Calling all firefox users. Do your fonts look faint and washed out?

[Mike Barnard]

Heh, that sounds like a soap powder advert!

When I look at my site in FF the text appears ... thin. Yet in IE it's
much heavier and more readable.

Imagine if you will that the text in IE was in bold but the FF text
was not, except that the IE text is *not* bold so the FF text must be
in ultra skinny mode.

I've looked through the options and I can't see any that affect the
text other than font scaling,l and thats normal.

Is this just how FF shows things or have I tweaked something in the
past?

Mike.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

When I look at my site in FF the text appears ... thin. Yet in IE it's
much heavier and more readable.

Looks pretty much the same to me.

Remember, it all depends on the visitor's (or your) chosen default font
size .. per each browser.

The only thing I notice is the paragr .. whoops, heading? .. of "Things
to add: Email newsletter, ..."

#content h4
....
font-weight: normal;

Looks like Firefox is respecting that, and IE is not. But "normal" is
the default, so you don't need to use it.

 

[Mike Barnard]

Looks pretty much the same to me.

I've tried screencapping it without sucess. I'll try again later but
here they're vastly different. BUT the default font size of 16 is the
same, the font is the same but FF just looks.... thin.

Remember, it all depends on the visitor's (or your) chosen default font
size .. per each browser.

The only thing I notice is the paragr .. whoops, heading? .. of "Things
to add: Email newsletter, ..."

#content h4
...
font-weight: normal;

Legacy. It'll be cleared out in the end. If I remember! As the site
can now be seen, I guess it would be good to remove that bit!

Looks like Firefox is respecting that, and IE is not. But "normal" is
the default, so you don't need to use it.

Thanks.

 

[Bergamot]

#content h4
...
font-weight: normal;

Looks like Firefox is respecting that, and IE is not. But "normal" is
the default, so you don't need to use it.

I believe font-weight:bold is the default for all heading levels.

 

[Neredbojias]

Heh, that sounds like a soap powder advert!

When I look at my site in FF the text appears ... thin. Yet in IE it's
much heavier and more readable.

Imagine if you will that the text in IE was in bold but the FF text
was not, except that the IE text is *not* bold so the FF text must be
in ultra skinny mode.

I've looked through the options and I can't see any that affect the
text other than font scaling,l and thats normal.

Is this just how FF shows things or have I tweaked something in the
past?

I believe it's a color issue.

 

[Mike Barnard]

When I look at my site in FF the text appears ... thin. Yet in IE it's
much heavier and more readable.

Finally got a comparison screencap.

http://www.thermachek.com/test/index.html

Looking closer it looks as though the IE text is antialiased, but the
FF one isn't. Is there an option in FF to do this? I can't see one,
but we all know I sometimes miss the obvious!

 

[Ed Mullen]

Finally got a comparison screencap.

http://www.thermachek.com/test/index.html

Looking closer it looks as though the IE text is antialiased, but the
FF one isn't. Is there an option in FF to do this? I can't see one,
but we all know I sometimes miss the obvious!

Perhaps ...

Tools - Options - Content - Fonts & Colors - Advanced. Check to see if
you have unchecked "Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of my
selections above".

 

[Mike Barnard]

Perhaps ...

Tools - Options - Content - Fonts & Colors - Advanced. Check to see if
you have unchecked "Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of my
selections above".

No, that is checked. The fonts are identical looking at the pixel
structure of the letters, it's just antialiasing I'm sure. Oh well,
no setting that I can see. In face I have just gone through the
settings in IE and can see nothing there. Just another browser
difference I suppose.

 

[albert hall]

Finally got a comparison screencap.

http://www.thermachek.com/test/index.html

Looking closer it looks as though the IE text is antialiased, but the
FF one isn't. Is there an option in FF to do this? I can't see one,
but we all know I sometimes miss the obvious!

I got the same effect when I recently downloaded IE7. It does'nt happen
in IE6. Apparently it's because IE7 uses Clear Type font smoothing by
default:

http://ie7css.info/features/ie7-upgrades-to-font-smoothing.html

You can activate font smoothing in FF but have to apply it to all of
Windows:

http://chris.calabrese.org/?p=27

 

[Mike Barnard]

I got the same effect when I recently downloaded IE7. It does'nt happen
in IE6. Apparently it's because IE7 uses Clear Type font smoothing by
default:

http://ie7css.info/features/ie7-upgrades-to-font-smoothing.html

You can activate font smoothing in FF but have to apply it to all of
Windows:

http://chris.calabrese.org/?p=27

BINGO! You got it, thanks. I've just tet my PC to Clear Type and FF
instantly became clearer, darker and...nicer. I'll just have to
suggest that all other users try this option.

Oh, yes, I have a nice Asus 22" widescreen, very digital indeed. I'll
go to the library or somewhere with older analogue monitors and see
what it looks like there.

I'm glad it wasn't my eyesight!

 

[Ed Mullen]

BINGO! You got it, thanks. I've just tet my PC to Clear Type and FF
instantly became clearer, darker and...nicer. I'll just have to
suggest that all other users try this option.

Oh, yes, I have a nice Asus 22" widescreen, very digital indeed. I'll
go to the library or somewhere with older analogue monitors and see
what it looks like there.

I'm glad it wasn't my eyesight!

FYI

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cleartype/tuner/Step1.aspx

You can download a handy utility to adjust Clear Type on your
system/display.

 

[rf]

Website text and text in general often looks shithouse on Windows
machines. Yes, I know, it is said that things can be done about it. How
come, on Macs you don't have to say things like this because text almost
always looks gorgeous?

I once observed a queue of text waiting to go on stage onto what they
thought was a Windows one and they looked depressed, their natural em
heights sagging sadly. Suddenly, there was an announcement: "Girls, the
stage has been switched to Mac!"

A delighted surprised murmur rippled through the queue, the letters and
symbols all standing more upright, their em heights restored, their
skins glowing more, the thin bits of them losing that splotchy emaciated
look, their fingers raised for a lick and a stroke of their eyebrows,
hands confidently brushing back their hair. There was going to be a
class act after all...[/QUOTE]

Do you carry on with these bizarre outbursts in real life?

 

[dorayme]

[/QUOTE]

Website text and text in general often looks shithouse on Windows
machines. Yes, I know, it is said that things can be done about it. How
come, on Macs you don't have to say things like this because text almost
always looks gorgeous?

I once observed a queue of text waiting to go on stage onto what they
thought was a Windows one and they looked depressed, their natural em
heights sagging sadly. Suddenly, there was an announcement: "Girls, the
stage has been switched to Mac!"

A delighted surprised murmur rippled through the queue, the letters and
symbols all standing more upright, their em heights restored, their
skins glowing more, the thin bits of them losing that splotchy emaciated
look, their fingers raised for a lick and a stroke of their eyebrows,
hands confidently brushing back their hair. There was going to be a
class act after all...

 

[Ed Mullen]

Website text and text in general often looks shithouse on Windows
machines. [/QUOTE]

Beg to differ. I have experience with both, historically and currently,
and to claim that is ... hmmm ... um ... deceitful? Silly? Ignorant
(which I think you are surely not). But it is, at best, "not well
informed."

If Apple is so all-knowing and wonderful, how come Safari for Windows
looks so ... well, poopy? And, by the way, I have been around since
before the Mac, way back to 1984 and IBM mid-range systems and green
screens. I am amused by the Mac/Apple evangelists. Hey, if that's your
thing? Enjoy! No problem. Just stop trying to tell the world that
your religion is THE religion that we all should bow down to. I give
you no more credence than any other zealot. And it detracts from my
view of you (editorially "you" as well as personally "you") as a
rational person. I find ALL zealots of any ilk suspect.

Yes, I know, it is said that things can be done about it. How
come, on Macs you don't have to say things like this because text almost
always looks gorgeous?

I owned a Mac many moons ago. I hated it. Nothing looked "gorgeous" on
it and it did everything in a different way. Oh, sure, I could have
drunk the Kool Aid and bought into the fervor. But why? I just wanted
a tool (a hammer) to beat to death the issues (business problems) I had
at the time. I didn't want to become an evangelist or a disciple or
some drone as depicted in that cute "1984" Mac ad.

I once observed a queue of text waiting to go on stage onto what they
thought was a Windows one and they looked depressed, their natural em
heights sagging sadly. Suddenly, there was an announcement: "Girls, the
stage has been switched to Mac!"

A delighted surprised murmur rippled through the queue, the letters and
symbols all standing more upright, their em heights restored, their
skins glowing more, the thin bits of them losing that splotchy emaciated
look, their fingers raised for a lick and a stroke of their eyebrows,
hands confidently brushing back their hair. There was going to be a
class act after all...

Cute is, well, "cute."

Ads are, well, ads. I've written enough of them in my life to be able
to discern the difference between bull shit and functional features.

Hey, you like Apple? Good for you. Enjoy your association with the
other miniscule percent of the market share vs. Intel and Microsoft.
Wanna spend your hours, and days, and energy worrying about
conspiracies? Go right ahead. I just want a tool that works.

Just stop mimicking Apple propaganda in your posts about technology.

Well, ok, on the other hand, whatever. I'm not mad or anything, nor
angry. And I don't even much care about it. We all do what we want,
and that's fine.

I just hate proselytizing in any guise. It's not rational. It is,
largely, untruthful at best. And, worst, it is tedious to the max. If
I want to be bored I have me. No outside agencies needed, thank you
very much. Good grief, just stop all this nonsense. You want a
Craftsman hammer? Buy one and be happy. You prefer a Black and Decker
hammer? Good on ya, mate! Go for it!

Fonts, schmonts. My screens look every bit as good as any modern Mac
I've seen. What a load of ... excuse me ... I think we've wasted enough
time on this diversion.

 

[Ed Mullen]

Do you carry on with these bizarre outbursts in real life?

Gee, I wish I had read this before I posted my last outburst. :-D

 

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Fonts, schmonts.

That’s a funny statement. If fonts just looked good (and more of them
could be available on demand), lots of corporate web pages wouldn’t be
full of dynamic Flash and image generation (or static images of text),
easier to develop, and more accessible.

I would even say that web design in general would be entirely different
from what it is today in that case, and for the better.

My screens look every bit as good as any modern Mac
I've seen.

You haven’t looked very close then. Medium up to very large type is
rendered so much better on OS X that you don’t need to bring your
glasses to notice. OTOH, ClearType – if enabled – does a much better job
on small sizes, which can become a blurry mess on a Mac (and
anti-aliasing has to be disabled at your personal break point
altogether).

Oh, and I hate Apple the company even more than Microsoft, if that
helps

 

[dorayme]

Beg to differ. I have experience with both, historically and currently,
and to claim that is ... hmmm ... um ... deceitful? Silly? Ignorant
(which I think you are surely not). But it is, at best, "not well
informed."

I now want to unreservedly withdraw all my words. My experience with
Windows is quite limited and it is just my impression on the particular
machines that I have seen, especially (and probably unfairly) on my own
Windows 2000 box.

I will never say anything that so upsets you again Ed and I am sending
you cakes and some home brew and a few of my own genetically engineered
chickens. No need to send $10 for them.

 

[dorayme]

Do you carry on with these bizarre outbursts in real life?

In real life I was told that unless I took it seriously I would be shot.
I went to see someone about it and they recommended alt.html. Bizarrity
is slowly being beaten out of me but it takes time and I appreciate
everyone's patience, not least yours Richard.

(Actually, I have been discussing this business of Win font settings
since with a colleague who said there are provisions that can be made in
modern XP machines to make the text nicer to my eye. I am thinking of
getting an XP laptop and so this is good news.)

 

[rf]

(Actually, I have been discussing this business of Win font settings
since with a colleague who said there are provisions that can be made in
modern XP machines to make the text nicer to my eye. I am thinking of
getting an XP laptop and so this is good news.)

An XP laptop?

Why not just dual boot XP on the one you have?

 

[rf]

Don't know how to do this or what it involves. Thought to buy my way out
of it and notch up a tax deduction to stop the accountant saying I am so
mean and don't have enough deductions for her to play with. And take my
time transferring all the software to the laptop.

Where would you suggest I go to get algorithmic instructions for your
suggestions. I have two hard disks in my winbox, one of which has 2000
on it. The other is not doing much, it was spare so I threw it in one
day for storage.

If you choose custom install then you can specify which partition/drive the
install is to use. If this is not the existing boot partition/drive then
dual boot will be installed for you.

However, it's a long time since I have done this, probably 2000 with 98, in
2000.

OTOH why not simply upgrade. It's the same OS, simply an upgrade. IIRC 2000
identifies itself as Windows NT version 5.0. XP is Windows version 5.1.

Don't, however, go anywhere near Vista.