Am I the Only Person Left Who Hates Anti-Aliasing?

Test Ticker

Please support Mother Jones with a year-end donation. The truth is, we're a long way from our $600,000 goal, and we have to get as close as we can by Tuesday so we don't have to make hard decisions come January. If you value our reporting, please consider pitching in today.

$600,000

We still need to raise 400,000: Whether you can give $5 or $500, it all matters.

Please support Mother Jones with a year-end donation. We need to raise $600,000, or get as close as we can, by Tuesday so we don't need to make hard decisions come January. Whether you can give $5 or $500, it all makes a difference.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

I’m not trying to pick on the New Republic here, but I’m curious about something. They launched a redesigned website yesterday, and here’s how the main text font renders on my PC:

Why does it look so bad? Because I’m running Windows with ClearType turned off. Does anyone else do this, or am I the only person left on the planet who finds ClearType intolerable for day-to-day use? If I’m the only one, then I understand why some magazines don’t bother optimizing their body fonts for either mode (it’s not just TNR). But if I’m not the only one, then why not use a font that works for everyone?

PREEMPTIVE TECH NOTE: Yes, my monitor is running at its native resolution. Yes, I know how to set up ClearType. Yes, I know that most people prefer the mushy look of anti-aliased type. But I don’t, and never have. I’m just curious about whether I’m a lone holdout at this point. I wouldn’t be surprised if I am. ClearType has been turned on by default in Windows for many years now, and my guess is that very few people these days realize it’s something they could turn off even if they wanted to.