4 ms·
1440p monitor would probably be why the text is blurry - there simply isn't enough pixels to make things smooth without resorting to special hacks to improve Lo
by askonomm 1y ago
1440p monitor would probably be why the text is blurry - there simply isn't enough pixels to make things smooth without resorting to special hacks to improve LowDPI text rendering, which with more and more displays being HiDPI many don't bother doing.
- krastanov 1y agoI am amazed people consider 1440p low resolution. My knee-jerk reaction was to assume you were sarcastic. I use a monitor of roughly that many lines of pixels and have never had observed blurry text in the tools I use (and I use fairly small fonts).
- trevorhinesley 1y agoAre you using enlarged text or native 1440p? If the latter, have you used 4k or retina displays in the past? It’s hard to go back after that.
- MonstraG 1y agoNative 1440p, never used retina nor 4k. (not parent commenter, but hold same opinion)
- silon42 1y agoSame here... 1440p 32" is optimal for me, the only improvement I'd consider right now is 1600p equivalent.
- AndroidKitKat 1y agoBiggest draw for me with 1440p 32" is being the same DPI as a 1080p 24". I like to have one big monitor and then 2 small flank vertical monitors and having them all be the same DPI just makes headaches go away on every operating system I use them with.
- johnisgood 1y agoDamn. I am so happy with my old 17" monitor and 1280x1024 resolution here. :D
- thfuran 1y agoLook, you can insist that a 1440p monitor can only show blurry text all you like, but the problem that people are talking about is that the text is even blurrier than that.
- trevorhinesley 1y agoI didn't insist that. Understood, but specifically, I was talking to the comment I replied to, which was about 1440p monitors in particular.
- thfuran 1y agoAh, yeah. You aren't the person they replied to.
- krastanov 1y agoI have native 1440p 120Hz on my main screen which is more than 30inches across (ultrawide). I can see pixels if I look close enough, but I do not see any pixels at usual reading distance. I have used retina displays of various sizes -- but after a while I just set them down to half their resolution usually (i.e. I do not use the 200% scaling from the OS, rather set them to be 1440p (or lower on 13inch laptops)). I have not seen an advantage to retina displays.
- EnPissant 1y agoText on 1440p looks great with full hinting and subpixel rendering. Unfortunately, macOS does neither, so the jump to retina feels more significant than it is.
- maleldil 1y agoHow big is your screen? At 27", I can clearly see pixels on 1440p. A 4k display with 150% scaling (effectively 1440p) looks much better. Maybe you haven't used a higher resolution? If so, you might not know what you're missing.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- skydhash 1y agoNot GP. But I have a 24" 4k (close to retina), the MBA screen and while they're nicer than the 27" 1440p I have, the latter is essentially worthless on macOS. With Linux, it's more than fine. Not super sharp, but quite readable. On macOS, the blurred text is headache inducing.
- krastanov 1y ago(cross-posting on both subthreads): I have native 1440p 120Hz on my main screen which is more than 30inches across (ultrawide). I can see pixels if I look close enough, but I do not see any pixels at usual reading distance. I have used retina displays of various sizes -- but after a while I just set them down to half their resolution usually (i.e. I do not use the 200% scaling from the OS, rather set them to be 1440p (or lower on 13inch laptops)). I have not seen an advantage to retina displays.
- askonomm 1y agoI mean the last time I saw anyone have a 1440p display was back in the early 2010's, so ... nowadays most people that I know buy 4k 27"/32" displays at minimum, with 5k displays gaining popularity as the price for them goes down. Macbooks for example come with a very high resolution display, and so do most high-end PC laptops, too.
- Xiol32 1y agoGreat sample size
- sapiogram 1y agoYes yes, all your friends are rich, good for you.
- askonomm 1y ago4k displays are available at just a few hundred bucks these days, I'd hardly call that being rich.
- sapiogram 1y agoThat was absolutely not true in the "early 2010s", not even 5 years ago unless you wanted to seriously compromise on some other aspect of the display.
- askonomm 1y agoI did not say people used 4k displays in early 2010s en masse, I said that's when I last saw people use 1440p displays. I live in present time, and in present time 4k displays are very cheap. It gets a little more pricey if you want high refresh rate as well, though my 4k 144hz display was just around 400 EUR, which I would consider a lower-mid-tier price range.
- krastanov 1y agoYou are misremembering things. Macbooks in early 2010 had only 800 rows of pixels: https://support.apple.com/en-us/111958 https://support.apple.com/en-us/111958
- hu3 1y ago> many don't bother doing. Apparently all editors bothered doing, except Zed. From the Issue: > Zed looks great on my MacBook screen, but looks bad when I dock to my 1080p monitor. No other editor has that problem for some reason.
- lordofgibbons 1y agoLiterally every other editor and application besides Zed seem to be working just fine.
- spookie 1y ago1440p is high enough for anything depending on screen size. If they're running everything on the GPU then their SDF text rendering needs more work to be resolution independent. I'm assuming they use SDFs, or some variant of that. Really, the screen isn't the issue given that on other editors OP says it is fine. Knuth would be angry reading this :)
- dismalaf 1y agoLol so many people use 1440p, 1660p, even 1080p or 720p and have perfectly crisp text across many programs. If Zed can't figure it out that's on them.
- poly2it 1y agoI've never owned anything beyond 1080p. I've never had issues reading text on them, although the graphical quality could be better.
- nurumaik 1y agoI remember coding on 640x480 monitor long ago and having no issues with text rendering