folks with 1440P and beyond - how do you cope with small text

[postmortemIA]

I'm planning to buy 1440P monitor in future, and wondering between 27 and 32". Both with same 1440P resolution, so 32" would be easier to read on default 96 ppi, but pixels would be more obvious too.

I'm wondering if people use the bigger ppi numbers (like 125% or 150% magnification) with 27" monitors. I always hated how windows does it, and how it makes some apps be totally blurry. It looks like windows does better job on 8.x, but still far from perfect.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I just use whatever it defaults to. I have good vision when I use corrective lenses though. I can read the 20/10 line on the chart FWIW. So maybe I can just see the text better than some.

 

[postmortemIA]

So I just tested 125% scaling on my monitor with browsers
IE - zooms to 125%, so all images are upscaled too and blurry
Firefox - does same thing
Chrome - ignores ppi, does its own thing, has its own zoom.

 

[SolMiester]

I ran 1440p on 28" 4k under W7 150% and while I have 50 yr old eyes, it didnt look bad to me. W8.1 is supposed to look better. <shrug>

 

[OlyAR15]

I have no trouble reading text at default size (100%). The text really isn't that small.

1440p on a 27" or 1600p on a 30" (16:10) is a good size to resolution ratio, where text is not too small but individual pixels are not easily seen.

 

[Hauk]

OP I've yet to use one but have been researching 32" 1440p screens. A lot of positive feedback on text size being near perfect. I'm closing in on one, def my next purchase.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Unless you are morally opposed to it for some reason, I would suggest buying and returning a couple different models and test it for yourself. It's the only way to be sure.

I didn't think a 28" 4K monitor would be feasible at 100% scaling, but it works out just fine in a desktop environment. Like cmdrdredd, I have perfect vision when wearing my glasses. I have to squint really hard and lean in if I don't wear them.

 

[Black Octagon]

Hold Ctrl
Scroll mouse wheel up

 

[KaRLiToS]

I have been rocking 1440p 27" since 2012 and I always used 100% ppi. I used to set it to 125% at first but it doesn't look good at all.

 

[exar333]

I have been rocking 1440p 27" since 2012 and I always used 100% ppi. I used to set it to 125% at first but it doesn't look good at all.

This.

Using a 34'' UWD which has same pixel size and density as a 27 16:9. It's perfect...

 

[xthetenth]

Place monitor close to me and have a big monitor.

Getting that right is really big, I just moved my work screens about 3 inches closer to me and the problems I was having focusing went away.

1440 at 27" is pretty good for most uses if it's close, for coding I'd want bigger or to just up the text size (what I actually did)

 

[KingFatty]

2560 x 1440 at 32" is pretty darn nice, I really like it.

I sit the same distance as I did with my 1920x1200 24" displays, and the pixel size is the same between those two monitors so windows scale nicely across them. Put another way, just as the 24" 1920x1200 displays hit a sweet spot in pixel density, so too does the 32" 2560 x 1440. I think they are just sticking with a density that worked in the past.

Consider also the hot new size of those 34" displays, forget the full resolution, but I think they keep the 1440 vertical pixels, and just go wider, again keeping with that sweet spot pixel density of the 24" and 32" mentioned above.

 

[Zardnok]

Hold Ctrl
Scroll mouse wheel up

I use CTRL and + myself, but only because I learned that before I noticed the mouse wheel does the same thing.

 

[kasakka]

I have no trouble reading text at default size (100%). The text really isn't that small.

1440p on a 27" or 1600p on a 30" (16:10) is a good size to resolution ratio, where text is not too small but individual pixels are not easily seen.

Agreed.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Hold Ctrl
Scroll mouse wheel up

this

 

[TheFamilyMan]

2560 x 1440 at 32" is pretty darn nice, I really like it.

I sit the same distance as I did with my 1920x1200 24" displays, and the pixel size is the same between those two monitors so windows scale nicely across them. Put another way, just as the 24" 1920x1200 displays hit a sweet spot in pixel density, so too does the 32" 2560 x 1440. I think they are just sticking with a density that worked in the past.

Consider also the hot new size of those 34" displays, forget the full resolution, but I think they keep the 1440 vertical pixels, and just go wider, again keeping with that sweet spot pixel density of the 24" and 32" mentioned above.

I'm using 2 30" 1440p monitors and sit approximately 18" - 24" away depending on what I'm doing...gaming, movies, etc.

The text hasn't been an issue at all up to this point. It's borderline too small at this point but not too small to pose an issue. Any higher resolution would be far too small IMHO.

If I were to go up to a 4k monitor, something larger like a 32" or 36" would have to be used in my opinion.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Personally, I don't have to cope. 27" 1440p at 100% scaling is perfect for me.

Also the reason why I'm feeling "meh" about 27-28" 4K monitors. Sure, all that resolution sounds really sweet, but I suspect that I will have to use scaling so I'm hesitant to jump on board until I can check one out in store and until their prices come way down.

 

[KingFatty]

Oh, forgot to mention there is a nice video where the guy reviews the 32" 2560x1440 display. He loved the monitor, but he is a young guy and to his perfect eyes, he just felt the 27" was more accustomed for him because he sits kind of close. When he got the 32" it was just so big. So maybe if your eyes are older, or you sit back more, maybe that could push you toward the 32" instead of the smaller text of the 27".

Here's the video, it's the guy from LinusTechTips:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifU4ZWWZNb8

 

[Eymar]

On windows 8 (27" 1440p) I don't use magnification either because of scaling blurring stuff. I do increase text size on icons\titlebar\Menus using the "Change only text size" by one font size up.

 

[BFG10K]

I use default Windows sizes for everything, 2560x1600 @ 30". No magnification.

On the same screen I use size 8 Consolas when writing C++ code.

 

[JoeRambo]

I went from 24" 1920x1200 that had perfect size for me to 27" 1440P that is on the limit for me. Any smaller and I'd have to use some sort of scaling (and i guess that is not ready for prime time yet).

 

[soccerballtux]

don't worry websites like reddit are going web2.0 and making everything bigger

 

[tweakboy]

I'm planning to buy 1440P monitor in future, and wondering between 27 and 32". Both with same 1440P resolution, so 32" would be easier to read on default 96 ppi, but pixels would be more obvious too.

I'm wondering if people use the bigger ppi numbers (like 125% or 150% magnification) with 27" monitors. I always hated how windows does it, and how it makes some apps be totally blurry.

This guy needs to sale. thx