4 ms·

> 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

> 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).
        trotsky 14y ago
        I think you're all missing a key part of the equation here. It was the OEM who configured the OS, the OEM who selected the panel, and the OEM who advertised the feature that presumably went into my buying decision. If my (windows+skype) looks bad and my friend's otherwise identical (windows+skype) laptop from another brand looks fine, I'm blaming the vendor. Who, coincidently enough, is the party that takes the economic hit if I return it. OEM's know this deep in their core - and this is one of the significant reasons you haven't seen them pushing devices that require scaling for normal eyesight.
- damncabbage 14y ago
  It's an issue if I need to use Skype. :( The problem is that both the OS and popular apps need to support it, otherwise in most people's eyes it will seem like Windows is "broken".

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).
      - trotsky 14y ago
        I think you're all missing a key part of the equation here. It was the OEM who configured the OS, the OEM who selected the panel, and the OEM who advertised the feature that presumably went into my buying decision. If my (windows+skype) looks bad and my friend's otherwise identical (windows+skype) laptop from another brand looks fine, I'm blaming the vendor. Who, coincidently enough, is the party that takes the economic hit if I return it. OEM's know this deep in their core - and this is one of the significant reasons you haven't seen them pushing devices that require scaling for normal eyesight.
damncabbage 14y ago
It's an issue if I need to use Skype. :( The problem is that both the OS and popular apps need to support it, otherwise in most people's eyes it will seem like Windows is "broken".