←back to thread

389 points OuterVale | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.275s | source
Show context
Aardwolf ◴[] No.42059728[source]
This is really cool, the only thing I see is the font rendering looks choppy. An antialiasing issue I think, but it looks worse than some non-antialiazed fonts (like the EGA 8x14 pixels font) too

To be very pedantic: also the dropdown menu, when opened, looks very different than the original 98 style

replies(2): >>42060126 #>>42062553 #
uniq7 ◴[] No.42060126[source]
Chrome on Windows 10 here. The font rendering looks very similar (if not identical) to what I remember it in Win98 -- no antialiasing, 1px thick, very easy to spot the pixels on curved strokes, very easy to spot the pixels on bold style, etc.

The style looks incredible accurate to what I remember, although there are some differences:

- The opened dropdown menu, as my parent suggested.

- I don't remember textareas being resizable.

- I remember stepped sliders had little marks indicating where each step is. Only continuous sliders (e.g., the one in the Windows volume control) had no marks.

- The tabs don't look like as I remember from Win95/98, these ones look more like Win 3.1. Too much padding, the border is too thick, and the border radius is too big.

- In tables, the headers looked like buttons because they were actually buttons (you could press them to sort the table). However, here they are not clickable.

replies(1): >>42060943 #
1. Aardwolf ◴[] No.42060943[source]
Interesting, I tried zooming in now and when zooming in far enough the font does look alright!

It might be that it just happens to look bad on high resolution screens, and/or maybe some browser fractional scaling issue

As an example, one of the text fields on the page contains the word "Incredible". When zoomed in it looks fine, when zoomed at 100% the I and the n are stuck together to each other without any pixel in-between which is very ugly