101–110 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How long has it been since you looked at Ubuntu's fonts? I use both OS X and Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is at least equal to OS X these days IMO.
I dunno... http://i641.photobucket.com/albums/uu139/jsz0/fonttest.png
Still.. even if you do install the right fonts, the results will be the same.
Its all well and good for Ubuntu to push further ahead but they would do a real big favor to the push of Linux on the Desktop if they could solve 1 major issue , remove the ugliness in the default rendering of the Fonts. Yes, i know it can be done via a bazillion font config options and yes its very powerful and flexible, but lets get it right by default.
I replied to someone else with the same issue, font rendering has always been by far the best with ubuntu for me than anything else http://junk.arandomurl.com/type.jpg all default installs, ill reply in 10 minutes or something confirming which is which
2) Windows. Everything is slammed into pixel boundaries, making it look clean. Verdana is optimized for this style of rendering, so it doesn't look terrible.. but it's definitely not accurate.
3) Ubuntu. Worst of both worlds. Fuzzy and inaccurate.
Its all well and good for Ubuntu to push further ahead but they would do a real big favor to the push of Linux on the Desktop if they could solve 1 major issue , remove the ugliness in the default rendering of the Fonts. Yes, i know it can be done via a bazillion font config options and yes its very powerful and flexible, but lets get it right by default.
Basically, here's what's going on: 1) There aren't many free typefaces for daily use that are beautiful, so you have to buy (or commission) several and "open source" them. 2) Techniques for AA font rendering that maximize aesthetics and readability are protected by numerous software patents. Years ago there was a short-lived patch in Xorg that had a modern font-AA algorithm that held its own against the competition,…
Ubuntu's avowed mission is to bring Linux to the Masses. For the masses, a computer still "looks" like Windows. Ubuntu being a Funded initiative unlike Arch(my choice), Gentoo, Crunchbang et all needs to fund the development of typography on Linux.
Yes, its possible to download msttcorefonts (with some creativity you could also get the Consolas set of fonts) and get Cleartype or Os X type smoothing - but as long as its not the default , i am afraid there is no pushing Linux onto the masses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely wrong. I wish ppl would stop spreading this nonsense. 64 bit is actually slower in practice, since addresses double in size. It also causes nearly double the memory consumption, since all libraries become twice as big, so when you upgrade to 64 bit, you should actually double the memory you wanted on 32 bit. There are only 2 reasons why you need 64 bit: * You need to compute extremely large numbers. You'll…
To explain why you're being downvoted into oblivion: ints remain the same size, but longs and pointers are double the size. 64-bit libraries may be bigger, but there's no reason they would double in size. In general, a 64-bit system uses more RAM, but not double.
I'm not sure if 1.25-1.5x would be accurate as a rule of thumb, but 2x is almost certainly too high. (It will depend on the data structures etc. involved.)
sean
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I replied to someone else with the same issue, font rendering has always been by far the best with ubuntu for me than anything else http://junk.arandomurl.com/type.jpg all default installs, ill reply in 10 minutes or something confirming which is which
1) OS X. A tad fuzzy, but everything is rendered _accurately_. Consistent thickness and character tracking (spacing). 2) Windows. Everything is slammed into pixel boundaries, making it look clean. Verdana is optimized for this style of rendering, so it doesn't look terrible.. but it's definitely not accurate. 3) Ubuntu. Worst of both worlds. Fuzzy and inaccurate.
ubuntu obviously chooses sharpness over balance (H and E), however osx has virtually every lowercase character heavily aliased, its blurry to the point where its almost 2 shades lighter than its supposed to be and there are individual characters A, u, B, a where it is almost a joke
Its all well and good for Ubuntu to push further ahead but they would do a real big favor to the push of Linux on the Desktop if they could solve 1 major issue , remove the ugliness in the default rendering of the Fonts. Yes, i know it can be done via a bazillion font config options and yes its very powerful and flexible, but lets get it right by default.
I replied to someone else with the same issue, font rendering has always been by far the best with ubuntu for me than anything else http://junk.arandomurl.com/type.jpg all default installs, ill reply in 10 minutes or something confirming which is which
http://alteredqualia.com/visualization/hn/font-cleartype.png
It supports ARM; and a bunch of ARM-based netbooks are due out soon. They are cheaper and much more power efficient than intel's Atom etc. And Windows doesn't run on them (yet). I'm not a big linux vs. windows or ARM vs. intel fanatic, but I'm excited at what seems to be a disruptive inflection point coming up in the next year or so...
Being Windows-proof is, definitely, a feature for me ;-)
I have an Eee 1000 which had a 40gb SSD - there are two reasons that you can't get that today.
- SSD prices have gone up.
- You can't put the cheap version of Windows on a device with a large SSD, so in the interest of rationalising product lines you can only get small SSDs or hard disks.
If Windows can't be put on the device then at least the second pressure won't exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably already know this, but mostly all modern CPU's (within the last 5+ years, I could be wrong on some accounts) are actually 64 bit, so I believe and I might be wrong, you are losing some optimizations. Also its your RAM + Videocard Memory that is your memory, so while you might have say 4 gig, and it would seem to show up on your computer, its including your video card memory.
Absolutely wrong. I wish ppl would stop spreading this nonsense. 64 bit is actually slower in practice, since addresses double in size. It also causes nearly double the memory consumption, since all libraries become twice as big, so when you upgrade to 64 bit, you should actually double the memory you wanted on 32 bit. There are only 2 reasons why you need 64 bit: * You need to compute extremely large numbers. You'll…
- IA32 is register starved ISA, AMD64 is not. It has doubled the amount of general registers.
- AMD64 doesn't have to support the x87 FPU baggage. As a result, it is simpler to deal with fp math.
but as always, I'm very scared to update.
