1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

1920x1080 how some programs (non-menu area) fonts are displayed

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by George, Apr 17, 2010.

  1. George

    George Flightless Bird

    Moving from the 1280x1024 for standard LCD 19" etc screens resolution, to
    the 1920x1080 which comes with 23" etc WideScreen monitors these days, we
    know the same settings of font size displayed we were use to, will now show
    slightly smaller - and that's fine.

    First, yes we understand about font size, clear type, and dpi adjustments.
    Yes we know for higher resolutions being sure to turn on and adjust
    ClearType which solves readability problems just fine across the board in
    every nook and cranny, Except, inside many non-microsoft programs where the
    OS's control over the font size, clear type, or dpi adjustments in the
    non-menu areas 'cannot' reach there - is specifically what I am talking
    about today - The problem is the font displayed in these programs (non-menu)
    areas is harder to read because it's a little too skinny and smaller - again
    everywhere else is just fine.

    We know that going forward software developers automatically write their
    softwares fonts to be easily readable in higher resolutions, but many of our
    slightly older programs we still want to use did not, and that's where the
    problem is seen whether I'm using WXP, Vista, or Windows7 - the issue is
    exactly the same. (The issue is NOT a VGA, DVI, or HDMI connection issue,
    or Video Card issue, or a Brightness or Contrast etc adjustment problem)

    ***
    The question is, how can you get the ClearType setting to also have its
    effect on fonts which exist inside of these programs non-menu areas that
    are currently not in the OS's control?

    Is there another way?
     
  2. VanguardLH

    VanguardLH Flightless Bird

    George wrote:

    > Moving from the 1280x1024 for standard LCD 19" etc screens resolution, to
    > the 1920x1080 which comes with 23" etc WideScreen monitors these days, we
    > know the same settings of font size displayed we were use to, will now show
    > slightly smaller - and that's fine.
    >
    > First, yes we understand about font size, clear type, and dpi adjustments.
    > Yes we know for higher resolutions being sure to turn on and adjust
    > ClearType which solves readability problems just fine across the board in
    > every nook and cranny, Except, inside many non-microsoft programs where the
    > OS's control over the font size, clear type, or dpi adjustments in the
    > non-menu areas 'cannot' reach there - is specifically what I am talking
    > about today - The problem is the font displayed in these programs (non-menu)
    > areas is harder to read because it's a little too skinny and smaller - again
    > everywhere else is just fine.
    >
    > We know that going forward software developers automatically write their
    > softwares fonts to be easily readable in higher resolutions, but many of our
    > slightly older programs we still want to use did not, and that's where the
    > problem is seen whether I'm using WXP, Vista, or Windows7 - the issue is
    > exactly the same. (The issue is NOT a VGA, DVI, or HDMI connection issue,
    > or Video Card issue, or a Brightness or Contrast etc adjustment problem)
    >
    > ***
    > The question is, how can you get the ClearType setting to also have its
    > effect on fonts which exist inside of these programs non-menu areas that
    > are currently not in the OS's control?
    >
    > Is there another way?


    As monitor resolution goes up, users MUST increase the DPI setting to make
    use of the higher resolution; otherwise, they are throwing away the money to
    buy higher resolution monitors. The point is to keep the object the SAME
    size while increasing resolution so more pixels are consumed in painting the
    same-size object. If you let objects, like text, get smaller as you up the
    monitor's resolution then you have NOT increased the resolution of the text.
    The text getting smaller means it is using the same number of pixels as
    before. As the objects get smaller, not only have your sacrificed the
    ability for higher resolution but you often end up with focus and tinge
    artifacts (the smaller-sized objects using the same number of pixels as
    before will become fuzzier and exhibit color tinge around their edges).

    If users not only want to maintain the same size for an object but also take
    advantage of increased resolution of newer monitors, they must increase the
    DPI setting. If they keep the default DPI setting and go higher in
    resolution, objects become smaller and the expense of buying a high
    resolution monitor was wasted since the object is getting painted with the
    same number pixels (i.e., the object's resolution has NOT gone up if you
    increase the screen resolution but not also increase the DPI). You want the
    density of pixels to increase to give you sharper text and objects. That
    means you need to keep the object the SAME size but up the screen resolution
    to provide for more pixels to paint that same-sized object.

    ClearType is interpolation to account for poor or low resolution or by
    letting objects get smaller because you neglected to up the DPI as you upped
    the monitor's native resolution. ClearType will not overcome problems with
    fuzziness or color tinge as objects get smaller as you up the resolution
    while leaving the DPI the same. It is also to smooth out otherwise jaggy
    fonts. Users would prefer to have sharper text than of having software make
    guesses which further reduces sharpness. Cleartype is not the solution when
    you go to a higher-resolution monitor. Upping DPI is the resolution so
    objects have higher granularity (or higher density of pixels).

    A one-inch high by wide object will look sharper if you paint more pixels
    inside that same-size object. You need to make a DPI-aware application.
    Stop expecting users to simply toss away the money they spent to get a
    higher resolution monitor by keeping with the antiquated 96 DPI setting.
    When users go to higher resolution monitors, they should expect your app to
    look better, not smaller and fuzzier and exhibit color tinge. Unfortunately
    many programmers are DPI ignorants who never consider what an app will look
    like other than on the monitor the programmers use to develop their app.

    While the DPI setting will affect object sizes, the arrangement of those
    objects can get screwed up because programs don't check the DPI setting.
    They default and blindly assume 96 DPI when positioning the objects inside
    their windows or frames. So as the DPI gets increased, the objects could
    get pushed out of place or even outside the frame or window and become
    partially or wholly unviewable and thus unusable. As monitors have gone up
    in resolution, it has become more of a responsibility of programmers to
    designed DPI-aware UIs for their programs.

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd464659(VS.85).aspx

    As I recall (since I don't use them), both Vista and consequently Windows 7
    have a DPI compatible setting that lets the window for a particular app to
    be enlarged so it looks like a DPI-aware application. It is an automatic
    rescaling feature so old non-DPI aware apps don't get tiny, out of focus, or
    show color tinge (on LCD monitors). The user increases the DPI to make
    objects look sharper because they bought a higher-resolution monitor. This
    makes your old apps look small, jaggy, fuzzy, and color tinged. Rather than
    duplicate what articles I have read regarding Vista/7's auto-scaling for
    non-DPI aware apps, see:

    http://www.techtalkz.com/tips-n-tri...windows-vista-supports-high-dpi-displays.html
     
  3. George

    George Flightless Bird

    Hello Vanguard,

    Great informative post, thanks.

    I've been reading, contemplating, and booting between WXP/Vista/Win7 trying
    many many many different scenarios. WXP does react a little differently
    that the other two, and when in Vista & Win7 testing the "Use Windows XP
    style DPI scaling" is interesting - but not a perfect rendition or
    solution, but interesting indeed.

    My mind is a sieve by now from going back and forth to all three OS's
    testing so many things, and so will wait to recover my mind a few days
    before I can make a more informed reply, but wanted to do a quick post
    sooner to acknowledge your post.

    I've learned a lot toward finding the answer to my original post, although
    it would of been better if in the first place all my older applications
    were DPI-aware.

    I understand what you are saying about ClearType, nevertheless, in real
    life testing using all three OS's it is much better with it than without
    it, and so I will leave that checked... but perhaps I misworded my original
    post by asking about ClearType the way I did, but simply I just wanted
    those fewer programs that were font readability lacking to look better like
    the rest of the OS which was fine. Custom updating the dpi does help, but
    the gains in my desired area was overkill in the regular areas, and so in
    no way would I put it up to 120 dpi since that makes the fonts way too
    big - tested on all three OS's; testing intermediate dpi settings 'may
    have' showed more promising results. That link you post below that talks
    about the 120 dpi set to take the same physical space as the 96 dpi sounded
    good, but on all three OS's that does not happen - fonts get Much larger;
    perhaps I misinterpreted the articles meaning, but again my mind is a sieve
    at the moment and need to walk away, and so will post back after the next
    work week.

    Anyway, my point in this post today is to acknowledge your thought
    provoking reply of which I appreciate it very much!




    "VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message
    news:hqdmtn$dsh$1@news.albasani.net
    > George wrote:
    >
    >> Moving from the 1280x1024 for standard LCD 19" etc screens resolution,
    >> to the 1920x1080 which comes with 23" etc WideScreen monitors these
    >> days, we know the same settings of font size displayed we were use to,
    >> will now show slightly smaller - and that's fine.
    >>
    >> First, yes we understand about font size, clear type, and dpi
    >> adjustments. Yes we know for higher resolutions being sure to turn on
    >> and adjust ClearType which solves readability problems just fine across
    >> the board in every nook and cranny, Except, inside many non-microsoft
    >> programs where the OS's control over the font size, clear type, or dpi
    >> adjustments in the non-menu areas 'cannot' reach there - is
    >> specifically what I am talking about today - The problem is the font
    >> displayed in these programs (non-menu) areas is harder to read because
    >> it's a little too skinny and smaller - again everywhere else is just
    >> fine.
    >>
    >> We know that going forward software developers automatically write their
    >> softwares fonts to be easily readable in higher resolutions, but many
    >> of our slightly older programs we still want to use did not, and that's
    >> where the problem is seen whether I'm using WXP, Vista, or Windows7 -
    >> the issue is exactly the same. (The issue is NOT a VGA, DVI, or HDMI
    >> connection issue, or Video Card issue, or a Brightness or Contrast etc
    >> adjustment problem)
    >>
    >> ***
    >> The question is, how can you get the ClearType setting to also have its
    >> effect on fonts which exist inside of these programs non-menu areas that
    >> are currently not in the OS's control?
    >>
    >> Is there another way?

    >
    > As monitor resolution goes up, users MUST increase the DPI setting to
    > make use of the higher resolution; otherwise, they are throwing away the
    > money to buy higher resolution monitors. The point is to keep the
    > object the SAME size while increasing resolution so more pixels are
    > consumed in painting the same-size object. If you let objects, like
    > text, get smaller as you up the monitor's resolution then you have NOT
    > increased the resolution of the text. The text getting smaller means it
    > is using the same number of pixels as before. As the objects get
    > smaller, not only have your sacrificed the ability for higher resolution
    > but you often end up with focus and tinge artifacts (the smaller-sized
    > objects using the same number of pixels as before will become fuzzier
    > and exhibit color tinge around their edges).
    >
    > If users not only want to maintain the same size for an object but also
    > take advantage of increased resolution of newer monitors, they must
    > increase the DPI setting. If they keep the default DPI setting and go
    > higher in resolution, objects become smaller and the expense of buying a
    > high resolution monitor was wasted since the object is getting painted
    > with the same number pixels (i.e., the object's resolution has NOT gone
    > up if you increase the screen resolution but not also increase the DPI).
    > You want the density of pixels to increase to give you sharper text and
    > objects. That means you need to keep the object the SAME size but up
    > the screen resolution to provide for more pixels to paint that
    > same-sized object.
    >
    > ClearType is interpolation to account for poor or low resolution or by
    > letting objects get smaller because you neglected to up the DPI as you
    > upped the monitor's native resolution. ClearType will not overcome
    > problems with fuzziness or color tinge as objects get smaller as you up
    > the resolution while leaving the DPI the same. It is also to smooth out
    > otherwise jaggy fonts. Users would prefer to have sharper text than of
    > having software make guesses which further reduces sharpness. Cleartype
    > is not the solution when you go to a higher-resolution monitor. Upping
    > DPI is the resolution so objects have higher granularity (or higher
    > density of pixels).
    >
    > A one-inch high by wide object will look sharper if you paint more pixels
    > inside that same-size object. You need to make a DPI-aware application.
    > Stop expecting users to simply toss away the money they spent to get a
    > higher resolution monitor by keeping with the antiquated 96 DPI setting.
    > When users go to higher resolution monitors, they should expect your app
    > to look better, not smaller and fuzzier and exhibit color tinge.
    > Unfortunately many programmers are DPI ignorants who never consider what
    > an app will look like other than on the monitor the programmers use to
    > develop their app.
    >
    > While the DPI setting will affect object sizes, the arrangement of those
    > objects can get screwed up because programs don't check the DPI setting.
    > They default and blindly assume 96 DPI when positioning the objects
    > inside their windows or frames. So as the DPI gets increased, the
    > objects could get pushed out of place or even outside the frame or
    > window and become partially or wholly unviewable and thus unusable. As
    > monitors have gone up in resolution, it has become more of a
    > responsibility of programmers to designed DPI-aware UIs for their
    > programs.
    >
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd464659(VS.85).aspx
    >
    > As I recall (since I don't use them), both Vista and consequently
    > Windows 7 have a DPI compatible setting that lets the window for a
    > particular app to be enlarged so it looks like a DPI-aware application.
    > It is an automatic rescaling feature so old non-DPI aware apps don't get
    > tiny, out of focus, or show color tinge (on LCD monitors). The user
    > increases the DPI to make objects look sharper because they bought a
    > higher-resolution monitor. This makes your old apps look small, jaggy,
    > fuzzy, and color tinged. Rather than duplicate what articles I have
    > read regarding Vista/7's auto-scaling for non-DPI aware apps, see:
    >
    > http://www.techtalkz.com/tips-n-tri...windows-vista-supports-high-dpi-displays.html
     
  4. VanguardLH

    VanguardLH Flightless Bird

    The fonts will only get much bigger if you only increase the DPI and not the
    screen resolution. LCD monitors are best operated at their native
    resolution. Any other resolution results in interpolation that results in
    loss of focus and other video artifacts. So, as you mentioned, if your
    screen resolution goes up then so should your DPI setting so objects become
    sharper and remain at the same size. Although your monitor's native
    resolution might increase by 50%, you usually don't need to make the same
    amount of change in the DPI to keep the screen legible. Because sharpness
    goes up with the higher native resolution along with an increase in DPI, you
    can actually see better the smaller fonts but not have them as small and
    fuzzy as when you don't change the DPI at all. Instead of writing with a
    chunk of charcoal, you can go smaller in size if you use a felt pen because
    the text is sharper.

    Going from 1280 to 1920 wouldn't just make your fonts look a little smaller.
    With the DPI remaining the same and assuming that you actually use the
    native resolution of the monitor, your fonts would probably get around a
    third smaller. That's a significant change and would end up with users
    squinting at the much smaller fonts and getting headaches as a consequence.

    I have not yet found a software utility that will DPI scale a particular
    window. That is, I haven't found something that can use a different DPI for
    an application's window than the DPI configured for the OS in general. I'm
    still using Windows XP and have many older non-DPI aware programs that would
    more usuable if such a utility existed. As the screen resolution goes up,
    users don't just up the DPI to increase sharpness to utilitize the increased
    number of pixels but they also need to keep from getting those tiny fonts
    that give them headaches or force them to wear computer magnifier eyeglasses
    to see those small objects.

    There are virtual desktop managers that let you have more than one desktop
    available (you switch between them). I have not checked into trialing many
    of these to see if any let you change the screen resolution so each virtual
    desktop could run at a different screen resolution. It seems plausible
    since the virtual desktop consumes the entire screen so the resolution
    change should be doable. I also do not have a multiple monitor setup to
    know if different resolutions can be used for each monitor but that seems
    doable, too.

    Since these appear to be apps for which you have no control over their code
    and they are old so non-DPI aware apps, and without using virtual desktops
    or multiple monitors or auto DPI scaling (in Vista/7), you're stuck with
    your old apps looking small or everything else looking bigger.
     
  5. George

    George Flightless Bird

    "VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote in message
    news:hqfslv$o2$1@news.albasani.net
    > The fonts will only get much bigger if you only increase the DPI and not
    > the screen resolution. LCD monitors are best operated at their native
    > resolution. Any other resolution results in interpolation that results
    > in loss of focus and other video artifacts. So, as you mentioned, if
    > your screen resolution goes up then so should your DPI setting so
    > objects become sharper and remain at the same size. Although your
    > monitor's native resolution might increase by 50%, you usually don't
    > need to make the same amount of change in the DPI to keep the screen
    > legible. Because sharpness goes up with the higher native resolution
    > along with an increase in DPI, you can actually see better the smaller
    > fonts but not have them as small and fuzzy as when you don't change the
    > DPI at all. Instead of writing with a chunk of charcoal, you can go
    > smaller in size if you use a felt pen because the text is sharper.
    >
    > Going from 1280 to 1920 wouldn't just make your fonts look a little
    > smaller. With the DPI remaining the same and assuming that you actually
    > use the native resolution of the monitor, your fonts would probably get
    > around a third smaller. That's a significant change and would end up
    > with users squinting at the much smaller fonts and getting headaches as
    > a consequence.


    Yes I always use the Native resolution as it should be. As mentioned in the
    OP, I went from a 19'' Standard LCD @ 1280x1024, up to a 23" (hindsight
    shoulda been 24'' to have matched actual screen heights!) Widescreen LCD @
    1920x1080 ...and so the standard to widescreen change from 1280 to 1920 is
    more intellectually absorbed in the width of the widescreen, I mean it's
    just the extra widescreen width that looks bigger there as compared to the
    small resolution change that actually went with that, and so intellectually
    by eye the more realistic resolution comparable difference is the vertical
    1024 to the little bit more at 1080, but in reality both only changed the
    fonts appearance overall to be just aprox 5% smaller, but for my non-aware
    portions of my older programs 5% was quite noticeable since the settings do
    not reach into those non-aware places, and so therefore the fonts appeared a
    bit lacking, or skinnish, but comparatively everything else in the OS's
    renderings and all aware programs are just fine. It's just those non-aware
    portions that's the issue for me.


    > I have not yet found a software utility that will DPI scale a particular
    > window. That is, I haven't found something that can use a different DPI
    > for an application's window than the DPI configured for the OS in
    > general. I'm still using Windows XP and have many older non-DPI aware
    > programs that would more usuable if such a utility existed. As the
    > screen resolution goes up, users don't just up the DPI to increase
    > sharpness to utilitize the increased number of pixels but they also need
    > to keep from getting those tiny fonts that give them headaches or force
    > them to wear computer magnifier eyeglasses to see those small objects.



    Understood.

    This is where I find the ClearType setting to be most valuable in all three
    OS's, WXP/Vista/Win7, and it really made this slightly higher resolution
    change a non-issue, although my only problem again is that it does not go
    into non-aware portions of programs (well, technically it will, But, not
    properly... If for instance I went up to 97 dpi it would have minimal
    changes elsewhere but would Not afect into no-aware portions at all, same
    with 98, 99, 100 ...now above this here it sporadically starts to influence
    particular layouts but not all, and so in testing I found in order to affect
    these non-menu areas of older programs I had to go up nearly to 109 dpi and
    it's around there that finally! it made the first real change of fonts in
    those areas, but by then, those areas were now fine but all the aware
    portions of everything else was way to big... ..don't know if I typed my
    explanation properly since it's a mind/tongue twister anyway to explain, but
    the testing and results were real life, true, and understood. (yes in
    testing for accuracy reboots were done even after every little change)

    The programs I've worked with to name a random few, and for random instance,
    all ESET programs are all dpi-aware and have have no problems at all with
    any part of their gui font visability, actually it's excelent, but for
    instance the old versions aren't but even the new 2010 CheckPoint programs
    surprisingly (or not <g>) are still not dpi-aware!. Now the old PrintKey
    2000 program is not either but you may expect that, and like the older but
    handy AVIcodec program (v.2.b113) is a perfect example of a non-dpi aware
    application and the lacking of that issue is seen very well on a 1920x1080
    monitor.

    > There are virtual desktop managers that let you have more than one
    > desktop available (you switch between them). I have not checked into
    > trialing many of these to see if any let you change the screen
    > resolution so each virtual desktop could run at a different screen
    > resolution. It seems plausible since the virtual desktop consumes the
    > entire screen so the resolution change should be doable. I also do not
    > have a multiple monitor setup to know if different resolutions can be
    > used for each monitor but that seems doable, too.
    >
    > Since these appear to be apps for which you have no control over their
    > code and they are old so non-DPI aware apps, and without using virtual
    > desktops or multiple monitors or auto DPI scaling (in Vista/7), you're
    > stuck with your old apps looking small or everything else looking bigger.


    Exactly, and so in the final analysis for me now I see it's just easier and
    more Consistent to leave it at the default 96 dpi for all three OS's along
    with the Native resolution for my Monitor being 1920x1080, which the
    dpi is right since if you calculate the known formula of taking the
    'Actual' 'Screen' height, for my 23" is 11 1/4 " and you divide 11.25 into
    1080 you get 96 dpi, and so it is.

    Okay, moving on, and thanks again.

    Take good care,
     
  6. George

    George Flightless Bird

    VanguardLH

    You know having more time with it I see that more programs that I have are
    affected than I thought, and at times using them I see that it bugs me more
    than I thought.

    For instance here's a link to a screenshotI took of portions of the GUI
    from the program PhotoShop v7 ..and I circled the Menu Fonts in Green
    showing all the Menus of these programs and are fine, it's just the Non-Menu
    or Non-Aware portion of these programs Fonts that I circled in Red that you
    can see that are too skimpy and in places hard to even read - and it's these
    Fonts that I want to be normal like the rest - How?

    Screenshot - http://i42.tinypic.com/2n233bs.jpg

    Like I said before changing the OS's dpi settings kicks in in steps, you
    have to get up to near 115 dpi from 96 in order for it to actually affect
    those areas to look normal, but @ 113 dpi then all the other Menu items by
    now are twice the size comparatively and silly - there has to be a way to do
    this that is consistent across the board?

    I know as you said before I don't think there is, but this is ridiculous - I
    almost want to send the Monitor back.

    There has to be a way I haven't thought of.... grrrrr
     
  7. George

    George Flightless Bird

    LoL... well not really, but what I will say shows how in some sense complex
    this issue is, because I happened to go to that screenshot Link I posted on
    a different computer and I was surprised (or now not) that the differences
    between the two font's showings that I had circled is Not At All evident on
    any other computer that is Not set to 1920 x 1080 @ 96 dpi, instead it looks
    fine, and I realized one might think why would this guy show a comparison
    between two font renderings that look the same, well, but, you see
    apparently on a computer that's set to 1920 x 1080 @ 96 dpi is when you can
    clearly see the difference, and more complex (or not) is the fact that even
    if I change my own dpi to let's say 102 dpi even though the non-DPI Aware
    programs 'non-menu' fonts still don't change still being too small, skinny
    and hard to read, but if I look at that Screenshot of it via Explorer,
    interestingly it looks just fine (because while a 102 dpi
    setting will not change/affect non-aware programs non-menu fonts at all,
    that setting Does affect all aware programs and of course Explorer being one
    of them, and so in order to view a Screenshot taken of my issue the computer
    seeing it must be set at the screenshot source 1920 x 1080 @ 96 dpi.

    I noticed even some 2010 programs, for instance, Malwarebytes, it's hard to
    believe that having just made this program that this company has its entire
    program non-dpi Aware! ...I guess this issue for companies still coding
    programs DPI aware is not going to go away anytime soon... I suppose that
    will be a drawback of those non-suspecting persons that buy larger than 21"
    WideScreen Monitors having a Native 1920 x 1080 resolution when they
    see how their long time favorite programs font renderings will now appear to
    them - good luck!

    I wish their was a good way around this issue!

    Someone in the know must have found some type of solution or way to deal
    with this....
     
  8. George

    George Flightless Bird

    Well I found the resolve and it was to simply return the 23" LCD Widescreen
    for a 25" which solved the problem quite nicely.

    A 23" widescreen LCD with its 20.06" x 11.29" display area with its set
    Pixel Pitch of 0.2655 displayed at the LCDs default 1920x1080 resolution,
    shows OS's default text settings which is 96 dpi just too small in the
    Non-DPI Aware portions of programs to render their fonts adequately, it's
    just too skinny, cramped, and lousy to look at. Yes in most cases ClearType
    greatly helps fonts within its reach, but again it can Not reach into
    Non-DPI Aware areas of programs - which was the main talking point of my
    original post.

    Anyway, a 25" LCD widescreen with its 21.40" x 12.04" display area with its
    set Pixel Pitch of 0.283 shown at the 1920x1080 resolution, this renders
    everything globally slightly larger than the 23", well that's just enough to
    solve the problem globally all at once. Actually a 27" widescreen LCD is
    even more ideal with it's 23.5" x 13.2" display area with its set Pixel
    Pitch of 0.3114 shown at the default 1920 x 1080 resolution renders
    everything even slightly larger yet, and this makes for ideal viewing of
    fonts left at the OS's default 96 dpi font rendering, which is appropriate
    anyway! Trying to change the OS's default 96 dpi setting to solve the
    problem was not a global fix and causes it's own set of problems trying to
    do it that way. We also know it's best to stay with a LCD Monitors
    recommended resolution for best results. Trying to create slightly different
    custom resolutions to sidestep the issue causes its own set of problems and
    was not the answer; however adjusting the standard Display Properties Screen
    Resolution slider to choose the next lower resolution can give good
    results too, however it does so by usually making everything way too large,
    but my post is to stay on point of everything within and to do with 1920 x
    1080 resolutions leaving the OS's (WXP/Vista/Win7) default 96 dpi font
    settings alone as intended.

    So in my humble opinion a 22" LCD widescreen for computer use, even a 23",
    should not be used at 1920 x 1080 resolution if you use a lot of programs
    that are Non-DPI Aware - ideally at that resolution a 25", better yet a
    25.5", even 26", or 27" is better yet. ...Since the Pixel Pitch of each
    larger display area is a little larger, thereby what is 'seen' on the screen
    with the same fonts shown on a 22" is 'seen' as aprox 10% larger (vert&horz)
    when shown on a 25" - that simply solves the problem spoken of.

    It's interesting to note that if you once had let's say a 19" 4:3
    'non-widescreen' LCD, well it's display area height was aprox 12', and so
    what's interesting to note is in order for you to get back that same aprox
    12" of actual display area height in a 16:9 widescreen - you need to get at
    least a 25" widescreen since (as noted previously) it's display area height
    measurement is aprox 12" too. Moral of this story is if you had a regular
    (4:3) 19" LCD and you want to get a widescreen (16:9), don't get any less
    than a 25" or you won't be happy.

    I just wanted to come back and close my post as resolved, but leaving the
    answer to be of help to anyone else.

    It's an endless subject anyway with so many variables, and so much
    information out there, some not applicable; for instance what we used to
    realize with CRT Pixel Pitch is not the same with LCD Pixel Pitch, etc,





    "George" <george@nothome.com> wrote in message
    news:eod5khk3KHA.5820@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl
    > Moving from the 1280x1024 for standard LCD 19" etc screens resolution, to
    > the 1920x1080 which comes with 23" etc WideScreen monitors these days, we
    > know the same settings of font size displayed we were use to, will now
    > show slightly smaller - and that's fine.
    >
    > First, yes we understand about font size, clear type, and dpi
    > adjustments. Yes we know for higher resolutions being sure to turn on
    > and adjust ClearType which solves readability problems just fine across
    > the board in every nook and cranny, Except, inside many non-microsoft
    > programs where the OS's control over the font size, clear type, or dpi
    > adjustments in the non-menu areas 'cannot' reach there - is specifically
    > what I am talking about today - The problem is the font displayed in
    > these programs (non-menu) areas is harder to read because it's a little
    > too skinny and smaller - again everywhere else is just fine.
    >
    > We know that going forward software developers automatically write their
    > softwares fonts to be easily readable in higher resolutions, but many of
    > our slightly older programs we still want to use did not, and that's
    > where the problem is seen whether I'm using WXP, Vista, or Windows7 -
    > the issue is exactly the same. (The issue is NOT a VGA, DVI, or HDMI
    > connection issue, or Video Card issue, or a Brightness or Contrast etc
    > adjustment problem)
    > ***
    > The question is, how can you get the ClearType setting to also have its
    > effect on fonts which exist inside of these programs non-menu areas that
    > are currently not in the OS's control?
    >
    > Is there another way?
     
  9. choro

    choro Flightless Bird

    George wrote:
    > Well I found the resolve and it was to simply return the 23" LCD
    > Widescreen for a 25" which solved the problem quite nicely.
    >
    > A 23" widescreen LCD with its 20.06" x 11.29" display area with its
    > set Pixel Pitch of 0.2655 displayed at the LCDs default 1920x1080
    > resolution, shows OS's default text settings which is 96 dpi just too
    > small in the Non-DPI Aware portions of programs to render their fonts
    > adequately, it's just too skinny, cramped, and lousy to look at. Yes
    > in most cases ClearType greatly helps fonts within its reach, but
    > again it can Not reach into Non-DPI Aware areas of programs - which
    > was the main talking point of my original post.
    >
    > Anyway, a 25" LCD widescreen with its 21.40" x 12.04" display area
    > with its set Pixel Pitch of 0.283 shown at the 1920x1080 resolution,
    > this renders everything globally slightly larger than the 23", well
    > that's just enough to solve the problem globally all at once. Actually a
    > 27" widescreen LCD is even more ideal with it's 23.5" x
    > 13.2" display area with its set Pixel Pitch of 0.3114 shown at the
    > default 1920 x 1080 resolution renders everything even slightly
    > larger yet, and this makes for ideal viewing of fonts left at the
    > OS's default 96 dpi font rendering, which is appropriate anyway! Trying to
    > change the OS's default 96 dpi setting to solve the problem
    > was not a global fix and causes it's own set of problems trying to do
    > it that way. We also know it's best to stay with a LCD Monitors
    > recommended resolution for best results. Trying to create slightly
    > different custom resolutions to sidestep the issue causes its own set
    > of problems and was not the answer; however adjusting the standard
    > Display Properties Screen Resolution slider to choose the next lower
    > resolution can give good results too, however it does so by usually
    > making everything way too
    > large, but my post is to stay on point of everything within and to do
    > with 1920 x 1080 resolutions leaving the OS's (WXP/Vista/Win7)
    > default 96 dpi font settings alone as intended.
    >
    > So in my humble opinion a 22" LCD widescreen for computer use, even a
    > 23", should not be used at 1920 x 1080 resolution if you use a lot of
    > programs that are Non-DPI Aware - ideally at that resolution a 25",
    > better yet a 25.5", even 26", or 27" is better yet. ...Since the Pixel
    > Pitch of
    > each larger display area is a little larger, thereby what is 'seen'
    > on the screen with the same fonts shown on a 22" is 'seen' as aprox
    > 10% larger (vert&horz) when shown on a 25" - that simply solves the
    > problem spoken of.
    > It's interesting to note that if you once had let's say a 19" 4:3
    > 'non-widescreen' LCD, well it's display area height was aprox 12',
    > and so what's interesting to note is in order for you to get back
    > that same aprox 12" of actual display area height in a 16:9
    > widescreen - you need to get at least a 25" widescreen since (as
    > noted previously) it's display area height measurement is aprox 12"
    > too. Moral of this story is if you had a regular (4:3) 19" LCD and
    > you want to get a widescreen (16:9), don't get any less than a 25" or
    > you won't be happy.
    > I just wanted to come back and close my post as resolved, but leaving
    > the answer to be of help to anyone else.
    >
    > It's an endless subject anyway with so many variables, and so much
    > information out there, some not applicable; for instance what we used
    > to realize with CRT Pixel Pitch is not the same with LCD Pixel Pitch,
    > etc,

    George,

    What you say is very interesting particularly for me as I have hopes of
    getting a larger screen than my 22" LG monitor which I find quite
    satisfactory except for its vertical resolution. It is an 1680x1050 screen
    which I can't use on my old faithful 10 year old computer with its AVG
    graphics card which is not so easy to replace now as presumably all the new
    graphics cards are of the PCIe type.

    Decided to build a new desktop when I realized my old AMD Thunderbird CPU is
    not capable of supporting a decent web camera for which you need a more
    modern chip. I have attached my old 22" LG monitor to the new desktop I am
    building but I get ghosting presumably either due to the KVM box which can't
    support such high resolutions OR the older type D15 port. No DVI port on the
    LG, you see. 1440x900 is the max resolution I can get using my old AGP
    equipped old computer. 1680x1050 which is the native resolution of the 22"
    LG screen overfills the screen for some reason and thus becomes completely
    unusable. Any out there who can solve this problem for me?

    Anyway, on the new computer I am building 1680x1050 resolution works OK
    except for the ghosting but when I get the time I will hook the two up using
    a DVI cable with a D15 adaptor. We'll see! Will it work? Will it work
    connected via the KVM box? That I still have to find out. Unfortunately I
    have got so much cabling (4 comps hooked up via the KVM! A wiring nightmare
    which makes rearranging the wiring more or less impossible and I have to add
    that I am not exactly young and athletic!). It is obvious that I will have
    to get someone to help me out to pass the cable down back of the desk while
    I grab it from under the desk and pull it before I connect it to the new
    computer sitting below the desk. Are you still with me? ;-) I tried pushing
    the cable through behind the desk right against the wall and I couldn't.
    Can't pull the desk forward. It is too heavily laden with massive oldie
    worldie speakers. But you should hear the quality of the sound I get through
    my dedicated big Yamaha stereo amplifier. Out of this world. More or less
    true audiophilie sounds! When I turn them on I am in heaven. This is my Inn
    of the Sixth Happiness!!!

    So according to you I should be looking for a 25 or even a 26" 1920x1050
    screen. I say preferably a 1920x1200 screen but I hear they are exorbitantly
    expensive compared to the x1050 ones. But it is the only way to see the
    north and the south poles at the same time, if you know what I mean. ;-) ;-)

    I must be in a good mood tonight. I have already teased one or two people on
    the Usenet but this is serious stuff. I mean the monitor screen issue.

    And I realize that if I want to maintain the connection of all four
    computers to the same screen, I will probably end up having to buy a new KVM
    switch either with DVI or better still HDMI facilities.

    Problems never cease for those who are never happy with what they have
    already got. They always want something better.

    I couldn't help thinking whether this is the basic problem of society these
    days what with marriages breaking up because people always are after juicier
    pussies or bigger and bigger shafts.

    Me, I am just a computer freak! Not that computers are my only weakness,
    mind you but that's another story and has got no relevance in this
    newsgroup.

    ;-) ;-) ;-)
    --
    choro
    *****
    >
    >
    > "George" <george@nothome.com> wrote in message
    > news:eod5khk3KHA.5820@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl
    >> Moving from the 1280x1024 for standard LCD 19" etc screens
    >> resolution, to the 1920x1080 which comes with 23" etc WideScreen
    >> monitors these days, we know the same settings of font size
    >> displayed we were use to, will now show slightly smaller - and
    >> that's fine. First, yes we understand about font size, clear type, and
    >> dpi
    >> adjustments. Yes we know for higher resolutions being sure to turn on
    >> and adjust ClearType which solves readability problems just fine
    >> across the board in every nook and cranny, Except, inside many
    >> non-microsoft programs where the OS's control over the font size,
    >> clear type, or dpi adjustments in the non-menu areas 'cannot' reach
    >> there - is specifically what I am talking about today - The problem
    >> is the font displayed in these programs (non-menu) areas is harder
    >> to read because it's a little too skinny and smaller - again
    >> everywhere else is just fine. We know that going forward software
    >> developers automatically write
    >> their softwares fonts to be easily readable in higher resolutions,
    >> but many of our slightly older programs we still want to use did
    >> not, and that's where the problem is seen whether I'm using WXP,
    >> Vista, or Windows7 - the issue is exactly the same. (The issue is
    >> NOT a VGA, DVI, or HDMI connection issue, or Video Card issue, or a
    >> Brightness or Contrast etc adjustment problem)
    >> ***
    >> The question is, how can you get the ClearType setting to also have
    >> its effect on fonts which exist inside of these programs non-menu
    >> areas that are currently not in the OS's control?
    >>
    >> Is there another way?
     
  10. George

    George Flightless Bird

    My original post that I was replying to (along to VanguardLH who had
    replied to it) I'm not sure if you see that original post since it's 2 weeks
    old by now but I have it flagged so still see it... anyway to your post
    comments I replied in line below.

    "choro" <choro@tvco.net> wrote in message news:wXKEn.1$dR1.0@newsfe25.ams2
    >
    > What you say is very interesting particularly for me as I have hopes of
    > getting a larger screen than my 22" LG monitor which I find quite
    > satisfactory except for its vertical resolution. It is an 1680x1050
    > screen which I can't use on my old faithful 10 year old computer with
    > its AVG graphics card which is not so easy to replace now as presumably
    > all the new graphics cards are of the PCIe type.
    >
    > Decided to build a new desktop when I realized my old AMD Thunderbird
    > CPU is not capable of supporting a decent web camera for which you need
    > a more modern chip. I have attached my old 22" LG monitor to the new
    > desktop I am building but I get ghosting presumably either due to the
    > KVM box which can't support such high resolutions OR the older type D15
    > port. No DVI port on the LG, you see. 1440x900 is the max resolution I
    > can get using my old AGP equipped old computer. 1680x1050 which is the
    > native resolution of the 22" LG screen overfills the screen for some
    > reason and thus becomes completely unusable. Any out there who can solve
    > this problem for me?


    About your 1680x1050 overfilling the screen, you're right, and my 23"
    widescreen (16:9) Acer did the same thing - if it wasn't for that, the
    1680x1050 resolution would have been a second best choice and would have
    solved my original problem because it displays everything a little bit
    larger (even without changing your Desktop vertical capacity icon count) and
    renders all fonts whether within DPI Aware reach or not, just fine; and you
    don't need to use ClearType if you didn't want to.
    I surmise this 1680x1050 overfilling 22"/23" screens is because of the
    (undesirable technicalities) physical size awkward proportionalities of the
    actual Display Area of a 22"/23" screen, most graphics cards (I use a nVidia
    6600GT) regardless if on WXP/Vista/Win7, or drivers used, still overfills
    these size screens vertically as well, and so as you say is unusable, but if
    it was usable and fit (it can't because of actual display area
    technicalities) the 1680x1050 is a very nice alternative for those who have
    less that perfect eyesight, or just like it a little bigger/bolder; again I
    could not use 1680x1050 on that 23" either so had no choice. (The short
    answer - use a 25")

    The Great news is that using a widescreen 24.6", better yet 25.5", or 27"
    fixes that. As previously listed the actual Display Area of the screen which
    is conducive to and works fine with 1680x1050 resolutions, which most decent
    graphics cards in the last 5 years do support it as well, and so nice.
    ....but better yet these screen sizes usually come with a recommended
    resolution of 1920 x1080 which is better yet across the board for quality
    display, although yes displays visually a bit smaller, but as noted these
    larger LCD sizes come with corresponding larger Pixel Pitch which dissolving
    that result nicely - and your end result is better quality picture.


    > Anyway, on the new computer I am building 1680x1050 resolution works OK
    > except for the ghosting but when I get the time I will hook the two up
    > using a DVI cable with a D15 adaptor. We'll see! Will it work? Will it
    > work connected via the KVM box? That I still have to find out.
    > Unfortunately I have got so much cabling (4 comps hooked up via the KVM!
    > A wiring nightmare which makes rearranging the wiring more or less
    > impossible and I have to add that I am not exactly young and athletic!).
    > It is obvious that I will have to get someone to help me out to pass the
    > cable down back of the desk while I grab it from under the desk and pull
    > it before I connect it to the new computer sitting below the desk. Are
    > you still with me? ;-) I tried pushing the cable through behind the desk
    > right against the wall and I couldn't. Can't pull the desk forward. It
    > is too heavily laden with massive oldie worldie speakers. But you should
    > hear the quality of the sound I get through my dedicated big Yamaha
    > stereo amplifier. Out of this world. More or less true audiophilie
    > sounds! When I turn them on I am in heaven. This is my Inn of the Sixth
    > Happiness!!!
    > So according to you I should be looking for a 25 or even a 26" 1920x1050


    No, I said 1920x1080 of which I think you meant that, I hope :)

    > screen. I say preferably a 1920x1200 screen but I hear they are


    No I don't think you mean 1920x1200 either; both you're mentions are
    non-standard nor V/H balanced proportionately, which is imperative.

    Again most widescreen that are at least 25" ish screens these days come with
    recommended resolutions 1920x1080 which is standard and proportionate, also
    most all these 25" ish (again not 22" or 23") work just fine with 1680x1050
    resolution if needed and that's fine for those who want that, although using
    their default @ 1920x1080 is finer yet :)

    > exorbitantly expensive compared to the x1050 ones. But it is the only
    > way to see the north and the south poles at the same time, if you know
    > what I mean. ;-) ;-)


    No not exorbitant prices, and like all electronics get outdated quickly
    because of technology advancements, and so we'll call yesterdays 'day old'
    electronics, and those prices always come down... for instance today on
    25" monitors you can find them for less than $300. I just bought my 25"
    widescreen monitor and it even came with a HDTV Tuner for heavens sake, the
    display is true HD 1080p @ 1920x1080, etc, built in speakers even, and was
    just $299 ...very very nice. The 27" of same was $399 ..but I'm not rich
    either so drew the line for a 25" and will never look back to my last LCD
    19" standard (4:3)

    > I must be in a good mood tonight. I have already teased one or two
    > people on the Usenet but this is serious stuff. I mean the monitor
    > screen issue.
    > And I realize that if I want to maintain the connection of all four
    > computers to the same screen, I will probably end up having to buy a new
    > KVM switch either with DVI or better still HDMI facilities.
    >
    > Problems never cease for those who are never happy with what they have
    > already got. They always want something better.
    >
    > I couldn't help thinking whether this is the basic problem of society
    > these days what with marriages breaking up because people always are
    > after juicier pussies or bigger and bigger shafts.


    Nah, not what I see and attract around me, in my world anyway.
    True love (as true as can in the moment anyway) and their marriages are
    based on maturity and all things related to it, in that mindset transcends
    all the things you mention in your, fresh ditty :)o

    Anyway, my posts purposed was to close my original post with the resolve.

    Again I suggest anyone coming from a 19" standard 4:3 monitor and moves to a
    widescreen - don't get anything size less than a 25" or you will not be
    happy on many levels. A 25" widescreen has the same vertical display height
    as a 19" and so remember that! ..however, the width difference of course
    will be larger, and that extra 16:9 widescreen estate is perfect for
    watching any of today's current movies which of course are made for 16:9
    widescreen viewing.
    Also for everyday computer use, one will soon realize the widescreen format
    benefits for that as well - after a week with it, you will never look back.

    over & out

    best



    >
    > Me, I am just a computer freak! Not that computers are my only weakness,
    > mind you but that's another story and has got no relevance in this
    > newsgroup.
    >
    > ;-) ;-) ;-)
    > --
    > choro
    > *****
    >>
    >>
    >> "George" <george@nothome.com> wrote in message
    >> news:eod5khk3KHA.5820@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl
    >>> Moving from the 1280x1024 for standard LCD 19" etc screens
    >>> resolution, to the 1920x1080 which comes with 23" etc WideScreen
    >>> monitors these days, we know the same settings of font size
    >>> displayed we were use to, will now show slightly smaller - and
    >>> that's fine. First, we understand about font size, clear type, and dpi
    >>> adjustments. Yes we know for higher resolutions being sure to turn on
    >>> and adjust ClearType which solves readability problems just fine
    >>> across the board in every nook and cranny, Except, inside many
    >>> non-microsoft programs where the OS's control over the font size,
    >>> clear type, or dpi adjustments in the non-menu areas 'cannot' reach
    >>> there - is specifically what I am talking about today - The problem
    >>> is the font displayed in these programs (non-menu) areas is harder
    >>> to read because it's a little too skinny and smaller - again
    >>> everywhere else is just fine. We know that going forward software
    >>> developers automatically write
    >>> their softwares fonts to be easily readable in higher resolutions,
    >>> but many of our slightly older programs we still want to use did
    >>> not, and that's where the problem is seen whether I'm using WXP,
    >>> Vista, or Windows7 - the issue is exactly the same. (The issue is
    >>> NOT a VGA, DVI, or HDMI connection issue, or Video Card issue, or a
    >>> Brightness or Contrast etc adjustment problem)
    >>> ***
    >>> The question is, how can you get the ClearType setting to also have
    >>> its effect on fonts which exist inside of these programs non-menu
    >>> areas that are currently not in the OS's control?
    >>>
    >>> Is there another way?
     

Share This Page