14 DAY TRIAL // The Windows version of Safari is definitely getting a lot of attention, hardly any of it good, and hardly any of it deserved. The latest aspect of the browser that has stirred up a hornet's nest is the way Safari - and by extension OS X - handles font rendering. The way Apple does fonts is very different from the way Microsoft does fonts, and there seems to be little to no common ground.
The web has started to teem with comments on how Safari for windows renders fonts and how bad, blurry and unreadable they are. Meanwhile, Mac users look at Safari for Windows and see the only browser that actually shows fonts properly. The cause of the problem stands in how the two companies handle the fonts themselves. Apple's approach tries to keep the design of the typeface intact, despite there being additional blurring. Meanwhile, Microsoft trims the shape of the letters so that they conform to the pixel grind, thus achieving a much crisper look, regardless of the discrepancy between the result and the actual typeface.
The differences are more than just subtle. And when you look at the two methods side by side, they really stand out. Apple's method is indeed 'blurrier' but the letters keep their shape, especially where there are curves. Also, at the smaller font sizes, there is more variation and less of a pixilated look. Microsoft's method is much clearer with minimal blurring, but the letters look anemic and pixilated more often than not, especially at the lower sizes where everything looks the same.
It is not surprising that Safari looks 'wrong' to some Windows users, just like Windows browsers look 'wrong' to Mac users. The differences in font rendering are significant, and - as with many things in life - what we know is automatically seen as being better, without actually having to be so.