Personally i wouldn't be able to tell they re different without a hint

Not sure what the fuss is about

Personally I wouldn’t be able to crisply render the font on a low-DPI screen without a hint

Apparently some font renderers are bugging out on this new font making some letters render in a way that looks misaligned, which is very taxing on the eyes.

Some fonts are only subtly different, but this doesn't strike me as one of them. Those lower case gs are about as different as the letter g can look.

The lowercase g is so bad. The lower loop seems to sit a bit higher than other lowercase letters bottom out and the serifs are odd...

That's standard for that style g: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_New_Roman#/media/File:Ti...

I don't know if it's the quality of the screenshot, but the left image (old) looks way more blurry to me then the new one.

The screenshots are horrible quality, it's effectively a meaningless comparison. (And even if they weren't, comparing two fonts using Windows' font rendering is an exercise in pointlessness since the heavy hinting destroys small differences anyway.)

It's the screenshot. The left screenshot appears to have been resized so it's markedly more blurry than it should be.

Twitter is not letting me view these images in full without logging in. Is that new behavior from twitter?

Those images seem to have the same font (might be the resolution/compression) but I just went to twitter.com and I saw immediately the difference.

And I'm not even a big user, I visit like once a week for 10 min. I guess it's even more obvious for people who use it all day long.

I wouldn't say it's better or worst, it's probably just a matter to get used to it.

> Those images seem to have the same font (might be the resolution/compression)

Check the g, the size of the upper section of the B, the width of the o, the comma...

The fonts are completely different.