How Windows 8 scaling fails on high-PPI displays

In our original review of Asus’ Zenbook Prime, we lamented that the notebook’s high-density display—a beautiful 13.3″ IPS specimen with a 1920×1080 resolution—wasn’t terribly well supported in Windows 7. The operating system happily applied the correct PPI setting and enlarged text and widgets alike, but certain apps scaled poorly, and web browsing in particular involved ugly compromises.

At the same time, we expressed tentative optimism about Windows 8, whose improved support for high-density screens Microsoft proudly announced earlier this year. We figured the new OS would better harness the Zenbook Prime’s magnificent panel, especially in the newfangled Metro user interface.

Now, we’re about to see if that optimism was warranted.

We’ve grabbed the RTM release of Windows 8 from the MSDN Evaluation Center and loaded it onto the Zenbook Prime. This is the exact same build of Windows 8 that’s going to show up in stores and on pre-built PCs next month, so our experience should be representative of what you’ll see then. Has Microsoft made substantial improvements to high-PPI display support as we hoped, or did the company drop the ball? Let find out.

The problem with Windows 7

Before we get started, let’s clarify exactly what Windows 7 does wrong with high-density panels. By default, the operating system applies a 125% scaling setting on the Zenbook Prime. That setting enlarges user-interface widgets and text throughout the OS, which makes your typical Windows desktop (just to show one example) appear like so:

Click for full-size.

The interface is roughly the correct size for the 13.3″ panel. More pixels are used to draw each character, each button, and each icon. The result looks and works rather well.

Sadly, problems persist in third-party applications. Older software often doesn’t support the scaling well, and skinned apps like Valve’s Steam client are hit-and-miss. Windows 7 isn’t really to blame, though. These issues are more about software vendors failing to adopt newer APIs—or not making their custom widgets and skins scalable. As high-PPI displays become more and more common, those vendors will hopefully fall in line.

Click for full-size.

Third-party apps weren’t really our main concern when using the Zenbook Prime. We were more worried about web browsing. For pages to be readable on the 13.3″ 1080p display, they must be scaled up—and browser-based scaling is fraught with problems. Allow me to reiterate my explanation from the Zenbook Prime review:

You’ve got three choices. You can stick to the 100% setting, where text is much too tiny for comfortable reading. (See above. The fonts in Windows Explorer are the right size for the display; the ones on TR aren’t.) You can scale text independently of graphics, which often breaks page layouts. The third option is to tell the browser to scale up the page by 25%, and that wreaks havoc with images.
Oh, photos might look okay. You might not even notice the difference in text-heavy websites like Reddit or Craigslist, since fonts scale without putting up a fight. Go to any graphically heavy page, though, and you’ll see blurry pixels and scaling artifacts if you look close. Some browsers scale graphics better than others, but no matter what you do, the web is always going to look either too small or too ugly.

Apple’s Retina MacBook Pro deals with this problem with a little more elegance. The system’s 2880×1800 resolution has four times the pixel count of 1440×900, its reference resolution for UI scaling. In most of the operating system—and in Retina-ready apps—objects are drawn with exactly four times the number of pixels. When Retina-ready graphics aren’t available, like on the web, each source pixel is simply mapped to four pixels on the display. You get jaggies, naturally, but at least scaling is consistent, proportional, and free of weird artifacts.

For reference, here are examples of the artifacts Internet Explorer 9 introduces in the default scaling mode. That mode offers the least awful combination of layout consistency and readability, yet it still has obvious shortcomings:

Note the grey line above the podcast and system guide logos. IE9 also mangles the fading one-pixel lines next to the feature articles header. Artifacts like those are all too common on scaled pages. Of course, all images must be scaled, so even photos end up looking a little fuzzy. Slight fuzziness may be easy enough to get used to, but visual corruption is not.

For what it’s worth, Chrome handles itself a bit better in Windows 7 on the Zenbook Prime. When we pull up TR, Google’s browser only appears to stumble with the navigation bar. The white rounded rectangles that surround selected menu items have jagged edges, and an uneven line appears between the “More…” link and the menu that pops under it.

Windows 8 may not address Chrome’s scaling woes, but it’s hopefully going to take care of Internet Explorer. Or is it? Cue dramatic music.

Windows 8 on the Zenbook Prime

Out of the box, our clean installation of Microsoft’s latest operating system correctly applied a 125% scaling setting on the Zenbook Prime. In the desktop mode, Windows 8 looked… well, pretty much just like Windows 7 at the same setting. The desktop version of Internet Explorer 10, the default bundled browser, responded similarly to its forebear, scaling pages up automatically:

Click for full-size.

It responded too similarly, though. Take a look:

Note the closeups above. IE10 running under Windows 8 exhibits the exact same scaling artifacts as IE9 in Windows 7. Microsoft has apparently overlooked that particular problem.

But perhaps that’s only because Microsoft focused its high-PPI compatibility efforts on the Metro interface. After all, Metro is what tablet users are going to run most of the time, and high-density displays are already widespread among today’s tablets—much more so than on laptops. Surely, then, the Metro version of Internet Explorer 10 will handle itself better.

Click for full-size.

Nope. The latest, most state-of-the-art version of IE, which is undoubtedly going to run on high-PPI tablets, still can’t scale pages properly without ugly visual screw-ups. And the problems are hardly exclusive to TR. We also noticed artifacts on Engadget:

Nature:

Neowin:

Penny Arcade:

…and Shacknews, among other sites:

Perhaps it will be up to web designers, then, to rework their sites in order to minimize artifacting on IE10. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect most major websites to make the requisite changes soon after Windows 8 arrives next month, however.

That’s not even the worst part, though. While studying IE10’s scaling flaws, we came across another, more worrying issue: it turns out that the Metro Start screen, and even default Metro apps, aren’t as comfortable on a high-PPI panel like the Zenbook Prime’s as we had anticipated.

Click for full-size.

Here’s the Start screen, which looks the same at 1920×1080 regardless of the PPI setting chosen in the desktop control panel. On the Zenbook Prime, that means text labels are tiny, and tiles are much smaller than they would appear on a larger desktop monitor with the same resolution.

Click for full-size.

Metro’s apparent lack of PPI awareness is especially obvious in the bundled news app. The screenshot above may not do it justice, but trust me: the text is much too small to read comfortably on a 13″ screen. As far as I could tell, there was no setting in the app to increase the font size, either. I was completely stuck at the default setting.

Well, that is, until I navigated to the “PC Settings” control panel and found the “Make everything on your screen bigger” setting…

“Make everything on your screen bigger”

Click for full-size.

Tucked away under “PC Settings” is an option that imbues Metro with some level of support for high-PPI devices. It does exactly what it says on the tin—make anything and everything Metro-related larger, using more pixels to draw interface elements and text.

Click for full-size.

Click for full-size.

Compare those screenshots to the ones from the previous page. Better, right?

Well, not quite. While everything appeared too small out of the box, everything looks too big in the enlarged mode. Tiles and other interface elements feel like they’re short on space, and text is scaled well above my comfort threshold. That’s especially apparent in Internet Explorer 10, which scales pages to an unreasonable level:

Click for full-size.

Those artifacts we spotted earlier are still there. I’ll spare you another close-up, but you can clearly see the gray line above the TR Podcast and System Guide logos in the screenshot above.

I tried all sorts of maneuvers to find a proper, comfortable scaling level for Metro and Metro apps. One of those contortions involved following Microsoft’s own instructions and forcing a display size in the Windows Registry. It didn’t really help. Forcing the Zenbook Prime’s actual display size (13.3″) changed nothing, and entering a smaller display size (I tried 11.6″) made Metro balloon up in exactly the same way as the “Make everything on your screen bigger” setting (which, incidentally, became grayed out in that configuration).

Conclusions

More testing is needed on more devices before we can reach a definite conclusion. What this little excursion has taught us, though, is that Windows 8’s suitability for systems with high-PPI screens may have been exaggerated. Perhaps some obscure, undocumented option magically fixes all of the aforementioned problems, but if that’s the case, it should be neither obscure nor undocumented—remember, we were running the RTM version of Windows 8 on a production notebook.

I’m left a little disappointed and disillusioned. Based on what little I’ve seen, the impending flotilla of Windows tablets and laptops with high-density screens—which already counts the Zenbook Prime among its vessels—may get second-class treatment in Windows 8. Metro may end up looking either too big or too small, scaled web browsing may be as ugly as ever, and in the end, the old-school desktop mode may offer the best experience.

It’s like Microsoft has taken one step forward and two steps back. And it’s a crying shame.

Our experience is doubly disappointing in light of what Apple has been doing lately. Both the new iPad and the Retina MacBook Pro scale legacy content—including the web—with very few to no artifacts, and they guarantee UI widgets are the right size for the screen. Both of those machines have exactly four times the resolution of their standard-PPI predecessors: 2880×1800 on the MacBook and 2048×1536 on the iPad, up from 1440×900 and 1024×768, respectively, on older offerings. That means legacy content can be resized so that one source pixel equals four pixels on the screen, which minimizes problems.

The Retina MacBook Pro also supports other, intermediate scaling modes, which still work quite well. One of those modes, for example, approximates the interface and font sizes one would see at 1680×1050. No matter the setting, both OS X and Retina-aware applications scale standard-PPI bitmaps while seamlessly displaying text, vector graphics, video, and other high-PPI-capable content at the full resolution.

Now, to be fair, Apple only sells one computer with a high-PPI screen right now, and it has complete control over the hardware and software. Microsoft must support a multitude of machines (and discrete monitors) with varying panel sizes, PPI levels, and intended viewing distances. That must complicate things greatly.

Nevertheless, it seems like the folks in Redmond really should have offered at least a handful of different scaling modes in Metro. An intermediate setting between the default and “make everything on your screen bigger” modes would have looked great on the Zenbook Prime, for instance—yet we could find no such option no matter how hard we looked. The user experience suffered as a result, and Metro lost much of its appeal.

Comments closed
    • aim18
    • 7 years ago
    • aim18
    • 7 years ago
    • dapperdanman
    • 7 years ago

    How can you be blaming windows8 or any application? You are asking an application to scale UP something that was never designed to to be scaled up. Scaling any image larger than it’s original size makes things look fuzzy. If you have a 4 pixel image and scale by 125%, it scales nicely by adding 1 whole pixel. But what about a 9 pixel image? Scaling by 125% means it is now 11.25 pixels. You cannot have a partial pixel so does the application add that pixel or not? If it does, the spacing is now not the same as it used to be (4+9=13 but 5+12=17, 17/13=1.30 or a 130% increase, not the original 125% increase). Not adding the partial pixel causes the same problem (5+11=16, 16/13=1.23 or 123%). Neither are the originally requested 125%. So the application has to decide what to do.
    This is called “interpolation” and it NEVER turns out pretty. This only becomes compounded by the fact that adding pixels to a width or height in HTML is beyond scary that no designer can possibly anticipate. What happens if someone wants it at 145% or 111% scale? You are taking the designing away from the designer and then blaming them for problems. Those artifacts will always remain in any application when scaling images.
    Open up Photoshop and sale an image to 33% or 66%, it will look bad. Shoot a shirt with a tiny texture pattern and open it up at a scale other than 100% and you can see horrible moire patterns that magically disappear at 1:1 pixel ratio. This is because the application is interpolating the pixels when it is at an odd scale. But going above 100% can cause the same problems.
    I understand the need to scale on small screens, I scale up websites constantly on my TV as I sit far enough away that some sites need to be scaled to be read without squinting. However, I will always forgive any messed up graphical oddities as [b<]I[/b<] am the one asking to break from the original design. </rant> Dapperdanman

      • adisor19
      • 7 years ago

      Look at Apple’s solution to this dilemma. Yes it is a bit fuzzy for non Retina apps but it doesn’t have artifacts and other kind of weird glitches that show up on Windows. The worst part is that MS promised proper seamless scaling for Metro apps and failed to deliver.

      Adi

    • Celess
    • 7 years ago

    Bit of a sensationalistic and misleading title. Sad FUD.

      • rrr
      • 7 years ago

      Oh, butthurt over someone being less than enthusiastic about your beloved OS?

      Get a life.

      • adisor19
      • 7 years ago

      Really ? I think it’s warranted. MS promised proper scaling with Metro apps and yet it failed miserably. I will excuse the legacy scaling as I know that’s not easy to do. Even Apple abandoned scaling of Carbon apps. But for Metro apps in Windows 8, there is no excuse.

      Adi

    • moog
    • 7 years ago

    Still working out some bugs and CU1 features.

    • WaltC
    • 7 years ago

    Why is this article entitled “Windows 8 scaling” when it is clearly about browser scaling in both Windows 7 and Windows 8?

    One of the things I like about Firefox, for instance, is the fact that not only can you make the browser text smaller or larger by hitting CTRL + and CTRL – (like you can do in IE.x, too), but in Firefox you can tick an option that allows you to zoom the text in and out without zooming the page graphics (which you cannot do in IE). In Firefox, it’s found under View/Zoom/Zoom Text Only. That’s a great setting, since bitmapped imagery tends to blur and just plain look bad when it’s enlarged. The behavior of the browsers under varying PPI settings is a function of the browsers, not the OS they are running on, btw.

    When you are talking about OS X and Apple PCs, you’re talking about the behavior of Safari when doing these things, as opposed to the behavior of OS X, as well.

    • Chrispy_
    • 7 years ago

    I am not really surprised that interface scaling is still horrific in Windows 8.
    How long will you naive, over-trusting hopefuls take to see Windows 8 for what it truly is:

    [b<]Windows 7 with a [s<]touch-interface patch[/s<] MICROSOFT-OWNED, IN-YOUR-FACE, UNBYPASSABLE ONLINE STORE THAT WILL TRY TO SELL YOU PRODUCTS INSTEAD OF GIVING YOU THE EXPLORER WINDOW YOU WERE EXPECTING.[/b<]

      • Ringofett
      • 7 years ago

      That’s actually what bothered me the most with Win8 once I actually started using it, the store. It was obvious within seconds of booting the first time that it’s primary reason for existing was to force it’s phone-like app store on us.

      People might think, oh, well can still go on the internet and install apps directly from where we like. To those people I’d point out how so many phones come locked down by default to 3rd party apps.

      This is a big opportunity for linux, but they’ll blow it like they had a chance to shine when Vista hit. No opportunity for Apple, since they’ve long been building the walls taller around their garden. Computing taking a step back in general, I think.

        • lilbuddhaman
        • 7 years ago

        Xbox Live was the first hint of how Win8 was going to be….ugh.. ADS everywhere!

    • Lianna
    • 7 years ago

    There should be an obvious solution (or let’s call it manual workaround): set desktop resolution to something bigger, e.g. 3072×1728, check 200% (192dpi) setting and use built-in gpu scaling to scale it back to monitor’s resolution, making it actual 125% – or adjust it depending on your preferred physical font size.

    There should be such an option, but WinXP already made all virtual desktop options illegal in drivers (info taken from Matrox tech docs about 2002) – anyone here remembers having a Matrox graphics card back on Win9X and using double height/width desktop options? XP in some configurations still allowed setting manually desktop resolution bigger than monitor native (and panning with mouse), I remember R4850 drivers allowing 2048×1536 on 1680×1050 monitor… Both of these were just one step (built-in scaler) away from arbitrary correct scaling – assuming monitor native 1920×1080 and 200% setting (giving 2×2 no-artifact enlargement of images, text at native) setting 2560×1440 desktop would result in 150% visual, on 2880×1620 -> 133%, on 3072×1728 -> 125%. With arbitrary resolutions allowed in current drivers (see Eyefinity and bezel compensation) there is no hardware requirement preventing this trick, just software limit.

    It’s important to note that while the above method would give visibly better scaling of images – especially web graphics – and prevent common formatting artifacts, it still would not allow to fully use monitor’s resolution for photos, as for that software support (a’la “retina patch”) is still needed. In the case of web page, fully using monitor resolution would be possible only with separate set of high resolution web graphics in the case of web page – AFAIK this is not used even on retina display.

    As a final note, scaling is generally not a trivial task. Adobe Reader has its own setting of monitor DPI/PPI, has documents rendered according to much higher source resolution and it still has options like “line width”…

      • adisor19
      • 7 years ago

      You’ve pretty much summed up Apple’s current solution.

      Adi

      • Anonymous Hamster
      • 7 years ago

      With some of the more sophisticated display controllers in modern graphics chips, you could even get the best of both worlds. You could use an overlay surface and be able to deal both with apps that don’t scale well (and thus need the 2x surface that’s scaled down to display size) and with apps that can render to the pixel (using a separate surface that’s 1x scaled). With overlay, you just display both surfaces and set the transparency appropriately to choose which surface should appear on top.

      Of course, the main problem with this is what caused all the fuss to begin with– software limitations.

        • adisor19
        • 7 years ago

        Agreed on your last sentence. However, MS promised Metro and Metro apps to be flexible when it comes to resolution. It looks like it’s anything but.

        Adi

        • bhtooefr
        • 7 years ago

        Actually, that’s exactly what Win7 does, but to arbitrary sizes.

        But the apps that can render to the pixel are broken, and the arbitrary scaling looks awful and breaks some things (because now virtual pixels aren’t real pixels.)

        Really, the only way to truly fix this is to scrap all existing software, and start over.

    • Derfer
    • 7 years ago

    If Intel really wants to push quad HD they need to get MS to solve this first.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 7 years ago

    In the conclusion you mention ‘Retina-aware [s<]apps[/s<] programs' So does MS need to push for programs to be 'high PPI aware' too? The poor scaling of the built-in Metro news program is pretty sad though. How well do non-Retina aware programs work on the rMPB for comparison?

      • Tamale
      • 7 years ago

      They’re fuzzy, but they’re not broken.

    • Keat
    • 7 years ago

    This has been a problem since LCD panels started getting resolutions that were just a little too much for the size. There’s nothing that Microsoft, or anyone else, can do to make scaling not produce ugly, blurry images when you are asking it to scale a low res image by 25%. Apple’s got the right idea — bundle a panel that has super high resolution so that the scaler has something to work with.

    This is all the all the fault of the panel makers who refuse to put out panels that are truly high PPI.

      • Axiomatic
      • 7 years ago

      Thank you Keat you are the only one here with the right answer. Microsofts OS PPI scaling worked perfectly before monitor manufacturers started getting CHEAP with LCD glass and started making panels in all these weird aspect ratio/resolutions unsupported by most operating systems. Now that only gives Windows 7 a pass since it was designed in a time before monitors had weird aspect ratio/resolutions.

      I have to agree on the Windows 8 problem though. There has been more than enough time gone by for Microsoft to catch up on this. Hardware vendors have been putting out shit aspect ratio/resolution monitors and laptops for enough time that Win8 should have accounted for this.

    • boing
    • 7 years ago

    Any (subjective) reviews on how the different Linux distros handle this?

      • shaurz
      • 7 years ago

      GTK and Qt were designed to be resizable and scalable, so I imagine they work pretty well but might need some settings tweaking.

      • Tamale
      • 7 years ago

      Running ubuntu and chrome at the moment on a 1920×1080 display, and I can confirm that if you use ‘universal access’ to ‘scale’ your entire UI, it only affects font sizes. If you do the ctrl-+ thing in chrome, all fonts and images get bigger together and layouts are maintained well, but there are some small artifacts much like the IE ones cyril’s pointed out. They aren’t quite as bad, but hidden lines appears and some rounded corner images don’t line up perfectly anymore.

      For what it’s worth, however, it’s still not bad enough for me to worry about it. The text is super-crisp and chrome’s image scaling looks very good.

      Firefox, on the other hand, seems to handle everything just fine. Way to go, mozilla!

        • boing
        • 7 years ago

        How about non-browser software?

          • Tamale
          • 7 years ago

          Every app is different, but if it’s a GTK or Qt-based app it will adhere to the font sizes you set under ‘accessibility’ like I mentioned earlier – but that won’t change anything but the fonts themselves.. which tends to break things if you change them drastically.

          HOWEVER – you do get compiz when you run an OS like ubuntu – so you can just zoom in on any area of the screen if you want it to be magnified, which I much prefer myself… but one we have super-super high PPI displays this won’t be enough..

            • boing
            • 7 years ago

            Thanks. My problem is that I’m vision impaired and even though I can use a 24″ monitor @ 1920×1080 just fine right now, I probably won’t in a few years and will need to look for solutions that will make text readable for me.

    • esterhasz
    • 7 years ago

    It’s a shame. The galaxy nexus l am writing this on scales websites perfectly and it’s a bloody phone!

      • Wirko
      • 7 years ago

      Your phone has 316 ppbi, points per bloody inch. Anything looks perfect at this pixel density. Well, almost. (Tried techreport.com on my 297 ppi phone).

      At lower pixel density and lower percentages, say between 101% and 199%, you always get nasty artifacts. No OS ever can make those artifacts look pretty – it just can’t be done.

        • hackbod
        • 7 years ago

        Android also does quite well on the Nexus 7, an approx. 213 DPI screen. Not to mention the various other tablets that have shipped at 160dpi and 240dpi.

        You are right that scaling by 101% is not going to be terribly nice. On the other hand, (a) you don’t need to scale to the exact DPI of the screen, and (b) if you want to talk about 199% then that is basically a 192dpi or more so pixels are getting small enough that scaling artifacts are not going to be a major problem.

        At any rate, the main issues this article points out are seriously wonky scaling of bitmaps in IE and simply not following the DPI scaling in Metro apps. There is no reason those problems have to exist, they certainly don’t on Android.

        • esterhasz
        • 7 years ago

        As hackbod pointed out, there is no binding relationship between ppi and artifacts. True, the ugly lines visible in the screenshots would be less visible at higher density, but still be there if the rendering messed up.

        Interestingly, Chrome probably uses near-identical rendering engines on Windows and Android – the latter’s density independent pixels concept is clearly superior to the mess in Win 8.

    • wibeasley
    • 7 years ago

    Having a binary control for visual scaling (ie, “Make everything on your screen bigger”) reminds me of Fred’s fan control cartoon [url<]https://techreport.com/blog/21111/the-more-things-change[/url<]

    • FuturePastNow
    • 7 years ago

    It looks to me like, apart from fixing a few bugs and building an interface no one likes for an online store no one will use, Microsoft didn’t really put any work into Windows 8.

    They’re going to have to try a little harder next time.

      • Rand
      • 7 years ago

      Well they have put in a lot of work to make the desktop side of the OS as unappealing as possible, I’m sure it wasn’t easy to do.

        • BiffStroganoffsky
        • 7 years ago

        I beg to differ. I’ve seen this kind of interface used on POS systems since Win95. You just needed a third party driver for the touchscreen to emulate a mouse click. Granted, it did not have multi-touch but the POS screen looked very similar to the Metro layout.

    • lonleyppl
    • 7 years ago

    The woes that Chrome has with the navigation bar aren’t exclusive to DPI scaled displays. I have a 15-inch 1080p panel in my laptop that I don’t scale at all and I still have them.

    • fredsnotdead
    • 7 years ago

    Firefox has a text-only zoom, that should fix the web browsing probs. I already use that when websites use ridiculously small text. You also can set a default font and size, and force it to be used always.

      • Shouefref
      • 7 years ago

      Firefox is top.

        • ChronoReverse
        • 7 years ago

        Firefox also does regular zooming without the weird cracks in the images Chrome does.

        And of course, there’s an extension that let’s you control the text zoom and regular zoom independently.

      • obarthelemy
      • 7 years ago

      So does Opera. Which also has regular full-page zoom, and above all a one–click option to override a site’s stylesheet with your own (extremely handy to put everything light-on-dark for night reading). Even the mobile version does this.

    • Cyril
    • 7 years ago

    Hey folks. I’ve expanded the conclusion a little. It now addresses Apple’s approach to PPI scaling and includes some tentative suggestions for what we’d like to see Microsoft do.

    • Duck
    • 7 years ago

    [url=https://techreport.com/discussion/23584/asus-zenbook-prime-ux31a?post=669970<]I already tried to tell people that Windows wouldn't be able to hack it[/url<]. "You just cannot pair a 13" 1920x1080 display with MS Windows and expect it to useable. Windows 8 will NOT magically fix the issues as it will give sub optimal quality results at best by using DPI scalling. With no workable OS level support, you are forced to stick with normal resolutions like 1366x768 at least for now." I got down voted too I might add ¬.¬

      • adisor19
      • 7 years ago

      You can rest assured i have not downvoted you.

      Adi

        • 5150
        • 7 years ago

        Somehow I doubt that made him feel better.

          • Duck
          • 7 years ago

          No, but now am getting upvotes 🙂

        • A_Pickle
        • 7 years ago

        Really? You didn’t downvote a post that highlights a negative aspect of Microsoft’s products? [i<]Really?[/i<] I just... no! Adisor, this isn't like you! You always downvote posts like that!

          • adisor19
          • 7 years ago

          Nah, i’m pretty ok when it comes to that. I mean this whole story is just a mine of potential attacks on MS and i didn’t even take advantage of it 😛

          Adi

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 7 years ago

      I only downvoted because everyone else was doing it! I wanted to fit in!

    • mattthemuppet
    • 7 years ago

    given that this is a problem that will take time to fix, the question that I’m more interested in is this:

    would you put up with the scaling flaws shown here in exchange for a higher DPI IPS panel

    or

    would you put up with a lower res TN panel and not have to see these small flaws?

    Clearly, it would be nice not to have to make the choice, but that doesn’t seem to be the case right now.

      • indeego
      • 7 years ago

      Scaling flaws bug me zero to very small amounts. I’d rather have the screen real-estate and custom change the page anyway to my own liking.

      To me this is a non-issue, unless serious functionality is impacted (which it seems to be with default news reader.) That is indeed sshameful. The website flaws would bug me nil, since I element hide 80% of most sites junk anyway.

      • adisor19
      • 7 years ago

      I’d probably hackintosh the machine, but that’s just me.

      Adi

    • jrr
    • 7 years ago

    How does Windows determine the physical size of the display? Is this detection failing? Can it be overridden?

      • Narishma
      • 7 years ago

      It probably just asks the display for it’s size (and other things) through EDID.

    • ChronoReverse
    • 7 years ago

    Terrible, a bloody shame in fact.

    If MS was planning to push this onto Tablets, the Metro interface MUST get resolution independence right. It’s fine if the Desktop mode is still the same as Windows 7 since everyone knows how legacy apps will be a problem but getting it wrong in Metro is garbage.

      • A_Pickle
      • 7 years ago

      Yup… I’ve enjoyed Windows 8 (on a low resolution TN panel), but that’s absolutely inexcusable.

    • pedro
    • 7 years ago

    I’ve scaled this post from second to frist.

      • TaBoVilla
      • 7 years ago

      I second this opniion

      • dpaus
      • 7 years ago

      Doing so introduced an obvious artifact. Nice try, though.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This