Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Mar 2014 22:55 UTC
Mac OS X

In my Mac Pro review I lamented the state of 4K display support under OS X 10.9.0. In my conclusion I wrote: "4K display compatibility under OS X is still a bit like the wild west at this point". Compatibility was pretty much only guaranteed with the ASUS/Sharp 4K displays if you cared about having a refresh rate higher than 30Hz. Even if you had the right monitor, the only really usable resolution was 3840 x 2160 - which ends up making text and UI elements a bit too small for some users. Absent were the wonderful scaling resolutions that Apple introduced with its MacBook Pro with Retina Display. Well it looks like that won't be the case for long, last night I got reports (thanks Mike!) that the latest developer build of OS X 10.9.3 includes expanded support for 4K displays, 4K/60Hz support for rMBPs and scaled resolutions below 4K.

So, OS X is essentially the only desktop operating system with proper HiDPI support, right?

Thread beginning with comment 584435
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Nope.
by dpJudas on Thu 13th Mar 2014 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Nope."
dpJudas
Member since:
2009-12-10

Slightly related: I always thought that people were stupid for not doing everything with vectors in svg.

Then I read this:

http://www.pushing-pixels.org/2011/11/04/about-those-vector-icons.h...

But the upshot is, we can use vectors and everything will be magical automatically, just as soon as everyone is on high dpi displays.

It is actually the same aliasing effects that makes "dynamic DPI" problematic in practice as well.

Half the secret of the Hi-DPI feature of OS X is that it exactly doubles the resolution. Legacy apps can then be unaware of it while all images scale cleanly.

A 130% scale on the other hand requires far more complexity because you cannot anymore just upscale all images and coordinates by 30%. Aliasing effects start appearing left and right unless you happen to have a 130% sized image you can use instead. Which is also the reason .ico files pack icons at 16x16, 32x32, 48x48, 64x64, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Nope.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 13th Mar 2014 15:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Nope."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I wonder how bad it really would be if the resoluytion wasn't exactly double on a screen with as many pixels as the Mac Book Pro Retina. Theoretically, with a high enough pixel count, it shouldn't matter.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Nope.
by woegjiub on Thu 13th Mar 2014 20:23 in reply to "RE[3]: Nope."
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

OS X still looks really good at all the "resolution" settings greater than their 'best for retina', which is 0.5x native.

My OS X partition is running at 'looks like 1920x1200', which I think is about 0.66x native.

I think the trick is that modern applications and web documents all scale quite responsively anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 3