4 ms·

I’ve found that a 32” QHD monitor is the highest PPI my eyes can comfortably read. I tried to use a 4K TV as my monitor, but I needed something like 55” up clos

I’ve found that a 32” QHD monitor is the highest PPI my eyes can comfortably read. I tried to use a 4K TV as my monitor, but I needed something like 55” up close to read it comfortably. It was simply too large and I had to move my neck too much. Also, that was the day I learned some pixels are chevrons!

turtlebits 5y ago
32" QHD is ~ 92ppi. Are you saying that you can't differentiate any greater than that, or you get actual physical discomfort above that? If you are talking about UI size - that can be adjusted.
legalcorrection 5y ago
Windows supports fractional display scaling with perfect crisp text and graphics. MacOS doesn’t, but it can do integer scaling at least. (Edit: I’ve been corrected. Apparently macOS does do fractional scaling, but in a way that causes blur). Text size and resolution don’t need to be bound.
- tossoutijsbshsu 5y ago
  i use linux on a retina macbook @ 2880x1800 and fractional scaling works well in swaywm. they warn against it in the docs, but no problems so far (though it's only been a week)
- wlesieutre 5y ago
  macOS has scales between 1x and 2x. It doesn’t tell you what the scale factor actually is as a number, just a couple of options between “More space” and “Larger text”. IIRC the way it’s implemented is by rendering 2x and downscaling, so sometime’s it’s not as pixel perfect as Windows. But the simpler implementation for software developers meant they had like a 10 year head start compared to Windows where software takes a long time to support up new OS features.
  - telesilla 5y ago
    There are also 3rd party apps for finer control of resolutions and displays on macOS, such as SwitchResX
  - eyesee 5y ago
    APIs existed for fractional scale and assets in early Mac OS X versions (10.4 I think). I remember building out 1.25, 1.5 and 2x assets for an application at the time. These were never to be shipped to consumers for a few reasons. There were intractable issues with window spanning across displays with different scale factors. Ultimately this was resolved by not allowing window spanning on the platform anymore.
    - sgjohnson 5y ago
      > Ultimately this was resolved by not allowing window spanning on the platform anymore. You can still window span on macOS. You just have to disable the feature that gives every display its own workspaces. Not that you’d ever want to do that. At least I can’t think of a single good reason why anyone would want this.
    - wlesieutre 5y ago
      Wasn’t there an early exploration of using vector UI elements some time around then? I have a vague recollection of it being found as a partly implemented feature.
    - legalcorrection 5y ago
      This display spanning issue exists in Windows but I think Microsoft made the right trade off by just allowing that one thing to behave strangely. The other issue is pixel-based UIs that don’t fractional scale without blur, but at this point that doesn’t affect any software I use except little utility programs that I’m not staring at for very long anyway.
  - ojbyrne 5y ago
    On my monitors and most recent OS versions it shows the resolution when you hover over the preview.
tossoutijsbshsu 5y ago
right around QHD is the sweet spot imo. I use 3 30" Apple Cinema HD Displays @ 2560x1600 (my school was throwing them out), and theyre perfect for everything. games, code, movies, whatever. Needs dual link dvi though, so old gpus only.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  I was so sad when my old super-IPS korean yamaguzi died. 2560x1600 30" but incredible clarity, modern monitors with higher PPI look so bad and fuzzy compared to it. Dual link dvi for the win!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Jaruzel 5y ago
My screen on my main PC is a 32" BenQ QHD display. I run it at 100% scaling. I don't like the idea of 4K displays at >100% scaling, as I'm just wasting money on pixels I don't actually use directly. To be honest, the DPI on this monitor is a little too low... I have a QHD 27" on another machine, and that seems 'just right' (for my eyes). If 4K monitors were the same price as QHD ones for the same screen size, then maybe I'd re-consider, but whilst they are sold at a premium, I'm not interested.
Nursie 5y ago
So use scaling? I find this a strange complaint, (not saying you’re wrong!) as to me more pixels should mean better rendering of elements, not dictate their size.
- bdcravens 5y ago
  When I replaced all my monitors, I just went with QHD displays instead of 4K, even though I've always scaled in the past. So much cheaper.
saiya-jin 5y ago
I have the same, from cca 2 feet I really don't need more for anything, including occasional gaming (where performance difference vs 4k is huge, visible benefit for me is 0). If I am running out of space that just means I am messy and doing too much in parallel which is never a good idea. Something similar to coding principle of having method/function no longer than 1 screen.

turtlebits 5y ago

32" QHD is ~ 92ppi. Are you saying that you can't differentiate any greater than that, or you get actual physical discomfort above that? If you are talking about UI size - that can be adjusted.

legalcorrection 5y ago

Windows supports fractional display scaling with perfect crisp text and graphics. MacOS doesn’t, but it can do integer scaling at least. (Edit: I’ve been corrected. Apparently macOS does do fractional scaling, but in a way that causes blur). Text size and resolution don’t need to be bound.

tossoutijsbshsu 5y ago
i use linux on a retina macbook @ 2880x1800 and fractional scaling works well in swaywm. they warn against it in the docs, but no problems so far (though it's only been a week)
wlesieutre 5y ago
macOS has scales between 1x and 2x. It doesn’t tell you what the scale factor actually is as a number, just a couple of options between “More space” and “Larger text”. IIRC the way it’s implemented is by rendering 2x and downscaling, so sometime’s it’s not as pixel perfect as Windows. But the simpler implementation for software developers meant they had like a 10 year head start compared to Windows where software takes a long time to support up new OS features.
- telesilla 5y ago
  There are also 3rd party apps for finer control of resolutions and displays on macOS, such as SwitchResX
- eyesee 5y ago
  APIs existed for fractional scale and assets in early Mac OS X versions (10.4 I think). I remember building out 1.25, 1.5 and 2x assets for an application at the time. These were never to be shipped to consumers for a few reasons. There were intractable issues with window spanning across displays with different scale factors. Ultimately this was resolved by not allowing window spanning on the platform anymore.
  - sgjohnson 5y ago
    > Ultimately this was resolved by not allowing window spanning on the platform anymore. You can still window span on macOS. You just have to disable the feature that gives every display its own workspaces. Not that you’d ever want to do that. At least I can’t think of a single good reason why anyone would want this.
  - wlesieutre 5y ago
    Wasn’t there an early exploration of using vector UI elements some time around then? I have a vague recollection of it being found as a partly implemented feature.
  - legalcorrection 5y ago
    This display spanning issue exists in Windows but I think Microsoft made the right trade off by just allowing that one thing to behave strangely. The other issue is pixel-based UIs that don’t fractional scale without blur, but at this point that doesn’t affect any software I use except little utility programs that I’m not staring at for very long anyway.
- ojbyrne 5y ago
  On my monitors and most recent OS versions it shows the resolution when you hover over the preview.

tossoutijsbshsu 5y ago

right around QHD is the sweet spot imo. I use 3 30" Apple Cinema HD Displays @ 2560x1600 (my school was throwing them out), and theyre perfect for everything. games, code, movies, whatever. Needs dual link dvi though, so old gpus only.

hackerfromthefu 5y ago
I was so sad when my old super-IPS korean yamaguzi died. 2560x1600 30" but incredible clarity, modern monitors with higher PPI look so bad and fuzzy compared to it. Dual link dvi for the win!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Jaruzel 5y ago

My screen on my main PC is a 32" BenQ QHD display. I run it at 100% scaling. I don't like the idea of 4K displays at >100% scaling, as I'm just wasting money on pixels I don't actually use directly. To be honest, the DPI on this monitor is a little too low... I have a QHD 27" on another machine, and that seems 'just right' (for my eyes). If 4K monitors were the same price as QHD ones for the same screen size, then maybe I'd re-consider, but whilst they are sold at a premium, I'm not interested.

Nursie 5y ago

So use scaling? I find this a strange complaint, (not saying you’re wrong!) as to me more pixels should mean better rendering of elements, not dictate their size.

bdcravens 5y ago
When I replaced all my monitors, I just went with QHD displays instead of 4K, even though I've always scaled in the past. So much cheaper.

saiya-jin 5y ago

I have the same, from cca 2 feet I really don't need more for anything, including occasional gaming (where performance difference vs 4k is huge, visible benefit for me is 0). If I am running out of space that just means I am messy and doing too much in parallel which is never a good idea. Something similar to coding principle of having method/function no longer than 1 screen.