Jeff Atwood asked What’s Wrong With Apple’s Font Rendering? and as I answered in the comments it comes down to philosophy:
The primary difference is that Microsoft try to align everything to whole pixels vertically and sub-pixels horizontally.
Play Pixel Escape. Jump: Space Draw: Mouse It's a world of glitches in pixeland, don't let the glitch destroy the colourful personalities of the little pixel characters! Help them escape the glitch and reach the exit in each level as they become closer to a glitch-free life. Pixel Winch is a screen measurement app with a unique approach. Rather than overlaying complicated controls on top of your existing workflow, it combines aspects of a traditional image editor with. Pixel Federation published Diggy's Adventure for Android operating system(os) mobile devices. However if you ever wanted to run Diggy's Adventure on Windows PC or MAC you can do so using Android emulator. At the end of this article you will find our how-to steps which you can follow to install and run Diggy's Adventure on PC or MAC. Make the Ninja jump over obstacle at the right time!
Apple just scale the font naturally – sometimes it fits into whole pixels other times it doesn’t.
This means Windows looks sharper at the expense of not actually being a very accurate representation of the text. The Mac with it’s design/DTP background is a much more accurate representation and scales more naturally than Windows which consequently jumps around a lot vertically.
Jeff and Joel both wrote follow up posts agreeing that it is one of philosophy but both are of the opinion that the Windows pixel-grid approach is the better whilst our displays are only capable of low dots-per-inch (DPI).
What they don’t seem to appreciate is the compromise this causes.
Here is an example of Times New Roman on Windows (left) and Mac OS (right) scaled over whole point sizes with sub-pixel precision:
The two thing to note here arising from this “pixel-grid is king” approach are
Neither of these may matter to a casual user but for professionals preparing material destined for high DPI (film or print) then it’s a world of difference. How can you layout a page on-screen and expect the same result on the page when the font isn’t the same width?
The issue is reminiscent of the “I hate black bars on wide-screen films” brigade who believe that the film should be chopped, panned, scaled and otherwise distorted from the artists original intention simply so that it fits better on their display.
Typography has a rich and interesting history developed and honed over centuries. It is a shame to misrepresent typefaces especially as the pixel-grid approach becomes less relevant as displays reach higher resolutions.
Some additional comparisons and a note that the gamma differences between Windows and Mac will affect how you see the “other” systems rendering on your machine.
Thanks to Daring Fireball and ZDNet we’ve had a few more great comments which I’ve summarized here:
George thinks the philosophy idea is wrong because “What percentage of Mac users sit around all day doing nothing but pre-press work?” but as Fred points out Microsoft’s desktop-user optimized rendering ends up on images and videos all over the web, thus escaping the environment for which it was crippled.
George also claims that Vista’s rendering is improved, I can’t vouch for that one way or another but from looking at his screen shots the difference there could simply be the contrast level as adjusted by the ClearType tuner.
Nathaniel believes that it’s not Microsoft’s job to manipulate a typeface and that if you want on-screen readability then choose a font designed for that such as Microsoft’s own Tahoma or Apple’s Lucida Grande.
I’d go further and say that Microsoft’s own aggression in sticking to the grid kills font choice at the regular reading size of 10/11 point by optimizing everything to a generic sans or serif look:
James points to an article called Texts Rasterization Exposures that proposes a combination of using vertical hinting only and calculating horizontally to 256 levels and has some convincing screen-shots showing the benefits. Probably too late for Leopard or Vista SP1 though.
[)amien
MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2016) and later and MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2016, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports) and later feature the Touch Bar, which changes automatically based on the application that you're using to show you relevant, familiar tools and controls. On some models, the Esc button appears on the left side of the Touch Bar, in the same place the physical Esc key appears on traditional keyboards.
Sometimes tools in the Touch Bar temporarily cover the Esc button:
After you tap or the Done button, Esc reappears.
You can choose a physical key to act as Esc, temporarily or permanently:
For example, if you choose Escape to the right of the Control (^) Key label, pressing Control has the same results as pressing Esc: it closes menus that are open, and pressing Control-Option-Command makes the Force Quit Applications window appear.
You can return your keyboard to its original behavior by clicking Restore Defaults.
You might not be able to use the Esc button in the Touch Bar if the app you're using becomes unresponsive.
If you need to use Esc to force an app to close, you can switch to another app and try Option-Command-Escape. You can also choose Apple menu > Force Quit.
If that doesn't work, or if your Touch Bar doesn't respond in any app, restart your Mac. Choose Apple menu > Restart or, if your Mac isn't responding, press and hold Touch ID (power button) until your Mac turns off.
When you use Boot Camp to run Windows 10 on your Mac, Esc is in the same place on the Touch Bar as it is when you're using macOS.
You can also access Esc through the Windows on-screen keyboard. From the Windows menu, select the Windows Ease of Access menu item. Then select On-Screen Keyboard.