# Which web browser has the best font renderer?



## Regeneration (Jul 7, 2020)

Attached below are screenshots from the 12 most downloaded web browsers. I'm trying to compare the quality of font rendering between all of them.

Avant Browser



Brave


Google Chrome


Microsoft Edge (the new one)


Mozilla Firefox


Internet Explorer 11


Maxthon


Opera


SeaMonkey


SlimBrowser


Vivaldi


Waterfox


If you look carefully at the screenshots, font rendering changes according to the engine used by the web browser. Rendered fonts in all of WebKit-based browsers (Chromium) look exactly alike. Same goes for Gecko-based browsers (Firefox). The only exception is Internet Explorer 11 and its Trident engine.



The fonts in WebKit have some kind of Chroma subpixeling and a bit blurry.



This is what we get if we disable "Accelerated 2D canvas" in Chrome (chrome://flags) and force GDI natural in Firefox (set gfx.font_rendering.cleartype_params.rendering_mode to 2 in about:config). So far, IE 11 produced the prettiest font, Firefox next, and Chrome last. It is very disappointing that most browsers are just clones of Google Chrome - even the new Edge.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 7, 2020)

I don't understand the point of this thread. While I might see some slight differences on my monitors, who's to say which is "better" or "best"? The text was properly displayed in each, and I was able to easily read each one. None were blurry. None displayed garbled text. Each displayed graphics fine. So IMO, for this particular parameter, it is 100% subjective. 

So which is best? Well Pale Moon, of course!


----------



## dhklopp (Jul 7, 2020)

All looked the same to me.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2020)

Chrome is too thin and light for me. It's why I staid on IE6 for a loooong time, have been using Firefox since, and very happy.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2020)

Is this like the subjective thread 'what stress test is best' you started?

I don't see much of a difference in the images personally. Maybe create a spoiler showing what you see? Doesn't this thread go against forum rules that you can't just post links or images too? What do YOU see?

EDIT: I can see when you explode it to 400%....... but that isn't how I use my browser.


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 7, 2020)

Definitely with the popular(?) sentiment above, see virtually no difference between them especially at a distance of 2 feet or more. If you're looking that hard at text rendering perhaps lower your font size or something?


----------



## Regeneration (Jul 7, 2020)

Look how awful it looks:


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jul 7, 2020)

Firefox for me.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 7, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> Look how awful it looks:


I say, so what? I am not a webpage developer but I am pretty sure scaling text WAY WAY beyond the size in the original content is not the job of the browser. If the webpage developer expects scaling to any size, it is up to the developer - at least that's how I think it works.


----------



## claes (Jul 7, 2020)

I’d recommend reading this (FTT, not replying to any specific comment): https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2012/04/a-closer-look-at-font-rendering/


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 7, 2020)

I recommend getting a better monitor.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jul 7, 2020)

I dont get this obsession.


----------



## Axaion (Jul 7, 2020)

Prefer firefox.


----------



## windwhirl (Jul 7, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> All Chrome-based browsers have that chroma pixel annoyance.



Say what you want about that, but it is the reason why I've been holding onto Office 2010. Since 2013, Office uses grayscale antialiasing that looks like shit in Word. Bah, it looks like shit everywhere unless you're using a high-DPI display, apparently.

To be fair, that kind of ClearType depends a lot on the background pixels' colors, so it has a performance penalty. But it still pisses me off that they just ditched it completely without leaving even a toggle to turn it back on.


----------



## Regeneration (Jul 7, 2020)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> I dont get this obsession.







This font distortion blur is painful to my eyes.


----------



## windwhirl (Jul 7, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> View attachment 161466
> 
> This font distortion blur is painful to my eyes.



That shouldn't be that visible, specially at that font size...


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 7, 2020)

So you can do one of two things, move back your viewing position to the extent it doesn't affect you ask much. The other option is to lower DPI scaling, what resolution & scaling you're at right now? A photo of the screen could tell us a much better picture, literally & metaphorically speaking.


----------



## ThrashZone (Jul 7, 2020)

Hi,
Do browsers render anything or does your cpu and graphic's do that and your monitor translates to image.
Firefox looks fine but I can only zoom to 300% so it still looks fine but way more than I usually use which is 130%

Just tried chredge too everything looked fine with it too.
So yeah I agree with a few people here get a better monitor/ cpu/ graphic's card


----------



## windwhirl (Jul 7, 2020)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Do browsers render anything or does your cpu and graphic's do that and your monitor translates to image.
> Firefox looks fine but I can only zoom to 300% so it still looks fine but way more than I usually use which is 130%



The blur should not be that visible. The rendering as I understand it is done by the browser, and at least in Firefox there are multiple settings controlling font rendering. And if you zoom in the text, the rendering should automatically adjust the font smoothing so that it's not glaringly obvious.


----------



## Regeneration (Jul 7, 2020)

Fonts are rendered by the browser with the DirectWrite API and can be accelerated with a GPU.

Firefox can be tweaked to show even better fonts by setting gfx.font_rendering.cleartype_params.rendering_mode to 2 in about:config.


----------



## windwhirl (Jul 7, 2020)

P4-630 said:


> Hmm, I don't see it, just tested zoom at 400% in chrome.
> 
> View attachment 161471


You're not supposed to see it. Font rendering should automatically adapt the smoothing to whatever font size or zoom level you use.


----------



## P4-630 (Jul 7, 2020)

windwhirl said:


> You're not supposed to see it. Font rendering should automatically adapt the smoothing to whatever font size or zoom level you use.



Yeah, nevermind, removed my post. I don't see it the way OP does.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jul 7, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> View attachment 161466
> 
> This font distortion blur is painful to my eyes.


Do you have webpages at 200%!?


----------



## Regeneration (Jul 7, 2020)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Do you have webpages at 200%!?



No. I use 100% and normal DPI. But I can see the fonts are a bit blurry and colored.



windwhirl said:


> Say what you want about that, but it is the reason why I've been holding onto Office 2010. Since 2013, Office uses grayscale antialiasing that looks like shit in Word. Bah, it looks like shit everywhere unless you're using a high-DPI display, apparently.



Thanks for the warning. I use Office 2010 too but planned to update.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> No. I use 100% and normal DPI. But I can see the fonts are a bit blurry and colored.


How big is the monitor? Resolution? How far away are you sitting from it?

I'm struggling to see any differences at 2560x1440 / 27" at arm's length (I'm tall, lol) away...


----------



## Regeneration (Jul 7, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> How big is the monitor? Resolution? How far away are you sitting from it?
> 
> I'm struggling to see any differences at 2560x1440 / 27" at arm's length (I'm tall, lol) away...



2K, 27-inch, arm + 5cm. Can see text is a bit colored and needs antialiasing on Chrome. FF is fine.


----------



## silentbogo (Jul 7, 2020)

I'm not even sure how low should you go in resolution in order to see it. 
Even at work, on my cheapest-of-the-cheap FullHD BenQ monitor I don't see any aliasing artifacts at all. I'll try it on my old Thinkpad T520 w/ 768p LCD tomorrow, but I kinda doubt it'll be that bad or noticeable.

If anything, for any chromium-based browser you need to tweak ClearType settings. Also, if I remember correctly, some older hardware does not support accelerated 2D canvas, which may cause this type of weird stuff along with bad rendering of vector objects(like SVG images, or outlines in CSS etc.) Try setting it to "disabled" in chrome://flags.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 7, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> 2K, 27-inch, arm + 5cm. Can see text is a bit colored and needs antialiasing on Chrome. FF is fine.


2K = 2048x1080... I assume you mean 2560x1440 - same as I? Yeah, even with a calibrated IPS panel (Acer Predator) and clean glasses (20/20) I don't see a difference if I have the same webpages up......


----------



## Bill_Bright (Jul 8, 2020)

I had Office 2010 for years, then 2013 but upgraded to 2016 when support ended for previous versions. I don't see any issues in any of my Word docs, Excel spreadsheets, or in Outlook. They all look great to me.


----------



## ThrashZone (Jul 8, 2020)

windwhirl said:


> The blur should not be that visible. The rendering as I understand it is done by the browser, and at least in Firefox there are multiple settings controlling font rendering. And if you zoom in the text, the rendering should automatically adjust the font smoothing so that it's not glaringly obvious.


Hi,
Just saying browsers aren't miracle workers on bad graphic they can only do so much


----------



## micropage7 (Jul 8, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> 2K, 27-inch, arm + 5cm. Can see text is a bit colored and needs antialiasing on Chrome. FF is fine.


what about 
Disable 'Accelerated 2D canvas' under chrome://flags


----------



## windwhirl (Jul 8, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> I had Office 2010 for years, then 2013 but upgraded to 2016 when support ended for previous versions. I don't see any issues in any of my Word docs, Excel spreadsheets, or in Outlook. They all look great to me.



Then maybe it's just me being picky about it


----------



## Regeneration (Jul 8, 2020)

silentbogo said:


> I'm not even sure how low should you go in resolution in order to see it.
> Even at work, on my cheapest-of-the-cheap FullHD BenQ monitor I don't see any aliasing artifacts at all. I'll try it on my old Thinkpad T520 w/ 768p LCD tomorrow, but I kinda doubt it'll be that bad or noticeable.
> 
> If anything, for any chromium-based browser you need to tweak ClearType settings. Also, if I remember correctly, some older hardware does not support accelerated 2D canvas, which may cause this type of weird stuff along with bad rendering of vector objects(like SVG images, or outlines in CSS etc.) Try setting it to "disabled" in chrome://flags.





micropage7 said:


> what about
> Disable 'Accelerated 2D canvas' under chrome://flags









Fonts on Chrome look shit to me even with 2D canvas or without it. So ugly, makes me want to register a fake account.

So far, FF with GDI looks a lot better. Except the letter "l", still looks bad, but probably because of the zoom.


----------



## budget_Optiplex (Jul 8, 2020)

I browse on a 24" Samsung 1366x768 monitor with 125% view scaling. I agree that to my tired eyes font rendering in any Chromium based browser (I use Iridium) is not as legible as font rendering in Firefox/Waterfox. I'd like to be able to use Iridium as my primary browser as it performs very well, but because of the rendering differences I simply can't get away from Waterfox.


----------



## ERazer (Jul 8, 2020)

"guys tell me which one is best for my eyesight"


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 8, 2020)

budget_Optiplex said:


> I browse on a 24" Samsung 1366x768 monitor with 125% view scaling.


...and you're blaming the browser? 

My guy, your DPI is low and your scaling is turned up...can't make pixels from nothing.


----------



## Regeneration (Jul 8, 2020)

ERazer said:


> "guys tell me which one is best for my eyesight"



Eyesight has nothing to do with it.

Some browsers have blurry, aliased, distorted fonts unless zoomed or adjusted to high dpi. Chrome uses Chroma fonts.

12 browsers and all use the same single web rendering engine.



EarthDog said:


> ...and you're blaming the browser?



Yes. Fonts look a lot better on IE and FF.


----------



## windwhirl (Jul 8, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> ...and you're blaming the browser?
> 
> My guy, your DPI is low and your scaling is turned up...can't make pixels from nothing.



True that, expected DPI is normally 96 and any 768p display up to 16" either matches or exceeds that pixel density. 1366x768 at 24" is 65 DPI, way lower. 



Regeneration said:


> Eyesight has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Some browsers have blurry, aliased, distorted fonts unless zoomed or adjusted to high dpi. Chrome uses Chroma fonts.
> 
> ...



Regarding Chrome, I think it uses the system settings for ClearType? Maybe paying a visit to the ClearType Tuner could help...


----------



## Regeneration (Jul 8, 2020)

ClearType tuner just seems to adjust brightness and boldness of the text. Looks best in its default values.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 8, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> Yes. Fonts look a lot better on IE and FF.


I mean you can only polish a turd so much, right? That guy is running a 24" 720p monitor with the scaling raised up... it's going to look like garbage no matter what. Just saying his example is pretty poor considering. 

I wish I had your superior eyesight to see wth you are talking about.


----------



## jitendrad (Jul 8, 2020)

FIREFOX !!!


----------



## budget_Optiplex (Jul 8, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> ...and you're blaming the browser?
> 
> My guy, your DPI is low and your scaling is turned up...can't make pixels from nothing.



I love my 24" 1366x768 monitor! It doesn't look like garbage at all, and everything is large and easy to read for my bad eyes. I stepped down from a high end IPS 1080p monitor because no matter what I did I couldn't read text on it very well and I'd end up with eyestrain, to my current Samsung solution and wouldn't trade it for anything. I actually have two spares new in box as well.

So unless you have bad eyes and have had to choose between computing and not computing because of monitor and text legibility, please don't knock my solution. The only drawback I have found is of course I have to do a lot more scrolling......but its a tradeoff I can deal with to be able to see what I'm reading.

The other benefit is at such low resolution I can enjoy newer games even on my low end GPU and to me they look just fine.


Note the screenshot doesn't look as good as what I actually see as far as font smoothness/clarity.........


----------



## windwhirl (Jul 8, 2020)

Well, to each their own, I guess. Sight is not the same for everyone, after all.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 8, 2020)

budget_Optiplex said:


> I love my 24" 1366x768 monitor! It doesn't look like garbage at all, and everything is large and easy to read for my bad eyes.


like windwhirl said, depends on the eyes I guess. Im 20/20 with glasses but even without, I can see a clear difference in between my 2560x1440 monitor and my son's 1080p. 

But where you're at, the low resolution, large display, and increased scaling are a significant part of the issue. That isn't so much a function of the browser.


----------



## budget_Optiplex (Jul 9, 2020)

Here is what I see using Iridium browser which is Chromium based. On my monitor in Iridium the fonts are washed out looking and much more translucent making them hard for me to read.

Here is what I see using Waterfox. On my monitor Waterfox displays fonts that are noticeably darker and less translucent, with better contrast so they are easy to read.

The screen captures don't quite show as much of a difference, but looking at the actual monitor these differences are much more pronounced.

Note that I have adjusted ClearType to give me the darkest and "thickest" font look. Though the ClearType tuner in Windows 10 does seem to work far better then the one in Windows 7 that I'm using. And yes, my eyes are crap even with glasses, I struggle to use a 15" laptop even with a 1366x768 screen as I can barely read the text and it's a quick way for me to end up with an eyestrain headache. Getting old sucks.


----------



## Athlonite (Jul 9, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> But I can see the fonts are a bit blurry and colored.



That's your eyes doing that it sounds like you have a mild form of Macular degeneration 

as for the OP's problem I see no difference in any of those using Vivaldi


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 9, 2020)

Text in Safari looks sharp, and easily readable. This is on the iPhone 11, and last years iPad. There use to be a Windows version available for download until Apple quit supporting it. I’m trying to remember how text looked the one time I tried it out on Windows 7.

Safari is the WebKit rendering engine same as Chrome?


----------



## claes (Jul 9, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> Text in Safari looks sharp, and easily readable. This is on the iPhone 11, and last years iPad. There use to be a Windows version available for download until Apple quit supporting it. I’m trying to remember how text looked the one time I tried it out on Windows 7.
> 
> Safari is the WebKit rendering engine same as Chrome?


Safari, iOS and MacOS handle fonts very differently (and much better than) Windows and their browser equivalents. Apple uses Quartz to render fonts.

FTT, again, encourage you all to read this. It’s old, but very little has changed.








						A Closer Look At Font Rendering — Smashing Magazine
					

The Web font revolution that started around two years ago has brought up a topic that many of us had merrily ignored for many years: **font rendering**. The newfound freedom Web fonts are giving us brings along new challenges.




					www.smashingmagazine.com


----------



## Regeneration (Jul 9, 2020)

biffzinker said:


> Text in Safari looks sharp, and easily readable. This is on the iPhone 11, and last years iPad. There use to be a Windows version available for download until Apple quit supporting it. I’m trying to remember how text looked the one time I tried it out on Windows 7.
> View attachment 161625
> Safari is the WebKit rendering engine same as Chrome?



Safari uses WebKit too. Fonts look nice to me. Same on Android. It's WebKit on Windows with DirectWrite that produce ugly fonts.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 9, 2020)

claes said:


> Safari, iOS and MacOS handle fonts very differently (and much better than) Windows and their browser equivalents. Apple uses Quartz to render fonts.
> 
> FTT, again, encourage you all to read this. It’s old, but very little has changed.
> 
> ...


Also, DPI on a phone screen is likely a lot higher than a PC monitor... that has a lot to do with it......

Is it me who doesn't 'get it' here? Totally confused at why people are comparing phone browsers and screens to PCs...DPI peeps... DEE PEE EYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, lol


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 9, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> Look how awful it looks:
> 
> View attachment 161455


I think both of those look like hudd... I prefer pixel perfect text, but that's just me.


----------



## Regeneration (Jul 9, 2020)

Ironically, "the worst browser", IE 11 produced the prettiest "pixel perfect text" text.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 10, 2020)

Regeneration said:


> Ironically, "the worst browser", IE 11 produced the prettiest "pixel perfect text" text.


Interesting. Never used it long enough to notice..


----------



## remixedcat (Jul 10, 2020)

This is using the built in font changer in the extension "Dark Reader" for Firefox. Font selected: Actor


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 11, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> I don't understand the point of this thread. While I might see some slight differences on my monitors, who's to say which is "better" or "best"? The text was properly displayed in each, and I was able to easily read each one. None were blurry. None displayed garbled text. Each displayed graphics fine. So IMO, for this particular parameter, it is 100% subjective.
> 
> So which is best? Well Pale Moon, of course!



It's subjective until it matters to you.  So yeah, it might matter to some.  That's the point I think.

It's similar to chroma-subsampling employed on TVs.  Some people barely notice, others go bonkers.



Regeneration said:


> ClearType tuner just seems to adjust brightness and boldness of the text. Looks best in its default values.



It also can tweak the subpixel layout setting.

I'm curious actually if your monitor may use a nonstandard subpixel layout (like BGR), and that is adding to your woes.


----------



## ThrashZone (Aug 7, 2020)

Hi,
Had to find this and mention
I added my cheapo lg  LG 43UK6300PUE 43" class t.v. hdmi and duplicated the display of a cheapo acer monitor 1600-900 dvi and compared firefox on win-10 and win-7 and dang win-7 ooks so much better evga 980ti newest driver on both.
Very strange


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 7, 2020)

I don't notice a difference but the true end game is too not be able to read my monitor eventually anyway.


----------



## remixedcat (Aug 7, 2020)

Win 10 really fucked up fonts and every single forced update makes them worse and also undoes the mod I have to use to change the typeface!! 

The default fonts on windows look god awful on all my TV's..

I change to the font face Actor or Candara or Cambria. Those 3 are much better


----------



## ThrashZone (Aug 7, 2020)

Hi,
Win-10 system area fonts looked fine scaled so it was just firefox that looked terrible on 10 
System and firefox look good on win-7 so something is going on with 10 scaling with firefox is all I can figure 
Never tried edge or new chredge on 980ti on this older Q9550 build I just woke up.


----------



## Anderlfs (Apr 15, 2021)

The aim is to find a different engine, since most browsers share Gecko (Firefox & forked browsers) or Blink engine (Chrome, Opera & forked ones). I have been using Qt Web Browser with great font renderings. It's based or Qt / Webkit. I use Chrome only for sites that require more modern security features.


----------



## sil3ntearth (Apr 16, 2021)

EarthDog said:


> ...and you're blaming the browser?
> 
> My guy, your DPI is low and your scaling is turned up...can't make pixels from nothing.



and here I thought 1080p and 24" was the lowest PPI I'd ever bother with.  1366x768 looks bad even on 17" laptop screens.


----------



## Atomic77 (Apr 30, 2021)

Microsoft edge is the best


----------



## Hachi_Roku256563 (Apr 30, 2021)

90% of browsers are just chromium now a days


----------



## lexluthermiester (Apr 30, 2021)

Atomic77 said:


> Microsoft edge is the best


Said no one who cares about security ever...


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 30, 2021)

Regeneration said:


> Fonts on Chrome look shit to me even with 2D canvas or without it. So ugly, makes me want to register a fake account.


That's because your zooming in to the point where you can see each pixel. No crap it's not going to look good.  


birdie said:


> Screenshots saved as bloody *JPEG*s.


Since that doesn't impact image quality either. This whole discussion is kind of dumb.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Apr 30, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Said no one who cares about security ever...


 Say the biased MS bashers who don't do their homework, and who constantly jump in at the chance to take yet another opportunistic bash at anything with the MS brand on it. 

This thread is about font rendering, not browser security but to that, the new Edge is definitely secure and keeps getting better - as anyone who cares about security knows and would bother to learn the facts to stay in the know. 

How to use Microsoft Edge's latest security and privacy features - TechRepublic

The "truth" is, all of the major browsers offer excellent security as long as the browser and Windows are kept current, they use a decent anti-malware solution (which does NOT mean it must be a paid or even 3rd party solution) and they keep that current too. And they avoid being "click-happy" on unsolicited links.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Apr 30, 2021)

Bill_Bright said:


> Say the biased MS bashers who don't do their homework, and who constantly jump in at the chance to take yet another opportunistic bash at anything with the MS brand on it.


Microsoft has well earned the angst they get from people like myself. They have consistently and continuously demonstrated their disregard of the rights, privacy and security of end users. It is difficult to trust them on any level because of this.


Bill_Bright said:


> This thread is about font rendering


Quite right, sorry for my off-topic comments...


----------



## Bill_Bright (Apr 30, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Microsoft has well earned the angst they get from people like myself. They have consistently and continuously demonstrated their disregard of the rights, privacy and security of end users. It is difficult to trust them on any level because of this.


More of your biased BS and falsehoods. Privacy and security are not the same thing as anyone with real expertise in security would know. 

It is fine not to trust them - hate them even. They have in the past done much to deserve that. No denying that. 

But to constantly tell falsehoods about them is not fine. TODAY'S Edge and Windows are very secure. And MS has taken HUGE steps to not only respect our rights, but to protect them and our privacy too. And one way they did that is by taking out much of the privacy threats inherent in Chrome when they used Chromium to create the new Edge. And they have listened to user complaints about telemetry in W10 and so now it is easy to clamp down on that. There are much greater threats than MS to our privacy, including Google, Facebook, our ISPs and especially our cell phone carriers. 

Let's not forget it was you who said the new Edge did not support extensions with you even pretending to pause for a few seconds, go look then come back and claim you were right. When we all could see that the new Edge supports almost the entire library of Chrome extensions and add-ons - as well as many from MS. Again, its about doing your homework. 

So again - I don't care if you hate MS. Let your angst fester in you, if you wish. But stop telling falsehoods about their products when clearly you don't bother to verify your facts. Misleading readers here is NOT what TPU is about!


----------



## lexluthermiester (Apr 30, 2021)

Bill_Bright said:


> More of your biased BS and falsehoods.


Oh really?


Bill_Bright said:


> Privacy and security are not the same thing as anyone with real expertise in security would know.


You just described one of my professions. And if you think Privacy and Security are not directly, very closely related, you need to reexamine your definitions. You can not have security without a guarantee of confidentiality(which is a synonym of privacy). Security=Confidentiality=Privacy. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something, likely of fecal variety. 


Bill_Bright said:


> It is fine not to trust them - hate them even. They have in the past done much to deserve that. No denying that.


Then quit making excuses for them.


Bill_Bright said:


> But stop telling falsehoods about their products when clearly you don't bother to verify your facts.


You assume I haven't tested Edge and found it lacking... What was that about falsehoods?


----------



## Bill_Bright (Apr 30, 2021)

lexluthermiester said:


> Oh really?





lexluthermiester said:


> You just described one of my professions. And if you think Privacy and Security are not directly, very closely related, you need to reexamine your definitions. You can not have security without a guarantee of confidentiality(which is a synonym of privacy). Security=Confidentiality=Privacy. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something, likely of fecal variety.


Yes, really! And there's more of your biased BS. First, I said privacy is not same thing as security. So where did you get that I think they are not closely related? I never said or even implied that. So of course, you made it up! In other words, another one of your falsehoods.

Microsoft is NOT trying to get our real name, street address, passwords, phone number, social security or insurance numbers, bank accounts, children's or contact's names, or billing information. They are not trying to infect our systems with malware. Those are security concerns and in fact, Microsoft is working hard and is very adept at protecting our most sensitive personal information so it is not compromised and exploited. That is not the same as tracking which sites we visit or which products on Amazon we look it. And even then they cannot link your real name to that item on Amazon. 

If you don't understand the difference then you need to learn the difference between privacy and security. It is not the same thing as a Peeping Tom leering at your daughter through her bedroom window. That definitely is a privacy AND a security concern. 


lexluthermiester said:


> You just described one of my professions


lol Yeah right.


lexluthermiester said:


> Then quit making excuses for them.


More of your falsehoods. I am not making excuses, I am defending those products from your falsehoods that stem from your hatred and biases against the company. If anyone bothers to look at many of my other posts, they can easily see where I often offer harsh criticisms against Microsoft, the company, and their marketing "weenies" and many of their misguided, ill-conceived executive decisions. The developers at Microsoft are NOT the same as the marketing weenies or the execs there. 


lexluthermiester said:


> You assume I haven't tested Edge and found it lacking...


If it is like your history of other false claims, like you checking to see if Edge supports extensions (it does - extensively), then I can safely assume your tests (and I won't even assume you really tested it) are as biased as you are. 

I, like many on this site who you condescendingly have decided don't "_care about security ever_"   have used the new Edge since it came out. And guess what? Our systems still are not infected. So again, you once again, just assume you are right without doing any homework to verify your facts, but once again are wrong.

And I say, how dare you pretend to speak for all those who really do care about security. 

Is the new Edge the most secure browser out there? Nope. Never said it was. But it doesn't need to be either. 

Does the new Edge provide the best privacy protection out there? Nope. Never said it did. But it doesn't need to either. 

But does it still provide great security and privacy protection? Absolutely! As long as we keep it, Windows and our anti-malware solution updated, and we are not "click-happy" on unsolicited links - THE SAME THINGS we must do regardless our browser of choice. 

I mean come on people! Microsoft knows there are all sorts of lexluthermiesters out there - MS haters and those in the IT press trying to get attention - ready to pounce and spread fake news about Microsoft and their products. Does it make sense, after all these yeas of false or greatly exaggerated claims against them, that they would be the evil monster haters like lexluthermiester wants you to believe it is? No. 

Microsoft certainly has done plenty to earn our and even lexluthermiester's angst. So criticize that! Don't be like Lex and simply make up stuff. All that does is make them look like people who make up stuff in some attempt to make them look good and important. Its sad, really. 

Now until Lex can show that people who care about security don't use Edge - "ever", or that if you use Edge you will become infected, I say, give him all the attention he deserves. That is, none. And let's move on to the OP's issue.


----------



## Athlonite (May 1, 2021)

@Bill_Bright & @lexluthermiester  if you two wish to argue take it to PM's and stop muddying up this thread with off topic crap


----------



## Regeneration (May 1, 2021)

birdie said:


> Screenshots saved as bloody *JPEG*s.
> 
> Also, there are just three rendering font engines at least for PCs: Google Chrome's, Mozilla's and Windows 10 API rendering. It's not about browsers but what the underlying rendering engine they use.
> 
> */Thread (meaning it's near 100% useless).*


Most of the screenshots are PNG, and rest are high quality JPEG (97 and above) without dithering that is near PNG in both quality and filesize.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 1, 2021)

Athlonite said:


> @Bill_Bright & @lexluthermiester  if you two wish to argue take it to PM's and stop muddying up this thread with off topic crap


Right, sorry.


----------

