Post Your SP3 Non-Docked Operating Resolution & Scaling %

[zhenya]

I too am using 1440x960. So far it's the only way I have found to get a consistent experience with frequent docking/undocking so that I never get odd sized windows or elements on my big monitors, or worse yet, extremely fuzzy content from Windows re-scaling.

drolem - I think this is exactly the space to discuss this. Native scaling just doesn't work if you are docking to 1080p monitors like most people will have. I'd be happy to hear any problems you think this brings up.

The only one I can see is that you are running at non-native resolution, and at an unequal divider, so things are not so razor sharp as they should be, but because of the high DPI of the screen it looks 'OK'. At least it doesn't give me a headache the way looking at the blurriness caused by the standard scaling does when I dock.

 

[jnjroach]

Haha, sorry about that. I get a little bit angry about this subject as I feel Microsoft did not do a good job with Windows 8.1's scaling "improvements". When enough people claim they are happy with the way they've implemented it, they have a very good excuse to not improve it.

As a C#/WPF developer, I know that desktop programs/apps written in WPF can handle multiple DPI's natively. But, for whatever reason, Microsoft only lets Windows Store (Metro) apps dynamically redraw based on the current screen's DPI.

Further, I think it is a huge step backwards to remove a user's ability to manually set a DPI number. There are a ton of legitimate reasons a user would want to set an arbitrary DPI scaling %. The slider they've provided adjusts all screen's scaling, not just the one you're the dialog is on. Also, it jumps around a lot, trying to round up or down, makes assumptions about the user's distance from the screen and so on. It's just a confusing mess and Microsoft needs to know that it has to be improved.

//End Rant...

I hear ya.... the issue is all of the pre-WPF code that is still in core Windows Components and Win32 Applications...

 

[zhenya]

Wow, yet another thread on the dpi stuff. Popular topic! I can't believe how many folks I've helped with the blog post and regkey file through all this! I thought I was the only one with this issue. Anyway, I've settled on using:

• undocked: native resolution, 150% scaling
• docked: 1152x768, 100% scaling (primary external monitor is 21.5" 1920x1080, 100% scaling at same viewing distance as the Surface)

Chrispanzer, rather than use 1440 AND 150% dpi scaling, you should just set your undocked resolution to 1152x768. That way its only scaled once by the Intel driver/panel. With your current setting, its getting scaled twice, once by Windows and again by the Intel driver/panel.

1152x768 will give you an effective 187.5% zoom and will let you run modern apps. 200% will not allow you to run modern apps.

How do you do 150% scaling at native resolution and 100% scaling at the custom resolution when docked? Do you have to make the change manually each time or is there a way to automate it? That would be my preferred solution as using it undocked I am close enough to the screen to notice the bluriness of the non native resolution.

 

[ChrisPanzer]

First of all, there are a lot of people saying they use 150% scaling @ native resolution. The first knee-jerk response to naysayers to this setting is "well your eyesight sucks". Are we not overlooking one very basic UI aspect?? The darn thing is a TOUCHSCREEN!

The icons, menus, titlebars, etc. are all near darn impossbile to tap without hitting something else by mistake. Is it possible to concentrate and zero-in on something before tapping it, raising the probability you'll hit the mark? Of course. Is it practical? Absolutely not.

My 'optimum' scaling & resolution is basically proportional to my iPad. I am not sure what scaling ratio to resolution it uses, but the same icon and text sizes, for that size screen, would be, in my view, optimal. Everything on the display is large and clear and easily pressed without (most of the time) error. It's as if everything was built around it being a touch-screen interface. Whereas, the SP3 feels as though the touch UI was an afterthought.

The natural response is "well, use Metro!" I dont want to use Metro. The apps crash constantly, and most of the work I do is via Desktop mode. I really would expect MS to put their heads together and create a workable solution to this issue.

In conclusion, at the native resolution, 250% scaling looks 'natural' to me. It looks as if it's proportional to my iPad. I can press and manipulate icons on the screen, and press other items with ease. Anything smaller is just not practical. I dont see how you people do it, really. But hey, works for you, then great!

 

[ScottyS]

I use native resolution at 100%. I have IE windows set at 150% and use a mouse (Microsoft Arc Touch), but can launch files by tapping their icons, scroll, move, resize and even close windows by touch .

 

[B'midbar]

How do you do 150% scaling at native resolution and 100% scaling at the custom resolution when docked? Do you have to make the change manually each time or is there a way to automate it? That would be my preferred solution as using it undocked I am close enough to the screen to notice the bluriness of the non native resolution.

The SP3 remembers your docked and undocked resolution settings, but you do need to logout and back in between docking and undocking.

 

[zhenya]

Yeah, that's how I thought it worked which is really impractical in the long run if I'm moving frequently between docked and undocked. The content on the Surface is definitely crisper at the native resolution with 150% scaling, but in the office anyhow where I want to be able to have the flexibility to move back and forth quickly with consistent results, I'll probably stick to the 1440x960 resolution. At home where I don't have a dock, I'll probably take the time to reset it to get the best experience.

Again, if Microsoft had used a slightly higher resolution panel that allowed a direct 4:1 reduction in resolution (2880x1920 to 1440x960 would have been perfect in my opinion as it's nearly identical to the stock 150% size) we could have reasonably sized content that was also very sharp without dealing with scaling issues.

 

[ChrisPanzer]

I use native resolution at 100%. I have IE windows set at 150% and use a mouse (Microsoft Arc Touch), but can launch files by tapping their icons, scroll, move, resize and even close windows by touch .

100% scaling at native resolution? LOL. You must be wearing ashtray glasses, because 99 out of 100 people would tend to agree that's just too darn small.

Also, I would like to address the argument of "you should use native res then just scale everything up because things will look better...".

I'd really like to understand something here. What is the difference between using the native res and scaling everything up to 200-250%, or using 1440 960 res and scaling to 150%?? It's almost like six to one, half dozen to the other. If anything messes things up on desktop appearances it's the scaling, not the resolution. Therefore, I'd much rather just adjust my res and let everything fall into place from there.

If someone can show me a scenario where an image/text looks better at native res than at a lower res (NOTICEABLY different) please do.

 

[hughlle]

Everything as it is out of the box. No issues here be it eye strain or not being able to touch the right thing.

 

[jnjroach]

First of all, there are a lot of people saying they use 150% scaling @ native resolution. The first knee-jerk response to naysayers to this setting is "well your eyesight sucks". Are we not overlooking one very basic UI aspect?? The darn thing is a TOUCHSCREEN!

The icons, menus, titlebars, etc. are all near darn impossbile to tap without hitting something else by mistake. Is it possible to concentrate and zero-in on something before tapping it, raising the probability you'll hit the mark? Of course. Is it practical? Absolutely not.

My 'optimum' scaling & resolution is basically proportional to my iPad. I am not sure what scaling ratio to resolution it uses, but the same icon and text sizes, for that size screen, would be, in my view, optimal. Everything on the display is large and clear and easily pressed without (most of the time) error. It's as if everything was built around it being a touch-screen interface. Whereas, the SP3 feels as though the touch UI was an afterthought.

The natural response is "well, use Metro!" I dont want to use Metro. The apps crash constantly, and most of the work I do is via Desktop mode. I really would expect MS to put their heads together and create a workable solution to this issue.

In conclusion, at the native resolution, 250% scaling looks 'natural' to me. It looks as if it's proportional to my iPad. I can press and manipulate icons on the screen, and press other items with ease. Anything smaller is just not practical. I dont see how you people do it, really. But hey, works for you, then great!

You compare the iPad to the SP3 and state you don't want to use the Modern UI....the reason you are able to use desktop applications on the SP3 is exactly why you are having the issues you are experiencing. There has been very little movement in the Win32 space in the last decade, much of the Win32 code is written for desktop computing with no power management and GDI scaling and for Mouse and Keyboard, this leads to blurry/fuzzy text at high DPI.

MUI Apps (now referred to as Universal) use WinRT which has been written from the ground up for modern computing, allowing Apps to look good on a 3.8" 720p or an 80" 8K Display and current design is for Touch or Mouse and Keyboard. Using lower resolutions is basically turning off pixels which still leads to fuzzy text....native plus scaling works better on any apps that support vector graphics (WPF and WinRT). GDI based Apps will struggle until they are killed off.

 

[ChrisPanzer]

You compare the iPad to the SP3 and state you don't want to use the Modern UI....the reason you are able to use desktop applications on the SP3 is exactly why you are having the issues you are experiencing. There has been very little movement in the Win32 space in the last decade, much of the Win32 code is written for desktop computing with no power management and GDI scaling and for Mouse and Keyboard, this leads to blurry/fuzzy text at high DPI.

MUI Apps (now referred to as Universal) use WinRT which has been written from the ground up for modern computing, allowing Apps to look good on a 3.8" 720p or an 80" 8K Display and current design is for Touch or Mouse and Keyboard. Using lower resolutions is basically turning off pixels which still leads to fuzzy text....native plus scaling works better on any apps that support vector graphics (WPF and WinRT). GDI based Apps will struggle until they are killed off.

Then why don't they work on improving the stability GUI interface?

And I'm making a comparison of the displays of the Ipad/sp3, and nothing more.

 

[zhenya]

100% scaling at native resolution? LOL. You must be wearing ashtray glasses, because 99 out of 100 people would tend to agree that's just too darn small.

Also, I would like to address the argument of "you should use native res then just scale everything up because things will look better...".

I'd really like to understand something here. What is the difference between using the native res and scaling everything up to 200-250%, or using 1440 960 res and scaling to 150%?? It's almost like six to one, half dozen to the other. If anything messes things up on desktop appearances it's the scaling, not the resolution. Therefore, I'd much rather just adjust my res and let everything fall into place from there.

If someone can show me a scenario where an image/text looks better at native res than at a lower res (NOTICEABLY different) please do.

I agree with you that native resolution is just too darn small. Even with near perfect vision, I just find that it's just a strain to look at all the time and I expect both desktop and Metro to be somewhat usable with touch and that's just not really the case at full res no scaling.

Using the native res, with scaling though will generally result in sharper objects. When you use a non-native resolution, everything will be a little bit less sharp. Because the SP3 has relatively high DPI, it can make things look fairly passable. Still, there is a noticeable difference to me in the sharpness of text, especially, using the native resolution and 150% scaling vs. just scaling at 150% by setting the resolution to 1440x960.

As someone pointed out to you earlier in the thread, you might as well use a fixed resolution to get your scaling factor directly from the resolution vs. setting the resolution halfway there and then using scaling to get the rest of the way. There is always a bit of a performance hit when you have to scale in hardware, so might as well do it by just setting the resolution which has no such hit.