[chromium-discuss] Are you serious about forcing DirectWrite upon us?

Discussion:

The

2016-06-12 21:34:55 UTC

Dear Ilya Kulshin and Dear Members of the Chromium Community,

I have recently read that DirectWrite is going to be the default
alternativeless method for font rendering in newer Chrome releases.

Then I found your commit.

Seriously I just don't get it why you guys are doing this. Would it be so
much of an effort for a billion-dollar company (like Google) to continue
supporting GDI? That GDI which performs font-rendering BETTER on Windows 7
than DirectWrite.

Could you please compare this ... (DW disabled)

... to this (DW enabled)

If you think the text on the first one is sharper and more readable, please
revert your patches on removing GDI and make it possible to disable
DirectWrite again.

No, subpixel rendering (ClearType) won't help either. And it's slower,
pollutes the colorspace, needs calibration for each monitor and for each
brighness level, so much of an annoyance.

Hope you make the right decision.

Best
PÃ¡l Ãcs

--
--
Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-***@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-discuss+***@chromium.org.

PhistucK

2016-06-14 10:59:19 UTC

Permalink

While I agree that DirectWrite has its issues, the flag to disable
DirectWrite was never supposed to stick around forever, it was a temporary
(a long period, but still temporary) debugging flag.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of users do not change default, so it
does not make sense to cater for a small niche audience. If a lot of people
complain about the text rendering, this will be worth a consideration.

â*PhistucK*

Post by The
Dear Ilya Kulshin and Dear Members of the Chromium Community,
I have recently read that DirectWrite is going to be the default
alternativeless method for font rendering in newer Chrome releases.
Then I found your commit.
Seriously I just don't get it why you guys are doing this. Would it be so
much of an effort for a billion-dollar company (like Google) to continue
supporting GDI? That GDI which performs font-rendering BETTER on Windows 7
than DirectWrite.
Could you please compare this ... (DW disabled)
... to this (DW enabled)
If you think the text on the first one is sharper and more readable,
please revert your patches on removing GDI and make it possible to disable
DirectWrite again.
No, subpixel rendering (ClearType) won't help either. And it's slower,
pollutes the colorspace, needs calibration for each monitor and for each
brighness level, so much of an annoyance.
Hope you make the right decision.
Best
PÃ¡l Ãcs
--
--
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Chromium-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

Colin Richardson

2016-06-14 11:58:28 UTC

Permalink

Well, can DirectWrite be corrected and get all bugs out of DirectWrite
before you get rid of the option?
Like it picking the wrong fonts all the time? Standard Font rendering does
not have these problems. There are numberous bugs about it, so I wont
repost them here.

Ilya Kulshin

2016-06-21 23:01:05 UTC

Permalink

Post by Colin Richardson
Well, can DirectWrite be corrected and get all bugs out of DirectWrite
before you get rid of the option?

If only... Unfortunately, "fixing all bugs first" is not really a tractable
approach to software development. In the meantime, please continue to
report bugs with DirectWrite (including rendering quality bugs). While I
can't promise that every single bug will be fixed, having those bugs helps
identify what needs to be worked on.

Post by Colin Richardson
Like it picking the wrong fonts all the time? Standard Font rendering does
not have these problems. There are numberous bugs about it, so I wont
repost them here.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "picking the wrong fonts"? Could you
include an html file or a link and a description of what you expect to see
and what you actually see?

Ilya Kulshin

2016-06-24 18:04:04 UTC

Permalink

Hi PÃ¡l Ãcs,

Could I ask you to try one more thing for me: first, run the ClearType
tuner to make sure ClearType is enabled on your system. Then, go
into chrome://flags/#enable-use-zoom-for-dsf and enable the
enable-use-zoom-for-dsf flag. Then, relaunch Chrome and see if that makes
fonts look better or less blurry.

Regarding your DirectWrite vs GDI comparisons: in the first set, I agree
that the GDI rendering looks better, although the difference is much less
drastic if ClearType is on (it is off in your sample). In the second set,
GDI is clearly sharper, but I find the DirectWrite sample to be more
pleasant and easier to read. An informal sample of people near me also
confirmed that which one is better really is subjective (some preferred
DirectWrite from the first set, and others preferred GDI from the second).

Dear Ilya,
The problem is not about possible bugs. I'm not afraid of bugs.
The problem is the main font rendering style of DirectWrite and the fact
that it *renders more blurry fonts*, moreover this behavior *can't be
changed or customized*. By this you present a degradation in font
rendering and taking away the freedom from the user to revert your change.
Ilya, you haven't answered my question, please do it now. For just a
second, please throw away all the agile manifesto, business logic and
development idealism, and take a look at these two images. Please do this
on a monitor with PPI around (or below) 100 (that most of us use). A 24
This is GDI...
This is DirectWrite...
View the image in full size (100%) without zooming or shrinking.
Then please use your common sense and tell me, which method renders
sharper fonts (GDI or DirectWrite).
Here is another example with smaller sizes where the difference is more
significant.
This is DirectWrite...
This is GDI...
â
That "many people" *PhistucK* mentioned *do complain* on other forums.
It's another thing that Chrome developers think that this "critical
minority" can be ignored because the perception of fonts is just a matter
of taste and it's subjective. *Could you please ask an optometrist about
this?* Just take a look at these below. The internet is full of the
complaints about DirectWrite and its blurry fonts. Here are some of them.
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=405445
http://www.trilithium.com/johan/2015/03/chrome-directwrite-2/
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/VStr-JaPbwQ
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/chrome/Q6QGBRvULbQ/5FQtKz0TCAAJ
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/bkFBZbeMklk
Some of these even exist for years. But all of us seem to be ignored.
These were written by users *who do care *and not by those who don't even
notice the change.
Best
PÃ¡l Ãcs

The Palikacska

2016-06-24 21:23:30 UTC

Permalink

Dear Ilya,

All the way my comparison regarding GDI vs. DirectWrite was taken in a
context where subpixel anti-aliasing (ClearType) is turned off, always.
ClearType is another thing that should have been banned, or at least not
made default. It pollutes the color-space, needs recalibration for every
monitor (and for almost every brightness level of a laptop) and always
bleeding on white backgrounds (which is the most common at web pages). I
even own a Samsung monitor on which you just simply can't calibrate
ClearType because it will always bleed. Subpixels are not meant for
anti-aliasing. They are meant to display adequate colors. ClearType is
violating this. Also Chrome is significantly slower when ClearType is
turned on. Scrolling is slower, rendering is slower while taking more CPU
resources.

So what you are trying to say is that there was a feature (GDI) that is now
being removed and then replaced by DirectWrite (despite a lot of users
complaining about DW). That feature has an option (ClearType on) which will
go closer to what the older feature could do but will never reach it (and
meanwhile eating up more resources). This means no other than...
degradation.

However, if you insist, I will give it a try.

I just don't understand *why throw away something that has been good for
more than a decade* then replace to another thing that simply can't do it
well. Even X11 on Linux supports the GDI-style grayscale anti-aliasing and
handles hinting information properly as well as subpixel rendering.
DirectWrite seemingly ignores almost all hinting information.

Best,
PÃ¡l Ãcs

David Caley

2016-07-12 11:02:34 UTC

Permalink

This just made it's way into Vivaldi. Sorry, DirectWrite looks like puke on
any monitor I've ever used. It literally gives me a headache to read it.
All I can focus on are fuzzy gray letters. Ilya, in every example you
posted, the GDI version looks better. Guess I'll have to move away from any
and all Chromium based browsers.

Dear Ilya,
All the way my comparison regarding GDI vs. DirectWrite was taken in a
context where subpixel anti-aliasing (ClearType) is turned off, always.
ClearType is another thing that should have been banned, or at least not
made default. It pollutes the color-space, needs recalibration for every
monitor (and for almost every brightness level of a laptop) and always
bleeding on white backgrounds (which is the most common at web pages). I
even own a Samsung monitor on which you just simply can't calibrate
ClearType because it will always bleed. Subpixels are not meant for
anti-aliasing. They are meant to display adequate colors. ClearType is
violating this. Also Chrome is significantly slower when ClearType is
turned on. Scrolling is slower, rendering is slower while taking more CPU
resources.
So what you are trying to say is that there was a feature (GDI) that is
now being removed and then replaced by DirectWrite (despite a lot of users
complaining about DW). That feature has an option (ClearType on) which will
go closer to what the older feature could do but will never reach it (and
meanwhile eating up more resources). This means no other than...
degradation.
However, if you insist, I will give it a try.
I just don't understand *why throw away something that has been good for
more than a decade* then replace to another thing that simply can't do it
well. Even X11 on Linux supports the GDI-style grayscale anti-aliasing and
handles hinting information properly as well as subpixel rendering.
DirectWrite seemingly ignores almost all hinting information.
Best,
PÃ¡l Ãcs

Kumara Bhikkhu

2016-10-17 10:23:58 UTC

Permalink

I don't know the technical stuff, but I do have a problem reading the
blurry text. (I use Vivaldi too.) Sometimes, especially when this is
coupled with grey texts on grey background (which I don't know why some,
such the people behind Chrome Web Store, seem to like), it's really, really
hard to read, e.g.:

<Loading Image...

>

I already have a reading problem. The strain to read is bound to make it
worse.
*Can the developers consider revert the change on grounds of accessibility?*
If not, then just because of this, I too am forced to abandon
Chromium-based browsers.

Post by David Caley
This just made it's way into Vivaldi. Sorry, DirectWrite looks like puke
on any monitor I've ever used. It literally gives me a headache to read it.
All I can focus on are fuzzy gray letters. Ilya, in every example you
posted, the GDI version looks better. Guess I'll have to move away from any
and all Chromium based browsers.

Pál Ács

2016-06-14 12:07:05 UTC

Permalink

Post by PhistucK
Keep in mind that the vast majority of users do not change default, so it
does not make sense to cater for a small niche audience.

Is your statement based on real usage statistics? The "vast majority" of
users do not even know what chrome://flags is. Even less people know what
DirectWrite (or GDI) is. How would they change it? This is the common
logical trap to justify a change that means degradation to the user but
more comfortable to the developer. If a feature gets replaced in software,
this decision should be based on the main purpose of the feature (here:
text rendering). DirectWrite performs worse in anti-aliasing. You can test
it for yourself or see the examples. The point is that the reasons behind
forcing DirectWrite have nothing to do with the original purpose (better
text rendering) because DirectWrite is worse regarding the original
purpose. The remaining might be: DirectWrite is newer. Supporting one
rendering method on Windows costs less resources than supporting two.

While I agree that DirectWrite has its issues

Then a win-win situation would be Chrome supporting GDI text rendering and
making DirectWrite default. Now this is a win-lose situation. "Win" for the
developers (they don't need to maintain GDI-specific code) and "Lose" for
those who really care about quality and feel comfortable reading non-blurry
sharper fonts. However, the fact that you or any Chromium developer agrees
on these issues is a cold comfort for those who will suffer eye-strain or
user-experience degradation from this change. For example myself.

Post by PhistucK
While I agree that DirectWrite has its issues, the flag to disable
DirectWrite was never supposed to stick around forever, it was a temporary
(a long period, but still temporary) debugging flag.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of users do not change default, so it
does not make sense to cater for a small niche audience. If a lot of people
complain about the text rendering, this will be worth a consideration.
â*PhistucK*

PhistucK

2016-06-21 13:34:38 UTC

Permalink

I do not have access to usage statistics (I am not a Googler), but it has
been stated by Googlers numerous times that the vast majority of users do
not change settings (according to usage statistics, indeed).

While in your eyes it might look bad, I guess you are a minority, or else
many people would have complained and not just a vocal minority. :(

â*PhistucK*

Post by PhistucK
Keep in mind that the vast majority of users do not change default, so it

Post by PhistucK
does not make sense to cater for a small niche audience.

Is your statement based on real usage statistics? The "vast majority" of
users do not even know what chrome://flags is. Even less people know what
DirectWrite (or GDI) is. How would they change it? This is the common
logical trap to justify a change that means degradation to the user but
more comfortable to the developer. If a feature gets replaced in software,
text rendering). DirectWrite performs worse in anti-aliasing. You can test
it for yourself or see the examples. The point is that the reasons behind
forcing DirectWrite have nothing to do with the original purpose (better
text rendering) because DirectWrite is worse regarding the original
purpose. The remaining might be: DirectWrite is newer. Supporting one
rendering method on Windows costs less resources than supporting two.
While I agree that DirectWrite has its issues
Then a win-win situation would be Chrome supporting GDI text rendering and
making DirectWrite default. Now this is a win-lose situation. "Win" for the
developers (they don't need to maintain GDI-specific code) and "Lose" for
those who really care about quality and feel comfortable reading non-blurry
sharper fonts. However, the fact that you or any Chromium developer agrees
on these issues is a cold comfort for those who will suffer eye-strain or
user-experience degradation from this change. For example myself.

Post by The
Dear Ilya Kulshin and Dear Members of the Chromium Community,
I have recently read that DirectWrite is going to be the default
alternativeless method for font rendering in newer Chrome releases.
Then I found your commit.
Seriously I just don't get it why you guys are doing this. Would it be
so much of an effort for a billion-dollar company (like Google) to continue
supporting GDI? That GDI which performs font-rendering BETTER on Windows 7
than DirectWrite.
Could you please compare this ... (DW disabled)
... to this (DW enabled)
If you think the text on the first one is sharper and more readable,
please revert your patches on removing GDI and make it possible to disable
DirectWrite again.
No, subpixel rendering (ClearType) won't help either. And it's slower,
pollutes the colorspace, needs calibration for each monitor and for each
brighness level, so much of an annoyance.
Hope you make the right decision.
Best
PÃ¡l Ãcs
--
--
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Chromium-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

--
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Chromium-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

杨乐

2016-09-09 09:33:57 UTC

Permalink

Keep in mind that "the vast majority of users do not change default" is the
reason for keeping the default setting, not the reason for removing the
whole optioin.

åš 2016å¹Ž6æ14æ¥ææäº UTC+8äžå7:00:10ïŒPhistucKåéïŒ

Pál Ács

2016-07-22 16:00:03 UTC

Permalink

The removal of GDI support has just reached the stable version of Google
Chrome. This means, everyone who gets updated to the latest version of
Chrome, will have blurry DirectWrite fonts as their only option.

Here is the response from those who are not satisifed with blurry
DirectWrite fonts that are only good for developers living their blind
idealism and some graphics designers equipped with high-end displays.

https://www.change.org/p/google-inc-bring-sharp-fonts-back-in-google-chrome-disable-directwrite

Please sign this petition and show Google that we are opposing the
withdrawal of our freedom of choice. Please share this petition to reach
more people who would like to express their opinion.

Mozilla 5.0

2016-08-09 03:31:56 UTC

Permalink

DirectWrite is a disaster, see attached.

Post by PÃ¡l Ãcs
The removal of GDI support has just reached the stable version of Google
Chrome. This means, everyone who gets updated to the latest version of
Chrome, will have blurry DirectWrite fonts as their only option.
Here is the response from those who are not satisifed with blurry
DirectWrite fonts that are only good for developers living their blind
idealism and some graphics designers equipped with high-end displays.
https://www.change.org/p/google-inc-bring-sharp-fonts-back-in-google-chrome-disable-directwrite
Please sign this petition and show Google that we are opposing the
withdrawal of our freedom of choice. Please share this petition to reach
more people who would like to express their opinion.

Rômulo B. M. de Oliveira

2016-08-09 17:50:24 UTC

Permalink

Please add that flag back.

Post by Mozilla 5.0
DirectWrite is a disaster, see attached.

Ilya Kulshin

2016-08-10 18:31:52 UTC

Permalink

Hi Amey,

We have already discussed this before and GDI rendering is not coming back
unless we see some exceptional circumstances.

Your font problem also sounds like a known issue (crbug.com/610466). If
that fix does not work, please continue the discussion in that bug or
create a new bug (don't forget to include your reg_fonts.txt file - see
instructions in the bug).

Hello,
I have a problem. *Chrome is displaying all text in Arial Italics* and I
cannot change it back to Arial Regular as Google has removed support for*
DirectWrite* from chrome://flags. I need this particular functionality to
resolve the issue I am facing.
It is unfair for Google to marginalise a section of users without their
consent. While you say this function caters to a small section, I know that
more people are facing this issue but are unaware of its nature due to lack
of technical jargon and knowledge of DirectWrite.
*Bring it back now*. I have fixed this problem before and I can fix it
again *but you are not letting me*.* I need it back*.
Please consider.

David Caley

2016-08-10 18:36:56 UTC

Permalink

So blurry as heck fonts aren't a problem?

Post by Ilya Kulshin
Hi Amey,
We have already discussed this before and GDI rendering is not coming back
unless we see some exceptional circumstances.
Your font problem also sounds like a known issue (crbug.com/610466). If
that fix does not work, please continue the discussion in that bug or
create a new bug (don't forget to include your reg_fonts.txt file - see
instructions in the bug).

Hello,
I have a problem. *Chrome is displaying all text in Arial Italics* and I
cannot change it back to Arial Regular as Google has removed support for*
DirectWrite* from chrome://flags. I need this particular functionality
to resolve the issue I am facing.
It is unfair for Google to marginalise a section of users without their
consent. While you say this function caters to a small section, I know that
more people are facing this issue but are unaware of its nature due to lack
of technical jargon and knowledge of DirectWrite.
*Bring it back now*. I have fixed this problem before and I can fix it
again *but you are not letting me*.* I need it back*.
Please consider.

John Smith

2018-08-07 23:15:06 UTC

Permalink

I hope you and the idiots that supported this are dead by now.

Hello,
I have a problem. *Chrome is displaying all text in Arial Italics* and I
cannot change it back to Arial Regular as Google has removed support for*
DirectWrite* from chrome://flags. I need this particular functionality
to resolve the issue I am facing.
It is unfair for Google to marginalise a section of users without their
consent. While you say this function caters to a small section, I know that
more people are facing this issue but are unaware of its nature due to lack
of technical jargon and knowledge of DirectWrite.
*Bring it back now*. I have fixed this problem before and I can fix it
again *but you are not letting me*.* I need it back*.
Please consider.

PhistucK

2016-08-11 05:56:11 UTC

Permalink

Did you file (or find) an issue at crbug.com when you first bumped into
that bug? If not, you better do that in order to get it fixed for you and
for everyone.
You can reply with a link to the found or created issue.

â*PhistucK*

PureOcean

2016-08-16 21:17:45 UTC

Permalink

Dear *PÃ¡l*,

Firstly of all, this link
<https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/chrome/Q6QGBRvULbQ/lfe3Ot2ECAAJ>
reminds of you me. That I wrote my guess therein a few months ago, it just
happened Chrome v52, no sooner than released as stable channel; removing of
GDI Font Rendering and many complaints, reacts... Like I anticipated exact,
Chromium developers have not been care about users demands.

For bring back the Disable DirectWrite, your all struggles is certainly
applaudable. I hope, this tenacities produces result as positive. I am
personally give up hope than Mr. Scott Graham and Mr. Ilya Kulshin (of
Chromium developers). They won't never listen users.

My advice: you should directly write to *Sergey Brin* and *Lawrance Page*.
Even if you show them this two screenshots, that will be more than enough.

DirectWrite font rendering: Loading Image...

GDI font rendering: Loading Image...

....And I've a surprise for you. I discovered new a Chromium-based web
browser in the yesterday: CentBrowser <https://www.centbrowser.com/>. In
this browser "*added back disabling Direct Write*". I'm so happy. it's not
just that for good. The Browser contains many useful features.

While Chrome-Opera-Vivaldi's developers didn't listen user request, the one
person freelance programmer can listen demands of users and implements its.
And consequently which shows that it's possible be able to producing more
useful features than standart Chromium browser.

Fung James

2016-10-05 11:03:11 UTC

Permalink

Mactype font renderer is cool, especially for Asian fonts, DirectWrite
really sucks, it may be optimized for non Asian fonts. That DirectWrite
rendering really eye damaging, you will see cracked text on large screen
with DirectWrite enabled.
I don't want to switch to Firefox for this reason, because only Chrome can
disable DirectWrite and give fast webpage render speed, please add the
option back.

jyck

2016-11-09 20:51:50 UTC

Permalink

Hi.

We use chrome to print web pages for business purposes.

We just now ran into a problem where characters are missing when printed.
Seems it is a known issue with chrome (links below).

The solution looked like it was to disable DirectWrite. But..can't do that
anymore.

Appreciate a workaround if there is one. Thank you!

https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/55Qfm62Mwts
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=132239

Stephen Chenney

2016-11-10 15:03:58 UTC

Permalink

Post by jyck
Hi.
We use chrome to print web pages for business purposes.
We just now ran into a problem where characters are missing when printed.
Seems it is a known issue with chrome (links below).

This issue is known and a fix is being pushed to users.

Stephen.

Post by jyck
The solution looked like it was to disable DirectWrite. But..can't do
that anymore.
Appreciate a workaround if there is one. Thank you!
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/55Qfm62Mwts
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=132239

--
--
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss

Larry S

2016-12-05 21:00:41 UTC

Permalink

The only solution is to move to a different browser, I don't like firefox
but now chrome is also terrible, searching alternatives found a google
chrome fork called advanced chrome, seems that some developer managed to
fix what google can't do, he tuned directdraw in some way that looks
almost as sharp as GDI and made other improvements that I really love, try
it and see the difference: http://browser.taokaizen.com

Pál Tamás Ács

2018-06-14 09:21:16 UTC

Permalink

Dear Danicela,

Regarding that the chances are really low that Google and its ignorant
developers would address any aspect of this issue, I have collected some
alternatives for those who want to continue their browsing experience
without ruining their eyesight and collateral headaches.

- *Use Firefox.*
Firefox <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/> still supports
GDI-style (well-hinted, pixel-wise, sharp enough) font rendering. WIth
Firefox Quantum developers introduced a lot of performance enhancements.
Chrome might still be the fastest browser bit its developers are ignorant
and thus user experience for some of us keeps getting worse over time. On
computers with Intel i5 or faster, you won't really notice a huge
difference in performance. Firefox development is rather community-based
and is backed by a foundation
<https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/> instead
of an arrogant billion-dollar company like Google that thinks they always
know everything better than their end-users. Customizability has always
been kept in focus during the development of Firefox. That's what makes it
a good alternative.

-
*Use Cent Browser. *Cent Browser <http://www.centbrowser.com/index.html> is
a new web browser forked from Chromium with really good potential. It has a
community forum where you can keep in touch personally with the developers
and give your feedback. They seem to care about their users more than the
guys at Google do. GDI support has been kept
<http://www.centbrowser.com/history.html> so it has the *Disable
DirectWrite flag*. I think this might be your *best option*.

- *Use Opera 36.*
In April, 2016 Google discontinued the support for Windows XP and Vista
<https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category-topic/chrome/discuss-chrome/windows-10/Stable/wrMB9YbD5vk>
in
Chromium and Chrome, leaving millions of users alone and insecure. Opera has
come up with a solution
<http://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/08/security-update-windows-xp-vista-users/>
by
providing security fixes to the 36 branch. Although it won't update itself
above 36 the Opera team makes sure that all users with Windows XP will stay
secure by receiving security fixes. Its current version available for
download is Opera 36.0.2130.65
<http://www.opera.com/download/guide/?os=windows&ver=36.0.2130.65>.
It has* GDI support* and the *Disable DirectWrite flag*. This is why
Opera 36 is a good alternative, especially for older computers still
running XP or on which Firefox is significantly slower. Since Opera 36 is
already full-featured, you can probably go without the newest shiny
features in your everyday workflow.

-
*Use last available Chrome with GDI support. *The very last known version
to support GDI font rendering are the final releases of the 51 branch. The
recommended way to install this version is through
*PortableApps.com* installation
bundles, since Google's ignorant idealists only grant you access to the
latest versions on official sites. You will need to download the following
two files.

- 51.0.2704.106_chrome_installer.exe
<http://pullsound.com/d/0008/51.0.2704.106_chrome_installer.exe> (checked
with VirusTotal, 0/53 hits)
- GoogleChromePortable_51.0.2704.106_online.paf.exe
<https://sourceforge.net/projects/portableapps/files/Google%20Chrome%20Portable/GoogleChromePortable_51.0.2704.106_online.paf.exe/download>
(checked
with VirusTotal, 0/55 hits)

If one of the links is broken, you can still search for exact file names
using Google or bittorrent search. Always check the file you find on
virustotal.com or with an antivirus software. Place these two files in the
same folder and start *GoogleChromePortable_51.0.2704.106_online.paf.exe*.
If the installer tries to fetch Chrome from the internet, make sure you
have placed *51.0.2704.106_chrome_installer.exe* into the same folder. The
links above will install a 32-bit version. Note that you will not get
security updates so extensions like ScriptSafe
<https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/scriptsafe/oiigbmnaadbkfbmpbfijlflahbdbdgdf>
are
recommended and uBlock Origin
<https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm>
is
mandatory. You might also want to disable the Flash Player
<http://www.techrepublic.com/article/pro-tip-how-to-disable-flash-in-chrome/>
.

- *Avoid web browsers.*
Web has always been about reinventing the wheel and putting existing
technologies together in idealistic or marketable ways. Web browsers are
the most energy-wasting and least resource-efficient software ever made.
They make your computer burn a lot of electricity, drain the battery of
your laptop and make you buy new hardware every 2-3 years because of the
slowness they cause. For example, a computer from 2006 has enough resources
to play a 720p HD video stream, with applications like Media Player
Classic <https://mpc-hc.org/> or VLC Media Player
<http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html>. Using a web browser for the
same task would require a computer at least from 2011. If you tried to play
a 720p YouTube video on a computer from 2006, you will end up a slowly
playing, stuttering video while all your CPU and RAM are consumed. There
are a lot of well-designed and well-made software outside of web browsers.
There are great websites that collected these software, like
portablefreeware.com or tinyapps.org. Most of them can be run in
portable mode (no need for installation), so you can use them in restricted
environments (or from an USB stick) as well. You can use them for various
tasks. Here is a taste...

-
*Videos *If you want to search and watch videos from
YouTube/Vimeo/Metacafe/Dailymotion (and a bunch of other supported
sites), use 3D YouTube Downloader <http://yd.3dyd.com/home/>. Playing
videos on your computer takes 3x-4x less CPU resources than in a browser.
It can also download the audio tracks of video clips without downloading
the visual part. Thus you will save a lot of network traffic if you only
want to listen to it. Playing an audio track consumes *30-40x less
CPU* resources than playing a video track with audio. So you won't
feel you need to upgrade each time lazy web developers come up with their
new bloat.

-
*Radios *If you want to listen to or record over 17000 internet radio
streams, you won't ever have to open a web browser again for that. Use
streamWriter <https://streamwriter.org/en/>. It is an all-in-one
streaming application. You can even record your streams simultaneously.

-
*Social networking *Tired of Facebook eating up all your computer memory
and that it keeps getting slower and slower over time? There are
a bunch of
desktop applications that support Facebook chat, status updates,
news feed,
from the most highly configurable Miranda NG
<http://www.miranda-ng.org/en/> (for advanced users) to the very much
user-friendly Instantbird <http://instantbird.com/> or Franz
<http://meetfranz.com/>. Skype? Viber? U kidding me? :P There are
alternatives like Brosix <http://www.brosix.com/features/> that even
apply peer-to-peer (serverless) communication, so you won't become
dependent on any cloud service and won't expose your private data to
profit-hungry corporations that sell you as an advertising platform. More
advanced users can also try Tox <https://tox.chat/clients.html>.

-
*Still using Windows XP because it's faster & cleaner than newer versions
of Windows? *Unlike Chrome - developed by ignorant developers living
their blind idealism - most of the software above still run on
Windows XP.
Don't ever fall for the fear propaganda generated by software giants that
always want you to upgrade (which translates to *buy new*). If you
use secure applications to connect to the internet, you can stay secure,
even on legacy systems.

*Always think twice before getting used to some online service!* Cloud
services are designed to store (and analyze) all your personal data, give
the illusion of a convenient free service, while selling all their users
(including you) as an advertising platform to marketing agencies that make
you buy things you basically don't need. Using *centralized services (like
cloud services)* *has never been secure* either. During the past years more
than a billion online accounts have got into unauthorized hands
<https://haveibeenpwned.com/>, thanks to the insecurity of centralized
services. These have been just a taste of how great applications there are
outside of web browsers, which can be used efficiently for everyday life.
Don't let yourself be fooled by the illusion of the so-advertised
state-of-the-art-super-modern-cloud stuff. And you might never have to buy
the newest computer again. ;)

These are the alternatives I could come up with so far. Everyone is
encouraged to add theirs.

Greetings,
PÃ¡l TamÃ¡s Ãcs

Hi,
I just discovered this topic and I'm also concerned by DirectWrite
problems.
I remained stuck at Chrome 51 during something like 1-2 years because it
was last version to have GDI.
I finally went on newer Chrome versions because it became buggy, and I had
to suffer DirectWrite for 1 year.
I still can't manage to get used to DirectWrite.
Does anything have changed since then ? I still want GDI back or something
to prevent this ugly rendering.
Thank you.

--
--
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
Google Groups "Chromium-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/a/
chromium.org/d/topic/chromium-discuss/ZVBgeMwHycQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to