←back to thread

391 points OuterVale | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
1. akx ◴[] No.42057977[source]
By eye alone, I'm pretty sure that is not MS Sans Serif as rendered in Windows 95 and Windows 98.
replies(2): >>42058133 #>>42059024 #
2. vintagedave ◴[] No.42058133[source]
They’ve also kept the pixelated nature. The XP style sheet linked in another comment [1] draws at high res for its text and shapes and so retains the feel of the UI without the constraints.

I — we? — like the 98 etc UI for its clarity and simplicity not its low resolution.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42056921

replies(1): >>42058388 #
3. exitb ◴[] No.42058388[source]
The fonts are pixelated, but those pixels don't appear to align with the physical ones, so they're blurry in some places. Meanwhile, on a real 98 you either had crisp fonts, or neatly and consistently blurred by the CRT.
4. worble ◴[] No.42059024[source]
Recreating old fonts in modern browsers is a hard problem

https://web.archive.org/web/20230603234837/https://vistaserv...

replies(1): >>42060339 #
5. akx ◴[] No.42060339[source]
Sure, but I refuse to call this a faithful recreation of the aesthetic until the fonts look correct. :D

On a related note, I did start working on some tools to work with legacy .FONs for this exact purpose earlier this year, but the project is iceboxed for now...

replies(1): >>42063258 #
6. sbarre ◴[] No.42063258{3}[source]
Sounds like it was a hard problem!