Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

10.5: Allow a lower text smoothing minimum System 10.5
If you used Migration Assistant, or upgraded from a previous OS X release, the Appearance System Preferences panel settings are retained. As a result, you may not have noticed that the minimum for anti-aliasing is now 4px, down from 8px in 10.4. Fresh installs of Leopard have 4px set as default.
    •    
  • Currently 2.33 / 5
  You rated: 5 / 5 (6 votes cast)
 
[6,120 views]  

10.5: Allow a lower text smoothing minimum | 9 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the '10.5: Allow a lower text smoothing minimum' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
10.5: Allow a lower text smoothing minimum
Authored by: stokessd on Dec 17, '07 07:43:34AM

Yay! Greasy looking antialiased text that makes me think I need glasses. I need a HIGHER setting, like 200000 point which below nothing is anti-aliased.


Sheldon



[ Reply to This | # ]
Anti-alias vs. bitmap for the millionth time
Authored by: MJCube on Dec 17, '07 09:24:36AM
Is this going to go on forever? Some users want bitmaps, no matter how ugly or how little they look like the type design. I have been telling people for several years to stop looking at the pixels, back up and see the image. This is the future of computer displays. But I guess people don't change.

As soon as I got OS X I was impressed that I could actually read 5-point type on the screen. Sub-pixel antialiasing also helps with sharpness on LCD displays. We've already got double-resolution handheld devices, and the iPhone has the most dpi yet. I suppose people will stop complaining about antialiasing only when our displays are all 200+ dpi and you can't see it any more.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anti-alias vs. bitmap for the millionth time
Authored by: stokessd on Dec 17, '07 09:57:41AM
Is this going to go on forever? Some users want bitmaps, no matter how ugly or how little they look like the type design. I have been telling people for several years to stop looking at the pixels, back up and see the image. This is the future of computer displays. But I guess people don't change.

Maybe people have different needs for type than you do. I can promise you that when programming or writing text files (LaTex, Python, objective C, etc) anti-aliasing adds to eye strain and slows the readability of the information.

Sure, I can back up, so I can no loner see the functions I'm working on, then it's perfectly fine.

I have the highest resolution macbook pro, and eyes that still work well. For me, non-aliased is the way to go unless I'm doing page layout, but that's infrequent. I've paid for a crisp LCD display and I want crisp text, not fuzzy grey edges. I've played with levels of anti-aliasing, RGB order, I've played with the disaster that is MS cleartype. It's all universally worse than not having it for my needs.

You'll find a lot of people who do not like aliased text, especially when trying to read text in a text editor. I'm all for having the ability to have anti-aliased text, but I'm even more for the ability to turn that crap off.

Sheldon

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anti-alias vs. bitmap for the millionth time
Authored by: Toadling on Dec 23, '07 09:01:27PM
Maybe people have different needs for type than you do. I can promise you that when programming or writing text files (LaTex, Python, objective C, etc) anti-aliasing adds to eye strain and slows the readability of the information.

That's not my experience at all. I stare at code in my text editor all day, 5 days a week, and I vastly prefer anti-aliasing for all my text. I also run a hi-res 17-inch MacBook Pro and have never felt the edges of the text to be blurry or hard on my eyes. Too the contrary, I find non-anti-aliased text to be weak, anemic, and flimsy, and it strains my eyes. Many of the developers I work with feel the same way.

So what does this tell you? You had it right in your first sentence: "people have different needs for type". So you can't categorically say that non-anti-aliased text is universally preferred for working with plain text and code. It's simply not true and offers a rather narrow view of reality.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Anti-alias vs. bitmap for the millionth time
Authored by: usovalx on Dec 18, '07 06:17:03PM

Quite funny that despite whatever you set in there, few system fonts (at least Geeza Pro and Lucida Grande) are still rendered with AA.

This looks really weird.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.5: Allow a lower text smoothing minimum
Authored by: cybergoober on Dec 17, '07 12:25:09PM
defaults write NSGlobalDomain AppleAntiAliasingThreshold 'integer'
where 'integer' is the point beneath which you do not want text anti-aliased.

I suppose this will only work in Cocoa apps though.

[ Reply to This | # ]
10.5: Allow a lower text smoothing minimum
Authored by: penthang on Dec 18, '07 07:36:59AM

I just peeked and saw that 4pt anti-aliased text is available in 10.4.11. I doubt the latest security update would have any effect on this but I did just install that last night.



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.5: Allow a lower text smoothing minimum
Authored by: robogobo on Dec 18, '07 04:48:04PM

Interesting. I just happen to have two other macs running 10.4.10, and 10.4.2. .10 has 4px option, but .2 doesn't. Somewhere in there the option was snuck in. I wonder if this had some connection to a new iMac monitor, or could it have been with the Intel release?



[ Reply to This | # ]
10.5: Allow a lower text smoothing minimum
Authored by: Hindenburg Z on Dec 19, '07 05:46:07AM

Thanks for your posting. After using Migration Assistant I did have the issue you mentioned. I am a big user of FileMaker Pro and was disappointed with the way the text was displayed under Leopard. After lowering the text smoothing to 4 as recommended ... my problem was solved! Was worth a five star rating from me.



[ Reply to This | # ]