Is this proof that macs have the best font rendering? i'm not even zoomed in all the way

is this proof that macs have the best font rendering? i'm not even zoomed in all the way

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 17.01.06.jpg (1910x2230, 169K)

it's proof of your bootlicking brand allegiance for sure

windows is not POSIX compliant, you dumb turd

too much aliasing

and I care why?

that's just the jpeg compression. if it were png you'd see none, you can tell because the interior of the green is uniform

oh you wouldn't since you probably don't really use your computer like a programmer does

If anything jpeg would hide some aliasing. They aren't using a wide enough filter for an image like that. Small scale low dpi text is a different case though. I kinda like cleartype aggro hinting aliased mess for that though.

I use Linux

then explain to me why on my screen it looks perfect, but when you see a compressed jpeg you complain about "artifacts"

JPEG uses lossy compression. Now go back to you flaming faggot

no shit, it uses lossy compression, so whats the most likely explanation: macos renders jagged fonts even though it is well known, and for that matter trivially observable by anybody that it does not, or the jpeg just compressed the image a little bit? the font is IBM Plex Mono btw

windows 7 cleartype
reap it and wheat

Attached: 7.png (368x586, 5K)

Attached: 1529447022148.png (662x580, 126K)

>zooms in on an image
>hurr font rendering sucks
you measure font rendering by rendering larger and larger fonts, dip weed

>POSIX compliant
Nobody cares.

and that's the way i want it to stay normies get out ree

>take screenshot of 5000pt font
>DURRR FRUIT FONT RENDR GUD
Kill yourself you subhuman mactoddler shitstain.

POSIX is so 80s, its like saying you have a VHS compliant dildo.

i wish being stupid was painful

likewise, i also wish making ignorant statements caused physical pain

aren't fonts typically vector based, and hence very easy to scale?

Yes, but it's typically the rendering at smaller sizes that matters most.

... why? Wouldn't that mean it's solely based on screen resolution and AA? A font that's 1cm tall at 8k will always look better than one that's at sub-FHD?

this seems like a pissing match at it's finest.

Yeah, it also depends on the type of font.

>.. why?
becase text is usually rendered at 10-15pt, 4k displays are something absolutely new compared to font rendering you zoomer

>bootlicking

Attached: Montoya.jpg (1920x1080, 894K)

It's the pixel density of the screen that makes the most difference.

I agree with the pissing match statement but for something you spend so long looking at it does help to find it visually pleasing.

not a zoomer, just not autistic enough for this shit I guess.

That anti-aliasing is kinda bad.