150 PPI+ desktops are likely next year

[Whoisthisreally]

As per http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1659022 and http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20111214PD204.html

Apple has made pixel density a product differentiator and as I said previously, will likely lead their trend in mobiles to the rest of their platforms. Analysts seem to think so as well (PDF issue, page 22):

This author has been a champion of high-
resolution displays for many years, and in fact
has been completely wrong about the growth
of high-resolution displays in the PC industry
for the better part of a decade. That the PC
industry seems stuck at the 100-ppi level is a
marvel – when the benefits of increased pro-
ductivity, improved performance, and overall
enhanced communications effectiveness are
so easily demonstrated at higher pixel densi-
ties. But 100 ppi is about to change – finally!
1. The iPhone 4 will inspire “Retina”-like
displays in virtually all applications. Apple’s
iPhone 4 is a beautiful display, which at 326
ppi and cleverly dubbed the “Retina display,”
has convinced the general consumer that pixel
density is a meaningful differentiator. Not
only can we increasingly expect > 300-ppi
pixel densities on mobile phones, we will
soon be seeing >150-ppi pixel densities on the
desktop and >100-ppi pixel densities in the
living room.

 

[Inu]

In the computer gaming industry, im not sure this is a great thing for your average gamer. Unless costs don't increase. Your already going to have issues with your gfx card being taxed, and likely needing to be upgraded.

 

[Ruahrc]

However, high ppi monitors also negate the need to use computationally expensive AA modes, since you wouldn't be able to see the pixels anyway. So your old GFX card might fare better than you think.

Besides, with most enthusiast level GPUs capable of driving multiple displays nowadays on a single card, there seems to be enough spare performance to bump up the res. for the single monitor gamers, who comprise the majority.

 

[dr.stevil]

Nice. This is great news

 

[yowen]

However, high ppi monitors also negate the need to use computationally expensive AA modes, since you wouldn't be able to see the pixels anyway. So your old GFX card might fare better than you think.

Besides, with most enthusiast level GPUs capable of driving multiple displays nowadays on a single card, there seems to be enough spare performance to bump up the res. for the single monitor gamers, who comprise the majority.

Especially with the smoothing techniques in games these days, they seem to have quite an impact on performance.

One would think with proper pixel density these gpu intensive techniques become irrelevant.

But do these techniques also have an impact on how the edge of what's in the foreground is blended with what's behind it? Because if so, we'd still want it.

On another note, I imagine recent games should have no trouble scaling to these new resolutions?

 

[XTF]

However, high ppi monitors also negate the need to use computationally expensive AA modes, since you wouldn't be able to see the pixels anyway. So your old GFX card might fare better than you think.

Higher resolutions are more expensive than AA.
That said, high res displays are nice!

 

[XoR]

games need more refresh rate, better motion handling and better blacks. Higher PPI is not needed at all

 

[Peteman100]

At worst, games can be run in double-pixel mode to reduce computational costs.

 

[stevedave]

I'll be the first to get one. 2650x1600 just doesn't do it for me anymore.

 

[wasserkool]

This is good news and will give AMD and Nvidia reasons to keep up their development for high end GPUs.

 

[gauden44]

Sounds fine and dandy for gaming, but what about other computer usage? I can't imagine having any smaller text than my 1920x1200 24" monitor...

 

[wagoo]

Sounds fine and dandy for gaming, but what about other computer usage? I can't imagine having any smaller text than my 1920x1200 24" monitor...

Increase your font size, then?

 

[daveswantek]

If it comes from LG then the AG issue will be much bigger. It is bad enough with the current 27 inchers

 

[Elledan]

Sounds fine and dandy for gaming, but what about other computer usage? I can't imagine having any smaller text than my 1920x1200 24" monitor...

Any proper OS will use DPI-scaling to ensure that fonts and UI elements look fine no matter the resolution and DPI combination. Windows 7 and OS X have no issues with this.

 

[Snowdog]

Any proper OS will use DPI-scaling to ensure that fonts and UI elements look fine no matter the resolution and DPI combination. Windows 7 and OS X have no issues with this.

I can't speak for OSX, but this doesn't work with most applications in Win7, mainly just MS applications.

 

[Elledan]

I can't speak for OSX, but this doesn't work with most applications in Win7, mainly just MS applications.

Yeah, apps do need to support it of course

 

[wonderfield]

In the computer gaming industry, im not sure this is a great thing for your average gamer. Unless costs don't increase. Your already going to have issues with your gfx card being taxed, and likely needing to be upgraded.

Your average gamer will always have a choice to purchase a low-density display. The high-density displays will be marketed toward hardcore gamers, display aficionados and media professionals. Ordinary gamers may still see some benefit, though, as AMD/NVIDIA push somewhat harder on GPU advancements (and pricing) to accommodate the increased demands of 'high-density gaming'.

games need more refresh rate, better motion handling and better blacks. Higher PPI is not needed at all

There is no "need" for any of these problems to be solved. There is, however, a desire, and the market will dictate which of these desires is most lucrative to exploit with good solutions. High-density displays have a pretty good shot here, I think. I don't believe high-density technology is going to get in the way of display manufacturers coming up with solutions to any one of the issues you've listed above anyway. We're going to be able to have our cake and eat it too, to some extent.

 

[Deleted member 201992]

Sign me up for one with 120hz.

 

[Snowdog]

Yeah, apps do need to support it of course

Having it not work in most applications, is a far cry from your "no issues" claim.

 

[Unknown-One]

Having it not work in most applications, is a far cry from your "no issues" claim.

Windows 7's DPI scaling doesn't have any issues, it works with all applications.

The problems you've probably run into with DPI scaling are because Windows 7 doesn't actually default to Windows 7's new DPI scaling until your display exceeds 120 DPI. For displays of 120 DPI or lower, Windows 7 defaults to Windows XP's DPI scaling, which isn't as good and can cause the layout of windows to break.

Next time you tweak with DPI settings, click "Set Custom Size (DPI)" instead of selecting one of the presets. Change the DPI setting to match the DPI of your monitor, and make sure to UNCHECK the box I've circled in red.

Now, all applications will be the correct size, weather they are DPI aware or not.

 

[Snowdog]

Now, all applications will be the correct size, weather they are DPI aware or not.

And they turn into a blurry mess.

All this does is invoke a dumb blurry zoom on most applications.

So you don't end up with high DPI fonts. You end up with low DPI fonts scaled up larger.

You get the same effect by simply running your monitor in lower resolution. This is not a solution.

 

[Unknown-One]

And they turn into a blurry mess.

All this does is invoke a dumb blurry zoom on most applications.

So you don't end up with high DPI fonts. You end up with low DPI fonts scaled up larger.

You get the same effect by simply running your monitor in lower resolution. This is not a solution.

They don't turn into a blurry mess... unless you turned the DPI up higher than what your monitor actually is.

It runs non high-DPI aware applications at 96 DPI and then scales them up using bicubic interpolation. This keeps the application layout from breaking and gives you an image that should be just as sharp as if the application were running at that physical size on a display that's natively 96 DPI.

Applications that are are high-DPI aware are fully scaled with high-DPI fonts, so this is FAR better than running the ENTIRE display at a lower resolution.

Oh, and there's a reason Microsoft limited it to 120+ DPI, because at that point there are enough pixels to more accurately interpolate the image and reduce any slight "blurring" that might be incurred by the up-scaling operation.

Their DPI scaling works fine, you just need a monitor that's high-DPI enough to really require DPI scaling in the first place (and don't set the DPI higher than the DPI of your monitor)

 

[Snowdog]

They don't turn into a blurry mess... unless you turned the DPI up higher than what your monitor actually is.

That is bullshit.

When you run LCD monitors in lower non native resolutions you get blur. It only has to off by a smallest amount and you get blur. It is simply the act of running non native that kills sharpness for LCDs. For non supporting applications, which is most of them, that is what Windows 7 Does.

Theoretically with high enough DPI you might not notice the blur effect but you still would not gain any benefit from these applications.

This is particularly noticeable with intermediate DPIs like we have today with 109 DPI monitors where the interface is uncomfortably small for some, but blurring (or interface breakages) are evident when you try to scale it.

Anyone claiming scaling issues are solved in Win7 is either ignorant of the issues or lying.

 

[Ruahrc]

I think you misunderstand what high DPI modes do. It's not the same as changing the resolution to a lower non-native resolution, it's telling the OS to scale things up but still display things using the LCD native resolution. So instead of your folder icon being 64x64pixels, it draws it as 96x96 or 128x128.

In this case, there is no blurring of most UI elements whatsoever because things like text are vector based and can be drawn independent of the resolution.

It's the bitmap/pixel stuff that may degrade, and I think Unknown-One's point is that if you set the OS DPI higher than what your monitor should reasonably allow, you get subpar results. Unfortunately some OS UI elements are still bitmap-based and therefore will look poor in these scaled states. OSX has made great strides here at least trying to keep its pixel elements high resolution (icon sizes are 512x512 IIRC) I think the recent versions of Windows have also made great improvements in this area.

 

[elvn]

We've been hearing that an LG Quad Full HD (QFHD) 3840x2160 60hz IPS panel was supposed to come out in the next year or two since it was "advertised" at CES.
.
I use a 108.8ppi 2560x1440 monitor at my desk which looks great to me at the right distance with no scaling. I also often use a 17" 1080p laptop which is 129.58 ppi and have no problems with it at the right distance. The QFHD is supposed to be about 166ppi.
.
This might be a fairly accurate example if I did it right. If you open it in a picture editor and zoom out/resize the window until the black square part of the picture itself is 1". Just trying to give an idea of the size... again perceived ppi is relative to viewing distance though so if you keep a higher ppi monitor closer it will seem less "microscopic". Of course once you exceed your monitor's ppi by zooming out past it, the picture will look crushed but you can still get an idea of the unscaled/native size of the screen elements/task bar at 166ppi (if I did that picture right)..

.

.
Pixel densities

4.3"....................960 x 540.........256.15 ppi.....0.0992 mm <- phone (droid X2)
..
(LG Quad full HD)
26.5"................3840 x 2160.......166.26 ppi ....0.1528 mm <-- 166ppi quoted resolves to 26.5"
27"...................3840 x 2160.......163.18 ppi.....0.1557 mm <-- may not be viewable size if ppi quote is accurate

10.1"................1280 x 800.........146.55 ppi....0.1783 mm <- tablet
17"...................1920 x 1080.......129.58 ppi....0.1960 mm <-- laptop

22.5" (24")........2304 x 1440.......118.13 ppi....0.2150 mm <--- FW900 widescreen CRT max rez 22.5" viewable (80hz) ..
27"...................2560 x 1440.......108.8 ppi....0.2335 mm
30"...................2560 x 1600.......100.6 ppi....0.2524 mm

22"...................1920 x 1080........100.132 ppi..0.2530 mm
20.1"................1680 x 1050..........98.4 ppi ..0.258 mm

23"...................1920 x 1080.........95.78 ppi....0.2652 mm <-- 60hz/120hz
24"...................1920 x 1200.........94.3 ppi....0.2692 mm

24"...................1920 x 1080..........91.8 ppi....0.2767 mm
19"...................1440 x 900...........89.37 ppi....0.2842 mm
27.5"(28")........1920 x 1200..........82.33 ppi....0.3085 mm
27"...................1920 x 1080.........81.59 ppi....0.3113 mm <-- 60hz / 120hz panels

---Too Large for a Desk (imo), greater viewing distances suggested ----
36.4"................4096 x 2160.......127.22 ppi...0.1997 mm <--- Eizo FDH3601 4K2K 16:9 release est $36,000 usd
42"...................3840 x 2160.......104.9 ppi....0.2421 mm <----LG Quad Full HD IPS, 42" tv version
85 "...................7680 x 4320......103.67 ppi...0.245 mm <--- Sharp 85" 8Kx4K VA
30"...................1920 x 1080.........73.43 ppi...0.345 mm
32"...................1920 x 1080.........68.84 ppi...0.368 mm
37"...................1920 x 1080.........59.54 ppi..0.4266 mm
40"...................1920 x 1080.........55.07 ppi...0.4612 mm
42"...................1920 x 1080.........52.45 ppi...0.4843 mm

 

[Snowdog]

I think you misunderstand what high DPI modes do. It's not the same as changing the resolution to a lower non-native resolution, it's telling the OS to scale things up but still display things using the LCD native resolution. So instead of your folder icon being 64x64pixels, it draws it as 96x96 or 128x128.

In this case, there is no blurring of most UI elements whatsoever because things like text are vector based and can be drawn independent of the resolution.

I think it is you that doesn't understand. What you are describing is more theory than Win7 practice. That is what happens in a smaller number of DPI aware applications.

In Win7, the majority are non-DPI aware applications, and they get a dumb blurry zoom applied to every single element. Bitmaps, text, everything! That is the equivalent of running at a lower resolution.

Edit: Example Image

 

[Unknown-One]

When you run LCD monitors in lower non native resolutions you get blur. It only has to off by a smallest amount and you get blur. It is simply the act of running non native that kills sharpness for LCDs. For non supporting applications, which is most of them, that is what Windows 7 Does.

It's not as simple as that...

It's not simply the act of running non-native that causes interpolation artifacts (the "blur" you're talking about), it's the act of running a non-native resolution that is not an even multiple of the original resolution that really causes the problem.

Lets say you had a 17" monitor that ran at 2560x1600 to play with. That's a 177 DPI display. You could run that same display at 1280x800 and experience no blurring whatsoever, because it's an even multiple (this is assuming the scaler in the monitor does its job properly and reverts to nearest neighbor interpolation rather than bicubic).

As the DPI of a monitor gets higher, native resolution matter less and less. With a high enough DPI, you could run a monitor at (almost) any resolution you want and not experience a perceivable loss in sharpness.

Theoretically with high enough DPI you might not notice the blur effect but you still would not gain any benefit from these applications.

Right... because the applications you're complaining about aren't high-DPI aware. Of course it will look the same.

I'm not sure what you expect them to "fix" here. Do you want them to rewrite other people's software so that it scales correctly?

If an application isn't high DPI aware, it's simply isn't high DPI aware. These applications were designed to run at 96 DPI, so the only "safe" thing the OS can do is render the application as it was intended by the developer, at 96 DPI, and then interpolate it up to the correct size for your display.

Rendering applications as the developer intended sounds perfectly correct to me.

This is particularly noticeable with intermediate DPIs like we have today with 109 DPI monitors where the interface is uncomfortably small for some, but blurring (or interface breakages) are evident when you try to scale it.

I've had no issues using 12.1" screens running at 1280x800 (125 DPI). I set Windows to 125 DPI and it uses the new scaling system automatically.

Most of my applications look sharper than usual, which is nice. A few look as sharp as they would have if the display were natively 96 DPI, but there's no evident "blurring" going on, they just look normal (and more importantly, they look how the developer intended).

Anyone claiming scaling issues are solved in Win7 is either ignorant of the issues or lying.

The issues are solved...

Applications that are aware of high DPI run at high DPI. Applications that were designed to run at 96 DPI are run at 96 DPI and scaled up to the appropriate physical dimensions for your display.

Sounds "solved" to me, all applications are run as intended by their developer. This is far better than what XP did; XP didn't support running each application at its own DPI, so it had to try and scale the window metrics and font sizes (often mangling the UI of the application in question).

This new method is safe (doesn't mess with window metrics), works with all applications, and will only look better (reduction in artifacts) as displays become higher and higher DPI.

I think it is you that doesn't understand. What you are describing is more theory than Win7 practice. That is what happens in a smaller number of DPI aware applications.

In Win7, the majority are non-DPI aware applications, and they get a dumb blurry zoom applied to every single element. Bitmaps, text, everything! That is the equivalent of running at a lower resolution.

It's nothing like running at a lower resolution. Everything that is DPI aware gets a visual upgrade, everything that isn't DPI aware looks like it would have if the display were 96 DPI

You can't do that at a lower resolution, even DPI aware applications would be forced to 96 DPI if you did that..

Oh, and for the record, almost every single application I run is high DPI aware. It took me some time to hunt down something other than an old installation wizard that wasn't.

Sure, you can say "most windows applications" aren't high DPI aware, but that's a pretty worthless benchmark since that includes a large amount of software from the last millennium... so unless you expect applications designed to run at 96 DPI on Windows 95 to magically become high DPI aware, I think you might want to pick a new benchmark for success here. I'd hazard a guess and say most users that have a PC with a display that's high-DPI enough to need scaling probably aren't running applications that old.


Edit 1 (in respond to image):
First, I'd suggest writing a complaint to Opera, because that's just shoddy not properly supporting high-DPI in this day and age.
Second, I don't see the problem here. Opera has obviously told the OS that it only supports 96 DPI, so the OS is running it at 96 DPI.

Edit 2:
Give this a try, should work around Opera's shoddy DPI support:
Right click Opera > Properties > Compatibility tab
Check "Disable display scaling on high DPI settings"
Completely close Opera and start it again. See how that looks.

 

[Snowdog]

Snipped paragraphs of lame rationalizing.

Edit to respond to image:
Third, I don't see the problem here. Opera has obviously told the OS that it only supports 96 DPI, so the OS is running it at 96 DPI.

This is the problem of those who try to pretend that there are no Win7 scaling issues.

Turning most apps into a blurry mess isn't a problem for them. They just pretend they can't see it.

 

[Unknown-One]

This is the problem of those who try to pretend that there are no Win7 scaling issues.

Turning most apps into a blurry mess isn't a problem for them. They just pretend they can't see it.

There aren't any scaling issues. The application has told the OS to run it at 96 DPI, so the OS is running it at 96 DPI.

It shouldn't be "blurry" unless you set the OS's DPI larger than the DPI of your monitor, or you used such a small factor of increased DPI that it can't align to the pixel grid (in which case, the OS defaults to XP style scaling, which doesn't use interpolation at all). Again, what's the problem?

And as I mentioned above, you can try using a compatibility option to force Opera's window metrics to be scaled (even when it has requested 96 DPI, and the entire window should be scaled instead). This can be used to "fix" a lot of applications that are not high-DPi aware on their own.

Just in case you missed it:
Right click Opera > Properties > Compatibility tab
Check "Disable display scaling on high DPI settings"
Completely close Opera and start it again.

I know this also works for Google Chrome and Adobe Reader. They look perfect after using this compatibility option to force their window metrics to be increased.

 

[Snowdog]

There aren't any scaling issues. The application has told the OS to run it at 96 DPI, so the OS is running it at 96 DPI.

Yes, there is blurring of everything in most applications. All text, all interface elements, everything. Pretending this isn't an issue doesn't strengthen your case.

It shouldn't be "blurry" unless you set the OS's DPI larger than the DPI of your monitor, or you used such a small factor of increased DPI that it can't align to the pixel grid (in which case, the OS defaults to XP style scaling, which doesn't use interpolation at all). Again, what's the problem?

You are just repeating nonsense again. Windows doesn't care what your actual monitor DPI is, and it is irrelevant to blur. It is really just making percentage size adjustments. Anything that isn't 100% default will blur from bi-cubic interpolation.

So you can run your 109 DPI monitor at 100% (96 DPI) and no blur, run it at about 114% (109 dpi like I did above) and it will blur.

The same if you have 125 DPI monitor etc...

The blur comes in at any setting except default.

 

[Unknown-One]

Yes, there is blurring of everything in most applications. All text, all interface elements, everything. Pretending this isn't an issue doesn't strengthen your case.

As I've told you numerous times now, this is unavoidable unless you expect Microsoft to rewrite everyone else's applications to be DPI aware. The safest option it to render at 96 DPI (as the developer of the application expected and designed for) and then scale up.

Any blur-like artifacts generated by interpolation will be less noticeable the higher the DPI on the display becomes. They use XP style scaling for small increases in DPI to avoid this.

Also, again, most applications? I'm not seeing that in most of my applications, a vast majority are DPI aware... and there's an option (which I've noted TWICE now) that forces an alternate scaling method that doesn't involve image scaling. Have you even tried it?

So, what exactly is your problem with the current DPI scaling system? What would you rather have it do?

The blur comes in at any setting except default.

One more time now, try the compatibility setting I noted above. Forces an increase in window metrics rather than the (more compatible) method of simply rendering at 96 DPI and up-scaling.

 

[Snowdog]

As I've told you numerous times now, this is unavoidable unless you expect Microsoft to rewrite everyone else's applications to be DPI aware. The safest option it to render at 96 DPI (as the developer of the application expected and designed for) and then scale up.

I have never said I expect Microsoft to rewrite applications for others. It doesn't matter where the source of the problem is. Just because the OS now has provisions to write better scaling applications, doesn't mean most are using them(they arent'). And it doesn't mean it is fixed for the user (it isn't).

Also, again, most applications? I'm not seeing that in most of my applications, a vast majority are DPI aware... and there's an option (which I've noted TWICE now) that forces an alternate scaling method that doesn't involve image scaling. Have you even tried it?

Most NON-Microsoft apps that I have tried are NOT DPI aware. When using Win7 style scaling the majority of my third party applications blur. Even the latest versions of Opera and Chrome Blur, my favorite image viewer, Irfanview, blurs, itunes blurs, dozens of small utilities blur etc... These are not old apps, they all up to date, and these are not just small players... It is nearly everything non MS.

Yes you can default back to XP style scaling, which has it's own issues with wierd sizing mismatches. You were the one who suggested Win7 style scaling as some kind of great fix.

We are making progress, the pieces are in place in the OS, but it is very far from a non-issue at this time. DPI aware applications are the minority outside of Microsoft, so you have either blurry apps, or back to XP style mess ups.

 

[Unknown-One]

I have never said I expect Microsoft to rewrite applications for others. It doesn't matter where the source of the problem is. Just because the OS now has provisions to write better scaling applications, doesn't mean most are using them(they arent'). And it doesn't mean it is fixed for the user (it isn't).

Your original complaint was "this [DPI scaling] doesn't work with most applications in Win7" in response to Elledan saying that "any proper OS will use DPI-scaling to ensure that fonts and UI elements look fine no matter the resolution and DPI combination."

So, what isn't "fixed"? They do, in fact, offer a type of scaling that works on ALL applications as of Windows 7, so what's the problem, exactly?

By default, non-DPI aware applications are rendered internally at 96 DPI and then upscaled. This is highly compatible, wont break layouts, and displays the application and all of its window contents at the correct size for a given DPI setting. This is the ONLY option to guarantee 100% compatibility, and it works perfectly. (this method also does a progressively better job as the DPI of the display increases further and further)

You have the option of attempting to scale window metrics instead, which is less compatible but will always result in the use of high DPI fonts and such. This option will never be as compatible as rendering the application at its expected DPI, because you can never account for every possible way a GUI might scale (this method also tends to do a progressively poorer job as the DPI is increased further and further).

What more do you want from the OS? As far as I can tell, its suite of DPI settings is complete...

 

[Snowdog]

By default, non-DPI aware applications are rendered internally at 96 DPI and then upscaled. This is highly compatible, wont break layouts, and displays the application at the correct size for a given DPI setting. This is the ONLY option to guarantee 100% compatibility, and it works perfectly.

Already answered many times. It works, but it looks like shit, as demonstrated in my image above. bi-cubic resize from this option will always look off, even on higher DPI displays.

You have the option of attempting to scale window metrics instead, which is less compatible but will result in the use of high DPI fonts and such.

Then you are back to the WindowXP scaling and it's glitches.

What more do you want from the OS? As far as I can tell, its suite of DPI settings are complete.

I think I was pretty clear that the OS has the provisions in place. It seems more like you are interested in deflecting blame, than addressing the issue. The issue is an ecosystem issue. It doesn't help if the OS makes it capable to write DPI aware applications, if most choose not to.

That is the situation we are in now. Most applications, are not being designed to be DPI aware. As such the Windows ecosystem will be rife with scaling issues for the foreseeable future.

 

[Unknown-One]

Already answered many times. It works, but it looks like shit, as demonstrated in my image above. bi-cubic resize from this option will always look off, even on higher DPI displays.

I've already told you how to fix what you're seeing in that example image.

Right click Opera > Properties > Compatibility tab.
Uncheck "Disable display scaling on high DPI settings" and restart opera.
Opera will be scaled correctly using increased window metrics, no more blur.

And it looks fine to me on a 125 DPI display, the loss in sharpness is already very minimal, and I'm sure it would be pretty much unnoticeable on an even higher DPI display.

You mentioned 109 DPI displays earlier. The new scaling method is only meant to be used on displays that are over 120 DPI; have you ever actually seen it used on a 120+ DPI display?

Then you are back to the WindowXP scaling and it's glitches.

Yes, I just said it was less compatible. If you run into an application that can't be scaled using increased window metrics, then all you have to do is use Windows 7's new scaling method. Problem solved.

I think I was pretty clear that the OS has the provisions in place. It seems more like you are interested in deflecting blame, than addressing the issue.

You said the OS's DPI scaling didn't work on all applications. I was refuting that (the OS's DPI scaling DOES work on all applications and is highly compatible).

Your real complaint (and I share this with you) seems to be with application developers. I'll bitch at them right along side you. They need get their asses in gear and fix their applications.

Edit: Wanted to address this too

As such the Windows ecosystem will be rife with scaling issues for the foreseeable future.

The foreseeable future has Microsoft pushing metro-style applications VERY HARD. Metro applications are inherently DPI aware, and will scale correctly to any resolution. That cleans up the situation somewhat.

 

[Snowdog]

You said the OS's DPI scaling didn't work on all applications. I was refuting that (the OS's DPI scaling DOES work on all applications and is highly compatible).

That is a misunderstanding of that post. What I took exception to, is the "looking fine", "without issues" comment. It doesn't look fine, and there are significant issues. I didn't mean that scaling did nothing, just that it was an ugly mess. If the first post confused you, the followups should make it amply clear that I was talking about the mess on the execution side, not a failure to execute. Scaling has "worked" since WindowsXP, but it is still a mess.

Also I can think of an OS issue. How does it handle Monitors of different DPI? What happens if I get a new 150 DPI monitor to go on my desk next to my 96 DPI monitor?? This is already happening for people with high DPI laptops and standard destkop screens. Scaling is per system, not per monitor and that is an OS issue.

The foreseeable future has Microsoft pushing metro-style applications VERY HARD. Metro applications are inherently DPI aware, and will scale correctly to any resolution. That cleans up the situation somewhat.

Except Metro is really a separate OS grafted on to Windows 8, I don't see it replacing the windows Desktop in the foreseeable future for desktop use. But yes MS won't have this issue in Metro.

 

[Unknown-One]

What I took exception to, is the "looking fine", "without issues" comment. It doesn't look fine, and there are significant issues. I didn't mean that scaling did nothing, just that it was an ugly mess. If the first post confused you, the followups should make it amply clear that I was talking about the mess on the execution side, not a failure to execute. Scaling has "worked" since WindowsXP, but it is still a mess..

And I thought I made it amply clear that there is no other option. You either render at 96 DPI and scale up, or attempt to render at high DPI with scaled metrics.

And it fulfills its function perfectly (drawing applications at the correct size for a given DPI), there are no rendering issues with the new method like there were with the old XP method, and looks as good as it ever will (and higher DPI displays will lessen the slight interpolation artifacts you're seeing on applications that can't use scaled metrics). So what exactly is your complaint with their execution?

So what exactly is your complaint with their execution? Sorry you don't like the method, but those are the only two ways I (and Microsoft, and Apple) can think of handling it. Can you suggest a better method that's equally as compatible as rendering at 96 DPI and scaling up for applications that are non-DPi aware?

 

[Snowdog]

And I thought I made it amply clear that there is no other option. You either render at 96 DPI and scale up, or attempt to render at high DPI with scaled metrics.

So what exactly is your complaint with their execution? Sorry you don't like the method, but those are the only two ways I (and Microsoft, and Apple) can think of handling it. Can you suggest a better method that's equally as compatible as rendering at 96 DPI and scaling up for applications that are non-DPi aware?

You continue to mischaracterize my position.

We both knew from the beginning that there are two options for Non-DPI aware Apps. Either the Blurry Zoom or the XP style with scaling glitches. Yet you keep pretending I am ignoring this. I am not. I knew about this before you brought it up and I have acknowledged both methods several times since.

Also you keep pretending that I am blaming the OS and expect the OS to fix non DPI Apps. Again this is BS. I am not doing that. The issue is clearly on the application side and I have said so several times.

This is an ecosystem problem and it isn't going away, because even modern applications are not being written to be DPI aware. This is the problem. It doesn't matter what is in the OS, if the applications don't use it properly.

Thus the Windows ecosystem remains problematic for scaling.

Try to answer without pretending I didn't already answer the above points several times.

 

[brod]

24" 3840x2400 72Hz please.

 

[peppergomez]

24"?? More like 30"+