Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs light | darkhn

>I am happy to bet that you're just not noticing the early rasterisation and filtered scaling going on

macOS renders content on my 100 PPI monitor at exactly 100 DPI; 1:1, no scaling, so everything looks crisp at the pixel level. The scaling only happens on high-DPI displays (I think the cutoff is around 150-200), and for me at least, ~250 PPI is more than dense enough to not see any individual pixels and thus no aliasing artifacts. Since you like pixel-perfect rendering even at very high resolutions, perhaps you have superhuman vision. My eyes are decidedly average. :-)

>I hardly ever use windows spanning multiple displays

Me neither. My issue is that the windows are rendered at different sizes even when they're not spanning both displays: if I dragged the window in the example photo upwards to sit entirely on the top display, it would stay huge, whereas if I dragged it downwards to sit entirely on the bottom display, it would stay small.


> Since you like pixel-perfect rendering even at very high resolutions, perhaps you have superhuman vision.

I'm just annoyingly particular about this. It's why I accept a framerate hit in video games and don't use upscalers like DLSS, and why I intend to swap my 3840 × 2160 600 × 340 mm monitor for a 5120 × 2880 one of the same physical size. Some really nice ones were demonstrated at CES a fortnight ago.

> if I dragged the window in the example photo upwards to sit entirely on the top display, it would stay huge, whereas if I dragged it downwards to sit entirely on the bottom display, it would stay small.

This is not the behaviour I see. The window upon occupying the larger percentage of a display, 'snaps' to the DIP of that display.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact |

Search: