Windows and Ubuntu Linux aesthetics and fonts
12 August 2009As I was saying earlier one of the biggest changes I’ve had to make is getting used to how ugly Ubuntu is compared to Windows. When I saw screenshots of the standard Jaunty install I could’ve easily vommited. It’s all oranges and browns. It litterally looks like my vomit. The default theme in the studio version is white on black with blues in places and it looks heavenly in comparison and I guess it’s okay. It uses rings for the minimize, restore and close buttons too, so it’s something different.
I downloaded and installed a theme called Dust. It’s about the only okay looking theme that comes with and probably exists for Jaunty. However, those browns and oranges try to creep back in again. I hope Karmic cuts that scheme and looks half decent.
Animation is something that Windows has never excelled in. Aero has fades and a bit of movement here and there and that crappy shuffle Mac rip-off thing with the Super-Tab, but from my experience it jerks too much and happens to swiftly to notice. Macs have always done well with animation. But Compiz is the beast! :D
At first Compiz was full with a load of crap that distracted and hurt me. Going through it’s options opened up tonnes of possibility. There are some things on there that I just don’t understand but I tweaked and trialled and errored and got my desired effects. They’re fast and smooth and subtle enough. I actually hate to say it, but some of them are handy too. ;-)
So, the fonts
Windows has put me in a world where all rasterised fonts are seamless. I’ve never given it much thought before. When changing from no-aliasing to aliasing to ClearType I noticed what was happening but not once did I get truly appalled at any one of those settings. When I used Macs I’d be aware the fonts were rather soft but it added to the sleek interface. Fonts were still always beautiful. Linux has smashed that vision for me.
I mean what is that? The default font set-up that I’m sure has been optimised for a blind person. I stumbled across some tutorials that let you change them to the default old-style Windows fonts. Wicked. I’m back in 1995!
Installing the TrueType Microsoft fonts helps a lot. I’m using Arial for the most of my interface and after tweaking around with the settings I’m actually slightly fond of FreeType2. I would go as far as to say it shows the Mac up. I did a side on comparison and it’s obvious Microsoft has left Linux in the dust. Guess what OS owns what font?
Don’t get me started on that excuse for a rasterisation that GIMP uses, or how difficult the interface was to a Photoshop user (I couldn’t even align the text elements!). It’s obvious that Windows XP looks clear and aesthetically pleasing. The Ubuntu fonts don’t look too bad. I’d be interested to compare it to how Mac renders stuff and I’ll give it a go later.
So Microsoft, you’ve made me think my life’s been held back by your operating system but in truth, you’ve hidden the ugly potential that is font rendering from me for so many years and for it I thank you. Just looking at the comparison makes me laugh. Still, one probably cost near billions of dollars to develop while other was free. :-)
Not too fast Microsoft…
On a side note there is evidence to suggest Microsoft has been getting lazy of recent with their UI. I’d expect that from Linux because it’s made up like Frankenstein but from an expensive OS at the top of it’s field I figure that’s taking the piss. Reading that blog did make me think how bollocks Internet Explorer’s interface is. Using Google Chrome has put me in a new state of expectation where before I just put up with it. Saying that IE6 has a nice interface. Maybe Bill should’ve stopped trying to be a fox. :-P