Workstation monitor

[Lee DeRaud]

even tho my 32" is "only" a 1920, I have the res set for 1600x900! - because at 1920 everything "Windows" is so dinky, even at 24" from my eyes, that I can't read half of what's on the screen. "Pixel Pitch" is mentioned above, and that's the problem; While you can fit a lot of stuff you're working on on-screen, and you can zoom in on what you're working on, you can't zoom on anything Windows displays... You CAN adjust Windows text size, but it also enlarges everything ELSE- however, what it doesn't enlarge is your working program's places & spaces where text and graphics fits, so while you can maybe read the enlarged text, you'll find much of it missing. The only way to enlarge EVERYTHING is to reduce the screen resolution.

First, I agree that "vector" work, such as Corel or CAD, isn't helped all that much by the higher resolution, although as Matt mentions, fine line and text work is quite a bit crisper. But for "analog" stuff like photos and video, it certainly helps a lot to be able to see more (or all) of the image without subsampling.

(As I recall, you're still using Win7 (or older) for pretty much all of your machines...if that's not true for the one this monitor is attached to, stop reading now.)

Second, Win7 sucks at scaling, a situation unlikely to change since it's firmly mired in no-meanigful-update purgatory. My previous monitor was a 22" 1600x1050, and yes, it was borderline on Win7, even with the "large fonts" option. Win10 OTOH is much better at handling high-res displays, using fractional scaling rather than the old small/normal/large deal. The laptop I'm using to type this has a 13" 3000x2000 screen, and everything is perfectly readable, including Corel and Photoshop icons/toolbars/etc. Admittedly I had one app (Quicken) that was horrible to use for a long while, but even it finally caught up.

[Mark Hennebury]

All interesting to me.
For reference my new computer is a dell precision workstation I7-9700K With windows 10 pro for workstations

[Frank Pratt]

There are some issues with high resolution that are not clearly understood by all. Any setting in Windows other than the monitor's native resolution will result in a degraded image. Edges are just a little (or a lot) fuzzier. But an HD monitor (not even 4K) at native resolution can mean that text is so small that it's difficult to read. I have a 30" that is 2560 x 1600, and I have to scale it to 125% to avoid eye strain. A 4K monitor that size would be unusable to be at native resolution & no scaling.

But one of the dirty little secrets of Windows is that it still handles scaling very imperfectly. Text & images don't always fit properly in the window. I don't do Apple, but I'm told that it handles scaling much better and has for decades.

[Lee DeRaud]

There are some issues with high resolution that are not clearly understood by all. Any setting in Windows other than the monitor's native resolution will result in a degraded image. Edges are just a little (or a lot) fuzzier. But an HD monitor (not even 4K) at native resolution can mean that text is so small that it's difficult to read. I have a 30" that is 2560 x 1600, and I have to scale it to 125% to avoid eye strain. A 4K monitor that size would be unusable to be at native resolution & no scaling.

That sounds like you think applying scaling within Windows sets the monitor to something besides its native resolution. It doesn't: the screen resolution setting and the scaling setting are independent. The scaling setting changes the pixel dimensions of everything to enlarge or reduce the visual size of the GUI elements. (I admit it's confusing that Windows even allows you to set the screen resolution on a modern display...that's a relic from the CRT days.)

I'm also a bit confused why you seem to think that having to set the scaling is a bad thing: that "100%" default number is completely arbitrary and always has been.

[Frank Pratt]

That sounds like you think applying scaling within Windows sets the monitor to something besides its native resolution. It doesn't: the screen resolution setting and the scaling setting are independent. The scaling setting changes the pixel dimensions of everything to enlarge or reduce the visual size of the GUI elements. (I admit it's confusing that Windows even allows you to set the screen resolution on a modern display...that's a relic from the CRT days.)

I'm also a bit confused why you seem to think that having to set the scaling is a bad thing: that "100%" default number is completely arbitrary and always has been.

No, I was referring to setting the monitor resolution. Yes, scaling is a different matter. My point was that setting the monitor resolution at anything other than native is a bad idea & shouldn't be done.

Scaling, as you say, does change the pixel dimension of everything, or almost everything. Some graphic elements do not scale, or scale differently than others. Websites are particularly bad at being scaled, with text not fitting into it's box etc. Some programs also have issues with labels not fitting properly inside their buttons.

100% scaling, I would argue, is not completely arbitrary. At 100% everything fits as it should. Not so at say 125%, or 150% (which is what I run some of my monitors at) That's when things can get goofy. Each newer version of Windows has gotten better at it, but it is still far from perfect. And older programs seem to suffer more from this issue.

I have run 3 monitors; a 30" & 2, 19" for about the last 15 years & have studied and screwed around with this for a long time.

[Myk Rian]

You may want to look into 4k graphics cards. Here's a rundown of some.
https://graphicscardhub.com/best-wor...raphics-cards/

[Lee DeRaud]

You may want to look into 4k graphics cards.

Shouldn't need one for his usage: his new machine has a 9th-gen i7, which does 4K with the built-in graphics. Not great for gaming, but CAD should be fine.

[Mark Hennebury]

Graphics card is the nvidia Quadro P400