Slashdot Mirror


Window Managers for High Resolution Displays?

cfish asks: "Recently, I was told by a manager at a major monitor maker that CRTs are phasing out. I have a very weak eye and I read text at 1024x768 on a 21" monitor, sitting 2 feet away. Each alphabet is about 1/4" tall. What makes me panic is the fact that LCDs have fixed resolution and they are simply too small for me to read icons and widget text, like Microsoft's. This is a great chance for Linux to get a head start in a certain market: older folks and those who have eye strain problems. Generally speaking, not many people can read Microsoft's widget text on a 150dpi display, which may explain why no one buys them even that they are available. Imagine how frustrating it could be for medical display (x-rays), cad, image editing to have a high resolution realistic image but cannot read the menu and text. If someone can come up with a Window manager to beat MS on 200dpi displays, no doubt this will capture a strong following in image related applications. I have read about these debates 5 years ago. What has been done about it?"

23 of 382 comments (clear)

  1. Workaround for you... by eaglebtc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ya know, LCDs don't *have* to be run at their native resolution all the time. You are free to set an LCD to run at 640x480, 800x600, or whatever you like. The nice thing about a 200dpi LCD display is that you can run it lower than the native resolution and still get a great looking picture. Another thing...Windows can be set to a higher "dpi" than its traditional 96. This will increase the font size for EVERYTHING. Just go to Display Properties > Settings > Advanced, and select the "DPI" from the General tab that you wish to use. Beware, as some applications may not look right because they weren't designed to use that resolution. FP!

    --
    Homestarrunner.net -- It's Dot Com!
    1. Re:Workaround for you... by edwdig · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, LCDs don't have to run at their native resolution. But they really look like crap at lower resolutions. Particuarlly for displaying text. Which would make things worse for the guy asking the question.

      Run the monitor at its native resolution, tell Windows to use Extra Large fonts, and make sure to set the anti-aliasing to ClearType. ClearType actually makes a very big difference on how legible the text is. I think that's the best bet on getting a legible display on Windows with an LCD.

    2. Re:Workaround for you... by Tet · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You are free to set an LCD to run at 640x480, 800x600, or whatever you like.

      Sure, you're free to run it at whatever resolution you like. Of course, unlike a CRT, it'll look like shit most of the time, but hey, flat panels are sexy, right, so who cares? To be fair, if your full reolution is an integer multiple of your scaled resultion, then it'll be a bit blocky, but otherwise OK. Personally, I'll be sticking with my CRT for some time yet.

      For cfish, my advice is relax. Yes, in time, CRTs will be phased out of the mass market. But they'll still be around for the forseeable future, they'll just be a niche device, so you won't be able to get them from high street shops. Even then, that's still a fair way off...

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    3. Re:Workaround for you... by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, LCDs don't have to run at their native resolution. But they really look like crap at lower resolutions. Particuarlly for displaying text.

      If the target image pixel size does not map to the screen pixel size in a clean fraction (1/2, 1/3, 1/4, etc), then some pixels "consume" more of the image than others, making for lumpy-looking text. Averaging could be used, but that would make the edges of the text fuzzier.

      CRT's are still the king of multi-resolutions.

      Using "Large Fonts" settings is probably a better option to try than non-native LCD resolution.

    4. Re:Workaround for you... by Skater · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My experience is that the early ones are as you describe, but the more recent models (in the last year or so) are much better about this. In fact, the current LCD I have and the previous one were both specified to run at 1280x1024, but I've always run them at 1024x768, and they look great.

      --RJ

    5. Re:Workaround for you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the submitter was talking about 200 dpi displays. These (as yet largely mythical) displays would be able to scale down nicely. A 3840x2400 display, for example, can scale down to 1920x1200 at 4:1, or 1280x800 at 9:1, or even 960x600 at 16:1.

      A 1280x1024 display, though, can only scale down evenly to 640x512... which isn't especially helpful unless you're legally blind. This fellow isn't.

    6. Re:Workaround for you... by WhaDaYaKnow · · Score: 4, Funny

      But but, you don't understand. You can't just go ahead and come up with solutions that have worked on M$ products for years now.

      This was supposed to be the killer app for Linux to obtain world domination! It was to open up that huge untapped market of 'older folks and those who have eye strain problems', because everyone knows that Linux is _the_ product for older folks. The only thing keeping it back was the font size.

      ---

      I can't believe this story was posted. The story should have read: I don't know how to configure my system, what do I do?

      (And to all the replies bitching about an LCD being ugly at lower resolutions, read the gawdamn comment. There is a perfectly viable alternative at native resolution. btw. I have a friend who is practically blind, and he actually chooses to run his 1600x1200 LCD at 800x600 mode. He's happy as a clam)

    7. Re:Workaround for you... by josh+crawley · · Score: 5, Informative

      In Windows, the OS is precisely compliant to what the application developer wanted the program to do. For instance, if I write a web page with an "img src" tag with the height and width set in pixels, then the image will be that size, regardless of the resolution of the monitor. If I set the height and width in a proportional unit like points, or to be a percentage of the window size, then it will scale along with everything else. Programming using Windows Forms works the same way, although I know some of the old widgets refused scaling (I seem to recall some difference in the Picture vs Bitmap control in VB 5 or 6).

      In other words, it's up to the app developer to base their UI on the dynamic System Properties rather than on fixed values. If, for instance, Windows YP was developed to "override" fixed pixel sizes and try to make them proportional, it would probably screw up more than it would fix.

    8. Re:Workaround for you... by haoto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One problem is that 1024x768 and 1280x1024 are in different proportions, so the images you get will be a little stretched out. To maintain original proportions you will need to find a larger screen with 1400x1050 or 1600x1200 resolution, but they seem to be still unreasonably expensive and rare.

  2. Change the font size! by danrees · · Score: 4, Informative

    I might be missing the point completely here, but surely for accessibility purposes (i.e. if you have crap vision), the resolution doesn't matter. All you have to do is change the default font size in your window manager... it's hardly revolutionary :S

    1. Re:Change the font size! by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The trouble is there are still a lot of apps that specify things in pixel sizes rather than in real units (centimetres) or some other scalable unit (fraction of the total display size). So even if you increase the font size - and that would require a system with fonts that aren't ugly, so you're not forced to use a few predefined bitmaps - you may find everything else is too small.

      It'll be great when everything uses SVG icons which are rendered at the size you choose and at the right resolution for the display, but that day is a way off yet.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  3. Buy a magnifier. by janda · · Score: 4, Informative

    They make full-screen monitor magnifiers for people with vision problems. Take a look here for starters.

    --
    Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
    1. Re:Buy a magnifier. by AaronStJ · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They make full-screen monitor magnifiers for people with vision problems.

      This isn't the point. I've used those magnifiers before (although my vision is good), and they make the whole screen look distorted. But that's not the point, either. The point is we have more and more screen real estate, and a lot of times in the desktop realm, it basically goes to waste. It used to be we needed thos extra pixels to fit more information on the screen. But I think we've hit the point that we doesn't need much more information to fit on the screen. And now instead of things getting smoother and smoother (like in a full-screen 3d game) things just get smaller and smaller. Sure, you can fit more 'stuff' it on the screen, but I'd bet at least 50% of computer users (even those without vision problems) dislike the teeny-tiny text and widgets that comes with an uber-large resolution, and would instead prefer a smoother dsiplay. I know I would

      There are several problems I've noticed that will have to adressed to deal with huge resolutions. I don't think fixing these problem would make or break Linux, but it would make a nive bullet point. There a problems like the teeny-tiny text I've mentioned, and tiny icons, but that can be easily fixed. The biggest problems are on the brower front. If you have your resolution jacked up terribly high, rather than getting a smoother-looking website, you usually get a tiny little strip on the left side of your browser. This is largely due to the fact that most website layouts are largely depended on fixed-size raster images (despite the intent of HTML). But even the most popular vector formant, Flash, just stays in a tiny little fixed-size box on the web page, despite your resolution. And what sense does that make? If you visit homestarrunner.com with a huge resolution, you end up with a talking postage stamp, even though it is a vector-based postage stamp, and therefore inherently infinitely scalable without loss of clarity! What is needed is less of a reliance of pixel graphics, and more of a reliace on vector formats, coupled with a browser that can scale the whole page at once, not just the text.

      On the operating system front, we need scalable widgets, scalable icons, and easily changed font default font sizes. I know you can change the dpi of your monitor in Windows, but how many average users want to wander into a section marked 'Advanced Settings'?

      Face it, this is and issue, and it does need to be adressed.
      --
      Stupid like a fox!
  4. Quartz by Microlith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Being based on OpenGL, PDF, and making extensive use of TrueType fonts, I was under the impression that Quartz and MacOS X were aptly suited for this sort of use.

    IIRC, essentially the entire UI is vector graphics (being done by OpenGL and all), so Apple might have this covered.

    Indeed, a 200ppi display would be nice, but not at 21" or smaller sizes.

  5. What you want is an SVG UI by Bistronaut · · Score: 4, Informative

    ..and people are working on it. Seek KDE and I found this project on Sourceforge. I assume that you already turn on "large fonts" in Windows. Windows can theoretcally support font sizes that are larger, but the problem is that most applications aren't designed with varying font sizes in mind. Some applications already look messed up with the dpi setting that "large fonts" uses. It's a matter of poor UI design. People use fixed-size images in their programs and expect them to line up.

  6. x-ray by Davak · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here at the hospital we use a high-resolution radiograph system. The text IN the system itself is fine; however, the OS text from win2k is extremely small.

    Luckily, all of these systems only have the imaging system and the OS installed... so the only program that ever runs is the radiograph system.

    Isn't this just a setting, however? I figured the admins were just idiots and didn't bump up the text size.

    Davak

  7. Scaling by compwizrd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Assuming you don't want to screw around with font sizes.

    Get a 21" LCD that has a native resolution of 1600x1200.

    Run it at 800x600. This makes it map each pixel to 4 pixels(2 vertical, 2 horizontal), which will scale perfectly no matter what.

    Congrats, you now have a 21" 800x600 monitor.

  8. Maybe... by Zagar · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is the perfect opportunity to invent some sort of magnifying device...Yes..it should be portable and light. I'll call it glasses.

    --
    YAFIRL (Yet another Free iPods referral link)
  9. windows Accessibility by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Informative

    One of the things that ships with Windows is the magnifier accessibility applet - for people with poor vision. it turns the top of the screen into a magnified area of the screen under the mouse, so you can have the screen estate nicely laid out, and be still able to read any part of it you want to. (BTW I'm using XP, but I think its available on the other OS versions)

    You can change its settings, make it follow text editing cursor, and keyboard focus, (its quite cool actually, I may bump my resolution down to 1600x1200 on my 17" monitor and use it :-)

    Not only that, when you first start it up, you get a dialog box offering to take you to see more poor-vision tools on the web.

    10/10 for Microsoft on the accesibility features? na, this is /. after all.

  10. Windows by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Informative
    This is a great chance for Linux to get a head start in a certain market: older folks and those who have eye strain problems. Generally speaking, not many people can read Microsoft's widget text on a 150dpi display, which may explain why no one buys them even that they are available. Imagine how frustrating it could be for medical display (x-rays), cad, image editing to have a high resolution realistic image but cannot read the menu and text. If someone can come up with a Window manager to beat MS on 200dpi displays, no doubt this will capture a strong following in image related applications.

    Using XP, but it's almost the same on 2000 and NT:
    1. Right-click on the desktop
    2. Select "Properties" from the menu that will appear
    3. Select the "Appearance" tab from the window that will appear
    4. Select "Large" or "Extra large" from the "Font Size" menu on that pane.
    5. Click "OK"

    And you're done. This functionality has been in Windows for, I don't know, a decade or more. Generally, commercial OSs, whether Windows or Solaris or MacOS, leave free ones standing when it comes to accessibility. The reason is that they want to sell to corporates, and corporates have to comply with legislation like ADA. Free software authors generally don't have that incentive.
  11. Re:I know how you feel by toddestan · · Score: 4, Informative

    You should check out Opera's browser. It has a magnifying feature that can magnify any webpage from 20% to 1000%. Anytime I can't see what's going on, I just bump it up and I can see again. It works pretty smooth too, on graphics, text, even flash.

  12. "LCDs have fixed resolution:" (semi-)myth. by Slartibartfast · · Score: 5, Informative

    What they have is a fixed number of pixels. The entirely unsatisfactory solution to this dilemma is to merely drive it at an inferior resolution. It'll look like garbage, but it'll be bigger. A much better solution, however, is to drive it at an even divisor of the number of pixels, which will give you clean output. For example, a 1600x1200 LCD could be driven at 800x600; the letters will be nice and crisp, and will be four times larger.

  13. Apple, Windows, Linux by theolein · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I recently had to give my Dell Inspiron 8200 back to my ex employer, and was quite happy about it for the reason that the display had such a high native resolution. 1600x1200@15". While one can adjust the DPI setting in the display properties box, and the result is ok for most windows software, there are many programmes that have either hard coded widget text (Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop palettes are non standard Win32 controls and therefore remain absolutely tiny, making it very difficult to use the programmes on that display) or have poor absolute size widget layouts or fixed window sizes esuring that the widgets are cut off or not visible (Corel Capture preferences dialog box is one).

    For a windows laptop I will in future look for laptops with a much lower native resolution if possible (1400x1000@15" or even lower if the manufacturer has it)

    I find X11 based systems to be difficult to configure (but not impossible) but the graphic quality on LCD's always seems to be a bit behind the current generation of Windows or Macintosh OS's. The fonts often seem either rough edged or blurred or both.

    The most reasonable quality native resolution LCD displays that I've used are the Apple ones, as Apple seems to have kept the native resolutions lower compared to PC's. The 15" display on my G4 Laptop has a native resolution of 1152x768@15" and is much easier to work with and gives me far less eye strain. I don't know whether Apple does this to cut costs (cheaper than higher resolution displays) or if this is simply good design, but it does offer me more comfort in working on my machine with a (for me) better resolution.