2560x1440 is a troublesome resolution....

WilliamG

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 29, 2008
9,089
2,548
Seattle
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

macrumors regular
Dec 6, 2002
112
0
You can increase the minimum font size in your browser. If pages appear to large normally then you could reduce the standard font size.
 

mgzilla

macrumors member
Sep 28, 2009
56
0
New Jersey
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

macrumors 68020
Nov 5, 2009
2,099
1
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.
 
Aug 26, 2008
1,339
1
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

macrumors 6502
Aug 31, 2009
382
2
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

macrumors regular
Mar 5, 2010
226
88
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.
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,512
33
Singapore
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

macrumors 6502
Aug 31, 2009
382
2
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

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,512
33
Singapore
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

macrumors 6502
Apr 6, 2007
479
0
England
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

macrumors 601
Jul 7, 2006
4,826
1
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

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 29, 2008
9,089
2,548
Seattle
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

macrumors 68020
Oct 25, 2008
2,074
760
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.
 

jjahshik32

macrumors 603
Sep 4, 2006
5,268
1
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

macrumors 68030
Jan 11, 2002
2,705
237
Bay Area, Ca.
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

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 29, 2008
9,089
2,548
Seattle
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.



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.
 

Similar threads

  • zoran
9
Replies
9
Views
769
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.