3 ms·

I think 31.5" is too small for this resolution. I have for example 4K at 32" and pixel density is sort of borderline optimal to me at 100% font scaling. For pro

by FpUser 4y ago

I think 31.5" is too small for this resolution. I have for example 4K at 32" and pixel density is sort of borderline optimal to me at 100% font scaling. For programming I want to have more windows and text on single screen, not smaller pixels for which I have to increase scaling proportionally. This particular Dell display in this case has to have something like 50" which is way too big when sitting in front of it. I can imagine it can be useful for some image / video related professional production or for font perfectionists. Other than that I do not think it is very practical.

andix 4y ago
Are you using windows? Because on windows you can scale in 25% steps and everything still looks crisp. Linux and macOS don’t have this feature (more or less only 100%, 200%, and so on). I really like high DPI monitors for programming, text looks just so much better and is easier to read (less tiring for the eyes).
- FpUser 4y ago
  Yes, Windows. I do not want to scale at all. Scaling reduces the amount of text on screen. Completely contrary to what I want. And for my imperfect eyes 4K at 31" is totally optimal, sharp and easy to read. I would not spend a single penny to make something look "Better" when it is already perfect for me
  - andix 4y ago
    Okay, I use my screen at arms length, and I can’t read the text if it is set to 100%. I’m in my 30s and the eyesight is good, but it seems to be already a bit less than in my early 20s, maybe that’s the issue.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      I had perfect vision until about 50. I am 61 now and have to use reading glasses (luckily weak ones) when reading / programming. With reading glasses everything is crystal sharp
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  This isn't true. OSX has handled fractional scaling better than Windows since it's been a thing, and my XDR is running at 3008 x 1692
  - andix 4y ago
    As far as I know macOS (like Linux) renders always in 100% increments and then scales it down. So if you’re running a 4K in 125% it needs to render everything in 8K and scale it down. Which can require a lot of GPU power. There are way less scaling issues because of that though. Windows only does scaling well since Windows 11, before it was a mess, and before windows 10 it was practically unusable.
    - BoorishBears 4y ago
      I've used the "Using a scaled resolution may affect performance" branded sizes (which are fractional) just fine in the past But the whole point of the approach is to support monitors like this one flawlessly compared to most alternatives. 3008 x 1692 (1/2 6k) is perfect for a 32" 6k screen
purerandomness 4y ago
> I want to have more windows and text on single screen > not smaller pixels for which I have to increase scaling proportionally I'll never understand this argument. You want to place windows and text on a single screen so that it's comfortable to read, not smaller, and not bigger. Then, when you have the perfect reading font size for your viewing distance, there's no imaginable scenario where you would want a lower resolution. If you have a comfortable physical font size, the same font size at a higher resolution will always be better than at a lower resolution. Especially if you don't have perfect vision.
- wmf 4y ago
  the same font size at a higher resolution will always be better than at a lower resolution It could be worse due to fractional scaling. Some people are more sensitive to it than others.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"I'll never understand this argument." You do not have to. I choose what works the best for me personally. And yes I looked at higher resolution monitors. Did not seem to look any better. You do whatever works for you
Matthias247 4y ago
it's actually the perfect resolution for this size - since it finally gets you 2x scaling with "previously native" font sizes. we started with around 100dpi when 1920x1200 screens where trendy. Font and UI sizes on those were pretty good - but the screens lacked real estate (small size) and clarity (low DPI). 27" 1440p and then 4k screens improved on that, but they were never good enough to go for 2x scaling - which will provide both more real estate and more clarity. One had to pick either unnaturally tiny fonts or fractional scaling which messed up some UI sizes. With 5k 27" and 6k 32" screens the compromises should be gone. It's a natural 2x (retina) display, just like Apple had them on notebooks for lots of years.

by FpUser 4y ago

andix 4y ago

Are you using windows? Because on windows you can scale in 25% steps and everything still looks crisp. Linux and macOS don’t have this feature (more or less only 100%, 200%, and so on). I really like high DPI monitors for programming, text looks just so much better and is easier to read (less tiring for the eyes).

FpUser 4y ago
Yes, Windows. I do not want to scale at all. Scaling reduces the amount of text on screen. Completely contrary to what I want. And for my imperfect eyes 4K at 31" is totally optimal, sharp and easy to read. I would not spend a single penny to make something look "Better" when it is already perfect for me
- andix 4y ago
  Okay, I use my screen at arms length, and I can’t read the text if it is set to 100%. I’m in my 30s and the eyesight is good, but it seems to be already a bit less than in my early 20s, maybe that’s the issue.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    I had perfect vision until about 50. I am 61 now and have to use reading glasses (luckily weak ones) when reading / programming. With reading glasses everything is crystal sharp
BoorishBears 4y ago
This isn't true. OSX has handled fractional scaling better than Windows since it's been a thing, and my XDR is running at 3008 x 1692
- andix 4y ago
  As far as I know macOS (like Linux) renders always in 100% increments and then scales it down. So if you’re running a 4K in 125% it needs to render everything in 8K and scale it down. Which can require a lot of GPU power. There are way less scaling issues because of that though. Windows only does scaling well since Windows 11, before it was a mess, and before windows 10 it was practically unusable.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    I've used the "Using a scaled resolution may affect performance" branded sizes (which are fractional) just fine in the past But the whole point of the approach is to support monitors like this one flawlessly compared to most alternatives. 3008 x 1692 (1/2 6k) is perfect for a 32" 6k screen

purerandomness 4y ago

> I want to have more windows and text on single screen > not smaller pixels for which I have to increase scaling proportionally I'll never understand this argument. You want to place windows and text on a single screen so that it's comfortable to read, not smaller, and not bigger. Then, when you have the perfect reading font size for your viewing distance, there's no imaginable scenario where you would want a lower resolution. If you have a comfortable physical font size, the same font size at a higher resolution will always be better than at a lower resolution. Especially if you don't have perfect vision.

wmf 4y ago
the same font size at a higher resolution will always be better than at a lower resolution It could be worse due to fractional scaling. Some people are more sensitive to it than others.
FpUser 4y ago
>"I'll never understand this argument." You do not have to. I choose what works the best for me personally. And yes I looked at higher resolution monitors. Did not seem to look any better. You do whatever works for you

Matthias247 4y ago

it's actually the perfect resolution for this size - since it finally gets you 2x scaling with "previously native" font sizes. we started with around 100dpi when 1920x1200 screens where trendy. Font and UI sizes on those were pretty good - but the screens lacked real estate (small size) and clarity (low DPI). 27" 1440p and then 4k screens improved on that, but they were never good enough to go for 2x scaling - which will provide both more real estate and more clarity. One had to pick either unnaturally tiny fonts or fractional scaling which messed up some UI sizes. With 5k 27" and 6k 32" screens the compromises should be gone. It's a natural 2x (retina) display, just like Apple had them on notebooks for lots of years.