3 ms·

> Yes retina display is 2x. But saying a display is 4k doesn't tell anything about its pixel density or scaling. I mean with fractional scaling where 1 < devic

by deno 4y ago

> Yes retina display is 2x. But saying a display is 4k doesn't tell anything about its pixel density or scaling. I mean with fractional scaling where 1 < devicePixelRation < 2 you're doing it wrong and everything will look bad anyway, so I just assumed integer scaling. And 4K @100% is unusable anyway. But more to the point you can't easily display those screenshots with different fractional scaling without pixel grid misalignment. > On the other hand; from my own experience (I own linux, macos and windows pcs) on the same display Macos text rendering is much more sharper and pleasant to look at. On hires displays (devicePixelRatio >= 2) you're probably just comparing default fonts. And on lowres display (devicePixelRatio = 1) OSX is much much worse than Windows's Cleartype, it's not even a contest. Linux was always able to be as good as Windows on lowres displays, just was held back by patents, so the Freetype defaults used to suck, and you had to configure it yourself for the full effect. Idk if it's any better nowadays, 4K display are so cheap and ubiquitous that I really don't get why anyone would buy anything else, except I guess gamers. But with all those AI scaling technologies (FSR 2.0 etc.) hopefully 1440p is on the way out.

account42 4y ago
> And 4K @100% is unusable anyway. That depends on the physical display size and viewing distance.
- deno 4y ago
  No, not really. 4K@100% is 4x working space as 1080p. There's no way to put that much information in your field of view all at once. If you scale it up (or get really close) where anything is legible it goes out of your field of view and you can only look at (roughly) 1/3 sized region of the screen at a time. That's not usable as a single display. You're basically emulating multi-monitor 1080p at this point. If you need more working space there's always 5K. That's 1440p@2x. You can even DIY one for pretty cheap. I know there's at least one 3:2 4K display on the market as well, though I wish there was a 24" version.
  - account42 4y ago
    > That's not usable as a single display. You're basically emulating multi-monitor 1080p at this point. That's a distinction that doesn't have to exist. If you don't insist on maximizing all windows, a single large monitor gives you more flexibility that multiple monitors with the same total screen area. E.g. for many applications 1080p is too wide to be effectively be used by a single window but too narrow to have two windows side by side. Dividing a 4K or screen by 3 is much better and also allows you to freely choose the window sizes. Some basic tiling support in your WM (either automatic or via shortcuts) is recommended ofc. I use a 38" 3840x1600 monitor (= about 110 DPI) at 100% scaling and it works just fine for me at normal sitting distance. That's the same horizontal resolution as 4K and I don't think the missing 560 pixel rows would make much difference to how I would use it.
    - deno 4y ago
      I use a 23.7" 4K (2160p) @ 200% and I think it's barely enough pixel density (180ppi), so I can't relate to this at all. Apple's "retina 4K" LG Ultrafine 4K Display is actually 4096x2304 at this size, which is much higher density at 218.58 PPI.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

by deno 4y ago

account42 4y ago

> And 4K @100% is unusable anyway. That depends on the physical display size and viewing distance.

deno 4y ago
No, not really. 4K@100% is 4x working space as 1080p. There's no way to put that much information in your field of view all at once. If you scale it up (or get really close) where anything is legible it goes out of your field of view and you can only look at (roughly) 1/3 sized region of the screen at a time. That's not usable as a single display. You're basically emulating multi-monitor 1080p at this point. If you need more working space there's always 5K. That's 1440p@2x. You can even DIY one for pretty cheap. I know there's at least one 3:2 4K display on the market as well, though I wish there was a 24" version.
- account42 4y ago
  > That's not usable as a single display. You're basically emulating multi-monitor 1080p at this point. That's a distinction that doesn't have to exist. If you don't insist on maximizing all windows, a single large monitor gives you more flexibility that multiple monitors with the same total screen area. E.g. for many applications 1080p is too wide to be effectively be used by a single window but too narrow to have two windows side by side. Dividing a 4K or screen by 3 is much better and also allows you to freely choose the window sizes. Some basic tiling support in your WM (either automatic or via shortcuts) is recommended ofc. I use a 38" 3840x1600 monitor (= about 110 DPI) at 100% scaling and it works just fine for me at normal sitting distance. That's the same horizontal resolution as 4K and I don't think the missing 560 pixel rows would make much difference to how I would use it.
  - deno 4y ago
    I use a 23.7" 4K (2160p) @ 200% and I think it's barely enough pixel density (180ppi), so I can't relate to this at all. Apple's "retina 4K" LG Ultrafine 4K Display is actually 4096x2304 at this size, which is much higher density at 218.58 PPI.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]