Apple's first Windows beta release of Safari had some nasty bugs, most importantly one where bold text wouldn't render on non-English versions of Windows. Since the 3.0.2 release has 'fixes for text display, non-English systems', this bug might by fixed. In addition, Security Update 2007-006 for Mac OS 10.3.9 and Mac OS 10.4.9 and later has been released. The update addresses two vulnerabilities in WebKit, one of which could lead to an unexpected application termination or arbitrary code execution.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-04
Cleartype and Apple's method both serve a different purpose; in some cases, you want the fonts on your screen to look like how they are printed [OSX], and sometimes you want them to be best for readability [Cleartype].
This is right. I do have a printer but I almost never use it; 99% of my computer usage is on screen. But this is a good thing to know that OS X is aimed at printing professionals. Their computers look good and I was thinking about buying an iMac in the end of the year. I think I'll buy a regular computer. Font rendering isn't the only problem. There's also software compatibility.
Member since:2005-11-10
OSX's font rendering will pay off big time come high-DPI screens and resolution independence.
On a high-DPI screen, Mac users will have crisp perfectly rendered text that looks just like text on a page, with no blur because of the added resolution; and Vista will look like ass with the letters too thin and the shapes mangled to fit into a pixel grid.
Member since:2005-07-06
That's stupid. No one prints out web pages and read them. When you use a computer, you read on the screen and don't want blurry fonts.
If it's really that important, printing apps could enable blur while the rest of the system uses readable fonts. Should have been easy to implement.
Member since:2006-01-05
The point is being missed...
While yes, as a side-effect, fonts look similar on screen as they will if they are printed, the main point is to preserve the shape of individual font characters. If a website designer specifies a specific font, it should look like that font, no matter the size.
On Windows, it just tries to match pixel boundaries, making all small fonts look very similar. If this was the intention, why didn't the website creator specify a font that already matches pixel boundaries at small sizes?
Edited 2007-06-23 23:27
Member since:2005-10-13
The system Apple uses works just fine, the problem is that mixing and matching different font systems at the same time looks horrible. Just like running an X11 app on a Mac, they look fine by themselves but stick out and look ugly when they're mixed in with the native environment. Every app they have ported to Windows has the same problem, in that they look horrible because they don't blend in to Windows at all. It would be better for them to use the native font system, but Apple seems to prefer everything to be identical. This is nothing new and I don't see them changing their position for Safari.
Edited 2007-06-23 23:36
Member since:2006-07-15
Member since:
2005-06-29
For me it looks blurred
Fine, then they're blurred to you. But as Joel said in that blog post I linked you to, this "blurriness" (it's actually "fuzziness") is a trade-off which is made to please the print professionals who use the Mac.
The fonts in OSX are all like that, yes. I use OSX, Windows, and Linux. While I like OS X's fonts when using OS X, they look extremely crappy and out of place on my Vista box (when running Safari). I'm sure the same would be the case for Windows' fonts on OS X.
I hope they improve fonts rendering in the future.
OSX' font rendering will remain the way it is. Cleartype and Apple's method both serve a different purpose; in some cases, you want the fonts on your screen to look like how they are printed [OSX], and sometimes you want them to be best for readability [Cleartype].
Different ends, different means.