Screen fonts - sharpness on laptops and desktops?

I am finding my desktop monitors to be sharper than the laptops monitors or
screens that I have when viewing or reading text, and was wondering if that
was normal. For my case, I'm using 800x600, 32 bit true color (and both
computers are a bit old since they're of XP vintage). And the monitors are
all smallish (15 inch HP laptop and 19 inch Dell desktop).

Interestingly, I also found that turning OFF the "smooth font edges" option
(using either the TrueType or Normal settings) can produce a sharper and
thinner font. I don't know if that is to be expected, but I think it gives
less eyestrain that way. But no matter what I do, the Dell desktop monitor
is better. Maybe laptop monitors are always a bit less sharp to keep the
costs down and to fit within the case?

What I mean by "sharper fonts" is that they are very thin, and are not
artificially widened or thickened, which seems to happen with the smooth
fonts option.

Bill in Co wrote:
I am finding my desktop monitors to be sharper than the laptops monitors or
screens that I have when viewing or reading text, and was wondering if that
was normal. For my case, I'm using 800x600, 32 bit true color (and both
computers are a bit old since they're of XP vintage). And the monitors are
all smallish (15 inch HP laptop and 19 inch Dell desktop).

Interestingly, I also found that turning OFF the "smooth font edges" option
(using either the TrueType or Normal settings) can produce a sharper and
thinner font. I don't know if that is to be expected, but I think it gives
less eyestrain that way. But no matter what I do, the Dell desktop monitor
is better. Maybe laptop monitors are always a bit less sharp to keep the
costs down and to fit within the case?

What I mean by "sharper fonts" is that they are very thin, and are not
artificially widened or thickened, which seems to happen with the smooth
fonts option.



There are different kinds of panels. IPS has a wide viewing
angle, versus TN where your head has to be oriented optimally,
to get a decent picture (color-wise).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_crystal_display

And different kinds of surface finishes. Some panels suffer
from parallax. The apparent sharpness may vary between
panels with a matte and a glossy finish.

And yes, ClearType fattens up the fonts, helping in cases
where a single line of pixels isn't all that visible. The
first lines in this article, mention "subpixel rendering".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType

If you take screenshots with and without the effect enabled, you
can see how it works. As far as I know, there are some
tuning options for cleartype (orientation of tuning),
influenced by the relationship of the pixels in the panel
to one another. For a given panel type, it's possible
you may need to select one of the variants to get the
best result. (Perhaps if you have one of those panels
that rotates 90 degrees, you might also want to use this.)

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...ePowerToy.mspx

http://thewindowsclub.thewindowsclub...pe-tuner-4.jpg

Paul

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
I am finding my desktop monitors to be sharper than the laptops monitors or
screens that I have when viewing or reading text, and was wondering if that
was normal. For my case, I'm using 800x600, 32 bit true color (and both
computers are a bit old since they're of XP vintage). And the monitors are
all smallish (15 inch HP laptop and 19 inch Dell desktop).
[]
Hmm, 800 × 600 is quite low, especially for a 19" monitor. Assuming
we're talking about monitors that have one (i. e. not CRT), what are the
native resolutions of these displays?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And in that bloodieth of centuries, the 20th, [US researcher Matthew White]
says, more than 95 per cent of all deaths were from natural causes. Andrew
Marr in RT 22-28 September 2012

Paul wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:
I am finding my desktop monitors to be sharper than the laptops monitors
or
screens that I have when viewing or reading text, and was wondering if
that
was normal. For my case, I'm using 800x600, 32 bit true color (and both
computers are a bit old since they're of XP vintage). And the monitors
are
all smallish (15 inch HP laptop and 19 inch Dell desktop).

Interestingly, I also found that turning OFF the "smooth font edges"
option
(using either the TrueType or Normal settings) can produce a sharper and
thinner font. I don't know if that is to be expected, but I think it
gives
less eyestrain that way. But no matter what I do, the Dell desktop
monitor
is better. Maybe laptop monitors are always a bit less sharp to keep
the
costs down and to fit within the case?

What I mean by "sharper fonts" is that they are very thin, and are not
artificially widened or thickened, which seems to happen with the smooth
fonts option.



There are different kinds of panels. IPS has a wide viewing
angle, versus TN where your head has to be oriented optimally,
to get a decent picture (color-wise).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_crystal_display

And different kinds of surface finishes. Some panels suffer
from parallax. The apparent sharpness may vary between
panels with a matte and a glossy finish.

And yes, ClearType fattens up the fonts, helping in cases
where a single line of pixels isn't all that visible. The
first lines in this article, mention "subpixel rendering".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType

If you take screenshots with and without the effect enabled, you
can see how it works. As far as I know, there are some
tuning options for cleartype (orientation of tuning),
influenced by the relationship of the pixels in the panel
to one another. For a given panel type, it's possible
you may need to select one of the variants to get the
best result. (Perhaps if you have one of those panels
that rotates 90 degrees, you might also want to use this.)

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...ePowerToy.mspx

http://thewindowsclub.thewindowsclub...pe-tuner-4.jpg

Paul

TNX. I downloaded the ClearTypePowerToy and gave it a shot. But I still
got the sharpest results on my laptop by simply unchecking the smooth font
edges, which isn't surprising. :-) I can live with the small zaggies, at
least for now.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
I am finding my desktop monitors to be sharper than the laptops monitors
or
screens that I have when viewing or reading text, and was wondering if
that
was normal. For my case, I'm using 800x600, 32 bit true color (and both
computers are a bit old since they're of XP vintage). And the monitors
are
all smallish (15 inch HP laptop and 19 inch Dell desktop). (I meant 17")
[]
Hmm, 800 × 600 is quite low, especially for a 19" monitor. Assuming
we're talking about monitors that have one (i. e. not CRT), what are the
native resolutions of these displays?

My bad, I meant 17 inch monitor. Still, I really prefer the 800x600
resolution over the more standard 1024x768, or beyond. I like the larger
type. :-) And the alternative of changing the DPI font size doesn't cut it
for me. However, there are some apps that require the higher res, and I know
that's the trend. I use the freebie Display Changer program that
automatically sets the res to 1024x768 when I open the app, and resets it
back to 800x600, when I exit it. :-)

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
I am finding my desktop monitors to be sharper than the laptops monitors
or
screens that I have when viewing or reading text, and was wondering if
that
was normal. For my case, I'm using 800x600, 32 bit true color (and both
computers are a bit old since they're of XP vintage). And the monitors
are
all smallish (15 inch HP laptop and 19 inch Dell desktop). (I meant 17")
[]
Hmm, 800 × 600 is quite low, especially for a 19" monitor. Assuming
we're talking about monitors that have one (i. e. not CRT), what are the
native resolutions of these displays?

My bad, I meant 17 inch monitor. Still, I really prefer the 800x600
resolution over the more standard 1024x768, or beyond. I like the larger
type. :-) And the alternative of changing the DPI font size doesn't cut it
for me. However, there are some apps that require the higher res, and I know
that's the trend. I use the freebie Display Changer program that
automatically sets the res to 1024x768 when I open the app, and resets it
back to 800x600, when I exit it. :-)


You haven't answered my question (-:! What are the _native resolutions_
of your 17" display and your laptop - I mean, how many pixels across and
high are they? All displays other than CRTs have a native resolution;
using anything other than that, higher _or_ lower, gives a sub-optimum
effect, unless you're using an exact sub-multiple (such as 800 × 600 on
a 1600 × 1200).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
I am finding my desktop monitors to be sharper than the laptops
monitors
or
screens that I have when viewing or reading text, and was wondering if
that
was normal. For my case, I'm using 800x600, 32 bit true color (and
both
computers are a bit old since they're of XP vintage). And the monitors
are
all smallish (15 inch HP laptop and 19 inch Dell desktop). (I meant
17")
[]
Hmm, 800 × 600 is quite low, especially for a 19" monitor. Assuming
we're talking about monitors that have one (i. e. not CRT), what are the
native resolutions of these displays?

My bad, I meant 17 inch monitor. Still, I really prefer the 800x600
resolution over the more standard 1024x768, or beyond. I like the larger
type. :-) And the alternative of changing the DPI font size doesn't cut
it
for me. However, there are some apps that require the higher res, and I
know
that's the trend. I use the freebie Display Changer program that
automatically sets the res to 1024x768 when I open the app, and resets it
back to 800x600, when I exit it. :-)


You haven't answered my question (-:! What are the _native resolutions_
of your 17" display and your laptop - I mean, how many pixels across and
high are they? All displays other than CRTs have a native resolution;
using anything other than that, higher _or_ lower, gives a sub-optimum
effect, unless you're using an exact sub-multiple (such as 800 × 600 on
a 1600 × 1200).

I don't know or recall what they are. But I do know they were much higher
than 800x600, and that, of course, isn't optimal, as you've said.

That said, I don't think you can find any monitors now that have a native
resolution even as low as 1024x800. Maybe 10 years ago, but not now. :-)
So the point becomes a bit moot, as I'm stuck with that "advance". :-)

On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:34:08 -0700, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
I am finding my desktop monitors to be sharper than the laptops
monitors
or
screens that I have when viewing or reading text, and was wondering if
that
was normal. For my case, I'm using 800x600, 32 bit true color (and
both
computers are a bit old since they're of XP vintage). And the monitors
are
all smallish (15 inch HP laptop and 19 inch Dell desktop). (I meant
17")
[]
Hmm, 800 × 600 is quite low, especially for a 19" monitor. Assuming
we're talking about monitors that have one (i. e. not CRT), what are the
native resolutions of these displays?

My bad, I meant 17 inch monitor. Still, I really prefer the 800x600
resolution over the more standard 1024x768, or beyond. I like the larger
type. :-) And the alternative of changing the DPI font size doesn't cut
it
for me. However, there are some apps that require the higher res, and I
know
that's the trend. I use the freebie Display Changer program that
automatically sets the res to 1024x768 when I open the app, and resets it
back to 800x600, when I exit it. :-)


You haven't answered my question (-:! What are the _native resolutions_
of your 17" display and your laptop - I mean, how many pixels across and
high are they? All displays other than CRTs have a native resolution;
using anything other than that, higher _or_ lower, gives a sub-optimum
effect, unless you're using an exact sub-multiple (such as 800 × 600 on
a 1600 × 1200).

I don't know or recall what they are. But I do know they were much higher
than 800x600, and that, of course, isn't optimal, as you've said.

That said, I don't think you can find any monitors now that have a native
resolution even as low as 1024x800. Maybe 10 years ago, but not now. :-)
So the point becomes a bit moot, as I'm stuck with that "advance". :-)

I started wearing glasses to read with when I was 50. Cheap ones
from the dollar store, 1.25 whatevers.

Finally at age 65, I started changing the fonts on Agent and Eudora,
mostly using bold and sometimes more points for the font.

I do this with 1152x864 resolution. Funny, I don't remember setting it
at that. I don't even remember it existing. 32 bit color.

It's a ViewSonic flatscreen my neighbor put in the trash.

and with FFox i just make the screen bigger. On the browser, for the
first few steps the font gets bigger but then it gets bold. I like
bold. It makes things more readable without taking up more line height
and allowing fewer lines per screen.

In message , micky
writes:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:34:08 -0700, "Bill in Co"
wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
I am finding my desktop monitors to be sharper than the laptops
monitors
or
screens that I have when viewing or reading text, and was wondering if
that
was normal. For my case, I'm using 800x600, 32 bit true color (and
both
computers are a bit old since they're of XP vintage). And the monitors
are
all smallish (15 inch HP laptop and 19 inch Dell desktop). (I meant
17")
[]
Hmm, 800 × 600 is quite low, especially for a 19" monitor. Assuming
we're talking about monitors that have one (i. e. not CRT), what are the
native resolutions of these displays?

My bad, I meant 17 inch monitor. Still, I really prefer the 800x600
resolution over the more standard 1024x768, or beyond. I like the larger
type. :-) And the alternative of changing the DPI font size doesn't cut
it
for me. However, there are some apps that require the higher res, and I
know
that's the trend. I use the freebie Display Changer program that
automatically sets the res to 1024x768 when I open the app, and resets it
back to 800x600, when I exit it. :-)


You haven't answered my question (-:! What are the _native resolutions_
of your 17" display and your laptop - I mean, how many pixels across and
high are they? All displays other than CRTs have a native resolution;
using anything other than that, higher _or_ lower, gives a sub-optimum
effect, unless you're using an exact sub-multiple (such as 800 × 600 on
a 1600 × 1200).

I don't know or recall what they are. But I do know they were much higher
than 800x600, and that, of course, isn't optimal, as you've said.

Well, it might be worth switching to one - even 640 × 480 if that
qualifies (and is available!) - that is an exact sub-multiple of the
native resolution.

Alternatively, using a CRT monitor: you should more or less find people
who'll pay you to take them away these days!

That said, I don't think you can find any monitors now that have a native
resolution even as low as 1024x800. Maybe 10 years ago, but not now. :-)
So the point becomes a bit moot, as I'm stuck with that "advance". :-)

I started wearing glasses to read with when I was 50. Cheap ones
from the dollar store, 1.25 whatevers.

Finally at age 65, I started changing the fonts on Agent and Eudora,
mostly using bold and sometimes more points for the font.

I have Courier New, 9 point, bold for Fixed pitch, Courier New, 10
point, bold for Proportional (!), and Courier New, 10 point, for
Printing, in this Turnpike (which sets different colours for quoting
levels).

I do this with 1152x864 resolution. Funny, I don't remember setting it
at that. I don't even remember it existing. 32 bit color.

_Possibly_ it set itself automatically having "spoken" to the monitor.

It's a ViewSonic flatscreen my neighbor put in the trash.

I wish I had neighbours like that!

and with FFox i just make the screen bigger. On the browser, for the
first few steps the font gets bigger but then it gets bold. I like
bold. It makes things more readable without taking up more line height
and allowing fewer lines per screen.

Why I use it here.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Expectate litteras meas." Translation: "You'll get mail."

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:12:54 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


I started wearing glasses to read with when I was 50. Cheap ones
from the dollar store, 1.25 whatevers.

Finally at age 65, I started changing the fonts on Agent and Eudora,
mostly using bold and sometimes more points for the font.

I have Courier New, 9 point, bold for Fixed pitch, Courier New, 10
point, bold for Proportional (!), and Courier New, 10 point, for
Printing, in this Turnpike (which sets different colours for quoting
levels).

I don't remember what I'm using. I had the defaults until a couple
years ago and first I changed to bold and if that wasnt' enough, I
increased a couple points.

I do this with 1152x864 resolution. Funny, I don't remember setting it
at that. I don't even remember it existing. 32 bit color.

_Possibly_ it set itself automatically having "spoken" to the monitor.

Oh, you're probably right. It was bad when I turned it on, but I
pushed some button on the monitor and it's been good since. (I had
dl'd the manual, I think.)

It's a ViewSonic flatscreen my neighbor put in the trash.

I wish I had neighbours like that!

Yes, and he had the power supply cord with it. , I should really go our
every wednesday. night and check the trash. At the same time I found
that, I also got a Dell desktop, which has a virus I think and he was
probably right to spend the money for a repair on a new computer. If I
don't wait too long, it may be worth reinstalling XP. And I found a
printer/scanner/copier/fax, and inside I found half a gear bouncing
around. I know a glue that can glue that**, but he probably doesn't.

I've also found, from him, a like-new laptop shoulder bag, by a famous
maker. Which I use. I wonder if he'll recognize it when I
occasionally carry it while I walk to or from the car. He lives two
townhouses away.

3 or 4 times in the last year, the monitor has lost its image and looked
wierd, but just turning it off and right back on has fixed that. Maybe
he threw away the monitor because he got a wide one. He still should
have given it to Goodwill.


**I forget the name of the glue that will glue nylon together, even
though it usually hardens before I can use it again. This time I found
where the broken half gear went and glued it back on but I didnt' get it
pushed all the way on, and t here's an empty space about the width of
one tooth on one side.

I think I calculated that instead of being 14 teeth around, now it's
like 15 teeth, which makes a printed page 7% longer than it should be.
Hmmm. Last time I convinced myself it was less than 2% longer, and I
thought I could live with it. Maybe I'll have to break it apart, if I
can, and reglue it.

and with FFox i just make the screen bigger. On the browser, for the
first few steps the font gets bigger but then it gets bold. I like
bold. It makes things more readable without taking up more line height
and allowing fewer lines per screen.

Why I use it here.

Aha.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Expectate litteras meas." Translation: "You'll get mail."