4 ms·

"The screen itself is a work of wonder. At 8.9 inches, it can support resolutions of up to 2560 x 1600 px. That’s insane. No-one on Earth has eyesight good enou

by hexo 6y ago

"The screen itself is a work of wonder. At 8.9 inches, it can support resolutions of up to 2560 x 1600 px. That’s insane. No-one on Earth has eyesight good enough to comfortably read text that small for an extended period. Yes, it’s just about do-able, and the text itself is perfectly formed, but eyestrain will quickly become an issue. After spending an evening at 1920 x 180, I eventually set it to an easy 1440 x 900 px." Well, why using non-native resolution and cripple your experience? I'd say it's better to use scaling or just change font size. And one remark, it would be awesome if OS and GUI toolkit manufacturers started to correctly support DPI already, none of my screens is 96 DPI.

whelming_wave 6y ago
Issues with Linux graphical toolkits, perhaps? I hear they're reasonably consistent with all screens at the same integer scaling ratio but have issues with other setups. Admittedly, I haven't looked into this myself in years.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  KDE scales pretty well for me! Even non integer.
- SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
  The current state of things is that dpi scaling at non fractional rates works perfectly when all screens are at the same scale. Everything else works if you use Wayland and your applications support wayland as well. So basically what happens is all native apps work fine and everything electron doesn't scale properly.
chrismorgan 6y ago
√(2560² + 1600²) ÷ 8.9, that’s 339dpi, waaaaay too much for 1× use. 1920×1200 is 1.33×, 254ppi, still waaay too fine. 1440×900 is 1.78×, 191ppi, still way too fine. I’d think 1280×800, 2×, 170ppi, is probably about right for a laptop like this, though it’s still likely to be a bit on the too-fine scale so that I’d give 1024×640, 2.5×, 136ppi, a try also. I think I did a bit of fractional scaling on Linux a few years back and it went fine, but I’m not quite sure—my memory’s fuzzy on the point, I might have just tweaked the dpi that I told X.org (to reflect reality) and not adjusted anything else. But certainly Windows handles all scaling, including fractional, pretty much perfectly.

by hexo 6y ago

whelming_wave 6y ago

Issues with Linux graphical toolkits, perhaps? I hear they're reasonably consistent with all screens at the same integer scaling ratio but have issues with other setups. Admittedly, I haven't looked into this myself in years.

GekkePrutser 6y ago
KDE scales pretty well for me! Even non integer.
SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
The current state of things is that dpi scaling at non fractional rates works perfectly when all screens are at the same scale. Everything else works if you use Wayland and your applications support wayland as well. So basically what happens is all native apps work fine and everything electron doesn't scale properly.

chrismorgan 6y ago

√(2560² + 1600²) ÷ 8.9, that’s 339dpi, waaaaay too much for 1× use. 1920×1200 is 1.33×, 254ppi, still waaay too fine. 1440×900 is 1.78×, 191ppi, still way too fine. I’d think 1280×800, 2×, 170ppi, is probably about right for a laptop like this, though it’s still likely to be a bit on the too-fine scale so that I’d give 1024×640, 2.5×, 136ppi, a try also. I think I did a bit of fractional scaling on Linux a few years back and it went fine, but I’m not quite sure—my memory’s fuzzy on the point, I might have just tweaked the dpi that I told X.org (to reflect reality) and not adjusted anything else. But certainly Windows handles all scaling, including fractional, pretty much perfectly.