I do not expect a non-retina display to display fonts as beautifully as a retina display, just to make things clear.
What I'm saying is that fonts under Linux aren't bad to the point of being uncomfortable.
And just to make it clear: I've got Windows and Linux, on non-retina displays, showing the same sites. Linux ain't worse.
There's a big difference between saying: "Retina displays are better than non retina ones" and saying: "Linux font sucks".
Yup: not everyone is on 4K / retina display. We know that. It doesn't make font rendering on Linux broken.
But I suspect you bringing it up, and me responding to it, doesn’t make either position more authoritative. And given “I’ve written more books than I can count” it could be your discernment of numbers or bar for objectively counting things is lower. ;-)
About retina vs. non retina, I’d argue font rendering algos matter more the less resolution they’re working with, so are even more important on non-retina displays. I’d further argue MacOS regressed on this by killing off sub-pixel rendering in Mojave, effectively dropping support for non-retina.
On low quality displays, Windows and Linux could/should look better than MacOS. When they don’t, they’re “doing it wrong”.
You're all shifting the goalpost.
Nobody is saying that fonts on a retina display on OS X do not look better than fonts on a non-retina display on Linux.
What we're disputing is that fonts rendering on Linux is so bad that it's "uncomfortable".
Now we may have a discussion as to whether everybody should be using retina display or not but that'd be another topic.
Yes.
> my 38" monitor ain't retina … perfectly happy
Put another way, either you are not visually discerning or your bar is lower.
// Since “FHD” laptops, and monitors <4K, are still a thing, you are not alone.