The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant

Re:The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant by reisse on Friday September 01, 2023 @01:16PM (#37353640)

I don't know what to say here because exact scaling parameters are very subjective, but personally I find 250% scaling for 4k@16" okayish? I use 175% for 1440p@14", and 125% for 4k@27", which is slightly smaller than what Windows suggested you.

When I had my previous laptop, it had 100% for 4k@16" in Linux by default, and it was causing me a pain in the eyes. Switched to 200% back then, because fractional scaling in Ubuntu wasn't working well.

I'm not sure if it's possible to have scaling less than 100%, I just never thought to make things smaller, not bigger.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant by ndriscoll on Friday September 01, 2023 @03:24PM (#37355132)

I just checked, and at the recommended 250% scaling at 4k on a 16" monitor in Windows, I can see 0-3 messages on the screen at once in Slack, and just under 34 lines of code and 113 columns in VS Code at default zoom levels. If I do a vertical split in VS Code, I get 51 columns in each pane, which makes it basically useless. Icons and even things like the minimize button are like a full centimeter across.

I don't understand the point of a high resolution monitor that you scale up. Just to have extremely crisp lines? To me the whole point of a high resolution is that you can have more information on the screen because it remains legible when small.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The technical merits of Wayland are mostly irrelevant by jamespo on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @07:20AM (#37479404)

a 16" 4k with no scaling? You must be about 3 inches from the screen

[ Parent | on HN ]