I went back working on 24-inch 1080p screen from a 32-inch 4k screen | Hacker News Reader

I went back working on 24-inch 1080p screen from a 32-inch 4k screen

medium.com

38 pointsiwangulenko65 comments

I dont know what OSX this guy is using, but osx has the longest history of any OS i know that is able able to scale the actual ui on monitors with a fixed resolution.

Had exactly the same thought. Maybe he didn't find the settings. Who knows...

Yeah it’s not clear to me if the author realizes you can change the scale in the system settings and that’s just not what he’s in need of exactly. Might be more fitting in his case to use the Mac OS accessibility settings for zooming in/out, or even just getting an eye exam and some glasses.

Author of the article here. I tried all macOS offered but it wasn't good on 32'' at 4k sadly

You're complaining about things like the clock not being visible - that sounds a lot like you just didn't try the scaling.

I did, the clock was too small or my eyes aren't really good

32" 3840x2160 monitor with 1.5x scaling enabled is equal to a 32" 2560x1440 monitor.

32" 2560x1440 displays have the same PPI as 24" 1920x1080 displays (92 PPI).

MacOS has flawless scaling since the first retina Macbook Pro. What you are describing makes no sense to me...

some apps aren't optimize for it

It’s done by macOS and shouldn’t be something the application notices, can you give some examples of applications which don’t work well with scaling enabled?

I think you need a relatively new GPU. Some older models (older then 2015-2016) don't offer scaled resolutions yet, but you can still go for non-scaled 1440p. It is not as sharp on a native 4k display, but still way more readable.

Also always connect via DisplayPort instead of HDMI if you can, safes a ton of trouble.

i use a macbookpro 2015 mid year, mh, thanks

I have a Macboom pro retina 2013. Scaling works just fine on my 32" 4K screen...

I also thought that, as I do have a 32" 4K DisplayPort monitor with plenty of scaling options presented in macOS (and even more options if you hold Alt/Option while clicking the "Scaled" radio button).

On other monitors with macOS I have sometimes not been given scaling options. I'm not entirely sure what the rules are about when or when macOS doesn't show scaling, so maybe there is something with the laptop model/Thunderbolt -> HDMI adapter/monitor that is catching him out.

Aside from that I definitely agree that 32" is not for everyone and I'm not sure if I would buy it again.

Sometimes you have to alt-click, or at least you used to have to a couple of releases back, to get to the nice scaled modes.

Not sure why.

Author of the article here. For instance, text in tabs in Chrome isn't not scalable, also many mac os apps (e.g., Textexpander) aren't scalable because they are not optimised for it. Should have made it more clear in the article.

What everyone suggests isn’t something the apps opt in or out of. It happens at a lower level and everything is told that you are running at a different resolution.

It seems like most of his grievances are with macOS and not his monitor.

For a long time I've been using tiling WMs (currently awesomeWM) and I could never go back. Yes there is a bit of a learning curve while you settle on a good configuration for you, but the productivity gains are worth it since you spend so much time interacting with your WM.

Obviously your options are more limited outside of Linux, but there is a WM tool in Microsoft's Powertoys repo which looks intriguing.

https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys/blob/master/README.md

OS X has a good tiling tool: https://rectangleapp.com/

It's essential for my survival on the 4K monitor that work gave me. Does a better job than any of the commercial products listed in TFA that I tried.

You can easily do tiling WM's on MacOS with Hammerspoon, too.

I second this. I switched from a MBP to Linux + Xmonad and it now brings me deep pain to use or see other people use macOS.

I've tried tiling WMs a few times and liked awesome but at least at the time there were too many problems.

Is it now easy to set up a launcher/start bar with a nice battery/volume/wifi etc. indicator? Do all Windows open normally? Do you get any crashes? Are there any WM-specific settings/fixes you have to tweak more often than once every 6 months?

Someone forgot to tell him that he can turn on scaling and set different virtual resolution.

macOS handles this very good, at work I'm using two 27" 4k displays side by side with virtual resolution set to 2560x1440 which gives me no problem with size of icons/apps and very good image quality at the same time.

I tried it but that brought other problems. Thanks though.

What other problems did it bring up?

Was just going to write a similar message. Most of us where I work do the exact same thing as you, and no one has any problems like the author describes. I wonder if he was using a TV and not a monitor? I’ve noticed some of the TVs only scale to TV resolutions—1080p, 720p—whereas a proper LG or Dell scales to many resolutions.

The scaling is done by macOS and the output signal regardless of the virtual resolution is 4k.

> At least on macOS, the size of apps & notifications is not adjustable. Toolbar symbols, Tab-bar in Chrome, native apps on MacOS are not scalable.

Um... yes... yes they are. https://www.eizoglobal.com/support/compatibility/dpi_scaling...

> Moving your head and eyes IS unpleasant.

I mean yeah. Having a display that large on your desk is absurd. That has nothing to do with either the OS or the resolution.

I wonder if you'd be better off using a larger monitor (with or without a higher resolution) further away from you physically, so that it covers the same visual angle as your smaller monitor.

Something with focusing on near/far objects maybe?

If it covers the same visual angle, what's the benefit? It's just more expensive and takes up more space.

I also think "more screen space" == "more productivity" is a fallacy. There was an article here the other day where someone used a Surface Go as his primary development machine. That's a bit extreme, but I used a plain 15-inch MBP without a second monitor for several years at work and didn't feel hindered whatsoever. Of course it depends on your workflow; game developers or film editors tend to need more things onscreen at once, for example. But I think programmers get too excited about more/bigger monitors because they look cool on a desk and are relatively inexpensive these days. And they, you know, feel productive.

There's a standard recommendation to periodically look away from your monitor and focus on something farther away for a few moments because of mumble mumble eye strain mumble reasons.

I don't know if a monitor farther away would alleviate this. There are differences, because even if it is the same visual angle you are focusing on something farther away. (For a quick example, sit in front of a window, ideally a dirty one, and shift your focus from a point on the window to the scene behind, back and forth, while still looking in the same direction.)

You are entirely correct that this has absolutely nothing to do with 4k resolutions at all, and the author seems oddly hung up on that. I'm currently sitting at a pair of 4k, 27 inch monitors. Arch (gnome on wayland), Windows 10, and macOs ALL handle the scaling A-OK.

Most of them do it automatically at this point too. So I'm really struggling to understand the position this article presents.

It really just sounds like the author didn't realize a 30+ inch monitor 20 inches from your face requires head movement, and somehow hasn't figured out scaling.

This reminds of a time I had to let go of a 27 inch iMac that complimented my laptop. The lack of all that ample screen estate made me feel like I lost a bit of power-usage. Around the same time Rob Pike's(Unix, Plan9, UTF8, Go) post on usesthis.com came out mentioning him feeling happy with his 11" MacBook. I distinctly remember that feeling of shame that made me see how a smaller screen might be a blessing rather than a handicap. https://usesthis.com/interviews/rob.pike/

This author's notes on distraction reminds me how moving onto a "tinier" screen forces me to stay inside the portal into whatever you have on screen. That single change contributed more to me writing much smaller encapsulated functions than anything else, for better or worse. I'd say it necessitated me carrying a larger/clearer mental model of my projects too. Also, to do anything else you'd have to switch the entire screen away from your current layout and after a while indulging in distractions becomes more tedious thus not worth the cost of switching and much less tempting.

Author of the article here. Moving onto a "tinier" screen forces me to focus as well.

I need the vertical 1080p screen mainly for looking at CVs or console outputs.

I have a 24inches Dell with 16:10 screen ratio. With Sway on Linux it fits very well, especially for the vertical space.

It's so bad that they do not produce anymore affordable 16:10 screens...

As another declared 16:10 fan, I do suspect most of my hatred of 16:9 is really just needing more than 1080 vertical pixels for coding not an actual dislike of 16:9 aspect ratio.

Honestly, I want 4:3 back, especially if I have to read many pdfs/CVs.

I find that a 39-40" 4K screen is optimal and has about the right size pixels such that you don't need to scale the UI. I use it in portrait mode which I think is the most effective use of screen real estate for code editing.

With this setup you have less useful parts of the screen, like the very top, but you also have windows that you don't need to look at so much. I run a text editor with two windows side by side and three windows high. The smallest windows are at the top and basically double in size as you go down. The bottom ones are used to edit and the top ones are mostly used for reference.

I find this arrangement incredibly productive. I have actually migrated from 3x 4K screens, which was overkill.

The title is a little misleading. Most of the poster's problems come from the small dot size.

If he had a 48'' 4k display, each pixel would be the same size as on a 24'' 1080p display. Zero font size problems, no need to scale anything.

I use a curved tv of this size (at a low brightness setting ;)) and notice only one problem from the ones the poster mentioned: sometimes the amount of windows on the screen can be a little distracting. However it is easily offset by the productivity gain from having all necessary windows constantly visible. Also, if you need to concentrate on just one window temporarily, just move it to another virtual desktop. Takes no effort.

I reckon what the author is saying however one can solve the problem of MacOS not picking up the proper scaling. I had to use a tool called SwitchResX.

My Dell 25" monitor has a native resolution of 2560x1440. You don't want to use this native resolutions as everything gets too small to comfortably read/work.

Had to input 3840 x 2160 as a 'scaled resolution' to get 1920 x 1080 HiDPI which gets you a sharp retina like experience. To be honest everything is a tad too big now but SwitchResX does somehow not save any other scaled resolution for my monitor (UP2516D / U2515H).

Article says: "At least on macOS, the size of apps & notifications is not adjustable. Toolbar symbols, Tab-bar in Chrome, native apps on MacOS are not scalable."

This is factually incorrect.

By not explaining that what scaling options were tried in the article, it strongly appears that the author did not try them.

By not explaining here on HN what was tried in more detail, it appears to be handwaving away the issue.

It's totally possible that a smaller screen is better for his productivity, but that's a minor argument compared to the incorrect assertion made in the article and here.

it didn't scale in a way that eg cmd+shift+ "+" scales a website on chrome.

i tried everything i could find in google.

Did you try `System Preferences > Display > Display tab > Resolution > Scaled` ?

Because that's what everyone here is talking about.

yes thank you i tried but the results weren't great

appreciate all the help.

OK, well, it would make your article so much stronger if you wrote which scaled resolutions you tried and why "the results weren't great".

I had a problem with a cheap thunderbolt-to-HDMI adapter that only did 4K@30Hz. MacOS scaling options were very limited (full 4k, HiDPI 1080p or scaled 1080p) and nothing looked great.

I tried the 27" 4k monitor at work with a thunderbolt to display port cable and all scaling options were then available to me. I'm running 1440p equivalent which seems to be about right for 27".

I chose a 4k for resolution flexibility and sharper text for code. I can fit more code on a 27" 1440p vs a 24" 1080p and text is sharper.

The only productivity I've lost has been appreciating how good everything looks. Well, that and trying to read about why I was missing the scaling options.

Hopefully someone in your situation will find this and learn the cable matters.

The author didn't specify which Mac and external monitor he used but it sounds like he had specific issues that most people probably don't.

1. macOS has bugs related to font aliasing from misconfigured setups that makes using external screens harder to use, such as font-aliasing settings that were removed in the latest macOS updates. Some folks had to do a clean macOS install that fixed the problem with Catalina.

2. I wouldn't recommend using HDMI > TB port, DisplayPort is recommended for any 4K setups IMO. He may be using a 30hz screen via HDMI where most older Macs can't do 4k@60hz at all, in this case, even 4k @ 30hz is very uncomfortable to use.

3. If he never had retina screen before, it is possible by moving to a larger screen, he is focusing his eyes more often and causing blurriness. This could be a sign of an eye condition; such as not taking enough breaks and/or vision has degraded. I had this issue and my astigmatism actually got worse, once I got better glasses, no issues.

4. He may need to readjust his desk setup or get a monitor arm that places the monitor correctly to his eye vision. A lot of people used monitor with its stand and they are looking at them facing down, causing more pain than need be.

I just got a 32" 4k curved monitor. Without the curve, I think the head movement would be too much. I had a 40" 4k flat. The head movement was extreme and contributed to my RSI. I downgraded to a 27" Apple thunderbolt first. I'd say 28" or so is probably max for a flat panel with 32" or so being max for a curved panel for comfortable use without painful head turning. His complaints about scaling are unfounded and simply false. Too bad because this is a real issue with monitor sizes, focus, and back/neck issues. I too found my focus increasing when I dropped down from the 40", but the 27" and 32" are roughly the same for focus. For me, that's much better than any smaller monitor.

I have a workstation with a 32" display in landscape and a 22" display in portrait, and a notebook computer with a 13" display, where the keyboard and mouse (trackpoint, actually, I found a wireless Thinkpad keyboard which is a game changer) are shared using Synergy. I sit about 30" away from them. It's really helpful for software development sessions to have the editor, debugger, tests, and built product available at the same time. I use Ubuntu and don't have any problems with scaling. I use workspace switching so my distractions are in another space altogether, so I can focus when I'm in the zone, and my distraction-time is more, well, efficient.

I have never had a Mac. Can someone please let me know how is it possible for Mac and its app ecosystem not to support higher resolutions well, when iMac has 5k resolution?

I've been using 27" 4K screen with 15" 1440p laptop screen underneath. Maybe 1/4 width of bigger screen is for console and 3/4 for code editor. Laptop screen is mostly splitted 50:50 for browsing and chatting.

Many people comment how small text is on my screen, but I think it's nice to view a lot of code at once.

I think going back to FullHD would take some time to adjust.

Why 1080 on the 24”?

I get not moving your head, but lower resolution seems odd. I found going from Retina to 1080p was a bit jarring / pixelated.

Probably it depends on your work type. I switched from only notebook screen to 3x24 to 1x24 to 32 4k. So far 4k 32 is the best experience for me. Its exacly like 4 laptop(15) screens next to each other. I prefer using a ide verticaly on one side and second side divided into two different windows. Personal preferences I guess.

Should have gone 1920x1200. Many excellent refurbished (professional) ones on the market for cheap.

You definitely want to scale UI to readable. Also need to consider how to take advantage of the extra screen real estate, e.g. code editor in right half of screen, browser for research on the left, console in bottom left for random command line stuff, etc...

I had the same experience. Tried a 4K monitor for a week. Didn’t like it. Returned it and got back to the old 1080 monitor.

Main problem was everything was scaled so small. Also scrolling left some white ghost shadow for a brief moment like half of a second.

macOS scaling is the way to go here. I have been using LG 27UD88-W 4K monitor which is set to 2560x1440 and it works perfectly without any noticeable distortions.

setting it to 2560x1440 brought its own problems sadly, macbook pro 2015-2016 don't seem to handle i well

I find 40-43” @ 4k optimal. With a deep desk of course.

I'm using LG 43UD79-B and it's great at the proper distance, with full "retina multiplicator". I don't use it for the estate. A larger screen with full multiplicator just lets me see better.

My personal story: Last year I went from a Dell 24" (1920x1200) to a Benq 32" (2560x1440). I deliberate didn't choose a 4k because I knew that without at least 150% scaling, my poor 48 year old eyes wouldn't be able to read anything, so 4k seemed pointless. Additionally, I use a wide gamut of software, half of which is not hiDPI aware.

Overall, I'm really happy with my Benq 32" it strikes a nice balance between being a larger screen, but still readable at 100% scaling.

That doesn't make any sense. A 24" 1080p monitor has the same "effective DPI" (actual physical size of things on screen) as both a 32" 1440p monitor at 100% scaling AND a 32" 4k screen at 150% scaling. You would be getting literally the exact same amount of screen space on the 4k display at 150% as you do on your 1440p screen, except that it would be even easier to read because the text, for example, would be sharper.

And the older apps that are not hiDPI aware, would ignore the scaling request, and be too small to use. No thanks.

Same here, also a 32" BenQ with 2560x1440, and I am really happy with it. Better than the 27 Thunderbolt Display at the same resolution I use at work. Much better than 1080 for me.

I really did love my Dell 24" 1920x1200 (even in portrait rotation). I have since switched to a 43" LG 4k monitor and I have no regrets. I tend to only use the middle 2/3rds and keep the desktop background dark. It is more pleasurable than needing to wear reading glasses and it doubles as a half-decent surface to watch shows.

Recently I connected a 19" 1280x1024 monitor for a Pioneer DDJ setup and it was by far the best size/aspect for the task. 16x9 is only ideal within the medium-large range of sizes.

I have also done this. I found it immensely fatiguing to have a massive screen on my desk, it was almost like information overload. But instead of a single 32" screen, I got two 24" monitors side by side .. for some reason I can't explain, this was a lot more comfortable. Perhaps the physical divide promoted a better organisation of windows - docs on left, code on the right - whereas with a 32" monitor it was a free-for-all craziness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com