3 ms·
OS X's scaling model is retarded. Window's DPI scaling has worked since at least vista, at least well enough for my purposes.
by NickNameNick 13y ago
OS X's scaling model is retarded.
Window's DPI scaling has worked since at least vista, at least well enough for my purposes.
- jfb 13y agoWhat don't you like about OS X's Hi-DPI scaling? It works pretty sensibly for me -- I actually prefer to run my rMBP at ¼ native, because the text is astonishingly sharp.
- mark-r 13y agoThat's the genius of Apple's Retina - they jumped straight from 1x to 2x with nothing in between. Even multiples are much easier to work with and give a better user experience.
- jfb 13y agoEven the way they (we?) handle non integer scale factors is clever -- pixel doubling and then downscaling, rather than upscaling directly.
- taude 13y agoHiDPI scaling is only useful if you're working on a retina 2x screen. On a larger, 27", everything is just small. It's be nice to have big monitors with lots of working space, but have icons, fonts, etc, scale to be a useful size, independent of the actual DPI.
- taude 13y agoOS X sucks at scaling. I still can't change global font sizes, so I have to rely on individual programs (and hope the devs did a decent job implementing font scaling in their app). Sure, I can scale the size of the dock, but that seems to be about it. I remember in Windows, being able to adjust font/icon sizes, so I'm not quite sure I ever understand when people say OS X is awesome for scaling well and Windows sucks. Maybe most are just referring to the doubling of everything for OS X retina displays?