No effing way February 14, 2008 4:29 PM   Subscribe


I'm going with coincidence, personally, but you could probably mefimail citybuddha and ask.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:33 PM on February 14, 2008


The first one is a typo. citybuddha meant to type an apostrophe, but hit the period instead. Does that make it a coincidence?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:39 PM on February 14, 2008


I find it clever and funny.
posted by Corduroy at 4:39 PM on February 14, 2008


if it is taken at face value.
posted by Corduroy at 4:39 PM on February 14, 2008


Guess I should now that I've made such a big deal about it.
posted by pwally at 4:40 PM on February 14, 2008


Man, you have got to turn on font anti-aliasing! Yikes!
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 4:44 PM on February 14, 2008


...ya haha that's a .bmp from mspaint because I'm lazy.
posted by pwally at 4:46 PM on February 14, 2008


What the hell is going on in here!?
Everyone put your shirts on and get back to your huts!
posted by Dizzy at 4:50 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ysynchronize ?
posted by proj08 at 5:09 PM on February 14, 2008


Man, you have got to turn on font anti-aliasing! Yikes!

Because text is so much more fun to read when it's blurry.
posted by delmoi at 5:17 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


You think that's an eerie coincidence?

The site that Matt posted in 1999 as the 69th MeFi post, which apparently was some kind of funny thing, had its domain taken over and is now some sort of porn placeholder site.

There's either a conspiracy at work, or he has powers. Unearthly porn-predicting powers.
posted by CKmtl at 5:18 PM on February 14, 2008


Because text is so much more fun to read when it's blurry.

If it's blurry, you haven't tuned it. If you have a decent monitor at a reasonable resolution and you're not using Cleartype or its equivalent, even on a good CRT, you're a luddite doofus. There, I said it.

Also, just a friendly suggestion, but I'm thinking you should probably reconsider, recalibrate, and refrain from hitting post next time something like this blows your mind, pwally.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:22 PM on February 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


Y not?
posted by wendell at 5:25 PM on February 14, 2008


Y.bother?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:29 PM on February 14, 2008


stavrosthewonderchicken, friendly suggestion taken, recalibrated, and summarily dismissed.
posted by pwally at 5:30 PM on February 14, 2008


They both have the same goal (make text look 'better',) but Antialiasing isn't _quite_ the same thing as Cleartype (link). Cleartype on a CRT, for instance, is a lose.

I prefer neither, probably because I've been reading text on computer screens my whole life. Antialiasing and cleartype and whatnot make me feel like my eyes aren't focusing properly.
posted by blenderfish at 5:34 PM on February 14, 2008


I'm used to being antialiased MY WHOLE LIFE.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:36 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yeah, cleartype is for old people.
posted by Justinian at 5:37 PM on February 14, 2008


"ยกYo quiero Taco Bell!".
posted by ericb at 5:41 PM on February 14, 2008


LOLSUBPIXELADDRESSING
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:56 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


My vote is for coincidence, but I don't think city is having a go at netzapper, so what difference does it make? If we had a post about every dumb joke that gets posted here, we'd have to call the gray MetaAdmiralHaddock.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 6:00 PM on February 14, 2008


Whoa holy shit, thanks for the cleartype link. This rules. Seriously, how have I not known about this? /mindblown
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 6:09 PM on February 14, 2008


Did you try sending citybuddha a MeFiMail to ask if it was a joke before pestering the rest of us? I suspect that citybuddha can give you a far better answer than the rest of us.
posted by languagehat at 6:17 PM on February 14, 2008


Uncle Stavros: Pwally, that was an awful post.

Pwally: Y.eah! Awful good!
posted by mrmojoflying at 6:19 PM on February 14, 2008


Yeah its in the mail.... really though? pestering? Did I call you during dinner?
posted by pwally at 6:23 PM on February 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Cleartype on a CRT, for instance, is a lose.

Nope, going to have to disagree there. On my sturdy and excellent semi-old 19inch Syncmaster, Cleartype, when properly tuned, is far far better than not.

I think like many things, preference comes into it, but I actually reckon it's more the quality of the display being used than anything else when it comes to subpixel antialiasing. For my part, I literally cringe when I see old-style text on people's monitors these days.

An interesting aspect of this is Safari on Windows, released last year. It's a pretty crappy, feature-free browser for daily use, but it uses its own subpixel antialiasing for text, and renders text quite beautifully, Mac-style, even on Windows boxes. I find it a little too much, perhaps, for my taste, but it shows what's possible.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:24 PM on February 14, 2008


I thought Metatalk was our dinner.
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 6:25 PM on February 14, 2008


I prefer neither, probably because I've been reading text on computer screens my whole life.

I'll add that I have too, since the marathon sessions in front of green-screen monitor of my TRS-80 Model III, back in '79, for what it's worth. I'm not a font-weenie, or even anything more than a hobbyist designer, but I am pretty sensitive to this stuff, and I knows what I likes, by golly.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:28 PM on February 14, 2008


That reminds me of the question I wanted to ask. My girlfriend mentioned something about eating out at the Y tonight, but I called several YMCAs, and they don't actually offer that service. What was she talking about?

Never mind, she just came out of the bedroom, I'll ask her mysel...

Oh.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:24 PM on February 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


zing
posted by pwally at 7:30 PM on February 14, 2008


The ClearType and related subpixel rendering technology debates surfaces occassionally. It seems to be yet another computer related technology that has a vast array of differing personal experiences with it. On my previous CRTs and my current LCDs I can't live without it. Type is crisp, precise, and clear, never blurry. This does not mean, however, that this is so for everyone else.

I see the potential in Safari for Windows type rendering, but for some reason, to me, it's just a bit too off.

A mention of the TRS-80 reminds me of the TI-99, which for some reason, I think of the type on that damn thing, and my young TI-99 with a modem "call collect" joke.
posted by juiceCake at 8:19 PM on February 14, 2008



Stavros, maybe you're comparing Cleartype on a CRT with no antialiasing at all on a CRT? I could definitely see the former looking smoother than the latter (since, in theory, Cleartype should degrade into more-or-less normal antialiasing on a CRT.) Seems like they change how to activate that shit around in every version of Windows, too.

But, I've never tried Cleartype on a CRT (and certainly not _your_ CRT) firsthand, so, I'm willing to accept that practice might deviate from theory.

As far as liking it, I can definitely see the aesthetic appeal, but my brain likes the jaggies. If I did print work, I would certainly turn it on so that the screen better matched the page.


Also, while we're discussing things that are funny to us and possibly nobody else, today I saw a burned out store with a sign on it that read:
Store Closed due to "fire."
Yes, with the scare quotes. I figure that about the only way that could be better is if it said
Store Closed due to "accidental fire."
That is all.
posted by blenderfish at 9:16 PM on February 14, 2008


I retract my statement that "Cleartype is a lose on CRTs." I should have said "In theory, Cleartype is no better, and possibly worse, than normal antialiasing on CRTs."
posted by blenderfish at 9:18 PM on February 14, 2008


f you have a decent monitor at a reasonable resolution and you're not using Cleartype or its equivalent, even on a good CRT, you're a luddite doofus.

I disagree. As someone who spends the better part of each day being paid to write code, I need clear type that I can parse quickly at a very low size, to fit more of the code on the screen at once.

It really comes down to the font; there are some that only look good with cleartype on, and some that look fantastic aliased and small (the ones I use, for instance.)

On the other hand, if you run your LCD monitor at a smaller non-native resolution to get a larger font, then you are a luddite doofus (or blind as a bat.)
posted by davejay at 11:43 PM on February 14, 2008


Who the fuck cares?
posted by Mister_A at 6:34 AM on February 15, 2008


Well, not you, it seems quite clear. For my part, I am impressed by your manly assertion of disinterest, as, it must be certain, the collective female MeFite contingent must also be, as they swoon, even as I have, determinedly hetero though I am, in the clouds of not-caring man-musk you exude.

Excellent, Mister_A. Superlative!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:48 AM on February 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Damn, the man-musk is thick in here.

*opens window*
posted by languagehat at 7:53 AM on February 15, 2008


Someone proposed calling that WTFC kind of remark a name based on a mefite's name. Now what was it again?




posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:57 AM on February 15, 2008


Yikes!

Good one!
posted by scarabic at 12:00 PM on February 15, 2008


Ymeh.
posted by fourcheesemac at 2:33 PM on February 15, 2008


Windows anti-aliasing is tuned to force the render into the pixel grid, which results in a better screen experience, but at the cost of WYSINWYG. OS X anti-aliasing ignores the pixel grid, which means WYSISWYG, but at the cost of a poorer screen experience.

On a Windows box a letter "i" will almost always have perfectly sharp vertical edges. On an OS X the letter "i" might have blurry edges. On the Windows box, letters are not placed exactly where they belong, which fubars accurate text layout; on the OS X box, letters are placed exactly and thus layout is accurate.

Obviously there are advantages either way, wholly dependent on your goals. Personally, I prefer Window's method when reading web pages; but OS X's method when laying out documents. Then again, Adobe InDesign uses its own algorithms, which really makes OS X's technique pointlessly fuzzy for me; the only time I care about print-accurate metrics is when I'm in InDesign!

As for Cleartype looking good on a CRT, that is only possible if the CRT is using RGB pixel triads that are side-by-side (versus a triangle layout). And even then I doubt Cleartype is responsible for any improvement, as (a) you can't address the colour subpixels individually and (b) CRT pixels "bloom". Rather, I suspect it's ordinary anti-aliasing that's having the beneficial effect.

Indeed, I suspect "properly tuned" in this case means the sub-pixel rendering is turned-off, while ordinary anti-alias blurring is left on.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:57 PM on February 15, 2008


Holy crap. Just turned cleartype on for the first time in my life.

EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT NOW.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:12 PM on February 15, 2008


Wikipedia talks about what five fresh fish is saying; there are some pictures, too.
posted by blenderfish at 12:23 PM on February 16, 2008


My fiance (aka Netzapper) is incredibly yplesed at being ymetatalk-ed. However, he is too lazy to post a response at the moment. Stay ytuned.
posted by nursegracer at 9:20 PM on February 16, 2008


ywhat?
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:51 PM on February 20, 2008


« Older MeFi Short Fiction Anthology Due Date Nears!   |   Who are you and why do I like you so much? Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments