how do you completely disable ClearType in Windows 7?

I

indokyne

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
2,159
When I uncheck the ClearType option, the text looks the way I want it...

but then it makes you go through 4 slides of calibration anyways.

Is there a way I can completely disable the ClearType function?

*edit my edit - text is still fuzzy.

sry
 
Last edited:
Control Panel > Personalization > Window Color and Appearance > Open Classic > Effects, change it to what you want.
 
Cleartype only looks fuzzy at first. Eventually you won't be able to live without it (once your eyes get focused to it). Also try changing your refresh rate if you want to try to keep CT.
 
Actually Cleartype in Windows 7 has a potential serious issue if you're using a CRT. Cleartype in vista looks great on a CRT at 1280x960, but looks fuzzy and generally crappy in Windows 7. Using the Cleartype setup tool doesn't seem to help. The fundamental problem seems to be that Cleartype insists that the native resolution of my 22" Mitsubishi CRT is 1600x1200. Since Windows 7 has another 6 months or so before release, this might be fixed, but I suspect they're not caring much about CRT's anymore.

If I switch my resolution to 1600x1200 with Cleartype enabled the text looks pretty decent, but too small normally. When I insist I want to stick with 1280x960 the text looks like crap. It's almost like Windows 7 is rendering at 1600x1200 and then scaling down to 1280x960.

Update: the problem is the nvidia 185 drivers...182.50 is fine. Both 185's have problems.
 
Last edited:
CPL\System\Performance Information and Tools\Adjust Visual Effects [sidebar], uncheck "Smooth edges of screen fonts".
 
sorry to dig up an old topic, but my god, it's getting harder and harder to rid myself of cleartype. My eyesight is bad enough and I don't need MS (or Apple) blurring text even further.

props to JonathanJ and I hope this helps others as they install Win7 retail in the coming days...
 
Fuzzy? Cleartype is awesome. Did you mess with the default settings?
 
No, text looks like unreadable crap with Clear Type. Looks soft, fuzzy and pale. I feel my eyes continually try to focus what cannot be brought into focus. Yes, text looks jagged with out Clear Crap but its sharp.
 
I can't stand ClearType in any form. It looks fuzzy and like a misconverged CRT no matter how much I tweak. I've felt the same on my CRT (GDM-F520), my 2490, and various TN work monitors and laptops.

I think you have to visit multiple places to get it completely off, as was the case with Vista. There's personalization but also IE advanced options (affects IE, Office, and several other places which render HTML using IE's engine).
 
Every time I re-install windows I have to turn off clear type. Also, some apps (like Steam) force a form of clear type on (in Steam it is called "Direct Write"), so I have to manually disable it on those as well.

I know some people can't understand why someone would want to turn clear type off, but I found this MS blog post interesting:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/06/23/engineering-changes-to-cleartype-in-windows-7.aspx

Just thought I'd pass this info along. The part below is what I found most interesting. I guess I am in the camp that prefers bi-level rendering.

Two other additional preference tests were performed with 28 of 30 participants preferring ClearType to bi-level rendering in one study and another with 52 of 55 participants preferring ClearType. Combining these three tests, we get 113 of 120 participants preferring ClearType rendering over bi-level rendering. It is important to note that in a forced preference test like this, just because someone preferred ClearType, it does not mean that they also don’t like bi-level rendering. It is just a preference towards ClearType.


Further examination of those who prefer bi-level rendering is of great interest to us and we continue to research this topic and to work with university researchers as well. We expect to see published papers on this topic in the future.
Click to expand...

edit: at the top of the blog post is an explanation on how to disable clear type.
 
Last edited:
Went through the CT adjustments and it looks great. Text is more substantial.

Without CT some text is too think and weak.

It looks just about perfect to me. Not fuzzy at all.
 
The biggest issue I have with 'fuzzy text' in Windows 7 is that it defaults to the highest refresh rate. For my monitor, that is 75hz, which is fuzzy. I have to manually drop it to 60 to get a crisp image. Then when I hook my KVM up, it flips, 75 hz is crisp and 60 is fuzzy. Go figure.
 
I hate Cleartype and disable it everywhere. I hated it on my CRT (Sony GDM-F520), I hate it on my home LCD (NEC 2490) and my work LCDs (various TN). It looks blurry and I can see the rainbow of colour from the subpixels on the edges of the characters.
 
Surly73 said:
I hate Cleartype and disable it everywhere. I hated it on my CRT (Sony GDM-F520), I hate it on my home LCD (NEC 2490) and my work LCDs (various TN). It looks blurry and I can see the rainbow of colour from the subpixels on the edges of the characters.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I see. I can see all sorts of colours around the edges of characters regardless of what display I am using. At work, I use a crappy TN panel and have to disable cleartype. At home, I use a viewsonic vp201, and still have to disable cleartype.

The engineering blog I linked to seemed to suggest that no one knows why some people prefer that it be disabled. I wonder if any research had been done since that particular blog post.
 
Sounds to me like a bunch of poor or incorrectly calibrated monitors, more than anything else.

I have to sit about 4 inches away from my screen for the color fringing to show itself with black text on a white background (worst case scenario, lower contrast text makes the fringing even more difficult to detect). Moving just a little farther back causes the fringing to blend together into perfectly sharp antialiased characters.

This has only ever presented a problem under two circumstances. Running an LCD below its native resolution, and while running a 120 inch screen from a 720p LCD projector (the pixels were gigantic, hehe). All i can say is that you all need to check your settings, maybe turn saturation and contrast down to their correct levels.

Edit: Made up this handy-dandy visual aid. Might help things:

68186226.png


If the middle example looks significantly better than normal cleartype, then your monitor's color contrast is way too high. If the last example looks correct (heaven forbid), then you have a seriously out-of-whack monitor :p
 
Last edited:
Unknown-One said:
Sounds to me like a bunch of poor or incorrectly calibrated monitors, more than anything else.

I have to sit about 4 inches away from my screen for the color fringing to show itself with black text on a white background (worst case scenario, lower contrast text makes the fringing even more difficult to detect). Moving just a little farther back causes the fringing to blend together into perfectly sharp antialiased characters.

This has only ever presented a problem under two circumstances. Running an LCD below its native resolution, and while running a 120 inch screen from a 720p LCD projector (the pixels were gigantic, hehe). All i can say is that you all need to check your settings, maybe turn saturation and contrast down to their correct levels.

Edit: Made up this handy-dandy visual aid. Might help things:

68186226.png


If the middle example looks significantly better than normal cleartype, then your monitor's color contrast is way too high. If the last example looks correct (heaven forbid), then you have a seriously out-of-whack monitor :p
Click to expand...

lol :p. Well, when I encountered this problem I had my girlfriend take a look at my VP201 with cleartype enable and disabled to see what she thought. She preferred cleartype on. I can't say I'm a pro at calibrating monitors, but this has been an issue for all lcd monitors I've used. I'd like to think I'm just one of the 5% identified in Microsoft's focus group testing. I'm sure that when that testing was done, MS used the same monitors with the same calibration for all users in each group.
 
oneils said:
I'm sure that when that testing was done, MS used the same monitors with the same calibration for all users in each group.
Click to expand...

Testing font rendering on only one model monitor would be an absolutely horrible testing methodology. :eek:
 
Sorry, I meant that in the focus group testing, I'm sure they didn't just get 120 people together each using a different monitor, with different settings. Those results wouldn't really be useful.

Your point is valid, of course. And, I can't say exactly, what the testing methodology was. The engineering blog post doesn't elaborate.

edit. from reading the blog again, they weren't testing font rendering itself (during the focus group testing), but font rendering preference. I have no idea how they test the rendering itself. They have been working on it for over a decade from what I can tell.
 
Unknown-One said:
Sounds to me like a bunch of poor or incorrectly calibrated monitors, more than anything else.

I have to sit about 4 inches away from my screen for the color fringing to show itself with black text on a white background (worst case scenario, lower contrast text makes the fringing even more difficult to detect). Moving just a little farther back causes the fringing to blend together into perfectly sharp antialiased characters.


Edit: Made up this handy-dandy visual aid. Might help things:

68186226.png
Click to expand...


You should have included CT off as well.

But I agree. The top two examples look about the same to me. Just about perfect. I have to be closer than 6" from the screen to see fringing on those or my setup (which is crazy short distance) The bottom example is a color fringed mess.

I will add that a lot of people seem to report seen more color fringe on text in general on some wide gamut monitors, I suspect they may standout more with CT.
 
You probably want to check that sharpness is set correctly before you start experimenting with Cleartype:

http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/sharpness.php

Monitors don't necessarily ship with the correct sharpness setting. I know the Dell 2209WA ships with sharpness set to 50 and most people running the lagom sharpness test find the correct value for that monitor to be 40. The correct sharpness setting for both of my NEC 20WMGX2 monitors is 8.3%, and that is definitely not the default setting.
 
Unknown-One said:
Sounds to me like a bunch of poor or incorrectly calibrated monitors, more than anything else.

I have to sit about 4 inches away from my screen for the color fringing to show itself with black text on a white background (worst case scenario, lower contrast text makes the fringing even more difficult to detect). Moving just a little farther back causes the fringing to blend together into perfectly sharp antialiased characters.

This has only ever presented a problem under two circumstances. Running an LCD below its native resolution, and while running a 120 inch screen from a 720p LCD projector (the pixels were gigantic, hehe). All i can say is that you all need to check your settings, maybe turn saturation and contrast down to their correct levels.

Edit: Made up this handy-dandy visual aid. Might help things:

68186226.png


If the middle example looks significantly better than normal cleartype, then your monitor's color contrast is way too high. If the last example looks correct (heaven forbid), then you have a seriously out-of-whack monitor :p
Click to expand...

Awesome guide. The top one definitely looks the best on my MacBook Pro screen. You can tell a big difference between the first and second one (the third being downright terrible).
 
Funny enough, there are some monitors where the 3rd example would look perfect, and the 1st example would look terrible.

If I adjusted the image correctly, then the first and second examples will look correct on monitors with an [R|G|B] sub-pixel layout, and the 3rd example will look correct on monitors with a [B|G|R] sub-pixel layout.

So...if you turn a normal [R|G|B] layout monitor upside down, then have your video card rotate the image 180 degrees (so everything is right-side up again), Example 3 should suddenly be crystal clear. Some monitors have a [B|G|R] sub-pixel layout without being rotated, which would cause ClearType to look pretty bad out-of-the-box. You'll need to run the ClearType Tuner utility in order to adjust it for such displays.
 
Unknown-One said:
Sounds to me like a bunch of poor or incorrectly calibrated monitors, more than anything else.
Click to expand...

On an NEC 2490 which has been hardware calibrated with Spectraview II and a hardware colorimeter? Interesting assertion.

I have to sit about 4 inches away from my screen for the color fringing to show itself with black text on a white background (worst case scenario, lower contrast text makes the fringing even more difficult to detect). Moving just a little farther back causes the fringing to blend together into perfectly sharp antialiased characters.
Click to expand...

Maybe my corrected vision is better than yours? Maybe some people are more sensitive? I prefer the razor sharp text with no CT, even if I can see the pixels. I've been using computers since the Commodore PET, and you could really see the pixels there and it doesn't bother me. Yes, I've used the full CT tuner powertoy since XP trying to ensure that I had chosen the proper subpixel layout.

Perhaps the aversion is a product of wearing eyeglasses. The colour fringing and blur makes a glasses-wearer feel that they're looking through their glasses off-axis, or their dirty, or they need a new prescription. Those who have never had glasses don't have that reaction. I dunno... Some people aren't bothered by blurry photographs or lens distortion in their pictures either - I am.


This has only ever presented a problem under two circumstances. Running an LCD below its native resolution, and while running a 120 inch screen from a 720p LCD projector (the pixels were gigantic, hehe). All i can say is that you all need to check your settings, maybe turn saturation and contrast down to their correct levels.

Edit: Made up this handy-dandy visual aid. Might help things:

68186226.png


If the middle example looks significantly better than normal cleartype, then your monitor's color contrast is way too high. If the last example looks correct (heaven forbid), then you have a seriously out-of-whack monitor :p
Click to expand...

IMO they all look like shit compared to the non-CT forum text surrounding your picture in my browser, although the top one looks "best".
 
Surly73 said:
On an NEC 2490 which has been hardware calibrated with Spectraview II and a hardware colorimeter? Interesting assertion.
Click to expand...

Interesting. We are using the same calibrated monitors and I have 20:15 corrected vision, and I am also extremely visually picky. I assume you are using the default sharpness of 26.2%?? Turning it up I see color fringing, but at default I don't.

As an experiment, I tried going without CT again. It didn't take long before I turned it back on. I actually do prefer a couple of fonts (minority) with CT off.

But most Fonts appear bolder and more readable to me with CT ON. The CT OFF fonts look weaker thinner and harder to read at a glance.

Italic fonts in particular benefit from CT on. See italics at the top and the bottom of this comparison image. The small italics at the bottom are much harder to read on the CT OFF side.

I shouldn't have to point this out, but left is CT OFF, right is CT ON. CT ON clearly wins for me:

CT OFF --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CT ON

merge.png


Do CT haters all find the left side better? :confused:

(note: this might not be the ideal CT tuning for all monitors)
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
Interesting. We are using the same calibrated monitors and I have 20:15 corrected vision, and I am also extremely visually picky. I assume you are using the default sharpness of 26.2%?? Turning it up I see color fringing, but at default I don't.
Click to expand...

Yep, default 26.2% sharpness on the 2490. On the CRT there was no adjustment and my crappy work TNs are set using lagom.nl.

But most Fonts appear bolder and more readable to me with CT ON. The CT OFF fonts look weaker thinner and harder to read at a glance.
Click to expand...

I agree, except that I find "weaker" and "thinner" sharper, and thus easier to read. The CT text looks fuzzy (to me).

Italic fonts in particular benefit from CT on. See italics at the top and the bottom of this comparison image. The small italics at the bottom are much harder to read on the CT OFF side.
Click to expand...

I do recognize what you're saying with italics, but have no issue with the non-CT italics in general. I'll agree that the grey fine print looks better with CT in your example but, overall, I'd be turning CT off in an instant.

Do CT haters all find the left side better? :confused:
Click to expand...

I do. I agree with others that it is a bit scientifically interesting why people fall distinctly into one of two camps.

Out of curiosity, what's your vision correction like? Glasses or contacts? If glasses, high index or standard index (affects off-axis chromatic aberration)? Strong prescription or weak? Astigmatism?

For me: glasses, high index, fairly strong (-6 IIRC?) with astig in one eye. With correction I have detailed vision, by which I mean my lenses are screwy but my retinas are HD :D When I went from standard index to high index many years ago it made all CRTs look out of convergence off-axis. This could be part of the mental affect leading me to dislike CT since it uses subpixels for smoothing.
 
Surly73 said:
I do recognize what you're saying with italics, but have no issue with the non-CT italics in general. I'll agree that the grey fine print looks better with CT in your example but, overall, I'd be turning CT off in an instant.

Out of curiosity, what's your vision correction like? Glasses or contacts? If glasses, high index or standard index (affects off-axis chromatic aberration)? Strong prescription or weak? Astigmatism?
Click to expand...


For me it easy to see why the majority prefer CT on, since I am part of that majority. The text is more substantial and easier to read. But I would guess that being habituated to CT-OFF could make CT-ON look distasteful to some. But at least it still seems to be an option to turn it off for that minority.

I am about -3.75 in each eye with some minor astig in one, regular index IIRC. Corrected everything is very sharp from 16 inches to infinity.

What is your viewing distance?

I am at about 32" which is a bit further back than average AFAIK. At this distance comparing the image above, it is no contest. Every bit of the CT-ON text is much more readable and easy on the eyes.It actually feels like more effort reading the CT-OFF text. Even though it may technically be sharper, the CT-ON text looks blacker to me.

If I lean in to about 16", the CT-OFF text doesn't feel a chore, but I still prefer the CT-ON on the whole, only the Bold fonts now look a little too bold and there is some visible color fringing visible (again only on the bold fonts), if I look for it.
 
I'm definitely in the pro-CT camp. I wear glasses (nearsighted) and have for at least a decade. Whether with my glasses on or off, the CT text is more readable. ESPECIALLY the small text at the bottom - the non-CT text is unreadable (or highly straining to read) from more than 6-12 inches away from the screen, but the CT text is fully readable 3-5ft bakc.
 
Surly73 said:
On an NEC 2490 which has been hardware calibrated with Spectraview II and a hardware colorimeter? Interesting assertion.
Click to expand...
And I still stand by it. Check the sharpness setting on the monitor itself (a lot of hardware calibrators miss this).

Having the sharpness set incorrectly will throw off ClearType, and may also cause the calibration tool to set gamma incorrectly (which would further screw with ClearType).

Surly73 said:
Maybe my corrected vision is better than yours?
Click to expand...
Just had my prescription adjusted. My vision is more-or-less "perfect" at the moment, so I doubt that has anything to do with it.

Surly73 said:
I prefer the razor sharp text with no CT, even if I can see the pixels.
Click to expand...
ClearType offers 3 times the horizontal resolution for text. It looks far sharper than non-ClearType on every properly calibrated screen I've seen...

Surly73 said:
Perhaps the aversion is a product of wearing eyeglasses. The colour fringing and blur makes a glasses-wearer feel that they're looking through their glasses off-axis, or their dirty, or they need a new prescription. Those who have never had glasses don't have that reaction. I dunno...
Click to expand...
I wear glasses too, so I doubt it's anything specific to corrected vision. I don't experience any of those visual anomalies when viewing cleartype text.
 
Unknown-One said:
And I still stand by it. Check the sharpness setting on the monitor itself (a lot of hardware calibrators miss this).

ClearType offers 3 times the horizontal resolution for text. It looks far sharper than non-ClearType on every properly calibrated screen I've seen...
Click to expand...

Already discussed Sharpness above. He is using 26.2%, which is the correct neutral sharpness for the NEC 2490.

While I prefer CT, I wouldn't say it looks sharper. CT looks darker/more substantial.

The CT-OFF text is very sharp, but it is thin and harder to read IMO.
 
Surly73 said:
Out of curiosity, what's your vision correction like? Glasses or contacts? If glasses, high index or standard index (affects off-axis chromatic aberration)? Strong prescription or weak? Astigmatism?
Click to expand...
I have 20/10 vision, uncorrected. I find CT to be a massive improvement over bitonal
 
I have perfect near field vision, sitting arms length away from a 26" 1360x768 native res, CT looks horrid. Turned it off in most things, but the font this forum uses evades me.
Figure ill return the tv for a 1080p model anyway. better off for PC use.
 
anyone happen to know why ct might not work at all? since i switched to w7 64-bit, whether i check or uncheck ct it doesnt change anything.
 
Browsers can have their own settings. IE9 for example has smoothing with no setting to turn it off like in IE8. FF should more or less follow the OS settings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top