3 ms·

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 onl

by 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

by andix 4y ago

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