3 ms·
True. But I also feel like 2x is inherently better than 1.7x. I'm not a graphics expert, but there's gotta be a reason Apple has stuck to 2x at all costs with e
by pkulak 5y ago
True. But I also feel like 2x is inherently better than 1.7x. I'm not a graphics expert, but there's gotta be a reason Apple has stuck to 2x at all costs with every machine they've made for the last 8 years.
- pjerem 5y agoI’m not sure of what you meant but Apple supports fractional scaling since Retina screens appeared a decade ago. And it supports it really well. It’s absolutely not stuck at 2x.
- rcthompson 5y agoWeirdly, X11 fractional scaling essentially does the same thing as Apple and works reasonably well, but Wayland's fractional scaling doesn't and looks like garbage as a result.
- pkulak 5y agoLast I checked, for fractional scaling, Apple was 2xing, then using the GPU to resize down. Could have changed by now though. Been a while since I took a look.
- pjerem 5y agoIIRC, you are right. But it works beautifully. Except, I’m realizing it just now, it’s maybe why LibreOffice looks so bad on my Mac.
- pkulak 5y agoA buddy of mine once had a 4K monitor and was scaling it to 1.2 on his MacBook. Took him a while to realize that's why his fans were revving up all day long. haha Seems like just telling apps to draw to a larger window is the way to go, which is why I don't understand why Apple and Wayland do it by scaling down an integer. Gotta be a good reason.