somefoolwitha.com ...since 2002

I should be up in London at MacLiveExpo tomorrow. Maybe I'll see you there.

And the "my rendering's better than your rendering" argument continues ..

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. #

The "Apple way" still makes far more sense to me, especially when you see the two side-by-side showing the odd relative scaling caused by the Microsoft philosophy. The Apple rendering enlarges the width proportionately to the height as you'd expect; whereas the Microsoft rendering seems to go up in blocks of 3, suddenly jumping to the next width whilst the height increases.

Legibility-wise, surely no-one claim say that the smaller sizes are more readable with MS's rendering than Apple's? People don't read letters, they read the whole shape of the word and for this Apple's smoother, somewhat softer rendering is far superior.

Even more detail and views. (via)

Update: wow, were Apple reading my site? ;-)

Full .Mac members now get 10 GB of combined iDisk and email storage, which you can allocate as you wish. Family Pack master accounts also get 10 GB, while Family Pack sub-accounts get 2.5 GB each.
The data transfer limit has been raised to 100 GB per month for full members and Family Pack master accounts, and 25 GB for Family Pack sub-accounts.

Ever since I've had my .mac account I've used it to basically throw files up there that I don't want impacting an my hosted bandwidth (mp3s, movies, zips and alike) and which are generally removed within a few weeks or so and are usually for specific people. As such there's usually not a lot on there and I do regularly have a clear out, which is why Im currently only using 331mb of a possible 1009mb on my .mac account, 95% of which can be accounted for by my recent uploads of Fawcett Open Mic mp3s.

There's an interesting discussion doing the rounds at the moment about the various pros and cons of Apple versus Microsoft font rendering caused by Apple's recent Safari for Windows beta release. I've posted grabs in Flickr how I have mine set up in OS X and Adobe Photoshop's foibles in font rendering, but with regards Apple versus Microsoft I definitely prefer Apple's way. It's certainly a personal preference; Apple's softer, more close to the original font designer's look; or Microsoft's harsher, sharper, arguably more legible (I dont think so) system. There's a good comment on TAUW's post about this. Apple certainly shouldn't in my opinion have swayed from the Microsoft system for their Windows version of Safari, imagine if Microsoft had done the same - leave it to what the user is familiar with.

People do seem to be divided by which OS they use the most, and that makes perfect sense but I do cringe ever so slightly when I glance at a Windows screenshot, or over the shoulder of a Windows user. The Microsoft anti-aliasing is for me just too sharp and clumsy looking. Small text looks barely smoothed at all and larger type is unsubtle, rough looking. Whereas Apple's smoothing is soft and rounded, so the text is easier to read and less straining on the eye due to the comparatively lower overall screen contrast.

"Just because 10.4.9 0.0.1 = 10.5 doesn't mean that Apple won't ship 10.4.10 or 10.4.May2007 updates..." # Of course Apple can release 10.4.10 or even 10.4.25 - maybe 10.4.1984 - is unlikely though.

My MacBook Pro's power adaptor is melting! Found this, I have been playing Half-Life lately. Ive since phoned Apple and a new one is winging it's way to my door. New brick arrived, done and dusted :-D