It's definitely a matter of taste.

I spent my whole life looking at ugly blocky pixelated fonts, until I started using Linux. I can't imagine why anyone could actually prefer the way Windows fonts look! Even Cleartype, which is a significant improvement, is still blocky because it only anti-aliases in one dimension. The stupid thing is that Windows 98 is technically capable of displaying true anti-aliased fonts, but practically only at large font sizes and there's no way to change that.

At least with Linux, you have the choice. I choose to never go back to blocky pixelated fonts like in Windows.

Agreed ... I hate Window$ fonts ... every time I look at them, I know yet another reason not to go back, ever !

Are you sure that your eyes don't need to be tested? As great as linux is for all things operating systems, the readability is still not up to par (imo). It must defintely be a matter of taste but what I will say is that I don't think that I'm in the minority for preferring the fonts in MS operating systems. For those of you that don't or do prefer, are you using CRTs or LCDs?

Here's an interesting article from someone about this issue:

http://scobleizer.com/2006/08/17/lin...es-heel-fonts/

I'm absolutely sure my eyes don't need to be tested. Thank you SO much for your concern.

It's a matter of personal taste.

As for the majority--in my experience the majority of people don't even notice a difference between "Standard" and "Cleartype" rendering in Windows XP. When I see a Windows XP computer with an LCD screen, I say, "Hey, I can make the fonts look a lot better by turning on Cleartype." Among my friends and family, not a single one of them noticed the difference. Not one! I'd switch it back-and-forth a few times and they'd just shrug.

I use both CRT and LCD displays, as well as a DLP projector. In all cases, Linux fonts look MUCH better to me. Ironically, I find Cleartype looks better on a CRT than an LCD. The way Cleartype works on an LCD, it looks blockier. On a CRT, it looks more like anti-aliased fonts, albeit only anti-aliased horizontally and with color distorted fringes.

Maybe you should direct them to the online clearype tuner. (It won't work on linux btw.) If they can't see the difference there then they are blind. Go here to see it: http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...ner/Step1.aspx

I find that on a CRT, I can make do without Cleartype (but do also prefer it to be on), but on a LCD it is essential, without it, oddly enough, I find fonts to be far too jagged as the way that a LCD works, you'd expect the fonts to be.

I'm sure that by your standards, they are "blind". I've used Cleartype tuners in an attempt to eliminate or at least reduce the color fringing on a CRT. I personally find that the default Cleartype settings are as good as I can get them.

I don't know but I love my stock linux fonts!
They are much better looking than micro$oft fonts
and easier on the eyes. The ms fonts are so small
rough.So I don't know why you are trying to get fonts
for linux to look like ms fonts.Thats my personal thing
so take no offence at me.

Same here!

Funny, I hadn't a problem with windows AA-disabled fonts until I have been using slackware-KDE for months.
Now If i occasionally switch to windows XP for whatever reason, my thinking is WHAT THE FONT!??!
ugly-thin-rough font....

Hmmm...Speaking of this I should tweak my font display in my windowsXP. Never thought of that.
Anyway,
http://brendan.sdf-eu.org/articles/antialiasing_slack.php
is good tutorial. But I haven't follow the hinting support part.

IMO,This is nice also:
http://penguinfonts.com/howto/slackware.php

I actually prefer the way Linux renders fonts. XP's rendering just looks blurry. I don't see that as an improvement. IE7 is absolutely the worst for this. BTW I run separate KDE and GNOME desktops and my fonts beat anything I've ever seen in Windows. Don't bother telling me that I don't know what I'm doing in Windows either, fonts are very important to me and I've studied this very closely. It's my personal belief that people that say Linux fonts are ugly are probably talking about the default X fonts. I change those right away. Under Slackware up to version 9 I had to rebuild FreeType and then all the things linked to it to get the right look, but I haven't had to do that in 10 or higher. The only desktop I've seen that's better than the way I render fonts is Mac OSX and if I wanted to pay Apple prices I wouldn't be using Linux, and Mac isn't all that much prettyier than what I can build.

That's why you got to love the font issue, there is no right or wrong answer. I personally hate the way Mac renders fonts... even though I love my Mac.

I tweaked a few settings in my fonts.conf file in the home directory and I found a updated LCD rendering patch that works with Cairo 1.4.10, the results are now even closer to windows cleartype, take a look.

windows font gives me headaches. Nothin's good as bitstream vera sans or deja vu.

i think fonts in linux are much better, as long as they're configured well. if they're not, they're much worse, esp. on LCD. bitstream vera sans is one of the best and most usable sans serif fonts for general use i've ever seen, including helvetica. and bitstream mono is really good, too, imo much superior to courier new which tends to look too typewriter-y.

do excuse my ignorance on this, but what is the font on this page?

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...ner/Step1.aspx

i think i like this font with cleartype best for reading ebooks, its the default font for .chm files on xp if i am correct?

The font might be "MS Reference Sans Serif", italic style, 10 point.