3 ms·

Refresh rate - sure. But scaling?... > Most people probably don't even know scaling options exist, so using different ones on different monitors is going to be

by reisse 3y ago

Refresh rate - sure. But scaling?... > Most people probably don't even know scaling options exist, so using different ones on different monitors is going to be niche, yeah. If you don't know the thing exists, that doesn't mean you don't use it. Modern OSes adjust scaling automatically for the screen DPI. Otherwise using configs like Retina MacBook + 1440p displays, or 4k laptop + 4k external display would be very painful.

ndriscoll 3y ago
To be honest I've never seen scaling done well. I just plugged my 32" 4k monitor into my 16" windows work laptop (both 4k), and things on the monitor are too big, even after tweaking! I have everything set to 100% scaling because that's a low as you can put it. The defaults had my laptop at 250% (!!!) and external monitor at 150%, which makes the laptop in particular look like some cramped 800x600 monitor out of 1995. In theory I'd like to have my external display be at something like 75% because it's so much larger than the laptop, but I've never seen any OS support this. Does wayland let you do fractional scales like this? Edit: I also just tried plugging my 4k monitor into my Linux laptop (with a 1920x1080 screen), and it at least defaults both to 100%, which is more sane than "modern" windows. Again I'd probably prefer 75% scaling on the 1080 monitor because things are otherwise too big.
- reisse 3y ago
  I don't know what to say here because exact scaling parameters are very subjective, but personally I find 250% scaling for 4k@16" okayish? I use 175% for 1440p@14", and 125% for 4k@27", which is slightly smaller than what Windows suggested you. When I had my previous laptop, it had 100% for 4k@16" in Linux by default, and it was causing me a pain in the eyes. Switched to 200% back then, because fractional scaling in Ubuntu wasn't working well. I'm not sure if it's possible to have scaling less than 100%, I just never thought to make things smaller, not bigger.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    I just checked, and at the recommended 250% scaling at 4k on a 16" monitor in Windows, I can see 0-3 messages on the screen at once in Slack, and just under 34 lines of code and 113 columns in VS Code at default zoom levels. If I do a vertical split in VS Code, I get 51 columns in each pane, which makes it basically useless. Icons and even things like the minimize button are like a full centimeter across. I don't understand the point of a high resolution monitor that you scale up. Just to have extremely crisp lines? To me the whole point of a high resolution is that you can have more information on the screen because it remains legible when small. Why not just use a low resolution monitor, which will be cheaper, use less power, and need a less powerful computer/gpu?
    - jamespo 3y ago
      a 16" 4k with no scaling? You must be about 3 inches from the screen

by reisse 3y ago

ndriscoll 3y ago

To be honest I've never seen scaling done well. I just plugged my 32" 4k monitor into my 16" windows work laptop (both 4k), and things on the monitor are too big, even after tweaking! I have everything set to 100% scaling because that's a low as you can put it. The defaults had my laptop at 250% (!!!) and external monitor at 150%, which makes the laptop in particular look like some cramped 800x600 monitor out of 1995. In theory I'd like to have my external display be at something like 75% because it's so much larger than the laptop, but I've never seen any OS support this. Does wayland let you do fractional scales like this? Edit: I also just tried plugging my 4k monitor into my Linux laptop (with a 1920x1080 screen), and it at least defaults both to 100%, which is more sane than "modern" windows. Again I'd probably prefer 75% scaling on the 1080 monitor because things are otherwise too big.

reisse 3y ago
I don't know what to say here because exact scaling parameters are very subjective, but personally I find 250% scaling for 4k@16" okayish? I use 175% for 1440p@14", and 125% for 4k@27", which is slightly smaller than what Windows suggested you. When I had my previous laptop, it had 100% for 4k@16" in Linux by default, and it was causing me a pain in the eyes. Switched to 200% back then, because fractional scaling in Ubuntu wasn't working well. I'm not sure if it's possible to have scaling less than 100%, I just never thought to make things smaller, not bigger.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  I just checked, and at the recommended 250% scaling at 4k on a 16" monitor in Windows, I can see 0-3 messages on the screen at once in Slack, and just under 34 lines of code and 113 columns in VS Code at default zoom levels. If I do a vertical split in VS Code, I get 51 columns in each pane, which makes it basically useless. Icons and even things like the minimize button are like a full centimeter across. I don't understand the point of a high resolution monitor that you scale up. Just to have extremely crisp lines? To me the whole point of a high resolution is that you can have more information on the screen because it remains legible when small. Why not just use a low resolution monitor, which will be cheaper, use less power, and need a less powerful computer/gpu?
  - jamespo 3y ago
    a 16" 4k with no scaling? You must be about 3 inches from the screen