2560x1440 is a troublesome resolution....

[WilliamG]

I continually find myself making web pages bigger or smaller with CMD+ or CMD- in Safari or Firefox. Do any of you have a good solution for this? I find my 1920x1200 24" Cinema Display much more consistent in terms of readability/size/formatting.

*sigh*...

[coolmacguy]

You can increase the minimum font size in your browser. If pages appear to large normally then you could reduce the standard font size.

[WilliamG]

You can increase the minimum font size in your browser. If pages appear to large normally then you could reduce the standard font size.

I have already done both these things, and still can't find a happy medium.

[mgzilla]

command plus flicking up or down on the mouse will zoom. I constantly do it, but I lean pretty far away from the computer too (with my feet up on the desk of course). Also, my eyes aren't 20/20...

Is there a way to make all pages automatically zoomed in 2x or so? because I zoom in one tab then the other tab needs to be zoomed....

[TMRaven]

I find myself frequently using the built-in zoom feature of osx that you can use with command+scroll. I loved it on my mighty mouse, but of course its scroll ball always got dirty'd every 2 days, so eventually gave up. Now I've come accustomed to spamming it again-- not because I can't read what's on the screen, but because I'm like mgzilla and lean back in my seat/put my legs up and other stuff.

[TennisandMusic]

You sure it's not the pixel pitch? Resolution should be kinda just "there"...but if the pixels are really small then it could make things harder, and the pixels ARE small on those panels.

[Uabcar]

I love command+flick - very handy. I just wish is also allowed you to zoom out more to less than 100% (making things smaller than native res). This is probably my biggest complaint with SL - kind of a poor mans solution to super high rez.

[skadd]

Didn't Apple work on something called "Resolution independence" ?
It's not fully implemented yet, but when it is, it will take care of problems like this.

[WilliamG]

Didn't Apple work on something called "Resolution independence" ?
It's not fully implemented yet, but when it is, it will take care of problems like this.

Wha?

[kernkraft]

It's not just troublesome, but for my MacBook Pros, it's impossible too! :(

[skadd]

Wha?

Google it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_independence

Some have complained that text/objects are a tad small on the 27" due to the high resolution.

"Resolution Independence" will fix that particular issue, if it ever gets fully implemented in OS X

[WilliamG]

That sounds great. I hope it does get implemented...

[DoFoT9]

Didn't Apple work on something called "Resolution independence" ?
It's not fully implemented yet, but when it is, it will take care of problems like this.

theyve given up on it until 10.7 i think. it was half implemented but too hard to do by the sounds of it.

OP: i do not find 2560x1440 too hard to see at all. i havent changed font size of anything :) it did take me about a week to accustomise thoguh.

[Uabcar]

theyve given up on it until 10.7 i think. it was half implemented but too hard to do by the sounds of it.

OP: i do not find 2560x1440 too hard to see at all. i havent changed font size of anything :) it did take me about a week to accustomise thoguh.

I hope they don't completely give up... after doing some research, I found that the dev tools kit includes an app called Quartz Debug that enables some sort of resolution independence. After downloading the tool kit and using the QD, I discovered that as of Snow Leopard, Quartz Debug no longer enables scaling to less than 1.00 (ie. .90-.95 like I do on MS Windows).

I expect this means that when Apple ultimately implements this functionality in the OS, it will only work to make things bigger- which is great for those with the super hi rez 27 and 30" monitors - but does not allow me to get more stuff on my smallish 23" 1920x1080 monitor ;).

[DoFoT9]

I hope they don't completely give up... after doing some research, I found that the dev tools kit includes an app called Quartz Debug that enables some sort of resolution independence. After downloading the tool kit and using the QD, I discovered that as of Snow Leopard, Quartz Debug no longer enables scaling to less than 1.00 (ie. .90-.95 like I do on MS Windows).

I expect this means that when Apple ultimately implements this functionality in the OS, it will only work to make things bigger- which is great for those with the super hi rez 27 and 30" monitors - but does not allow me to get more stuff on my smallish 23" 1920x1080 monitor ;).

ahh great thanks for following that up!! i wish they really did finish it, i often sit on my bed and zoom into the computer, only to have it look ugly and bitmapped :p

nice to know about Quartz Debug.. thanks for that

[7031]

I actually love the 27" iMacs screen size. I guess if you're having problems with it you're too far from the screen :P.

Nah, but admittedly the pixels are definitely smaller on the 27" iMac than on another screen of the same size would be, but I love the resolution on this computer. It's great for everything I need to do, from browsing the web to photoediting to gaming (although the resolution is less relevant for gaming, since I generally sit back from the computer when I am).

[The General]

I continually find myself making web pages bigger or smaller with CMD+ or CMD- in Safari or Firefox.

why do you do that? just stop doing it. problem solved.

the pixel density isn't that high these displays, you shouldn't have trouble reading stuff

[WilliamG]

why do you do that? just stop doing it. problem solved.

the pixel density isn't that high these displays, you shouldn't have trouble reading stuff

Wow.. Just.. wow...

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you're wrong? Subjectively, you are WRONG. A lot of times it's not just the size that's off. Sometimes you lose text/clickable links because of the difficult resolution.

Anyway, again, just... wow.

[kasakka]

You'll get used to it. In the beginning I used DPI scaling in Windows 7 with my 30" 2560x1600 display to make everything slightly larger but now just use the default setting. Same with OSX since it doesn't properly support resolution independent scaling yet.

It'll be an important feature to implement because it means they can cram high resolution but small physical size displays in their laptops, iPad etc. and just scale everything bigger which will result in more detail and less obvious pixels.

[WilliamG]

I'll get used to it? 2.5 months and counting. Sure about that? :rolleyes:

[DoFoT9]

FWIW. it did take me about a week to get used to the resolution (i.e. small text!) of my imac

[jjahshik32]

I saw one at the store the other day and I see what your talking about.

This is why the 27" has not interest me one bit. The 2560 x 1440 is just way too big (or in this case small) for a 27" display.

This is why I hope Apple releases a 30" LED ACD with that same resolution because that would be perfect.

Also the 1920 x 1200 is perfect on the 24" LED ACD.

[JoeG4]

I think the whole world of MacRumors would've been happier had the 27" imac been 1920x1080 (or at least offered it as an option)

Why?

1. That debacle over no 1080p input support
2. complaints like this.

Nuff said xD

[WilliamG]

I think the whole world of MacRumors would've been happier had the 27" imac been 1920x1080 (or at least offered it as an option)

Why?

1. That debacle over no 1080p input support
2. complaints like this.

Nuff said xD

No, I disagree. I bough the 27" ESPECIALLY for the resolution. In fact, I have a 24" LED display next to it.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/wgrose/IMG_0255.jpg

I just want the ability to make everything a little bigger for text etc, just like you can in *gasp* Windows! I like the extra resolution mostly for photography.

[gianly1985]

I continually find myself making web pages bigger or smaller with CMD+ or CMD- in Safari or Firefox.

Actually the REAL problem is Safari:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=567420

Firefox is OK 'cause it can remember site-specific zoom level. You just have to do "CMD+/CMD-" once for each site.

[striatedglutes]

I'm surprised they didn't make one of the edges (bottom) of the ACD/27" iMac panel the same height?

[r47z]

never had any real problems with reading fonts from the 27", the screen is bout 3feet away from me. The only issue I have, well not really an issue. Is finding wallpapers that is actually 2560x1440. I'm hoping that maybe someone or the admin would put up a stickie of a list of urls that have wallpapers that is that big..

[WilliamG]

Here is an example of some of the issues. The first is an example of searching for "Final Fantasy XIII", and then clicking the "show me price" on the 360 Limited Edition. As you can see, I can't see the price till I make everything bigger.

Same problem with the Photobucket website, as you can see the search bar is messed up...

I deal with this crap all the time it seems. FIX IT, APPLE!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/wgrose/Screenshot2010-03-15at21930PM.png

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/wgrose/Screenshot2010-03-15at21953PM.png





Also, is there an easy way to keep the reply boxes on web sites bigger by default. I have to keep stretching every reply box on the message boards. That shizzle is getting old, yo!

[coolmacguy]

^ most issues like that where something is cut off are going to be problems with the web design on those sites where the layout has not taken into consideration increasing the font size.

[jjahshik32]

No, I disagree. I bough the 27" ESPECIALLY for the resolution. In fact, I have a 24" LED display next to it.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a127/wgrose/IMG_0255.jpg

I just want the ability to make everything a little bigger for text etc, just like you can in *gasp* Windows! I like the extra resolution mostly for photography.

Then why are you complaining about the resolution..?

[WilliamG]

Then why are you complaining about the resolution..?

Clearly you've not bothered reading this thread...

[jjahshik32]

Clearly you've not bothered reading this thread...

If you can get used to the 1920x1200 on a 17" mbp, then the 2560 x 1440 should be about the same in terms of getting used to on a 27".

[WilliamG]

If you can get used to the 1920x1200 on a 17" mbp, then the 2560 x 1440 should be about the same in terms of getting used to on a 27".

And you're missing the point. Formatting is messed up etc etc.

[jjahshik32]

And you're missing the point. Formatting is messed up etc etc.

Well I dont know what else to tell ya except I guess the 2560x1440 resolution sucks on a 27".

[WilliamG]

Well I dont know what else to tell ya except I guess the 2560x1440 resolution sucks on a 27".

You know... if you've nothing useful to contribute....

[skadd]

We need to make Apple finish Resolution Independence.

They should prove that they're not as lazy as Adobe ;p

[Vantage Point]

One of the reasons I have held off with a 27 imac is the small fonts. If i have to resize most things to read them or get another pair of special eye glasses then it is not worth it. The 21" is too small but a 24" 1920 x 1200 would be a sweet spot for me. I do not understand why it they only come in Medium and X-tra large. Large (24" would be perfect).

[jjahshik32]

One of the reasons I have held off with a 27 imac is the small fonts. If i have to resize most things to read them or get another pair of special eye glasses then it is not worth it. The 21" is too small but a 24" 1920 x 1200 would be a sweet spot for me. I do not understand why it they only come in Medium and X-tra large. Large (24" would be perfect).

This is why I'm waiting for a 15" i7 uMBP to use with my 24" LED ACD. Thats the ultimate sweet spot.

[coolmacguy]

One of the reasons I have held off with a 27 imac is the small fonts. If i have to resize most things to read them or get another pair of special eye glasses then it is not worth it. The 21" is too small but a 24" 1920 x 1200 would be a sweet spot for me. I do not understand why it they only come in Medium and X-tra large. Large (24" would be perfect).

This is the first day I've used my 27" imac, I have no problem reading any fonts.

[DoFoT9]

One of the reasons I have held off with a 27 imac is the small fonts. If i have to resize most things to read them or get another pair of special eye glasses then it is not worth it. The 21" is too small but a 24" 1920 x 1200 would be a sweet spot for me. I do not understand why it they only come in Medium and X-tra large. Large (24" would be perfect).

small fonts?

somebody doesnt know what they are talking about :rolleyes: ;)

the fonts are not small. they are the same size on any other mac! its the fact that the resolution is really REALLY dense for the 27" form factor that its fit into. if you dont like the fonts at the default size (12 i think?) change it!

you can change OSXs font sizes quite easily. you can do the same in safari (i am not referring to zooming in here, i am tlaking about changing the font size)

true, it did take me about a week to get used to the increase in pixel density, but im used to it now.

dont fret over it.

[mystikjoe]

This is the first day I've used my 27" imac, I have no problem reading any fonts.Me either but I'm reading the forums right now on my iPhone yes I have 20/20 vision!

[DoFoT9]

Me either but I'm reading the forums right now on my iPhone yes I have 20/20 vision!

i think i may too. how do you tell?

[DarwinOSX]

This is the first day I've used my 27" imac, I have no problem reading any fonts.

Well if you have no problem reading the fonts then I guess no one else should either....:rolleyes:

I use Readability on all my Macs and work PC.s Makes everything much easier to read and gets rid of ads.


http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/

[DarwinOSX]

small fonts?

somebody doesnt know what they are talking about :rolleyes: ;)

you can change OSXs font sizes quite easily. you can do the same in safari (i am not referring to zooming in here, i am tlaking about changing the font size)

true, it did take me about a week to get used to the increase in pixel density, but im used to it now.

dont fret over it.

The somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about is you. Everyone knows the font size can be changed. If you had actually read the thread before replying you would understand that. The problem is changing the font size, especially in Safari, causes other issues. Read the thread before acting like a know it all.

[hakr]

Everyone knows that the iPad is far more important than resolution independence.

Don't they?

:)

[DoFoT9]

The somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about is you. Everyone knows the font size can be changed. If you had actually read the thread before replying you would understand that. The problem is changing the font size, especially in Safari, causes other issues. Read the thread before acting like a know it all.

no offense, but did you actually look back to see who posted first? :rolleyes: ;)

anyway, what method are we using the change the fonts? going through safari->preferences->appearance tab->fonts? or are we zooming in using :apple:+'+' ?

meh, its not apples problem, it lies with the build of the website, as has already been said. not much we can do about it really.

[The General]

Wow.. Just.. wow...

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you're wrong? Subjectively, you are WRONG. A lot of times it's not just the size that's off. Sometimes you lose text/clickable links because of the difficult resolution.

Anyway, again, just... wow.

What are you talking about? The formatting and clickable links are messed up because you keep zooming in and out. STOP. READ YOUR WEBSITES AT 100% ZOOM. THE PIXEL DENSITY ISN'T EVEN THAT HIGH. IF YOU CAN'T READ IT, YOU NEED TO VISIT AN OPTOMETRIST OR SIT CLOSER TO YOUR SCREEN.

And you're missing the point. Formatting is messed up etc etc.

It's messing up BECAUSE YOU KEEP ZOOMING IN AND OUT. STOP IT. JUST.. WOW ... JUST STOP.

[WilliamG]

Wow... just.... wow. :rolleyes:

[DoFoT9]

i feel like we are going in circles :cool:

[coolmacguy]

Again, if things are getting cut off it's because of a lack of support for changing the size of the page in the web design of those sites.

I don't know what you like but I set my standard font to Helvetica 16, and the minimum size to 12. I can read all text fine at this size and I do not need to zoom on any sites.

[mtnDewFTW]

You can either increase the font size in Safari, or just set the resolution to be a little bit lower, that's all.

[DoFoT9]

You can either increase the font size in Safari, or just set the resolution to be a little bit lower, that's all.

doesnt setting the resolution lower kind of defeat the purpose of getting the 27"?

[jjahshik32]

i feel like we are going in circles :cool:

http://www2.norwalk-city.k12.oh.us/wordpressmu/precalc/files/2008/09/ferris_wheel2.jpg WEEEEEEEE!

[certsoft]

Old thread I know....

I too found the native resolution resulted in too tiny characters for my poor eyesight. At first I tried increasing the minimum font sizes in browsers and other programs. I also needed to change to "large fonts" in Windows (running in Parallels) to make it usable, but that causes problems in GUI development when updates are done by different developers running different font sizes.

I finally decided the better solution was to leave all the individual programs the way they were and go into the Display Preferences and select a size of "1920 x 1080". Sure I loose some clarity, but bigger is more important for my eyes.

[hakr]

What is needed is resolution independence, which even Windows has and has had for a long time.

[spacepower7]

The issue is the way that Safari scales websites, and some websites have certain "features" that can't be scaled properly, such as the price lookup on amazon, where the box and text inside of it do not scale the same way.

Also, some sites will not change font sizes to match the size chosen in Safari's preferences. The Safari zoom feature enlarges all unlocked webpage elements resulting in distorted/blurry images. Safari does not keep track of which sites to scale, a feature found in Firefox.

Resolution independence will be nice when it finally arrives.

Several people that I consult do not want to always use the zoom feature every time they open a new webpage. Their poor eye site, lack of resolution independence, high dpi of Macbooks and iMacs, are some of the reasons that they have put off Mac purchases.

Someone who has difficulty reading text on a 14" 1024x768 LCD does not want a 1200x800 LCD without any resolution independence. They dont like the 1920x1080 dpi on the 21.5" iMac either. The workarounds are too frustrating for many users.

[discofuel]

I use Chrome and an extension called Autozoom.

Set the default zoom to 120% and don't think about it again.

If you really did want to adjust it for specific website, it remembers your settings.

[tuna]

There's no denying that 2560x1440/27" is a relatively high PPI for a desktop monitor. Its 109 PPI. To compare, 1920x1200/24" is 94 PPI. 2560x1600/30" is 101 PPI. So yeah, to get the most out of your resolution you probably don't want to lean back far from the screen, but on the other hand you can always increase icon sizes and text sizes in OS X settings and it still will look very good.

[tuna]

I just found something that might be of interest:

In Safari>Preferences>Advanced there is a setting for "Never display font sizes below X" and you can set that, so just make it 16 or something and you should be good to go.

[WilliamG]

I just found something that might be of interest:

In Safari>Preferences>Advanced there is a setting for "Never display font sizes below X" and you can set that, so just make it 16 or something and you should be good to go.

That's all well and good. The problem I also have is that Youtube videos etc show up really tiny on the screen.

[discofuel]

That's all well and good. The problem I also have is that Youtube videos etc show up really tiny on the screen.

Autozoom!!!

[WilliamG]

Autozoom!!!

What's autozoom?

[TMRaven]

Yeah sometimes the text in safari is too small for my liking. I can definitely read it, but I rather relax my eyes. I abuse the zoom tool for osx.

[kazmac]

Google it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_independence

Some have complained that text/objects are a tad small on the 27" due to the high resolution.

"Resolution Independence" will fix that particular issue, if it ever gets fully implemented in OS X

According to one Apple floor person (not sure if he was managerial or higher) I spoke to at an Apple store last Thursday, I asked about resolution and if he thinks the Retina Displays will eventually transfer over to Macs themselves.

This fellow did not mention resolution independence but did point out changing the background colors from white to black and the text from black to white making things easier to read. On the retina display end, he speculated the iphone might be the test run for this display. Oh and he sort of pointed a finger at consumers who want HD resolution LoL. I just want to be able to read clearly at a distance many of you have mentioned...

this myopic gal can dream I suppose...but like the OP, I am not fond of resolution higher than 1920...

[WilliamG]

According to one Apple floor person (not sure if he was managerial or higher) I spoke to at an Apple store last Thursday, I asked about resolution and if he thinks the Retina Displays will eventually transfer over to Macs themselves.

This fellow did not mention resolution independence but did point out changing the background colors from white to black and the text from black to white making things easier to read. On the retina display end, he speculated the iphone might be the test run for this display. Oh and he sort of pointed a finger at consumers who want HD resolution LoL. I just want to be able to read clearly at a distance many of you have mentioned...

this myopic gal can dream I suppose...but like the OP, I am not fond of resolution higher than 1920...

Erm. What you're talking about has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about. Retina Display is MARKETING. There's nothing special or magnificent about it except that it's high resolution.

If we put a higher resolution display in the 27" iMac, it would just make the problem some of us are having - worse. We need resolution independence to solve this problem.

[TMRaven]

I don't see why a retina display wouldn't help solving the problem of hard to read text. Due to the nature of how osx renders text, it produces a lot of off-black colors to smooth the letters out, thus they're not as crisp as could be. A higher resolution display would allow for crisper text-- as Steve Jobs would like to put it, it's like reading a finely printed book.

[WilliamG]

I don't see why a retina display wouldn't help solving the problem of hard to read text. Due to the nature of how osx renders text, it produces a lot of off-black colors to smooth the letters out, thus they're not as crisp as could be. A higher resolution display would allow for crisper text-- as Steve Jobs would like to put it, it's like reading a finely printed book.

Because we're not talking about the same problem! On actual Macs (not iPads and iPhones etc), more resolution equals smaller text to read. On the iPads, iPhones, more pixels works a lot better.

[TMRaven]

Of course I know that. The other poster above knew that as well. OSX would have to come up with a system of rendering their text at higher resolutions to keep the text at a manageable size. With that said, a 326dpi screen would be great for rendering text.

[WilliamG]

Of course I know that. The other poster above knew that as well. OSX would have to come up with a system of rendering their text at higher resolutions to keep the text at a manageable size. With that said, a 326dpi screen would be great for rendering text.

Oh OF COURSE! Dude, give me more resolution, always! My argument is that the current way OS X renders text would make a 326dpi screen unreadable, where it would be no issue on Windows-based systems. If Apple can make this work on the iPhone, it boggles my mind that they didn't make it work on the iMacs. I'm tired of tiny Youtube videos that I have to scroll-zoom to see because it's either that or blowing them up full screen.

[tuna]

Oh OF COURSE! Dude, give me more resolution, always! My argument is that the current way OS X renders text would make a 326dpi screen unreadable, where it would be no issue on Windows-based systems. If Apple can make this work on the iPhone, it boggles my mind that they didn't make it work on the iMacs. I'm tired of tiny Youtube videos that I have to scroll-zoom to see because it's either that or blowing them up full screen.

I think the issue is that OS X hasn't been programmed well to remember zoom and text size preferences and to extrapolate them across all programs. There's nothing you need that OS X doesn't do at some level (ie zoom levels, text sizes, icon sizes, etc), but OS X apparently doesn't remember your settings or apply your settings in an effective way across multiple programs.

"Resolution independence" just means that you can take a single image (such as an icon) and make it relatively small or very big and it will remain sharp and clear. OS X already approximates this by, for example, having drawn the icons for all the applications at very large sizes. The OS just scales them down for your dock, and then when you hover your cursor over icons and they blow up, or when you bring up the command-tab applications switcher, which also uses relatively large-sized icons, they display the image at a higher size, but since its from yet a still larger raw image, it still looks sharp. The downside to this is that they have to use the large image files which take up more space, even when the icon is just tiny in the dock. I imagine that when people are talking about "true resolution independence" they would be talking about using vector images which have much smaller file sizes but they require more CPU processing to render.

[WilliamG]

All I know is that I can make Windows look great on the iMac, but not OS X. Too... tiny!

[animatedude]

One of the reasons I have held off with a 27 imac is the small fonts. If i have to resize most things to read them or get another pair of special eye glasses then it is not worth it. The 21" is too small but a 24" 1920 x 1200 would be a sweet spot for me. I do not understand why it they only come in Medium and X-tra large. Large (24" would be perfect).

i'm glad someone finally said that...it's a **** decision.the 27'' is clearly WAY too big and the 21.5'' is fine but you could use much bigger.

..and yes i agree with the OP about the web pages looking bad on the 27'' that's why i avoided it.

[UpDownAeroplane]

i'm glad someone finally said that...it's a **** decision.the 27'' is clearly WAY too big and the 21.5'' is fine but you could use much bigger.

..and yes i agree with the OP about the web pages looking bad on the 27'' that's why i avoided it.

i also agree that the 21.5" is a bit too small and the 27" is too big. i have a mac mini now but will be upgrading soon. the 21.5" is gonna be a bit too small considering i have a 24" right now, but at the same time i don't have room for a 27".

like another said, i think the best idea is to have a MB or MBP hooked up to an external monitor.

although, i am getting a bit off topic.:D