
Convincing-looking 90s fonts in modern browsers - hmhhcycbtsc557
https://vistaserv.net/blog/90s-fonts-modern-browsers
======
jsolson
I need to send this to the people who designed the website for one of my
favorite local pizza places, Dino's
([https://www.dinostomatopie.com/](https://www.dinostomatopie.com/)) -- they
did _really_ well, generally, but no matter how hard you try, some things come
through: the fonts rendered as text are perfectly crisp at whatever absurd DPI
this Chromebook has.

~~~
everdrive
This is better than 50% of websites out there today. I can find all the
buttons, the functions of things are clear, and I know how to contact the
owner. The menu is text instead of PDF, and the whole thing appears to run
properly without javascript enabled.

~~~
leephillips
The brilliance goes beyond the web design. From that menu:

"DINO would like you to know that more than three toppings will be expensive
and won't be any better."

~~~
cat199
dangerous

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_quattro_stagioni](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_quattro_stagioni)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_quattro_formaggi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_quattro_formaggi)

------
kccqzy
Ligatures are missing :(

Look at the IE5 screenshot. The second last line has the word "finibus" and
notice how the "f" and the "i" seem to be combined together. That's a
ligature. In contrast in the body text of the website I don't see any. The
word "file" in the paragraph right above the screenshot is missing that
ligature.

Kerning is, well, also wrong. So wrong that I literally trouble reading the
body text, but I have no trouble reading the text in the IE5 screenshot. (Bad
kerning: once you see it you can't unsee it.)

~~~
jfk13
Actually, IE5 didn't do automatic ligatures; what you see in "finibus" is
simply an "f" glyph and an "i" glyph which are close enough that the dot of
the "i" nestles into the top-right of the curve of the "f", and the serifs at
the base run together... just like they do for the "in" and "ni" pairs
following.

(It was _possible_ to render a real ﬁ glyph, but only by using the Unicode
presentation-form code point U+FB01; IE5 didn't do automatic ligatures in
Latin script, and even if it did, Times New Roman did not have the OpenType
support for that.)

It does appear that the IE5 screenshot shows significantly tighter letter
spacing in general than the body text, which is why we see the "fi" glyphs
touching in IE5 whereas they're separate in the text of the page. I guess
that's probably related to size-specific glyph metrics or hinting that is
snapping the glyph advances to a narrower width than the "fake-bitmap" font
produces.

~~~
tomxor
> Actually, IE5 didn't do automatic ligatures; what you see in "finibus" is
> simply an "f" glyph and an "i" glyph which are close enough that the dot of
> the "i" nestles into the top-right of the curve of the "f", and the serifs
> at the base run together.

That's actually a really neat solution in the absence of explicitly defined
ligatures... since there is no antialiasing, it only needs a little care when
designing the font at the pixel level and choice of kerning and the result
will be indistinguishable. fi is a very geometrically natural ligature though,
i wonder if it doesn't work so well for others that are too dissimilar to
their components.

------
toothbrush
Hello! Co-founder here – wow, front page, that's flattering!

We have indeed still got a bunch of visual glitches we couldn't iron out,
including the one ~saagarjha has reported to WebKit! We had assumed it was our
font being broken, but i'm keen to follow that one.

Otherwise getting hinting right on all browsers in high-DPI has basically been
impossible. Maybe we should simply recommend everyone use a Windows 98 User
Agent ;)

~~~
nodoodles
Great idea! One could embed windows 95 a la
[https://win95.ajf.me/](https://win95.ajf.me/) just to run IE within the page
with all the right rendering. Or a subset of custom font rendering to a canvas
:)

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
[http://charlie.bz](http://charlie.bz) accomplishes that idea but without a
lengthy download by using a VNC session into QEMU.

------
viler
Impressive research work (and results)!

I actually went through the same experimentation when I worked on the fonts
and the website at [https://int10h.org/oldschool-pc-
fonts/](https://int10h.org/oldschool-pc-fonts/). I ended up with a slightly
different solution - the Bits'N'Picas converter, which works very much like
potrace-pixelperfect, and takes either .png or actual bitmap fonts as input:
[https://github.com/kreativekorp/bitsnpicas](https://github.com/kreativekorp/bitsnpicas).

What would be ideal is if the bitmap strikes themselves could be rendered in
the browser - not really a tall order since they're part of the TrueType
specs, and a rasterizer is supposed to use them when they exist.
Unfortunately, it turned out that most browsers run the OpenType Sanitizer on
the webfonts they parse, and it removes certain tables including the ones that
specify the bitmaps. :(

~~~
toothbrush
Oh wow, i've stumbled on your site before. It's a masterpiece, and was
definitely an inspiration for the work we talk about in this blog post.

Super interesting, what you're saying about the OpenType Sanitizer – i'd
wondered why it appears you can't use bitmapped fonts in browsers (although
another commenter claims you can – i don't know either way).

I'll have a look at Bits'N'Picas, thanks for the heads up!

~~~
viler
Thanks, appreciated! I'm planning an update soon - speaking of which, I might
take a page from your own site with the custom scrollbars. :)

AFAIK bitmapped fonts can be rendered in-browser, but only if they're
installed on the host (aka the 'old' way), not as css webfonts. Embedding
bitmap strikes in a TrueType font is a neat trick used by e.g. Terminus, and
by many CJK fonts shipped with Windows, etc., but the browser sanitizer thing
just strips them - more info here:
[https://stackoverflow.com/a/57930594](https://stackoverflow.com/a/57930594)

(Unfortunately this type of font has its pitfalls even outside of the browser.
E.g. Windows makes you jump through a completely unreasonable series of hoops
to make them work: [https://int10h.org/blog/2016/01/windows-cleartype-
truetype-f...](https://int10h.org/blog/2016/01/windows-cleartype-truetype-
fonts-embedded-bitmaps/))

------
DevX101
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they
didn’t stop to think if they should.

------
saagarjha
Ha, this website seems to trip up the WebKit layout code
([https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211679](https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211679))
and cause large spaces to appear randomly in the middle of paragraphs that go
away when you select the text…

~~~
toothbrush
We had noticed this early on indeed, but no idea what's going on. Thank you
for reporting it — we didn't think of raising it against WebKit since we
assumed they'd be Doing The Right Thing™.

~~~
saagarjha
It's not just your website, mind you. I've been seeing it for quite a while
even on other website but I've just been too lazy to report it ;)

------
plerpin
LOL! Funny how doing something in 2020 takes ten times the resources for doing
the same thing in 1995. Every pixel on these fonts is now a complex vector
path.

~~~
Stratoscope
> _ten times the resources for doing the same thing_

Is it really ten times the resources, and really doing the same thing?

My computer today uses much less power than what I had in the '90s, and cost
less too. It has an internal 4K display and two external 4K displays.

My '90s computer had a single 1280x1024 CRT where I always had to tweak the
focus and alignment to get readable text. With no GPU, scrolling in an editor
was always an exercise in patience, watching the text repaint line by line.

Today all my monitors are high-DPI, everything scrolls instantly, and those
vector fonts are what allow for crisp, detailed, and readable text on each
display.

Don't get me wrong, I think this '90s font site is a wonderful exercise in
nostalgia and CSS ingenuity and is very cool!

But you couldn't get me to go back to those days.

~~~
nullc
> My '90s computer had a single 1280x1024 CRT where I always had to tweak the
> focus and alignment to get readable text. With no GPU, scrolling in an
> editor was always an exercise in patience, watching the text repaint line by
> line.

I don't intend to insult, but to me this came across to me as a kid larping as
someone who used computers in the 90s.

Computers have improved by hardly imaginable magnitudes, but latency and
interactive responsiveness for simple tasks like text editing is not generally
one of them.

Whenever I go into the attic to dig out a really old machine to pull something
off it, I am immediately struck by how much more responsive the interface is
compared to current systems.

I respect that your experience is different but I can't figure out how that
could possibly be.

~~~
asveikau
I remember text editing UIs struggling when the machine was otherwise
overloaded.

Although that started happening much more when text editors started to be
written in garbage collected languages more often, which I put in the current
century.

I still get that today if I use an old machine and/or a fancy text editor.

~~~
wbl
Emacs has always been written in Lisp, and it's possible for badly written
code to make it lock up. Not a new complaint on low RAM machines where the gc
and paging interact badly. But you need very low RAM by today's standards.

~~~
asveikau
Carefully worded with "more often" because I knew emacs was an outlier. I was
never an emacs person myself so I don't know it first hand, but in do know
people used to call it a resource hog a long time ago.

------
jerome-jh
I hate antialiasing. I absolutely cannot stand blurry fonts. First thing I do
on a Linux box is install the ambiguously licensed "mscorefonts" and disable
antialiasing everywhere possible. That is explained in the font-howto that may
be a bit outdated now.

Verdana for the interface, Times New Roman, Courier New for monospace ...
aaaaahhhhh!

~~~
edeion
The first thing that comes to my mind is: Are you joking? But I wonder to
myself: what does he call blurry fonts. Anti-aliased fonts, of course. But
I've never seen them as blurry and I guess most other people don't, otherwise
we'd not like them better. Don't you think there could be a sight specificity?
Do you have extremely sharp eyesight?

~~~
garaetjjte
It's taking time to get used to. Windows did and still does very strongly
hinted fonts. When I first started using Linux blurriness annoyed me greatly,
but after few years I don't care anymore.

~~~
KozmoNau7
You can get strong hinting by changing hintstyle to hintstrong in fontconfig.
It doesn't match Windows completely, but for some fonts it's close.

Infinality-fontconfig used to be the thing for emulating the font rendering of
other operating systems, I haven't kept up since freetype merged the various
interpreter tweaks that used to be proprietary. I'm sure you can pass options
to fontconfig/freetype to tweak it to your liking.

I stick to hintslight now and I'm perfectly happy with the results.

------
dhosek
The naïve potrace output looks _very_ 90s in a grunge typography sort of way.
I donated the archives of _Serif_ magazine to the Scripps College library a
decade ago which included a large collection of 1990s type specimens but I'm
pretty sure that there was a T-26 face that looked very much like the sample
that they showed from potrace.

~~~
schrijver
Not quite the same, but in the 1990s Neville Brody released a font called
‘Autotrace’ that consists of several variations of a badly traced sans-serif
[https://www.fontshop.com/families/ff-
autotrace](https://www.fontshop.com/families/ff-autotrace)

------
nonbirithm
Converting bitmap fonts to TrueType is far, far too hard in 2020. I've tried
to do the same on numerous different occasions with FontForge and gave up
every time through things just not working or hard crashes. I either got lucky
by finding someone else who had already converted the font to TrueType
somehow, or used a different font altogether. Since bitmap fonts are starting
to become deprecated[0] in some window managers like i3 this process is
starting to become a necessity.

Maybe there should be a library-based approach that provides the same
functionality as potrace.

[0]
[https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/pango/issues/386](https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/pango/issues/386)

------
OldHand2018
As a fun little Easter egg, you can get the classic Mac font Chicago (the
system font all the way up to Mac OS 9 and early iPods) in HiDPI glory on all
current Apple devices. Use Latin characters with the Thai-language font
Krungthep.

Putting it in your CSS works out of the box, but to use it in your terminal or
word processing app, you have to go to the fonts app and enable non-latin
fonts and then select it (but it is already installed).

------
kick
You can still use bitmap fonts on the WWW.

That said, most of the 90s webpages didn't look like that. Images were used
instead. For example:

[http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/paulgraham_2202_166608](http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/paulgraham_2202_166608)

~~~
sp332
Lots more examples
[https://twitter.com/wayback_exe](https://twitter.com/wayback_exe)

Edit: for contrast with more personal sites, try
[https://twitter.com/gifmodel/status/456761420319686656](https://twitter.com/gifmodel/status/456761420319686656)

~~~
barbecue_sauce
I'm always amazed at how universally terrible graphic design was during the
90s, and I mean at the level of big-name corporations (not GeoCities
laypeople). In-house Designers at these businesses (or contractors at the
equally big-name firms they hired out to) were presumably well-educated and
steeped in the history of the medium, but churned out nearly unintelligible,
ugly garbage. Most of the design principles that have given us the mostly
tasteful (if bland/inoffensive) modern web were solidified in print by the
1960s. I know the tooling wasn't there yet browser-wise to do anything crazy,
but even the image-based graphical elements are just so foreign and weird,
like the product of a generation so enamored with the capabilities of
Photoshop that they didn't question unnecessary filters, drop shadows, and the
placement of text.

~~~
masswerk
Many elements were owed to CRT displays and larger pixel sizes, so rather
domain specific. E.g., the mandatory drop shadow typography wasn't to be seen
in print. On the other hand, I wouldn't like to witness modern screen design
on a CRT. Moreover, the 1990s came just after a massive retro design trend in
the 1980s and there were still some informal reference to 1950s design around,
countered by a rather blocky "who cares" trend (probably rooting in free-
style/low-end design as featured by April Greiman in screen design and new
electronic trends in print as by Emigre Graphics), even featuring
illegibility. At the same time any custom elements had to match the few
"probably installed" type faces (Times/Times New Roman, Helvetica/Arial,
Verdana, Courier/Courier New, maybe Symbol). Moreover, fonts rendered in sizes
relative to OS presets, most probably what was 12px on a Mac rendered like
14px on Windows (which is huge on a CRT in 72dpi standard resolution), and
custom elements had to provide visual stabilization to accommodate the design
to the various forms of rendering. Last, but not least, the entire environment
of the presentation was rather blocky, from OS elements to the housing of the
CRT, and you had to accommodate to this, as well.

~~~
GekkePrutser
Yes, the drop shadows introduced in Win98 (IIRC) really helped readability of
filenames on top of desktop wallpapers. It was a much nicer method than just
backgrounding the text with a fixed colour like Win95 did.

------
JMTQp8lwXL
An admirable effort. Looking at the IE5 screenshot, compare the kerning of
'ff' in the word "efficitur" (first line) to the 'ff' in "different" in the
sentence following the image. It's slightly different. But still, a job well
done!

------
Thorrez
In both Chrome and Firefox On Windows 10 at 100% zoom in the browser and 100%
screen scaling this looks blurry; the pixels in the font don't line up with
the pixels of my monitor unfortunately.

~~~
mappu
Here's my screenshot, 100% zoom, Debian/kwin_wayland;
[https://i.imgur.com/tu1V1pp.png](https://i.imgur.com/tu1V1pp.png)

Firefox 68esr (left) is crisp but has too tall characters(?) resulting in a
gap in lowercase 'o'.

Chrome 80 (right) has this problem and is blurry in addition.

~~~
Liskni_si
Quite likely this is because Firefox 68 didn't support subpixel positioning so
it aligned all glyphs to full pixels. Chrome 80 (and Firefox 76 in some
configurations, or if gfx.text.subpixel-position.force-enabled is enabled)
uses subpixel positioning if possible, which improves kerning of normal fonts,
but in the case of these "retro" fonts, it's harmful. Maybe it's possible to
adjust the glyph metrics so they're aligned to full pixels even if subpixel
positioning is used, but I'm not sure if this can be really be done so it
works everywhere.

------
badsectoracula
Amusingly, i have antialiasing disabled in Windows 10 (though sadly not
everything respects the setting - but Firefox does) and it took me a while to
realizing what was going on :-P.

But then i thought to try enabling it and it turns out it looks blurry here
(100% scaling in case anyone wonders, since i saw others mentioning non-100%
scaling). Firefox, Windows 10.

I wonder if it has anything to do with cleartype settings or whatever.

------
msla
The next step is emulating a CRT monitor to get the fundamentally analog
nature of the display right: Even if the computer thinks in pixels, it was
still ultimately controlling a complex analog waveform being sent to some
number of electron guns steered by magnets. Higher-resolution later computer
monitors came closer to imitating pixels, but analog TV didn't try; it just
had lines and interlaced fields. Old games took advantage of the analog nature
of TVs to smooth over their graphics:

[http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/3786](http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/3786)

------
kdrag0n
Most (but not all) of the text is slightly blurry for me on Linux with a HiDPI
display at 200% scale, using grayscale antialiasing: [https://user-
images.githubusercontent.com/7930239/81491203-4...](https://user-
images.githubusercontent.com/7930239/81491203-4156ef00-9240-11ea-9142-8323c6f42704.png)

I'm using Chromium, but the "-webkit-font-smoothing: none" style doesn't
appear to be changing anything.

~~~
toothbrush
Thanks for the report! I wonder if that only works on macOS...

~~~
xenonite
Firefox on macOS also gives me a blurry result on a retina display. However it
seems to work great on macOS in Safari and Opera (Chromium).

------
a-nikolaev
I think, they might want to use this font editor:
[https://fontstruct.com/](https://fontstruct.com/)

------
pmiller2
Very cool.

I know this is a tad off-topic, but, it's sort of related since it's about
fonts.

I've been looking for a good "serial killer typewriter" typeface, similar to
what's used in the credits of the TV show _Supernatural_ , but I haven't found
anything that looks particularly good. Does anybody have any recommendations?
Free fonts would be preferred, but I'm willing to pay a bit for the right
look.

------
mhd
I switched to Safari as I've got my default browser set up to ignore all fonts
(right now using Computer Modern for everything), but the display gets a bit
weird -- while fonts are rendered the way they're meant to, it seems the line
breaks in the code cause some whitespace in the text.

[https://i.imgur.com/v80wKdf.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/v80wKdf.jpg)

~~~
toothbrush
Wow, thank you for putting 2 and 2 together! We have been bothered by these
weird spacing artefacts, but we never figured out that they correlated to line
breaks in our source code! That's insane. This gives us a lead to investigate.

And here i was thinking HTML was a bit like LaTeX – mostly whitespace-
agnostic! Just shows you what spending too long in academia will do to you.

------
Springtime
I know in the Blink engine (eg: Chromium) I've seen it render various Asian
typefaces without any anti-aliasing, eg: Dotum (including the Latin
characters). I've often wondered why that is.

Perhaps whatever causes that rendering might be of use in cases like this,
since it would also allow zooming/higher font sizes.

Edit: although it may only display as such on Windows only, come to think of
it.

------
afandian
As a child of the $PAST in the UK, I lived in three overlapping Internet
worlds. Acorn RISC OS 3, Mac OS 7.5 at home and increasing amounds of Windows
95/98.

The Acorn ecosystem was way ahead until it suddenly wasn't. But my first
webppage in about 1996 was made on an Acorn machine and, as far as I recall,
the text was antialiased back then.

~~~
MattBlissett
Here are some screenshots of RISC OS 3, including the anti-aliased fonts [1].

In 1992, on a 640x480 CRT, fonts rendered on RISC OS were excellent. Losing
this when I switched to Windows around 1995 was a big step backwards.

NB if viewing on a HiDPI screen, the browser will blur the image at it scales
it for the webpage. Instead, look at [2] and zoom the page to 50% -- that's
exactly how I remember it, except half the size.

[1]
[https://telcontar.net/Misc/GUI/RISCOS/#text](https://telcontar.net/Misc/GUI/RISCOS/#text)

[2] [https://telcontar.net/Misc/GUI/RISCOS/Text--AA-sub-
pixel.png](https://telcontar.net/Misc/GUI/RISCOS/Text--AA-sub-pixel.png)

------
aasasd
Regarding the complaints on both kerning and blurriness that you're getting in
the thread: the original font likely included a ton of kerning and hinting
info, but it might've been all stripped when going through the conversion
process. Seeing as character metrics should be practically identical to the
original, you might want to copy that info into your result font—if that's
possible (I think it should be, but dunno about tool support).

However, there will probably still be a problem if the intended font height
doesn't match the actual one in the user's browser—and you can't control that
with accuracy to a pixel (CSS pixels aren't screen pixels).

------
DavidSJ
Recently I came across [https://512pixels.net/2014/04/aqua-past-
future/](https://512pixels.net/2014/04/aqua-past-future/) and was overcome
with nostalgia for System 7.

Maybe it’s just that a Mac IIsi running System 7 was my first computer when I
was seven years old, but I think there’s a timeless beauty to the operating
system that no later release has really captured.

Some more images here: [https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/classic-mac-
os](https://www.versionmuseum.com/history-of/classic-mac-os)

Those folder and control panel icons just slay me.

~~~
aasasd
You can run it in emulators. I was doing that on Android recently, to play
Deja Vu.

However, you probably cherish more your memory of the system than the actual
thing, and emulators don't help with that.

~~~
DavidSJ
I should probably do that.

Actually, my Mac IIsi still works last I checked, but that was about ten years
ago!

------
garaetjjte
Funny idea, but it failed:
[https://i.imgur.com/fXGEGCi.png](https://i.imgur.com/fXGEGCi.png)

Strongly hinted fonts of win2k era looked quite nice, but this is just blurry
mess.

------
ungzd
But font antialiasing was available starting from Windows 95 with Microsoft
Plus!. I don't remember for sure, but I doubt browsers were exception and
didn't use system-wide font antialiasing.

------
peterburkimsher
Anti-aliasing isn't enough, because of hinting. So they had to use FontForge
to recreate old-looking fonts! I really like the retro scrollbar as well.

~~~
amiga-workbench
The scrollbars are done properly using CSS pseudo selectors too. I was half
expecting to find some javascript sludge but there's none to be found.

~~~
Stratoscope
And they are almost spot on, very nice work.

The only issue I noticed is that the up/down buttons don't have a "pressed"
state as they should. The arrow should move down and to the right by one pixel
(with some appropriate redrawing of the border - I would have to look up the
details on that). But even with that one nit, very nicely done!

------
llacb47
Cool project! When are the custom cursors? :)

------
jzer0cool
This is nice and reminds me of the early/late 90's. Was curious what motivated
you to bring back the past!

~~~
con-cat
Thank you! We're both lovers of retrocomputing, and I think especially right
now it's easy to feel nostalgic for simpler times. We wanted to capture a bit
of the wonder and weirdness of the early web, before corporate walled gardens
took over and made everything look the same.

------
disillusion
It's a nice exercise, but please be aware that using that font in your website
makes it terribly hard to read for users who need to zoom in. As in, enlarged
pixelated letters are even harder to read then blurry ones. Bitmap fonts are
only good on exactly the original size they're designed at.

------
jcelerier
non-antialiased fonts is still how I prefer fonts to render on my low-dpi
screens by a large margin

~~~
austinjp
I spent a bit of time yesterday installing Proggy fonts on my T420 to get
crisper characters while cramming more on the small screen :)

------
lokedhs
This font looked perfect on Firefox on Android, but when I read it on my
desktop (Firefox on Linux) it looks wrong. It seems as though the scale is
wrong, and the character 'o' gets a white line though it.

------
nyanpasu64
scaling up a font just so autotrace won't create curves out of the pixels?
sounds like a hack compared to finding a program which converts pixels into
squares.

~~~
jansan
Autotrace is the wrong apporoach here imo. Yes, fonts usually consist of
quadratic curves, but they perfectly well support straight lines (and as a
result the files will become pretty small, too). There is no reason why the
original pixels cannot be converted with full precision using horizontal and
vertical lines. Maybe the tool that can do this was not available.

------
tobr
Just in terms of creating a convincing 90’s look, the “blobby mess” actually
wasn’t that bad!

------
8lall0
Btw it's possible to get this font? I would love to use that on my personal
blog :)

------
eyelidlessness
I can appreciate all sorts of tech nostalgia, but reading the intro my first
thought was "wow this is cognitively impairing me" and then "please don't".
Achieving it is surely a feat, but the actual effect is to make it as hard now
to use my computer as it was over 20 years ago, because the type is illegible.

~~~
toothbrush
That's fair enough, i think it's a matter of taste, really. For me, it evokes
a warm sense of nostalgia for a simpler time. Not that it necessarily was, and
definitely not that it was better – i was a kid back then, so that has
definitely coloured my memory of it all.

I see this more as a "just because we can" art project, than anything else.

EDIT: it also occurs to me that i have tons of respect for the hours of effort
that would've gone into making fonts back then be beautiful at such small DPI.
I think it's a good example of constraints producing
interesting/good/impressive art. But i should avoid waxing too philosophical!

~~~
eyelidlessness
I have a ton of respect both for font design in any constraints and the
reverse engineering effort required to produce old pixelated text in modern
web browsers. But it still made it significantly harder for me to read, and I
hope this isn’t something anyone will try to reproduce for real world use,
because it’s not just a matter of taste at that point, it’s a matter of
accessibility.

------
rhizome
Does it switch between Bookman and Palatino based on User-Agent?

------
skny
My head hurts from just trying to read the first few paragraphs.

------
longtom
The font blurs slightly on my Windows 10 machine at 125% zoom.

~~~
cellularmitosis
If you zoom to 200% it should look sharp again :)

------
sdwvitvit
FontForge is awesome! Used it a couple of times

------
atum47
great read. I recently turned my website into a windows 95 clone, but I
haven't done anything special for the fonts yet (it's a work in progress) but
this made think about it. thanks

------
jbverschoor
Sorry, but the font is way off. there are holes in the pixels

------
nicetryguy
<blink><marquee>this Web Site has been visited 1,337 times</marquee></blink>

~~~
_Microft
It is not the earliest time of the web but marquee text, loud colours, visible
separators ("hr"), grey color gradients to give a 3d-look, elaborate page
visit counters, "cgi" in urls, guest books and "under construction" gifs are
what I remember of the web of times long past indeed.

------
qwerty456127
WWW should never have enabled use of custom fonts or colours. The fonts and
the colours used for particular elements of a page should be configured
system-wide. I always block web fonts anyway.

~~~
recursive
If that's how you like it, you can configure your user-agent as such and get
that experience today.

