• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

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

G

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?
 
V

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
 
G

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
 
V

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.
 
G

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,
 
G

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
 
G

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....
 
G

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?
 
C

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?
 
G

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?
 
Top