Slashdot Mirror
Are There Affordable Low-DPI Large-Screen LCD Monitors?
jtownatpunk.net writes "As time goes by, I find myself supporting a greater number of users moving through their 40s and into their 50s (and beyond!). I notice more and more of them are lowering the resolution of their displays in order to 'make it bigger.' That was fine in the CRT days, but, quite frankly, LCDs look like crap when they're not displaying their native resolution. My solution at home is to hook my computer up to a big, honkin' 1080p HDTV, but that's a bit of a political risk in an office environment. 'Why does Bill get a freakin' big screen TV?!' Plus, it's a waste to be paying for the extra inputs (component, s-video, composite), remote, tuner, etc. that will never be used. And a 37-47" display is a bit large for a desk. So here's my question: Is there a source for 24-27" monitors running at 1366x768 that are affordable and don't have all of the 'TV' stuff? Or is my only choice to just buy 27" HDTVs and admonish the users not to watch TV? (And, no, just giving them big CRTs is not an option. Most people would rather stare at a fuzzy LCD than 'go back' to a CRT.)"
Euthanasia
Is it THAT hard to get Windows to use a larger font for everything? Wouldn't that address the issue?
Are there any affordable High DPI monitors? Back in the day you used to be able to find 17" 1600x1200 crts, which were wonderful. My laptop is running at 1400x1050 @ 10", which is also very enjoyable. Are there any flat panel desktop displays out there with the same density? I'd love a 19-22" display running at 2560x1600.
Because there is more to look at than fonts... like the 16x16 icons everywhere.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Because there is more to look at than fonts... like the 16x16 icons everywhere.
Isn't there a "large Icons" selection?
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Easy. Get a 30" Desktop LCD like the Dell 3007wfp and run it at exactly 1/2 its native vertical and horizontal resolutions (1280x800). You essentially get the same quality as if it were the native resolution (well, one to one mapping at least) and none of that crazy TV stuff. The best part is that if somebody with, well, "normal" eyes wants to use the monitor in its full 2560x1600 glory, they can simply switch the resolution.
I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small. Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point.
Apple had at one point a plan to give OS X resolution-independent rendering, so that UI objects are always displayed at the specified physical size independently of resolution. That seems to have fallen by the wayside, but this is part of the correct solution--the other part is to alow the user to just say they want everything to be displayed larger at a specified ratio.
Are you adequate?
They could move the mouse by playing the antenna like a theramin.
Woooooo-EEEEEEEEE-oooooooo!
I want a "zoom feature" for the OS. Hold ctrl-mouse wheel and resize EVERYTHING on the damn machine.
MacOS/X has that feature, FWIW.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
And all sorts of business critical applications that use unscalable texts in the UI. Now you can blame the application for not scaling but usually just buying a bigger screen for the user is a lot cheaper than having the application fixed (if it is even fixable at all).
http://virtualize.wordpress.com/
...because if your eyes can't focus on the screen, everything's going to be blurry regardless. As long as the blurred area of an individual pixel on the rescaled display projects into an area smaller than the circle of confusion on your retina, it won't affect your perception of the screen's overall sharpness.
Mac OS X Leopard or Snow Leopard...
Hold down the Apple key and scroll your mouse wheel.. voila.. instant zoom in/zoom out.
(1st sig) If this were a snappy sig, you'd be reading it right now. (2nd sig) I'm a karma whore. >Insert FUD here
There is a preference for large icons, but not all third-party non-free applications respect it.
I have also solved this problem by using an LCD projector. One day when I left my glasses at home, I spent the day reading off the wall instead of my laptop.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Let's say you have a 1680x1050 LCD monitor. Try to set the OS at 840x525. The monitor will use exactly four pixels to display each pixel from the computer, so you'll still get a razor-sharp image.
Some of you will say that 840x525 is too small (resolution size, not physical display size), but it's a bit larger than 800x480 which is what most netbooks are these days. And given the number of netbooks sold, more and more applications should try to support 800x480, which means they should be okay with 840x525.
30 inch LCDs are available, with native resolution of 2560x1600. They're not cheap, of course.
If you need really big pixels for the vision-impaired, just run them at 1280x800 and there will be no artifacts (exactly 1:2 ratio), but still a tolerable resolution.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Finding myself in my mid 40's with a eye problem has affected work to a large extent. 20/20 all my life to end up with distorted vision in my right eye has led to a number of changes. First, went back to the huge Mitsubishi 2070 CRT. I find it clearer that the 19" LCD's. Second, received glare reducing glasses from corporate HR (gunnars.com) which greatly help glare issues with my wonky eye. Without the glasses I cannot work a full day. Third, installed a theme manager to try and darken the windows screen. For the most part this works except for the inability to darken Outlook backgrounds and still be able to read email.. Fourth, looking into a large LCD or similar which can display a high resolution (lots of real estate) with "large fonts"...
Fixer of things broken by people who really ought to know better
To get Windows? No.
(Display, Appearance, Large Fonts. Also Effects, Use Large Icons. This is for XP.)
The millions of shitty Windows applications that assume that everything is running using "normal sized fonts," on the other hand? That's the challenge.
Some of these applications actively ignore the Windows Large Font setting, so even if you set Windows to use Large Fonts, they'll still use the same too-small fonts they've always used. (Not sure how they do that, since I thought Windows just scaled the DPI up.)
Even better are applications that will respect the larger font sizes, but still layout everything as if they were using the smaller font sizes, so only the top of text in labels, buttons, textboxes, et al are visible.
Short answer: Yes, it should. No, it doesn't.
Reading glasses - they are cheap ($5) and available (Walgreens). Why everyone feels the need to solve easy problems with complex solutions, I will never know.
The newer versions of Windows have a "Change the size of text and other items on the screen" that scales fonts and (most) icons up nicely. KDE has a font scaling option too (and I'm sure other window managers will have that as well).
I think using scaling is a much better option than buying a low dpi screen (for example anti-aliasing looks waaaay better)
If you're on a Windows box, you can achieve the same overall effect by increasing the size of your icons and fonts.
Windows has preferences for large fonts and icons, but not all third-party non-free applications respect them.
Beyond the fact that the Windows resolution dialog won't let you choose that whacky resolution, there's also the problem that 540 pixels is not enough. Seriously, a lot of dialog boxes are not going to fit on that screen, probably even including the Windows display dialog box. You're going to need a 1920x1200 display just to get a somewhat more usable 960x600 after you quarter (not half) the resolution. A 2560x1600 would be better though, as you'd at least get 800 vertical pixels out of it, which is enough for small laptops and other inexpensive displays. The problem is that such a display is likely to fall short in the "affordable" category.
I read the internet for the articles.
Go tell that to the CEO who usually also falls in the same user/age group with regards to this particular issue.
http://virtualize.wordpress.com/
Please change your default Windows Font size (it's been possible forever; at least as far back as Windows 2000, and probably back into the 3.x days). Some things look good, most things break in unseemly ways. I try doing that every few years, all the way back to my 21" 1600x1200 monitor, but back away from it each time due to incompatible apps.
/frank
I tried it again this year - hooked up a PC to my 47" LCD HDTV running Media Center. Realized that I couldn't read text from the couch, so I increased the system font size to make email, etc legible. And Microsoft Windows Media Center, published by a company that really should be doing this kind of testing, took it's already 1" tall font, readable by a legally blind dog from 50 feet away, and blew it up even larger, breaking the screen layout in unusable ways.
And, so, I went back to the default system font size, again. I'll try it again in a few more years, but I just don't expect it to ever work the way a user wants it to work.
And the worms ate into his brain.
As usual, it's New Egg to the rescue. You can search monitors according to pixel size. The largest pixel sizes give you a resolution of 1920x1080 at 28" (~$370). There are also some even larger screens at lower resolution, but I don't know how big you want to go. They have large format screens - 32" at 1366x768, but those seem to be quite a bit more expensive (~$950).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254043
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889252035
Personally, I prefer a 4:3 ratio on my screens and those have become very hard to find.
Q: "Why does Bill get a freaki'n big screen TV?!"
A: "Because Bill doesn't bother the IT guy with stupid questions like this one."
-1 for misspelling it.
Isn't there a "large Icons" selection?
Just hold control with the desktop selected and scroll the mouse wheel up.. voila! Changable icon sizes (in Vista and 7)
It's not my intention to troll, but with KDE4 on Linux everything is vector graphics and scales percentage wise to a resolution instead of Windows XP where everything is just fixed size and looking horrible when scaled up.
So if you are running KDE 4.3 for example on a low resolution screen (try a full screen Windows game in Wine and kill it from a terminal and switch back to the terminal where X is running and you can see very tiny windows, icons and fonts untill you go to the controll center and set it to run on your native resolution) everything scales down. On higher resolution everything scales up. This, for me, is a major advantage over Gnome = 2.2.8 on very high resolutions.
I am amazed at why Windows still doesn't do this. Maybe it's for the better to buy a large standard definition Plasma screen. It would eat up about as much power as a large, low-DPI CRT screen and if you can still buy it it is very, very, very cheap. Think about 299 USD...
Here be signatures
Apple had at one point a plan to give OS X resolution-independent rendering, so that UI objects are always displayed at the specified physical size independently of resolution.
I think they still have that plan, but the engineering was delayed in shoring up the iPhone platoform...
However, you can use this today in most apps for OS X. You install the development tools, and then run /Developer/Applications/Graphics Tools/Quartz Debug.app - there's a menu option under Window for "UI Resolution" where you can set a scale. Most OS X apps after a restart obey the set scale, since they are all using the Cocoa text rendering... it also works with images.
That may well be a good option for people who are having eyesight issue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And there is another problem; applications nowadays are made for larger resolutions. A netbook for example, like the ASUS EEE PC 900, has a resolution of 1024*800. Almost all applications out there do not even fit on it!
Here be signatures
I've noticed this option doesn't cross the minds of some IT guys, but how about letting the users do what they want?
If they want to look at an awful non-native resolution on their LCD, why don't you shed your single tear about the waste of technology and let them go about their business? Does it actually affect you in the slightest?
There's really only a few pixel densities manufactured today.
0.282mm to 0.285mm (19" 1440x900 or 22" 1680x1050)
0.270mm (seen in 24" 1920x1200 displays)
0.243mm to 0.248mm (19" 1680x1050 or 22" 1920x1080)
Personally, I find the 0.245mm pixels to be too small, with the 0.285mm pixels to be just about perfect for me. Then there's the 15.4" Thinkpad display that is 1680x1050, that has really really small pixels (around 128ppi or 0.200mm).
There is an Acer 27" that is 2048x1152 with reportedly 0.291mm pixels.
Basically, when monitor shopping, you need to look at a particular resolution (such as 1680x1050) and then make sure to buy the displays that are the upper end of the size range. The 1680x1050 glass is currently sold in sizes that range from 19" to 22". Your older users will be a lot happier with the 22" 1680x1050.
Or you could go looking for 24-26" 720p TV sets which are typically 1360x768 and have very large pixels. Of course, the small resolution will quickly become a bane to future users.
All of the smaller 1080p TV sets are all 24", which is only a pixel size of around 0.270mm. So the 22" 1680x1050 displays with 0.285mm pixels are a better choice.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Since we're talking about Windows-land, it's worth mentionning that Windows Vista and Windows 7 both automatically scale icons to fit the display you're using, this way the icons take up about the same amount of physical space on screen, regardless of the size of the screen you're using. (as long as your screen properly reports itself to plug&pray).
I'm not sure what the issue is, though... if you want to buy somebody a 27" monitor, and are happy with 1366x768 resolution, then buy a TV. It won't cost you anywhere near as much as a 27" computer monitor will cost (besides which, if you specifically want the lower resolution, good luck finding a computer monitor over 17-20" that doesn't come in 1920x1080).
But if you're in Windows-land, updating to either Vista or 7 would solve the "large fonts and icon scaling" issue without needing to fiddle around with the graphics settings.
Start / All Programs / Accessories / Accessibility / Magnifier
This will magnify the area around your mouse without too much impact on everything else. Best case scenario: No need for a new monitor. (Maybe a second monitor just for the magnification?) Worst case scenario: It does nothing to help you and you've spent no money to find that out.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
This is exactly it. KDE4 works just as well on my tiny eeepc as on my 22" LCD as on my dual-screen setup.
Basically, if you cannot see anything because you are using inferior technology and basically propose fixing an inane system (windows/mac with their unscalable UIs) with an inane setup (let's use the LCD for a resolution it is not made for!) your problem is not technological...
Go live in the now: this is The Year of the Linux Desktop, where Stuff Works As It Should (most of the time). Hell, if you are desperate for windows, you can run it in vmware, full-screen, and use the magnification effect of kwin to solve your resolution problem the best possible way.
Run linux. Run windows in vmware. Use the magnify effect of kwin to solve your tiny fonts problem. Now, you use the correct resolution of your LCD, have scaling as good as possible, and crash protection.
Once more linux/KDE saves the day.
In fact, both Vista and 7, if Aero (i.e. DWM) is enabled, will scale up any application when you raise DPI. If application is marked as DPI-aware in its manifest, DWM will let the application handle that itself (by enlarging fonts and using scaling layouts); otherwise, it will apply simple bitmap scaling to the composed window bitmaps.
I'm pretty sure vista used large images for icons.
Vista UI guidelines require providing icons of sizes up to 256x256. All stock OS icons follow the guidelines, and, to the best of my knowledge, so does all MS software released after Vista.
Indeed. Heck we have one application we got recently where it can created custom database fields, but if you create more than the screen will hold they just go off screen - they don't even have the decency to display a scroll bar. Just inaccessibly off screen.
As a result we had to bump all users of that app up to 1024x768 minimum. Now, personally, that's pretty low anyways (I run my 17" office LCD at 1280x1024), but a LOT of the older users complain at anything higher than 800x600. And in this case increasing font sizes won't help - it'll just push the info back off screen again.
I think we're eventually just going to have to look into getting them some big honkin monitors to compensate. 1024x768 might be small (to them) on a 17" screen, but on a 24" screen I'm betting they won't complain.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
So my solution is to hand out reading glasses to the older users I support?
No. But recommending a visit to the opticians to any users who complain of bad eyesight would be a good idea, regardless of age. Are you planning on getting comfy sofas for those that don't like the office chairs too? If there's a genuine medical need for special equipment like a larger monitor then of course it's good practice to provide that where it's economically viable to do so. But that's after they've sought medical advice and can support a need for special treatement. The reason you need to worry about other staff asking 'Why does Bill get a freaki'n big screen TV?!' is because you don't have a good explanation for it. That should tell you evrything about the situation.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
Some of these applications actively ignore the Windows Large Font setting, so even if you set Windows to use Large Fonts, they'll still use the same too-small fonts they've always used. (Not sure how they do that, since I thought Windows just scaled the DPI up.)
Windows does scale DPI up, so if you request a font with size specified in points, you'll get a proportionally larger font. The problem is that you can also request a font with size specified in pixels, and that, by definition, won't scale with DPI.
Similar problem in fact exists with CSS, where pt will scale, but px will not (which is why, if you're ever using px to specify text size in your CSS, you're evil, and in Hell you will be blinded and then forced to surf Flash-based websites for eternity).
Vista and 7 mitigate that problem, somewhat: they require every application to specify in its manifest whether it's "DPI aware" or not - it's opt-in, so you if you don't tell it that your app is aware, the default is that it's not. Note that this means that all pre-Vista applications are not DPI aware.
DPI aware apps,work the same way all apps did in XP and before - they get true DPI values reported by the OS, and have to adjust text size and window layout accordingly themselves. If they do it right (and hopefully, if they claim to support it in their manifest, there was some effort made to make it work right!), you get proper vector scaling. Ideally, if they use some sane UI framework with proper reflowing layouts - e.g. Qt or WPF - it "just works".
If an application isn't DPI aware, then, as far as it's concerned, it always runs at 96 DPI - the OS lies to it. Window manager then takes whatever the application rendered to its window(s), and scales that up using the usual bitmap scaling techniques. This isn't nice looking, because you get the usual pixellated and somewhat blurry picture as a result, but at least it is enlarged to the desired size - so you can read it with poor vision - and it always works correctly with any application.
Of course, this is meant to be strictly a legacy app support feature; all new applications should be DPI-aware. Also, users can opt out of this, and fall back to XP behavior (and risk badly written apps not handling non-standard DPI settings properly).
Actually, I'm dealing with just this problem lately. Its not so much that my eyes are going (although now that I'm 45, I find I do prefer larger text) its that I am working on a project that is supposed to be used from across a room. There is a very large set of program in both the Windows and Linux worlds that are incapable of working on a desktop running at 640x480 or even 800x600 resolutions. I've even found ones that can't be used at 1024x768.
One might think that the answer would be to go to a much higher resolution and then tweak all of the various menu- and font-size settings to make things large enough to read. This also doesn't work as those exact same programs often seem to have hard-coded assumptions as to font sizes and one regularly discovers menus which only show the first 3 characters of each entry. Plus, many windowing systems don't seem to provide the kind of user settings needed to configure things for this kind of environment.
While one can (and I do) blame the authors of these program for sloppy coding, there are a very large number of such programs, which can only lead me to think that the OS APIs for handling this stuff in a clean way are far too cumbersome to use correctly.
Windows Vista and 7 do this too. Applications can set a flag to tell the window manager that it is high-DPI aware, and get nice big sharp windows. Apps without this flag are rendered at 96dpi and scaled up to avoid any issues with dumb programs.
Not to mention the fact that 'Large Fonts' are actually not that large if you're sitting more than a foot from the monitor. Personally I like to sit about 3 feet from the monitor, partially because this means I have notes on my desk between me and the monitor.
And large fonts are not that large because nobody writes software to scale properly - that's partially why Gmail is such a breeze, there's the implicit assumption in (good) web development that you cannot control fonts.
Just hold control with the desktop selected and scroll the mouse wheel up.. voila! Changable icon sizes (in Vista and 7)
I found that doesn't work in Outlook 2003. Imagine that - MS Outlook for frack's sake!!
So there is a feature in windows Vista and Windows 7 That doesn't work with Outlook 2003. Have you tried Outlook 2007, which was released along with Windows Vista and 7?
Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
This brings up a good point. A couple of years ago there was an employee where I work who was having ergonomic issues with their workstation. The complaints were valid and one of the solutions turned out to be a flat panel, LCD monitor. The lesson that the rest of the staff learned was that if they complained about ergonomic issues, they would also get LCD monitors. Soon enough a team had to be formed to deal with all of the ergonomic complaints coming from the staff.
I never did understand why many people cant grasp the concept that system font size is independent of screen resolution. You'd think they'd notice the stupidity of buying a 30" 2560x1600 monitor then running their whole desktop at 1366x768 but noooo....
Another point: why would you ever buy a 1680x1050 monitor? they cost practically the same as a 1920x1200 monitor but can't display HD at native resolution (1290x1080). Even if you currently don't think you'll ever need to watch HD, wouldn't it be sensible to cough up the extra 99 cents and buy a 1920x1200 just in case?
Reading glasses - they are cheap ($5) and available (Walgreens).
Why everyone feels the need to solve easy problems with complex solutions, I will never know.
Yeah, why design or buy a tool that is convenient and pain-free to use when we could just make every human being strap a different tool onto their face.
And why do these exist when Walgreens carries a simple solution for this problem, too?
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
This is one area where OS X lags behind. Sure you can zoom, but if you use a 27" or 30" display, the menu is just as small as on a 13" macbook. As much as I love other aspects of Mac usability, I'm still hoping that tomorrow they'll have the same scalability for large displays that windows and linux have today. My parents are getting old now, and they're both finding this particular aspect of computing a problem. After quite a while, I estimate that about 80% of computer issues my mother has are related to her difficulty reading what's on her screen.
Why? because reading glasses are the proper, high performance solution that also happens to be low cost. Large, low resolution monitors are not only expensive and demanding of desk space, they are lower in performance.
The only reason not to use reading glasses when they are necessary in a work environment is vanity. There is no "convenient and pain-free" tool that will solve every older worker's presbyopia problem except proper eyesight correction.
It was twenty-or-so years ago today.... So back in the late 1980s, I was using Gosling's NeWS on Sun Workstations. It could fit on a Sun3/50 with enough RAM, though it was happier on the SparcStations that came out in ~1989 and following. It was a Postscript-based windowing system - What You See Really Is What You Get. :-) Everything Just Worked (except when it didn't, in which case it crashed and died in ugly ways, but most of the time it worked, and the debugger was really cool.) For example, if you wanted to print something on a laser printer, you got the same fonts, rendered at the correct resolution, no jaggies required. The psterm terminal application we used instead of xterm didn't do anything special to iconize; you just shrank it to use a 1-point font, which is 1 pixel on a typical Sun workstation screen of its day, and anything happening in the window continued to work live, so you could see things scrolling by.
It later evolved into Java, which you may have heard of
My supervisor was in his early 60s and kept switching eyeglasses to talk to people or look at his computer, so we just cranked his font size to 24 points and he could read everything.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Great. Now point me to some modern software (or hardware, for that matter) that can run with IRIX.
Speaking as a 45 year old who has just had to buy his first pair of reading glasses, I absolutely concur. Not only do have these devices fixed usability problems with my computer display, they also fixed the same problem that was manifesting itself with the rest of reality.
Are you really this stupid or are you just trolling?
You mean there's an actual difference between the two? Interesting hypothesis, but I've yet to see any data to back it up.
which is totally what she said
My bifocals would like to have a word with your simple five-dollar solution. :P
"Guideline" is incompatible with "require".
If there's a genuine medical need for special equipment like a larger monitor then of course it's good practice to provide that where it's economically viable to do so.
On a related note apparently reading text that is too small does have its downsides:
Readers were asked to read under six especially demanding conditions known to cause eye fatigue. These were: reading small text sizes; reading low-contrast gray text; reading with a light source behind the reading material to cause glare; reading from too close a distance, which causes the eyes to point inward towards each other (convergence stress); reading from variable focal distances (accommodative stress); and reading while wearing glasses that simulate an astigmatism (refractive stress). While people were reading under these extra stressful conditions, we measured the activation in the orbicularis oculi muscle with a sensor placed 1.25 cm below the eye. Readers reported eye fatigue after reading under each of these conditions. Small text sizes, low contrast, glare and refractive stress all resulted in increased activity in the orbicularis oculi, while convergence stress and accommodative stress did not, though after reading in these two conditions, readers are more likely to report headaches and pain coming from behind the eye. Stressors such as small text size and glare are reported as irritation on the front of the eye.
My personal experience relating to computer screens is that growing up I had CRT, until my mid-twenties when LCD started becoming affordable. Up until I was about nineteen I did not know about changing resolutions on my screen and thus ran in Windows native resolution (which in the case of 95/98/XP seemed to be 60hz). I suffered from frequent migraines that would start with flashing lights in-front of my eyes and end with two days of such blinding headache that I was unable to do anything buy stay in bed, inside a dark room, and during the first day I would throw up at least once. Several days after such an episode I would feel like I was serious hungover. Turning the refresh rate up to 100hz effectively cured me over night, I did not have another episode until my late twenties when I played console with a mate on a CRT TV an entire evening.
Perhaps a bit of a digression there. But do not underestimate the importance of a good screen and a comfortable text/gui-size; undue strain on your eyes can significantly reduce the quality and quantity of your work.
The Long Now Foundation
It is not that simple. I am 46, and I already have bifocals. I still have trouble with the computer screen. If the bifocal is strong enough to work well for reading and close-up work, it is a little too strong for the computer screen. If the distance section is good for infinity, it is also not right for the screen. A larger screen further away would work, I would be able to focus on it, and it would be large enough to see. I suppose I could try trifocals.
I work at 1440x900 and in Gnome there are some applications with windows and dialog boxes really big, cannot see all the fields sometimes or the OK/Cancel buttons are hidden because they are too big.
There are some windows like that in GIMP and actually need to enable more desktops so i move the windows between two so i can actually can click "save".
They're great for presbyopia. If you correct your myopia with contacts, you'll still need them.
It's not a question of bad eyesight but of bad design by windows.
The system font is increasingly small and can't be changed.
All they need to do is fix that issue and then this wouldn't matter. A 3000dpi moniter is great if it displays letters a reasonable size but not if it displays them 13 pixels high regard less of the resolution.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It's sad that employees have to complain to get computer equipment that will obviously carry healthier benefits for them regardless of whether or not they're suffering now.
It's like saying all employees should get cheap, shitty chairs until they complain about back problems.
Surely better productivity outweighs the cost of getting these screens?
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
What's the problem? You should still be able to outrun them...
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Windows 7/Vista allow you to set a global DPI value, and everything scales to that. Text, icons, window decoration, everything. Some older apps struggle with it but most are fine.
XP is a lot more limited, but Windows 7 and Vista have both made big improvements in this area.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
if you use a 27" or 30" display, the menu is just as small as on a 13" macbook
Uh, that's exactly how it should be. Something that is 1cm on one screen should be 1cm on another screen, irrespective of the size of the screens. If you want everything bigger, then override the display DPI setting and apps will automatically be scaled to compensate.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News