|
GKP1992 wrote: It's just that more of the pixels will be used to display any particular thing on a lower resolution.
I always point this out when someone buys a 4K monitor, but then the text is so small they rescale to 200%. At 200%, you end up viewing the same amount of stuff as any 1080p display, only, you're using twice the pixels on each axis to render it. Fonts might look sharper, but that's lost on people who don't have the eyesight for it.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: but that's lost on people who don't have the eyesight for it.
:raises hand:
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Note that even visually handicapped people benefit (sometimes a lot) from text/figures being sharp. It of course depends on the medical reasons for your handicap, but for some, blurring text over 1.5 pixels actually makes text more difficult to read than 33% smaller with 1:1 pixels.
Also, some of the magic done with vector/outline fonts such as TrueType to make the text look pleasant to people with normal vision (typically using grey pixels along some edges, where the 'algorithmic edge' cuts right through a pixel), can, for some visually handicapped people reduce the sharpness that their character recognition depends on. I have worked with people who loved the old pixel fonts (pre TT), because they were so much sharper!
So if you let your screen driver or screen itself scale your fonts (as opposed to doing the scaling at the TT level) to make them readable to those with reduced eysight, at least make sure to do it by integer factors (2x, 3x, ...).
I am not visually handicapped myself (but close relatives are). When I boot up my PC, the BIOS/UEFI displays a line at the bottom of the screen about how to activate the setup. I believe it uses a 7 by 5 bit matrix per character. My screen is 2560 by 1600 pixels, so it is small.. Yet I can read it from a distance of at least a meter. I have tested out various TT fonts at the same physical size: None come close to the readability of the pixel mapped matrix font used at boot up!
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
My question was meant to say something related to this...
I now have x2 24" QHD monitors scaled at 100%.
The new 5K 40" monitor scaled at 125% should have the fonts a little bit bigger than my current setup at 100%...
|
|
|
|
|
I am amazed I have written that... ^^¡
Of course you are right, no pixel size change.
I meant the font size at 125% in the new display should be a little bit bigger than what I do have now at my QHD 24" displays...
Do you think that is right?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Joan M wrote: Do you think that is right?
Well even after scaling the second monitor is like 4K which is just better.
Slightly more than 2 times. Just the new monitor suck a lot more juice.
|
|
|
|
|
A small point. When a zoom / scale operation is done, I've heard that it internally does some kind of interpolation - nearest neighbour, bilinear, bicubic, etc., which ensures that the image does not look blocky (to a certain level of zooming in). So, effectively, it can be construed as a 'change', 'increase' in screen resolution, isn't it? Am not sure how to quantify such an apparent change in resolution.
modified 3 days ago.
|
|
|
|
|
What problem are you trying to solve?
Meanwhile, since I cannot find a way to message you directly, I have a CNC problem I'd like to ask you... email is cgilley@bravesw.com
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I need to figure out the size of the text I will get at a 125% scaling with the new 40" 5120x2150@120Hz with 138.92ppi monitor compared to what I do have now at 100% in a 24" 2560x1440@60hz with 122.38ppi.
I've tried to search for websites that show you a picture with text at different scaling and resolutions but have not been able to find it.
I am afraid I am buying through professional means that does not allow returning the goods unless they show any kind of malfunction.
|
|
|
|
|
oh ok, my question was ambiguous, let me re-phrase.
Why do you need such a large monitor? 
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
To make lots of programs! 
Seriously, now I have 2 x 24" QHD monitors and it works well, excepting text is slightly too small.
I was thinking on getting two new monitors to replace mine, but after seeing the new ultrawides offer IMST (a hardware way to make the PC believe there are two monitors connected) and seeing lots of people were recommending ultrawides I thought of getting one as in the worst case I would have 2 separate monitors as I am used to.
Then I thought of getting one DQHD 49" monitor which is exactly the same than mounting two 27" QHD monitors side by side. And Ended thinking hte best would be the new 40" Dell U4025QW monitor that sports 5120×2160@120Hz in an ultrawide format 21:9 ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
okay, got it. You want more screen real-estate. I simply cannot live without 2 displays.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
The scaling is tricky. I assume you mean windows scaling in the UI.
It doesn't really change the resolution when you do scaling. It mostly makes icons and text bigger.
On a 40" compared to 24" you're only going to be 4" shy of a 100% size increase. Your resolution is about 20% higher, so (sort of) 20% smaller.
So yeah I'd say a bit bigger... 60%-ish.
|
|
|
|
|
Please take a look at this image: https://www.imghippo.com/i/VBMaG1719656408.png[^]
Here you can see the difference in my current monitors from 100% to 125%.
I am trying to figure out the size the text will have in my new monitor...
At the end, I can get a 5120x1440@60Hz 49" monitor with the exact setup as another 5120x2160@120Hz 40" monitor (both ultrawide). The former seems better because I will have bigger fonts than now without scaling and it's cheaper. The latter will have more vertical space, will have to be scaled and will be more expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you'll need to scale the 40" to have bigger text than your 24".
The resolution is increasing, which does make text smaller, but the larger screen size makes up for it.
I used an innebriated napkin to math things and rought-shot about a 60% size increase if you run at the resolutions with the scaling at 125%.
I think it will still be slightly larger text on the 40" than the 24" even if you didn't use scaling and ran them at their native resolutions.
FWIW, you also don't have to use the monitor in its native resolution. You can totally change that 5120x1440 in windows settings to run at much lower (larger) resolutions. That's different than scaling, and maybe arguably better. It just depends on a bunch of factors.
With the gargantuan ones, people are generally going for more screen real estate and lower resolution (or larger text) sometimes is antithetical to that.
|
|
|
|
|
In Windows 11 (and probably 10) there is an Accessiblity setting for text size which has a slider so you can adjust to any % not just 125% etc.
If you have Windows, try it out on your current monitors and see what you think.
IIRC fonts in the Windows UI use the same number of pixels for text regardless of the monitor resolution making the text will smaller on the new monitor, so it might be possible to get a reasonable idea of what you will see by simply sitting a little further back from your current monitors to see something comparable to what the new monitor would show you at the normal distance.
|
|
|
|
|
Note that it matters at which stage the scaling is done. I believe that the Accessibility setting applies before the TrueType drawing of the text is done, so it is equivalent to the application programmer having specified, say, a 25% higher point size, and the TrueType drawing routine will use 25% more pixels (in each direction).
If you fake the screen resolution, telling Windows that the resolution information is has obtained is wrong; it is actually 20% less, then TrueType will draw the characters with 20% fewer pixels, believing that each pixel is larger (since there are fewer of them). The low level driver or the screen itself will expand every 4 pixels to 5, for the image to fill the entire screen. This will enlarge the characters by 25%, but the 4-to-5 'smearing' of pixels will reduce sharpness, as most physical pixels will be a mixture of logical pixels (i.e. those coming from the TT renderer).
I guess the visible unsharpening is far less with today's high resolution screens than in the days when TT was introduced and 1024 by 768 was considered top notch in screen resolution. The effect didn't disappear, even if we take less notice of it.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Just for clarification, does that mean my suggestion would not produce a comparable view?
|
|
|
|
|
I use Mozilla Thunderbird and have an old hotmail account (tied to microsoft outlook).
I received an email today from MS that states:
"Action Needed – You may lose access to some of your third-party mail and calendar apps"
It kind of feels like a phishing email but I think it is real.
Have you received any of these?
Email goes on to say:
Quote: Update your sign-in technology before September 16th, 2024 to maintain email access.
The safety and security of your information is top priority for Microsoft. To help keep your account secure, Microsoft will no longer support the use of third-party email and calendar apps which ask you to sign in with only your Microsoft Account username and password. To keep you safe you will need to use a mail or calendar app which supports Microsoft’s modern authentication methods. If you do not act, your third-party email apps will no longer be able to access your Outlook.com, Hotmail or Live.com email address on September 16th.
What do you need to do?
If you are receiving this email, you are currently using an email or calendar app that uses a less secure authentication method to connect to your Outlook.com email account. You will need to upgrade your third-party mail and calendar app to a version which supports modern authentication methods.
Microsoft provides free versions of Outlook for your PC, Mac, iOS, and Android devices which can be easily downloaded and connect to your email account. Using an updated version of an Outlook application will ensure you are connecting in the most secure way.
I don't know what technology it is actually talking about that will need to be updated.
Anyone know what they're nattering on about?
Thanks
UPDATE
I bolded the part that seems to indicate what MS is talking about. But what are "modern authentication methods".
This is honestly a very uninformative email that is trying to inform people of "something".
modified 4 days ago.
|
|
|
|
|
It's probably legit.
You could log on your account via the official website.
(obviously, don't click on link in the emails.)
A quick google returns something similar for gmail.
"Beginning September 30, 2024: third-party apps that use only a password to access Google Accounts and Google Sync will no longer be supported"
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I was guessing it was legit -- but it did seem quite weird.
What I was really interested in is: "What are they even talking about? What is the technology that will be supported? What change is being made?"
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, that's not quite it.
I think they are saying "3rd party apps won't be able to authenticate if they don't use XYZ technology."
But they never seem to explain what XYZ technology they are talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it means that unless you authenticate yourself using Microsoft's authentication, Microsoft cannot provide authentication to the mail software, in case the application asks for it. And Microsoft authentication is The Only True Authentication, isn't it?`
Ok, so my mail provider asks for another kind of authentication, one that certainly is good enough for it to both deliver my mail and accept my outgoing mail (through Thunderbird). It never made use of any Microsoft authentication, and it won't ask Microsoft to authenticate me. Of course: If the mail provider and Thunderbird really had the habit of doing that, they would have to update to match new current MS authentication. (I guess that's what MS is talking about.) But they don't.
Of course: When I do not log in to my MS account before using email or anything else, MS is loosing the opportunity to track all my work at the computer. If I use a mail system that asks for MS to authenticate me every time, MS would know of all my mail reading and which mail software I am using. Maybe even that of my mail provider - I haven't looked into the MS authentication protocol, so I do not know what kind of context info they demand.
I am quite sure that MS has no authority to interfere with the authentication between me, Thunderbird and my mail provider, on the grounds that 'We have got something even better - and besides, it gives us a mechanism for tracing your mail reading habits'. I will access my email as I have done for years, no matter which alternative authentication MS offers.
If I have to log in using my MS account (that isn't often!), the first thing I do after having completed the task and logged out is to reboot the PC, and then try access an MS service requiring MS login, to ensure that there is no hidden link to my login left behind.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
"The safety and security of your information is top priority for Microsoft. "
here's your sign. Do you know the reference?
My first comment is a slap at MS and mostly a joke. As for is this valid? Likely. Back in the days where email was just email and there were no evil doers out there, like was good. Fast forward to today, and something like 90% of internet traffic is spam. So something like 10+ years ago, ISPs started turning off email if it was encouraging spam. Or allowing it. Or even it they thought is was allowing it.
Getting to your issue: "I use Mozilla Thunderbird and have an old hotmail account." Not sure how hotmail figures in, but it's likely the standard old school pop3 sort of thing... Might be something you can look up on the Mozilla sites. Email is weird these days.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
