Anti-Aliased Fonts : FF2 vs IE7

Question

I could have sworn Firefox was the first to come out with
font
anti-aliasing, for smoother text detail... then IE7 came out
and followed
suit, opening the door to fonts smaller than 10px looking
smooth (for
copyright notices and the like).
However, as I compare both browsers today, I see IE7 has the
anti-aliasing
but FF2 doesn't. Yet my FF2 install is defaults-only, so I
can't imagine I'd
have turned anti-aliased fonts off.
What happened? Did I imagine the whole thing, where FF came
out with
anti-aliased fonts first? Or did they try it and change their
minds in a
future update? Am I losing my mind?
Thanks.

Answer 1

"darrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:fcmoav$b5u$[email protected]..
>> Darrel, anti-aliasing is not hacking. It's not a
short-cut, a cheat, or a
>> crutch. Those magazines you read that make millions
of dollars and can
>> afford the best printing equipment out there ALSO
use anti-aliasing on
>> their fonts. Time magazine, Entertainment Weekly,
Rolling Stone... none
>> of those fonts are anti-alias-free.
>
> Anti-aliasing is a screen concept. Nothing to do with
printed type.
I've printed both anti-aliased and non-anti-aliased fonts at
300dpi, and I
see a difference. In fact, there are several levels of
anti-aliasing, from
crisp to smooth.
Why are we even having this discussion? It's quickly turning
ugly.
> And it's a hack to get around the inherit low resolution
that is a
> computer screen (compared to print).
It's being used as such on screens, yes. But it's not its
sole and only
purpose.
>> It is simply inconcievable to imaging a resolution
SO HIGH that the human
>> eye won't be able to distinguish between 2-tone and
anti-aliased fonts.
>
> That's exactly what a basic laserprinter gives you.
>
>> I mean it would have to be a million dots per
inches.
>
> Nah...anything above 300 dpi is fine.
See above answer about being able to visually see the
difference between
anti-aliased and non-anti-aliased fonts at 300dpi.
What you can say is that YOU don't see it, but please don't
project that
limitation on all of us. ;-)
>>>> Not for a mere copyright notice or other
fine print! (They call it that
>>>> for a reason :-)
>>>
>>> If you are purposely making it illegible, than
what's it matter if it's
>>> smooth or not?
>>
>> Same reason it's small but smooth on print mediums.
>
> So it looks good under a magnifying glass? ;o)
Please stop trolling me. :-P
And on that note, I'll let you have the last reply. No
offense intended
whatsoever, but I've learned to spot a coming flamefest from
a mile out, and
I'm just too old for them now. ;-)