4 ms·

You turn the ui scaling up to 150% in windows 7 or previous and don't experience visual and alignment issues? Or do you mean that you don't find the elements to

by trotsky 14y ago

You turn the ui scaling up to 150% in windows 7 or previous and don't experience visual and alignment issues? Or do you mean that you don't find the elements too small when used at default size? There is no argument that the latter works fine, obviously 1680x isn't even particularly higher density than 1386x. For most people, though, once you get to say 11" 1920x or 15" 2880x you really need the scaling and my experience is that it used to be pretty half baked. Look at this skype screenshot at 125% for example: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5843/asus-zenbook-prime-ux21a-review/4 http://www.anandtech.com/show/5843/asus-zenbook-prime-ux21a-...

bduerst 14y ago
I've used DPI scaling in Windows 7 for years now, since I used Win7 as the OS on my HTPC. My television is the only large enough surface where with the higher resolution i've needed larger text. That screenshot you link to is of Skype, and I would not use Skype as a standard example for anything. Even if MS owns it now, it is a poorly designed program by today's standards. The only UI problems I ever had with scaling was with iTunes, and that was at >150%. I write it off as Apple not optimizing the UI for Windows.
- tomflack 14y ago
  > That screenshot you link to is of Skype, and I would not use Skype as a standard example for anything. Even if MS owns it now, it is a poorly designed program by today's standards. How does this in any way negate it's worth as an example of a problem? It's effectively saying "That problem, it's an invalid problem because I said so."
  - bduerst 14y ago
    Because the cause of the problem is Skype's (and iTunes) poor development, not Windows. I didn't state the problem is invalid, I merely provided anecdotal evidence from my years of experience in using DPI scaling in Windows to demonstrate that it's a non-issue.
    - tomflack 14y ago
      > Because the cause of the problem is Skype's (and iTunes) poor development, not Windows. Which is the key factor here. It's not Windows' fault specifically, but it's a problem that occurs when using (very common software on) Windows. To the end user, what's the difference?
      - fpgeek 14y ago
        If the problem is with third-party software, then end users have a decent chance of finding acceptable alternative software without the problem. The problem is also likely to be limited to some specific applications they use, rather than coming up generally. If the problem is with Windows, finding acceptable alternative software is unlikely, if it is possible at all. Even worse, users are likely to see the problem affecting most of the applications they use rather than just some specific applications. I'd say end users would notice and care about the difference between those two scenarios.
        tomflack 14y ago
        > I'd say end users would notice and care about the difference between those two scenarios. You haven't met very many end users, have you?
        Kadin 14y ago
        If the commonly-available applications for an OS are ugly, that OS is going to be perceived as ugly. And vice versa. If Skype and iTunes -- which together are probably installed (one or the other) on a huge percentage of home systems, and a nontrivial number of corporate ones -- are ugly at higher resolutions, then there's a serious problem. Sure, they shouldn't write shitty software, but it's now Microsoft's problem due to how it impacts the platform as a whole. At least in the case of Skype, one assumes they could fix it (since they now own the product); iTunes is ... probably more complicated.
        fpgeek 14y ago
        I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I'm just saying the problem can be perceived differently even by people who don't understand what's going on under-the-covers. If people generally spend most of their time in IE/Chrome/Firefox,Word,Excel,PowerPoint... and they all look great and Skype and iTunes look bad, I'd expect people to complain about Skype and iTunes. If, on the other hand, people spend a lot of their time in applications that look bad I'd expect them to have a broader complaint (which may or may not be about Windows since, by assumption, we are talking about people who don't understand what's going on under-the-covers).

by trotsky 14y ago

bduerst 14y ago

I've used DPI scaling in Windows 7 for years now, since I used Win7 as the OS on my HTPC. My television is the only large enough surface where with the higher resolution i've needed larger text. That screenshot you link to is of Skype, and I would not use Skype as a standard example for anything. Even if MS owns it now, it is a poorly designed program by today's standards. The only UI problems I ever had with scaling was with iTunes, and that was at >150%. I write it off as Apple not optimizing the UI for Windows.

tomflack 14y ago
> That screenshot you link to is of Skype, and I would not use Skype as a standard example for anything. Even if MS owns it now, it is a poorly designed program by today's standards. How does this in any way negate it's worth as an example of a problem? It's effectively saying "That problem, it's an invalid problem because I said so."
- bduerst 14y ago
  Because the cause of the problem is Skype's (and iTunes) poor development, not Windows. I didn't state the problem is invalid, I merely provided anecdotal evidence from my years of experience in using DPI scaling in Windows to demonstrate that it's a non-issue.
  - tomflack 14y ago
    > Because the cause of the problem is Skype's (and iTunes) poor development, not Windows. Which is the key factor here. It's not Windows' fault specifically, but it's a problem that occurs when using (very common software on) Windows. To the end user, what's the difference?
    - fpgeek 14y ago
      If the problem is with third-party software, then end users have a decent chance of finding acceptable alternative software without the problem. The problem is also likely to be limited to some specific applications they use, rather than coming up generally. If the problem is with Windows, finding acceptable alternative software is unlikely, if it is possible at all. Even worse, users are likely to see the problem affecting most of the applications they use rather than just some specific applications. I'd say end users would notice and care about the difference between those two scenarios.
      - tomflack 14y ago
        > I'd say end users would notice and care about the difference between those two scenarios. You haven't met very many end users, have you?
      - Kadin 14y ago
        If the commonly-available applications for an OS are ugly, that OS is going to be perceived as ugly. And vice versa. If Skype and iTunes -- which together are probably installed (one or the other) on a huge percentage of home systems, and a nontrivial number of corporate ones -- are ugly at higher resolutions, then there's a serious problem. Sure, they shouldn't write shitty software, but it's now Microsoft's problem due to how it impacts the platform as a whole. At least in the case of Skype, one assumes they could fix it (since they now own the product); iTunes is ... probably more complicated.
        fpgeek 14y ago
        I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I'm just saying the problem can be perceived differently even by people who don't understand what's going on under-the-covers. If people generally spend most of their time in IE/Chrome/Firefox,Word,Excel,PowerPoint... and they all look great and Skype and iTunes look bad, I'd expect people to complain about Skype and iTunes. If, on the other hand, people spend a lot of their time in applications that look bad I'd expect them to have a broader complaint (which may or may not be about Windows since, by assumption, we are talking about people who don't understand what's going on under-the-covers).