-precompensated color space.  This clearly shows a significant COLOR difference between rendering that's not accounting for the gamma 2.2 correction for your monitor and one that is.  This is why I've been harping on the monitor gamma needing to be set properly to see IE9 subpixel text well.  This comparison DOES clearly show that the pixel-aligned and subpixel-aligned renderings are using fundamentally different coloring math, which certainly can help explain why differnt people differently perceive the coloring in one method as better than the other..

    This is an exaggeration of what the color looks like overall if your monitor is set to the proper gamma.  Pixel-aligned IE8 mode rendering is on the left:

     

    This is what the overall color looks like if your monitor is set to a too-low gamma.  Again, pixel-aligned IE8 rendering on the left:

    And back to the point about the difference in apparent weight (darkness)...  Where's the problem in understanding that the pixel-aligned algorithms have also been going to extra lengths to make the rendering inaccurate (thicker) to improve the readability?

    I find it easier to see the grayscale differences in IE8 mode - because the pixel-aligned font smoothing is rendering the text much darker than it should be, so there is a greater absolute brightness difference between the renderings in different colors. No surprises there.

    In case you're missing the point, let me spell it out for you - for a long time the pixel-aligned smoothed font rendering processes have been making their own choices about how to "improve" small fonts to make them more readable.  Microsoft seems to be moving away from "improved and inaccurate" and toward "more accurate", because when the font choice IS proper for the task more accurate rendering can actually make text more readable, and it solves other problems as well (including proper display scaling)

    Now it starts to become clear why I have lately been writing my posts using the Arial font, which is thicker and thus renders darker and more readable using subpixel algorithms.  The root cause for why the font on this forum looks too light and thin in IE9 is because it IS too light and thin!  You've just gotten used to your browser working around that problem for you.

    Who knows, we may see a batch of new fonts developed (or even more hinting updates to fonts like Segoe UI) that will look better in small, accurate renderings.

    -Noel

    Sunday, September 11, 2011 2:19 PM
  •  

    Segoe UI is Microsoft's flagship font, Noel.

    They probably won't abandon it just to save you from looking like a fool.

     

     

    Sunday, September 11, 2011 2:37 PM
  • So you think they'll abandon subpixel rendering instead to save you from looking ignorant?

    Let's wait and see.

    -Noel

    Sunday, September 11, 2011 2:43 PM
  • Yes, I am using 10pt Arial, because 7 or 8 pt Segoe UI (or whatever the default font here is) is just too small and thin to be comfortable.

     

    -Noel


    Assuming you have IE configured Text Size = Medium, the Segoe UI on this page is 8.6pt.

     

    Here's the example again, which you mutilated with your irrational photo-editing.

    Here, it's forced to 9pt, as in the GUI.  Why does it look so different in IE9?


    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #fff
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #eee
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #ddd
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #ccc
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #bbb
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #aaa
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #999
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #888
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #777
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #666
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #555
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #444
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #333
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #222
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #111
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Color #000




    Noel(s), tell us what difference you perceive between #333 and #000 with this font, with IE9.

    None.

     

    Do you perceive any difference in the vertical stems on the left, versus the rounded letters on the right?

    Of course you do.  But you shouldn't.

     

    Blurring your screenshot won't fix it.  That's just make-believe, Noel.

    Sunday, September 11, 2011 3:10 PM
  • I think it's simply hilarious that you choose to use abusive terms like "fool", "irrational", and "make believe" (among many others) in response to information that is correct, but is over your head or not what you want to talk about right now.  And publicly no less!  :)  Look, in the post overview, at the number of people who have read this thread.  That's the number of people who have read your foot-stomping responses.  Aren't you proud?

    And while there's a clear difference in darkness between the #333 text and the #000 text, there is no difference in weight of the "il|" characters vs. "Color" - it all looks equally dark and sharp. 

    Of course, it could well look strange to you if your monitor is miscalibrated.

    9 point Segoe UI is certainly easier to read than the default size, but not as easy as Arial 10pt.  Or even Arial 9pt.  Or even Arial 8pt.

    -Noel


    Sunday, September 11, 2011 3:25 PM
  • Anyway, you can say what you want as you want, adjust the monitor or not, diagrams or graphics font size or whatever ...

    The fonts are in IE9 cheat and not in IE8, it's a done and all your comments will not change the opinions of a significant proportion of users IE9

    I invite all those who encounter the same problem boycotted IE9 and return or change in IE8 browser.
    Sunday, September 11, 2011 4:14 PM
  • The fonts are in IE9 cheat and not in IE8, it's a done and all your comments...

    That doesn't make any sense in any variant of English or slang I've ever heard.   Expressing yourself clearly might help more people get your message. 

    Make as big a stink as you can; keep this thread at the top and Microsoft may notice it.  They may even put some sorely needed options into their browser to make your visual experience better.

    -Noel

    Sunday, September 11, 2011 5:19 PM

  •  

    Here's my screenshots.   The right one is IE8.

    Unedited.



    • Edited by Tuesday, September 13, 2011 2:33 AM width
    Sunday, September 11, 2011 6:04 PM
  • Je m'excuse, mais les traductions via Google ne semble pas exceptionnel. Ma langue maternel est le Français

    Je voulais dire que quoi qu'il en soit, les polices sont flouent sous IE9 pour une partie des utilisateurs alors que pour IE8 sans activer Cleartype elles sont nette.

    Vous pouvez argumenté comme vous voulez, ça ne changera rien tant que Microsoft n'aura pas mis une option pour désactiver Cleartype. Aucun autre réglage n'est possible pour rendre les polices clairs

    -----------------------------

    I'm sorry, but the translations via Google does not seem exceptional. My mother tongue is French

    I meant that in any case, the fonts are IE9 to cheat in some users, while for IE8 without enabling ClearType are clear.

    You can argue whatever you want, it will not change as Microsoft will not put an option to turn off ClearType. No other adjustment is possible to make the fonts clear

    Sunday, September 11, 2011 6:10 PM
  • Wow, thank you for the excellent graphic illustration of how the subpixel rendering more accurately portrays the slight difference in point sizes!

    In your first image above, the width of the left block of text is 379 pixels at 8.6 points vs. 390 pixels at 9 points.  379 pixels / 390 pixels = about 97%, which as it turns out is very nearly the same as 8.6 points / 9 points.  No surprise there.

    However the difference in width between the IE8 pixel-aligned renderings is 405 pixels at 8.6 points vs. 400 pixels at 9 points.

    In IE8 mode the 9 point rendering is actually NARROWER than the 8.6 point rendering!

    Now do you begin to see Microsoft's motivation for making text render more accurately?  How does a web designer accommodate this kind of unexpected disparity?  The answer is that they CAN'T, leading to pages that don't *quite* look right.

    I invite you, as an excercise, to do the comparitive measurements with IE9 at 125% and 150% zoom settings.

    -Noel

    Sunday, September 11, 2011 6:29 PM
  •  

    And I invite you to submit some undoctored images.

    That would be a refreshing change.

     

    Sunday, September 11, 2011 6:56 PM
  • Again with the lashing out when you don't understand or don't like what you're reading.  An attitude adjustment would really be a refreshing change here.

    Images of what?  A screen grab from my system won't be properly tuned for your system, and so it makes no sense to show in the context of what we're discussing.  We've been through that.  Besides my screen grabs would just look a lot like yours.

    Don't you trust what you're seeing on your own system and posting here?  The stuff I'm pointing out to you is in your own images, and quite verifiable.  Or do you think I've somehow magically altered those images too?  Am I looking at you through your webcam right now?  ;-)

    And lastly, I'm curious why you think I would be the slightest bit interested in submitting any more images for you to see, when you clearly don't intend to follow up on the quite reasonable suggestions I make. 

    -Noel

    Sunday, September 11, 2011 7:13 PM
  • Only a total creep, a troll, would do that.

    Either do it, or shut up, troll.

    I'm not sure why you think direct abuse should be tolerated by anyone.  It has been reported.  I suppose you feel comfortable in doing so because you've set your account up so that you believe you're anonymous and untraceable.  LOL!

    I have no intention of submitting any more images, unless they support a point that still needs to be made.  Nor am I intending to "shut up".  Those images that I have put online here are sufficient, I've documented exactly what I've done with them, and I will most certainly continue to offer my opinions and answer questions here.  I suggest you get used to that.

    It's pretty clear I can read your posts in the default Segoe UI font, no?  And I'm being kind, in turn, in making mine even more readable for you.  How do you repay this kindness?  Search your soul.

    -Noel

    Sunday, September 11, 2011 7:53 PM
  • Oh my!  Don't you think you're clever deleting your post then resubmitting it after my response to same.

    It won't keep you out of trouble, I'm afraid.

    -Noel

    Sunday, September 11, 2011 8:15 PM
  •  

    The last image you submitted was an admitted total fabricated blur.

    Only a total creep, a troll, would do that.

     

     

     

    Here's another chance to submit an honest comparison of IE8 vs IE9.

    Either do it, or shut up, troll.


    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
     llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
      llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
       llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
        llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

    TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
     TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
      TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
       TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
        TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
         TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
     
     
     
     
       iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #fff
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #eee
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ddd
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ccc
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #bbb
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #aaa
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #999
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #888
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #777
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #666
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #555
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #444
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #333
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #222
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #111
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #000
     
     Segoe UI forum default
     
     
     
     
     
       iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #fff
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #eee
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ddd
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ccc
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #bbb
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #aaa
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #999
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #888
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #777
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #666
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #555
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #444
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #333
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #222
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #111
      iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #000


    Segoe UI 9pt




    Sunday, September 11, 2011 8:24 PM
  •  

    And while there's a clear difference in darkness between the #333 text and the #000 text, there is no difference in weight of the "il|" characters vs. "Color" - it all looks equally dark and sharp.



    Of course, it could well look strange to you if your monitor is miscalibrated.



    9 point Segoe UI is certainly easier to read than the default size

    -Noel





    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #FFF
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #eee
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ddd
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ccc
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #bbb
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #aaa
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #999
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #888
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #777
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #666
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #555
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #444
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #333
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #222
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #111
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #000


    Segoe UI 9pt



    • Edited by Tuesday, September 13, 2011 5:15 AM removed nonsense
    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 1:39 AM
  • Staying happily away from IE9 I'm checking back here every once in a while to see what's going on. I don't think I have ever seen a thread so bloated with nonsense.

    *Every* program on *all* of 6 or so PCs that I use displays correctly - text is sharp and clear. IE9 (unpatched) *never* displays correctly - text is fuzzy, smudged, blurred, unclear, and out of focus. Does it mean all of my monitors are miscalibrated?

    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 4:02 AM
  • Hi Wes.

    Without any cleartype, are you seeing blurred letters and colors in the black-background #nnn-grayscale I posted above?

    I do with IE9+cleartype.  There's no way I can possibly get them worked out, even with Mister Fantastic's miracle cure.

    That black boxed text is not a graphic.  It's actual html text.  You can tell by trying to block copy letters inside it.

    Maybe I could get you to post a png image of it, so we could see what that looks like.  I'd be real grateful to get a look.

    TIA

    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 6:25 AM
  • Does it mean all of my monitors are miscalibrated?

    It's possible.  Monitors don't generally calibrate themselves by accident, and even calibrated monitors drift over time. 

    You can check them yourself with the information up above in this very thread.  I'd be interested to hear whether you find the bars in the chart close to indicating any of your monitors is set for close to the proper gamma.

    I never promised any magic fix, nor have said whether anyone will or should like IE9's rendering, but your display experience will certainly be improved by setting up your monitors respond as they are expected to perform.

    It may just be that you don't prefer the look and feel of subpixel rendered text.  Keeping this thread on top and visible seems to me a pretty good way to have Microsoft notice that we really need a configuration entry to allow people to shut it off (or even just shut off the subpixel part; it's pretty clear the IE9 executable can do pixel-aligned font smoothing, a la IE8 mode).

    -Noel

    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:26 PM
  • TIA, here's what I see (ClearType is turned off system-wide):

    With the IE9 hack (pixel-aligned, forum resizes the image, don't have time to host elsewhere):

    Same thing but cropped to see the details:

    The IE9 stock (no hack, sub-pixel aligned) will follow in the next post (forum limitations).

    Kamen

     

     


    Currently using Visual Studio 2010, native C++ (Windows API) and C# (.Net, WPF), on Windows 7 64-bit; Mountain Time zone.
    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:52 PM
  • Here it is stock (without the hack, sub-pixel-aligned):

    And the same thing cropped for clarity:

    I did not have enough time to set up the camera properly, so the images aren't as sharp as they could be, but you can get an idea of what I am seeing. The latter images were harder to focus on because the text already looks blurry. :-)

    Monitor calibration is hugely overrated and can do very little under most circumstances. Most consumer LCD monitors today have only few adjustments (brightness, contrast, color temperature) and suffer from serious limitations that cause those adjustments to be of little use. The video cards are the same; they do add gamma correction but you can't get very far with it. Some PCs don't give you any adjustments: one of my laptops has only two keys for brightness and the videocard driver does not allow anything useful. I'm certainly not about to spend money on specialty calibration software that would give me nothing, anyway; certainly not if I'm only looking to read sharp text in my browser. Even above-average monitors suffer from serious defects: non-linearity (both geometric and in luminosity) of the back-light, unevenness of the pixel masks and the LCD polarizing filters. That gives you varying light output from the various parts of the screen and in different viewing directions, so that even if you were to calibrate for one region of the monitor, or for one viewing angle, this calibration would be invalid in another area/direction. I have been well aware of those issues for a long time and I still tried tuning for ClearType, but that technology is simply way too sensitive to tuning. Well, godspeed to those who are willing to put up with it and are happy; but for all those who believe that they shouldn't have to put up with something that can be barely made to work under very special circumstances, your demands are right and I hope Microsoft takes note and does something about it.

    Kamen

     

     

     


    Currently using Visual Studio 2010, native C++ (Windows API) and C# (.Net, WPF), on Windows 7 64-bit; Mountain Time zone.
    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 4:19 PM
  • Kamen, what you're showing looks basically terrible.  Anyone can easily see why you don't like it.

    Would you like to see how it's supposed to look when everything's set optimally on a good quality display?

    Here are two sizes of the same photo of my display of derosnec's light on dark text, scaled to about the same sizes as what you showed...

    A pretty significant difference, eh?  For one thing, that you're seeing those columns of bright/dark show up where the text is pixel-aligned down in the lower parts says your gamma or ClearType Tuner settings are way off.  But please keep in mind you're viewing my photos on what appears to be a quite poorly calibrated display, so they're likely still not looking as they should to you.  The key is how DIFFERENT they look.

    You can say adjustments are overrated all day, but the plain and simple fact is that your system is not displaying it optimally by comparison to one that is.  Maybe it's not an adjustment issue, maybe some part of your system is just not capable of doing a good job with this technology.

    Hopefully the extreme differences we're seeing here between systems will help convince Microsoft that more configuration is needed than is being provided.

    -Noel


    • Edited by Noel Carboni Tuesday, September 13, 2011 5:18 PM
    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 5:13 PM
  • Noel, the fact that you can't or don't want to understand some simple facts is not going to change reality. The photograph you are showing of your screen is highly magnified and the defects (blur) are clearly seen on any monitor, no need for super-calibration to see that. The sub-pixel aligned image I showed might be worse than could possibly be on my system, but that is because I currently have my monitor tuned the way I like it, under which circumstances it shows me pixel-aligned text that is more readable to me than your sub-pixel aligned text on your super-tuned monitor. No amount of tuning would make subpixel-aligned text as clear to me (and many, many other people) as pixel-aligned. Claiming that you see some super-clear magic and that everyone else is incompetent, lazy (or a participant in some anti-ClearType conspiracy), has substandard monitors, and so on, is not going to convince anyone and repeating the same thing is not very productive, anyway - we've all heard it and we have enough of it, thank you very much. Making this thread highly contentious would only reduce any desire of Microsoft to have any input in it.

    Kamen


    Currently using Visual Studio 2010, native C++ (Windows API) and C# (.Net, WPF), on Windows 7 64-bit; Mountain Time zone.
    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 6:11 PM
  • You have no clue what I do or don't understand, nor do you have any business claiming you know it as a fact.

    Contrary to your emotional feelings, keeping this thread at the top and showing dissent is far more likely to get things changed than not.

    No one's criticising your preference of thin, sharp text over non-pixel-aligned more fully formed text.  Go back and read - all along I have supported your desire to deconfigure it.  Your showing how utterly sucky it looks to you is a great way to make that known. 

    Of course non-pixel aligned text crosses pixel boundaries.  DUH.  But in some peoples' opinions it's not blurred but more fully formed, and more fully formed text trumps anemic and pixelated text.  Apparently the majority of people studied.

    I don't particularly care whether you feel you've heard enough - your use of the phrase "we have enough of it" is downright laughable.  Get this through your head:  You speak for exactly one person here - you.  Don't look now, but multibillion dollar company SO vehemently disagrees with your viewpoint that they've failed to even offer you a configuration option to turn it off.  We BOTH think that's wrong.

    -Noel

    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 6:32 PM
  • Your tone is quite contentious (including all the "shouting": large font sizes, bolding, etc.) and you are well aware of that from the reaction of not only me but many others. You can think what you want but you are the only one here that feels compelled to respond to every post and then complain of some of the reactions, which are provoked by your attitude. Yes, I speak for me when I say that many people have expressed dissatisfaction from you postings on this thread, while you have engaged rather coarsely many people and let's see if anyone else disagrees with me or agrees with you.

    Kamen


    Currently using Visual Studio 2010, native C++ (Windows API) and C# (.Net, WPF), on Windows 7 64-bit; Mountain Time zone.
    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:05 PM
  • Your tone is quite contentious (including all the "shouting": large font sizes, bolding, etc.) and you are well aware of that from the reaction of not only me but many others. You can think what you want but you are the only one here that feels compelled to respond to every post and then complain of some of the reactions, which are provoked by your attitude. Yes, I speak for me when I say that many people have expressed dissatisfaction from you postings on this thread, while you have engaged rather coarsely many people and let's see if anyone else disagrees with me or agrees with you.

    Kamen

     

    Totally agree with you ...

     

    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:17 PM
  • That's funny.  Most people actually like it when others agree with them.  The way you put it you'd think I called you names or criticised what you want Windows and Internet Explorer to do for you or something.

    For a while I considered pussy-footing around my opinions, but in light of such statements as "in all cases, ClearType text looks fuzzy" or "Yes, it is unreadable, without special circumstances (monitors/configurations/eyesight), and less readable than without the bother of ClearType, under any circumstances." I figure my opinion is just as valid stated as fact as anyone else's.  It's up to you to apply your own inference that it is "my opinion", just as I have to do for you and others who seem to want to overstate your opinions in the negative as though they are simple fact.

    Cleartype subpixel font rendering in IE9 looks spectacular.  It really improves readability.  Thank you for implementing it, Microsoft!

    -Noel

    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:39 PM
  • Cleartype subpixel font rendering in IE9 looks spectacular.  It really improves readability.  Thank you for implementing it, Microsoft!

    -Noel

     

    It's crazy !!!

    Respect those who have problems with ClearType instead of  take for jackass !!!



    • Edited by G_HZ Tuesday, September 13, 2011 10:25 PM
    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 8:01 PM
  • Respect those who have problems...

    Why?  You clearly don't respect my opinions, nor apparently even the technical facts.

    No other adjustment is possible to make the fonts clear...

     

    Anyway, you can say what you want as you want, adjust the monitor or not, diagrams or graphics font size or whatever ...

    The fonts are in IE9 cheat and not in IE8, it's a done and all your comments will not change...

    I don't see any "on my computer" or "in my opinion" qualifications there.  I'm through trying to baby you folks who are unwilling to even try to make your systems work right.  You want people to be nice to you, be nice yourself.

    -Noel

    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 8:20 PM
  • Unlike you, Noel, most people here don't feel compelled to shout their opinion every time someone posts.

    Kamen


    Currently using Visual Studio 2010, native C++ (Windows API) and C# (.Net, WPF), on Windows 7 64-bit; Mountain Time zone.
    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:28 PM
  •  

     

     

    Thanks Kamen.

    This really goes a long way to explain it.  Without ClearType-SubpixelRendering, you see short-spaced || at periodic intervals.  That step-function snap-to-grid behavior is the result of the screen being a matrix of pixels.  It's an inescapable constraint.

    The lower ClearType+SubpixelRendering images in each pair show how the characters become smeared+blurred+colorized when the characters are shifted off the pixel boundaries, in violation of the grid-constraint.  Notice the direct correspondence between the sharp || above, and the blurred ones below.

     

     

    Noel pretends he doesn't see any of that.  He's in denial and is just being obnoxious and ridiculous.

    btw - those blurry colorful sets are 200% magnifications of Noel's photo.  (Thank you Noel).  Also notice the profound rainbow in Noel's image from #666 and below.  Noel won't discuss or even admit that.  But it's horrid.  Apparently, his setup was unable to show anything beneath #444, which he won't discuss either.  It's most likely due to his poor calibration and/or monitor quality.

    Tuesday, September 13, 2011 11:20 PM
  • 125,

    My eyesight is not like it used to be (mostly because of blurred letters on CRT monitors in the past), but the letters you ask about aren't blurred and I don't see any colors.

    Wednesday, September 14, 2011 12:21 AM
  • magnifications of Noel's photo.  (Thank you Noel). 

    Wow.  He can be polite!  For half a sentence at least.  There is still good in him, I have felt it.

    You're welcome.  One is happy to be of service.  :)

    -Noel

    Wednesday, September 14, 2011 12:47 AM
  • 125,

    My eyesight is not like it used to be (mostly because of blurred letters on CRT monitors in the past), but the letters you ask about aren't blurred and I don't see any colors.






    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #FFF
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #eee
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ddd
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ccc
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #bbb
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #aaa
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #999
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #888
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #777
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #666
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #555
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #444
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #333
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #222
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #111
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #000


    Segoe UI 9pt
     
     
    So when you defeat cleartype with that hack, you don't see any rainbows here?

    For me, they begin betweeen #ddd-aaa depending on which computer.

    You should see what I'm seeing.  lol.  I calibrated to 2.2 like Noel advised, using freeware QuickGamma.  I also tried setting my nVidia gamma to 2.2 with max contrast and min brightness.  Either way, gamma 2.2 makes the GUI real pretty.  But it makes text here in IE a lot worse than the 0.75 value which I originally had, and which Kamen remarked earlier helps make his text darker and clearer.

    btw - with IE8 Doc mode, the gray text in the black-box above, it's green.   : )

    Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:07 AM
  • btw - with IE8 Doc mode, the gray text in the black-box above, it's green.   : )

    No!  It can't be green!  Anything but green!   LOL

    :)

    -Noel

    Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:35 AM
  • No rainbows. IE8.

    Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:42 AM
  •  

    This is a screenshot of a quote from further up in this page.  It is 14pt Arial.

    The top line was shot with IE9.  The bottom is IE8 Doc Mode.

     

    Does anybody else see that the IE9 letter  w  looks faded?

     

    Even with that colossal coal-black Arial 14pt, some letters look hazy in IE9.  By comparison, what we were discussing earlier is Segoe UI 9pt, and this forum defaults to an even smaller Segoe UI 8.6pt.  It's the same effect, but worse with smaller fonts.  Many letters, or pieces of them, they are fading into the white background.  Some of us describe that as blurry.  Some of us darken it up, and live with rainbow colored text.  Others of us are sticking with IE8.  Pixel-aligned and consistently dark.  You hardly ever notice the cleartype green.  Hardly ever.  Maybe sometimes.  Green.  Better than faded.    : )

    Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:53 AM
  • Confirmed.  There's definitely a difference in the appearance of the w above 13 pt.

    Looks to me like the w in the Arial font is rendering thinner than its buddies at medium font sizes...  Note that at the transition between 13 and 14 point the w gets much wider and thinner looking than the other characters (or looked at another way, the other characters get thicker), and stays that way until we get to really big fonts, where you don't notice it so much.  In all the larger sizes it seems the w may look a bit on the thin side compared to the other characters.

    Multiple sizes of Arial

    could well look strange (7 pt)

    could well look strange (8 pt)

    could well look strange (9 pt)

    could well look strange (10 pt)

    could well look strange (11 pt)

    could well look strange (12 pt)

    could well look strange (13 pt)

    could well look strange (14 pt - note the wider w than 13pt)

    could well look strange (15 pt)

    could well look strange (16 pt)

    could well look strange (17 pt)

    could well look strange (18 pt)

    could well look strange (19 pt)

    could well look strange (20 pt)

    could well look strange (24 pt)

    could well look strange (32 pt)

    could well look strange (48 pt)

    This seems like it is an issue with the font itself at the larger sizes, which is covered up by hinting at the smaller sizes.

    Out of curiosity, I rendered Arial at 200 points then measured some thicknesses... The font appears to be designed with some variation in thicknesses, and the w appears to be around 8% thinner than the other characters overall, with some exceptions.

     

    -Noel

    • Edited by Noel Carboni Wednesday, September 14, 2011 3:21 PM
    Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:52 PM
  • What have we learned so far here?

    Non-pixel-aligned (subpixel) ClearType font rendering/smoothing, as implemented by IE9 and always on in IE9 mode, is significantly different than pixel-aligned ClearType font rendering, which in turn is significantly different from font rendering with no smoothing at all.

    Subpixel ClearType-based font rendering, by comparison:

    • Is colored differently than pixel-aligned ClearType.
    • Anticipates monitor gamma settings differently than pixel-aligned.
    • Crosses pixel boundaries and relies on adjacent pixel shading more heavily.
    • Appears MUCH more sensitive to monitor and ClearType Tuner settings.
    • Provides positional layout accuracy at various browser zoom levels.
    • Smoothes even large fonts.
    • Is perceived by some folks - either because of perception or display issues - as unacceptably fuzzy, inappropriately colored, or just plain less readable.  
    • Other folks perceive the more fully-formed characters as more readable and don't see a coloration or fuzziness issue.

    Pixel-aligned ClearType rendering, as in IE8 (or IE8 mode in IE9):

    • Is more consistently colored/shaded than subpixel rendering.
    • Can show a bias toward a particular color (e.g., green) in blocks of the same characters.
    • Is positionally less accurate.
    • Can seem more readable on monitors with low gamma settings.
    • Is perceived as darker / more contrasty because of readability enhancements made at the pixel level during rendering.
    • Has probably influenced font development (hinting) in current fonts in directions that throws subpixel rendering off.

    Without font smoothing at all:

    • Some people see/perceive these characters more clearly, and thus prefer to disable font smoothing.
    • Color fringing at character edges is seen on some monitors.
    • Some people perceive thin, pixellated characters as less readable/comfortable/computery.

    Each of the font-rendering schemes has advantages for different people.

    That the IE9 team didn't provide a way for folks to configure these features must say that there must be some overriding reason for providing just one font rendering technique, and they must believe people who have problems with font rendering at the smaller sizes should just use a higher zoom setting to overcome their readability issues.

    -Noel

    Wednesday, September 14, 2011 7:55 PM
  • "they must believe people who have problems with font rendering at the smaller sizes should just use a higher zoom setting to overcome their readability issues."

    great idea, now many of the web pages that people have so carefully designed go off the page, along with other applications. too much horizontal scrolling.

    isn't all this zoom talk a bit of a diversion. when i buy a book or a paper i read it at 100% size - or i wear glasses.

     

    not one person in our office even uses zoom ...

     

    rob


    • Edited by RobinAVC Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:08 PM
    Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:08 PM
  • I agree - I NEVER use the browser zoom, and I can't see how anyone with a normal computer display would want to.  But maybe Microsoft is being influenced by the tablet or smart phone market, where zooming is far more prevalent.

    -Noel

    Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:15 PM
  • I thought of something for people to look at and comment on, to see how differently things may look on different monitors...

    Compare this font-smoothed text rendering from IE9...

    ...with this non-font-smoothed rendering...

     

    Do you see light and dark edges in one, the other, or both?

    -Noel

     

    Edit:  These are both screen grabs from my system.  I'll craft the HTML to do the same thing with your browser in a future post.

    • Edited by Noel Carboni Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:14 PM
    Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:08 PM
  • This one's rendered in your browser using your current ClearType Text Tuner settings...


    This is red text in a green box.  This is red text in a green box.  This is red text in a green box.  This is red text in a green box.  This is red text in a green box.  This is red text in a green box.  This is red text in a green box.  This is red text in a green box.  This is red text

    -Noel

    • Edited by Noel Carboni Thursday, September 15, 2011 12:36 AM
    Thursday, September 15, 2011 12:19 AM




  • could well look strange (7 pt)

    could well look strange (8 pt)

    could well look strange (9 pt)

    could well look strange (10 pt)

    could well look strange (11 pt)

    could well look strange (12 pt)

    could well look strange (13 pt)

    could well look strange (14 pt)

    could well look strange (15 pt)

    could well look strange (16 pt)

    could well look strange (17 pt)

    could well look strange (18 pt)

    could well look strange (19 pt)

    could well look strange (20 pt)

    Arial


    could well look strange (7 pt)

    could well look strange (8 pt)

    could well look strange (9 pt)

    could well look strange (10 pt)

    could well look strange (11 pt)

    could well look strange (12 pt)

    could well look strange (13 pt)

    could well look strange (14 pt)

    could well look strange (15 pt)

    could well look strange (16 pt)

    could well look strange (17 pt)

    could well look strange (18 pt)

    could well look strange (19 pt)

    could well look strange (20 pt)

    Tahoma


    could well look strange (7 pt)

    could well look strange (8 pt)

    could well look strange (9 pt)

    could well look strange (10 pt)

    could well look strange (11 pt)

    could well look strange (12 pt)

    could well look strange (13 pt)

    could well look strange (14 pt)

    could well look strange (15 pt)

    could well look strange (16 pt)

    could well look strange (17 pt)

    could well look strange (18 pt)

    could well look strange (19 pt)

    could well look strange (20 pt)

    Verdana


    could well look strange (7 pt)

    could well look strange (8 pt)

    could well look strange (9 pt)

    could well look strange (10 pt)

    could well look strange (11 pt)

    could well look strange (12 pt)

    could well look strange (13 pt)

    could well look strange (14 pt)

    could well look strange (15 pt)

    could well look strange (16 pt)

    could well look strange (17 pt)

    could well look strange (18 pt)

    could well look strange (19 pt)

    could well look strange (20 pt)

    Segoe UI



    I just had to put some distance between us and that fluorescent redgreen bug snot you splattered on our windshield, Noel.  Don't let the sun bake it on, it'll eat through your car paint.  You must've grown accustomed to that in the Everglades, or Alligator Alley, or wherever you are.  Infested this time of year, is it?

     

    In passing, the font groups above are listed in the order of increasing refinement.  That Arial font you prefer, Noel, it's the oldest fattest crudest one of the bunch.  That must mean something.  Are you aware that Arial was listed as "(alternative to Helvetica)" when it was introduced in the MS article New Features in Windows 3.1 nearly two decades ago?

    Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:57 AM





  • iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #FFF
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #eee
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ddd
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ccc
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #bbb
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #aaa
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #999
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #888
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #777
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #666
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #555
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #444
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #333
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #222
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #111
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #000


    Segoe UI 9pt
     
     

    In the meantime, the max'd-out fluorescent red+green images Noel posted above has nothing to do with the rainbow which appears in this grayscale.

    It's due to SubpixelRendering.  Needs some work.

    Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:21 AM
  • I thought it was rather Christmassy, myself.  :)

    Only one of us, given this site's CSS, is posting in a font that's more readable.  I happen to like Arial.

    Anyway, enough of this BS; I think we now can pretty clearly see the direction Microsoft's going.  Off to go develop the next killer apps for Windows 8.

    See you there!

    -Noel

    Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:23 AM





  • iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #FFF
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #eee
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ddd
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #ccc
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #bbb
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #aaa
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #999
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #888
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #777
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #666
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #555
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||   Color #444
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj