6 ms·

Would be nice to have >5K resolutions to have more pixel density. Alas, macOS doesn't support any native scaling other than 100% and 200%. So if they did relea

Would be nice to have >5K resolutions to have more pixel density. Alas, macOS doesn't support any native scaling other than 100% and 200%. So if they did release e.g. a 27" 8K monitor, the text would either be too small, or they'd have to use bitmap scaling to make it bigger in which case there'd be no advantage of having an 8K monitor. (EDIT: To clarify, all other scaling factors are done by rendering at either 100% or 200% and doing bitmap scaling up or down. By bitmap scaling 200% up up to e.g. 250%, things are bigger so that's good, but there's no extra detail being displayed, so you're wasting the resolution of your monitor. You might as well buy a cheaper monitor with fewer but larger pixels.) I really don't understand why they don't either (a) adopt Windows' approach of allowing rendering directly to any arbitrary scale, or (b) at least introduce a 300% mode with bitmap scaling analogous to their 100% and 200% modes.

hughrr 5y ago
I’m running at neither 100% or 200% on my 4k 27”…
- kccqzy 5y ago
  UI elements are still rendered at 2x and then downscaled. It's just that you (or most people) can't tell the difference. Me neither.
  - hughrr 5y ago
    Exactly.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - adrianmsmith 5y ago
    However this decision does mean Apple can't produce monitors with more than about 200 PPI without the text being too small (at 200%). i.e. they can't go beyond 5K at 27". Which is a shame, you can use 8K monitors with Windows at e.g. 300% just fine.
    - kccqzy 5y ago
      They can easily add support for rendering at 3x. iOS has supported that since iPhone 6 Plus. The only thing that's missing from macOS is a switch to turn it on, and produce all the UI assets at 3x.
copperx 5y ago
I'm confused by your post. macOS definitely supports fractional scaling since 2012.
- mrkstu 5y ago
  It's there but it's noticeably slower/buggier.
- jcelerier 5y ago
  It does so by rendering at 200% then downscaling the resulting texture which is absolutely horrendous for both performance and looks
  - bluedino 5y ago
    They come with that as default
- bragh 5y ago
  It depends on how the display is detected. Never got it to work with Dell UltraSharps, but some curved LG display works fine.
pcr910303 5y ago
Macs does support non-integer scaling. In fact, macOS currently ships non-integer scaling by default in certain MBP models. It gets criticized from time to tome, though the newer 14/16” MBPs ship 200% as default again.
- the_lucifer 5y ago
  > It gets criticized from time to tome, though the newer 14/16” MBPs ship 200% as default again. The new 2021 MacBook Pros were such a great design and it's clear how every small thing points to them being the greatest since 2015 Pros.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    I upgraded from 2015 13" Macbook Pro to 2021 14" Macbook Pro, and it's remarkable how similar the devices are. The physical dimensions are almost identical. Neither have a touch bar. And they both have a similar selection of ports (HDMI, SD card, aux, mag safe), and in very similar locations. The difference is basically improvements in quality of pretty much everything: better screen resolution and size, better webcam, better keyboard, better speakers, USB-C instead of thunderbolt ports and USB-A, better battery life, and of course a much much faster processor and thermals.
- NobodyNada 5y ago
  Unless things changed since last I checked ~2 years ago, macOS’s 150% scaling actually renders at 300% and downscales. It looks pretty bad (visible aliasing on any kind of text) and is wasteful performance-wise.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - newaccount74 5y ago
    As far as I know, it's worse, it renders at 200% and downscales. macOS draws only at 1x or 2x. 3x is iOS only. Apples decision to support only integer scaling was what allowed them to adopt Retina displays very quickly. Unfortunately it led to a subotimal solution in the long term.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
BitwiseFool 5y ago
> (a) adopt Windows' approach of allowing any arbitrary scale Apple is all about controlling and curating the user experience. They would much rather force you into some lane than allow you to go wild configuration wise.
- naikrovek 5y ago
  is allowing a 150% option considered "going wild"?
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    Personally, no, but the GP did say "allowing any arbitrary scale" and that's what I was referring to. Why Apple does not allow 150% is beyond me because it is quite reasonable. But I can understand why they don't allow users to enter a value like 168%.
    - petilon 5y ago
      > Why Apple does not allow 150% is beyond me because it is quite reasonable. It is absolutely not reasonable. HTML tables with horizontal grid lines will appear to have varying line thicknesses when in reality they are all set to the same width.
      - naikrovek 5y ago
        that doesn't have to be true. solve that problem instead of using it as proof that 150% isn't feasible.
astrange 5y ago
Your suggestion was tried for years and failed every time because it doesn’t work. HiDPI shipped because it was 2x or nothing. (Later there was 3x.) The reason Windows developers still think it might work is they have no taste and don’t care about localized UI, pixel cracks, or blurry bitmap controls.
- naikrovek 5y ago
  nah, hidpi on Windows is fine if you know what you're doing as an application developer. it's those who haven't bothered to make the changes recommended or required that make windows hidpi support look worse than it is in single-monitor setups. multiple monitors on Windows with varying dpi scales is not great though, and probably can't be until some backwards compatibility promises are broken or expired.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    In the latest Windows 11 there are a bunch of native OS dialog which are not high-dpi aware and look pixelated on my 4K monitor. If even Microsoft can’t be bothered, what do you expect from app developers?!
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Dialogs themselves are HiDPI-aware; but if the app that opens them doesn't advertise itself as HiDPI-aware, it doesn't help.
  - solarmist 5y ago
    >nah, hidpi on Windows is fine… Exactly, it’s fine. Apple has never settled for “fine” either it’s great or it gets cuts at some point. >if you know what you’re doing as an application developer. Apple also tends to avoid wading into footgun waters to keep quality (for 3rd party devs) as high as possible across the board.
  - xenadu02 5y ago
    > nah, hidpi on Windows is fine if you know what you're doing as an application developer. Many (most?) don't or can't be bothered so the end result in practice is that it doesn't work. Microsoft has been chasing the HiDPI fairy for decades and the situation hasn't really gotten better. They still ship software (both in and outside the OS) that isn't HiDPI aware. Retina prioritizes making it easy for developers to adopt: Double the size of artwork, points are 2 pixels, Done. Are there quibbles? Sure. But millions of people are looking at HiDPI screens where every single thing in the OS and all third party apps they use fully support 2x. No one lives in the magical world where arbitrary scaling factors are supported. Doing that as a developer is just too damn complicated when @1x + @2x (and maybe @3x) makes 98% of people happy and is vastly less work.
petilon 5y ago
> I really don't understand why they don't either (a) adopt Windows' approach of allowing rendering directly to any arbitrary scale Windows is badly broken in this regard. I bought and returned a Microsoft Surface laptop because its rendering is broken: If you display a web page containing horizontal lines (like grid lines of an HTML table) then the lines will appear to have varying thickness even though they are all set to 1px. That's crap; I couldn't believe Microsoft is shipping this. If Windows scaling is set to anything other than 100% or 200% you will have this issue. Both 150% and 300% have this issue. I have never seen such issues on a Mac.
mekster 5y ago
Seriously, who needs 8k? For textual work, 4k is crisp enough, for gaming you can't run 8k with 120Hz as it's way too demanding and there are no content that dense, for movies or TV there are barely any content for 8k and maybe it's just for photo editors. Having 120Hz for all the display's baseline is far more important than going beyond 4k.

hughrr 5y ago

I’m running at neither 100% or 200% on my 4k 27”…

kccqzy 5y ago
UI elements are still rendered at 2x and then downscaled. It's just that you (or most people) can't tell the difference. Me neither.
- hughrr 5y ago
  Exactly.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- adrianmsmith 5y ago
  However this decision does mean Apple can't produce monitors with more than about 200 PPI without the text being too small (at 200%). i.e. they can't go beyond 5K at 27". Which is a shame, you can use 8K monitors with Windows at e.g. 300% just fine.
  - kccqzy 5y ago
    They can easily add support for rendering at 3x. iOS has supported that since iPhone 6 Plus. The only thing that's missing from macOS is a switch to turn it on, and produce all the UI assets at 3x.

copperx 5y ago

I'm confused by your post. macOS definitely supports fractional scaling since 2012.

mrkstu 5y ago
It's there but it's noticeably slower/buggier.
jcelerier 5y ago
It does so by rendering at 200% then downscaling the resulting texture which is absolutely horrendous for both performance and looks
- bluedino 5y ago
  They come with that as default
bragh 5y ago
It depends on how the display is detected. Never got it to work with Dell UltraSharps, but some curved LG display works fine.

pcr910303 5y ago

Macs does support non-integer scaling. In fact, macOS currently ships non-integer scaling by default in certain MBP models. It gets criticized from time to tome, though the newer 14/16” MBPs ship 200% as default again.

the_lucifer 5y ago
> It gets criticized from time to tome, though the newer 14/16” MBPs ship 200% as default again. The new 2021 MacBook Pros were such a great design and it's clear how every small thing points to them being the greatest since 2015 Pros.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  I upgraded from 2015 13" Macbook Pro to 2021 14" Macbook Pro, and it's remarkable how similar the devices are. The physical dimensions are almost identical. Neither have a touch bar. And they both have a similar selection of ports (HDMI, SD card, aux, mag safe), and in very similar locations. The difference is basically improvements in quality of pretty much everything: better screen resolution and size, better webcam, better keyboard, better speakers, USB-C instead of thunderbolt ports and USB-A, better battery life, and of course a much much faster processor and thermals.
NobodyNada 5y ago
Unless things changed since last I checked ~2 years ago, macOS’s 150% scaling actually renders at 300% and downscales. It looks pretty bad (visible aliasing on any kind of text) and is wasteful performance-wise.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- newaccount74 5y ago
  As far as I know, it's worse, it renders at 200% and downscales. macOS draws only at 1x or 2x. 3x is iOS only. Apples decision to support only integer scaling was what allowed them to adopt Retina displays very quickly. Unfortunately it led to a subotimal solution in the long term.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

BitwiseFool 5y ago

> (a) adopt Windows' approach of allowing any arbitrary scale Apple is all about controlling and curating the user experience. They would much rather force you into some lane than allow you to go wild configuration wise.

naikrovek 5y ago
is allowing a 150% option considered "going wild"?
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  Personally, no, but the GP did say "allowing any arbitrary scale" and that's what I was referring to. Why Apple does not allow 150% is beyond me because it is quite reasonable. But I can understand why they don't allow users to enter a value like 168%.
  - petilon 5y ago
    > Why Apple does not allow 150% is beyond me because it is quite reasonable. It is absolutely not reasonable. HTML tables with horizontal grid lines will appear to have varying line thicknesses when in reality they are all set to the same width.
    - naikrovek 5y ago
      that doesn't have to be true. solve that problem instead of using it as proof that 150% isn't feasible.

astrange 5y ago

Your suggestion was tried for years and failed every time because it doesn’t work. HiDPI shipped because it was 2x or nothing. (Later there was 3x.) The reason Windows developers still think it might work is they have no taste and don’t care about localized UI, pixel cracks, or blurry bitmap controls.

naikrovek 5y ago
nah, hidpi on Windows is fine if you know what you're doing as an application developer. it's those who haven't bothered to make the changes recommended or required that make windows hidpi support look worse than it is in single-monitor setups. multiple monitors on Windows with varying dpi scales is not great though, and probably can't be until some backwards compatibility promises are broken or expired.
- nickpp 5y ago
  In the latest Windows 11 there are a bunch of native OS dialog which are not high-dpi aware and look pixelated on my 4K monitor. If even Microsoft can’t be bothered, what do you expect from app developers?!
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Dialogs themselves are HiDPI-aware; but if the app that opens them doesn't advertise itself as HiDPI-aware, it doesn't help.
- solarmist 5y ago
  >nah, hidpi on Windows is fine… Exactly, it’s fine. Apple has never settled for “fine” either it’s great or it gets cuts at some point. >if you know what you’re doing as an application developer. Apple also tends to avoid wading into footgun waters to keep quality (for 3rd party devs) as high as possible across the board.
- xenadu02 5y ago
  > nah, hidpi on Windows is fine if you know what you're doing as an application developer. Many (most?) don't or can't be bothered so the end result in practice is that it doesn't work. Microsoft has been chasing the HiDPI fairy for decades and the situation hasn't really gotten better. They still ship software (both in and outside the OS) that isn't HiDPI aware. Retina prioritizes making it easy for developers to adopt: Double the size of artwork, points are 2 pixels, Done. Are there quibbles? Sure. But millions of people are looking at HiDPI screens where every single thing in the OS and all third party apps they use fully support 2x. No one lives in the magical world where arbitrary scaling factors are supported. Doing that as a developer is just too damn complicated when @1x + @2x (and maybe @3x) makes 98% of people happy and is vastly less work.

petilon 5y ago

> I really don't understand why they don't either (a) adopt Windows' approach of allowing rendering directly to any arbitrary scale Windows is badly broken in this regard. I bought and returned a Microsoft Surface laptop because its rendering is broken: If you display a web page containing horizontal lines (like grid lines of an HTML table) then the lines will appear to have varying thickness even though they are all set to 1px. That's crap; I couldn't believe Microsoft is shipping this. If Windows scaling is set to anything other than 100% or 200% you will have this issue. Both 150% and 300% have this issue. I have never seen such issues on a Mac.

mekster 5y ago

Seriously, who needs 8k? For textual work, 4k is crisp enough, for gaming you can't run 8k with 120Hz as it's way too demanding and there are no content that dense, for movies or TV there are barely any content for 8k and maybe it's just for photo editors. Having 120Hz for all the display's baseline is far more important than going beyond 4k.