
I went back working on 24-inch 1080p screen from a 32-inch 4k screen - iwangulenko
https://medium.com/@iwaninzurich/why-i-went-back-working-on-24-inch-1080p-screen-from-a-32-inch-4k-screen-4dc96c0cef78
======
rspoerri
I dont know what OSX this guy is using, but osx has the longest history of any
OS i know that is able able to scale the actual ui on monitors with a fixed
resolution.

~~~
tannerc
Yeah it’s not clear to me if the author realizes you can change the scale in
the system settings and that’s just not what he’s in need of exactly. Might be
more fitting in his case to use the Mac OS accessibility settings for zooming
in/out, or even just getting an eye exam and some glasses.

~~~
s3nnyy
Author of the article here. I tried all macOS offered but it wasn't good on
32'' at 4k sadly

~~~
tabs_masterrace
I think you need a relatively new GPU. Some older models (older then
2015-2016) don't offer scaled resolutions yet, but you can still go for non-
scaled 1440p. It is not as sharp on a native 4k display, but still way more
readable.

Also always connect via DisplayPort instead of HDMI if you can, safes a ton of
trouble.

~~~
Nursie
I have a Macboom pro retina 2013. Scaling works just fine on my 32" 4K
screen...

------
krilly
It seems like most of his grievances are with macOS and not his monitor.

For a long time I've been using tiling WMs (currently awesomeWM) and I could
never go back. Yes there is a bit of a learning curve while you settle on a
good configuration for you, but the productivity gains are worth it since you
spend so much time interacting with your WM.

Obviously your options are more limited outside of Linux, but there is a WM
tool in Microsoft's Powertoys repo which looks intriguing.

[https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys/blob/master/README.md](https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys/blob/master/README.md)

~~~
mumblemumble
OS X has a good tiling tool:
[https://rectangleapp.com/](https://rectangleapp.com/)

It's essential for my survival on the 4K monitor that work gave me. Does a
better job than any of the commercial products listed in TFA that I tried.

~~~
fit2rule
You can easily do tiling WM's on MacOS with Hammerspoon, too.

------
mciancia
Someone forgot to tell him that he can turn on scaling and set different
virtual resolution.

macOS handles this very good, at work I'm using two 27" 4k displays side by
side with virtual resolution set to 2560x1440 which gives me no problem with
size of icons/apps and very good image quality at the same time.

~~~
pico303
Was just going to write a similar message. Most of us where I work do the
exact same thing as you, and no one has any problems like the author
describes. I wonder if he was using a TV and not a monitor? I’ve noticed some
of the TVs only scale to TV resolutions—1080p, 720p—whereas a proper LG or
Dell scales to many resolutions.

~~~
karmakaze
The scaling is done by macOS and the output signal regardless of the virtual
resolution is 4k.

------
_bxg1
> At least on macOS, the size of apps & notifications is not adjustable.
> Toolbar symbols, Tab-bar in Chrome, native apps on MacOS are not scalable.

Um... yes... yes they are.
[https://www.eizoglobal.com/support/compatibility/dpi_scaling...](https://www.eizoglobal.com/support/compatibility/dpi_scaling_settings_mac_os_x/image01.png)

> Moving your head and eyes IS unpleasant.

I mean yeah. Having a display that large on your desk is absurd. That has
nothing to do with either the OS or the resolution.

~~~
saalweachter
I wonder if you'd be better off using a larger monitor (with or without a
higher resolution) further away from you physically, so that it covers the
same visual angle as your smaller monitor.

Something with focusing on near/far objects maybe?

~~~
_bxg1
If it covers the same visual angle, what's the benefit? It's just more
expensive and takes up more space.

I also think "more screen space" == "more productivity" is a fallacy. There
was an article here the other day where someone used a Surface Go as his
primary development machine. That's a bit extreme, but I used a plain 15-inch
MBP without a second monitor for several years at work and didn't feel
hindered whatsoever. Of course it depends on your workflow; game developers or
film editors tend to need more things onscreen at once, for example. But I
think programmers get too excited about more/bigger monitors because they look
cool on a desk and are relatively inexpensive these days. And they, you know,
_feel_ productive.

~~~
saalweachter
There's a standard recommendation to periodically look away from your monitor
and focus on something farther away for a few moments because of mumble mumble
eye strain mumble reasons.

I don't know if a monitor farther away would alleviate this. There are
differences, because even if it is the same visual angle you are focusing on
something farther away. (For a quick example, sit in front of a window,
ideally a dirty one, and shift your focus from a point on the window to the
scene behind, back and forth, while still looking in the same direction.)

------
srik
This reminds of a time I had to let go of a 27 inch iMac that complimented my
laptop. The lack of all that ample screen estate made me feel like I lost a
bit of power-usage. Around the same time Rob Pike's(Unix, Plan9, UTF8, Go)
post on usesthis.com came out mentioning him feeling happy with his 11"
MacBook. I distinctly remember that feeling of shame that made me see how a
smaller screen might be a blessing rather than a handicap.
[https://usesthis.com/interviews/rob.pike/](https://usesthis.com/interviews/rob.pike/)

This author's notes on distraction reminds me how moving onto a "tinier"
screen forces me to stay inside the portal into whatever you have on screen.
That single change contributed more to me writing much smaller encapsulated
functions than anything else, for better or worse. I'd say it necessitated me
carrying a larger/clearer mental model of my projects too. Also, to do
anything else you'd have to switch the entire screen away from your current
layout and after a while indulging in distractions becomes more tedious thus
not worth the cost of switching and much less tempting.

~~~
s3nnyy
Author of the article here. Moving onto a "tinier" screen forces me to focus
as well.

I need the vertical 1080p screen mainly for looking at CVs or console outputs.

------
pw6hv
I have a 24inches Dell with 16:10 screen ratio. With Sway on Linux it fits
very well, especially for the vertical space.

It's so bad that they do not produce anymore affordable 16:10 screens...

~~~
yodon
As another declared 16:10 fan, I do suspect most of my hatred of 16:9 is
really just needing more than 1080 vertical pixels for coding not an actual
dislike of 16:9 aspect ratio.

~~~
s3nnyy
Honestly, I want 4:3 back, especially if I have to read many pdfs/CVs.

------
nutjob2
I find that a 39-40" 4K screen is optimal and has about the right size pixels
such that you don't need to scale the UI. I use it in portrait mode which I
think is the most effective use of screen real estate for code editing.

With this setup you have less useful parts of the screen, like the very top,
but you also have windows that you don't need to look at so much. I run a text
editor with two windows side by side and three windows high. The smallest
windows are at the top and basically double in size as you go down. The bottom
ones are used to edit and the top ones are mostly used for reference.

I find this arrangement incredibly productive. I have actually migrated from
3x 4K screens, which was overkill.

------
throwaway1735
The title is a little misleading. Most of the poster's problems come from the
small dot size.

If he had a 48'' 4k display, each pixel would be the same size as on a 24''
1080p display. Zero font size problems, no need to scale anything.

I use a curved tv of this size (at a low brightness setting ;)) and notice
only one problem from the ones the poster mentioned: sometimes the amount of
windows on the screen can be a little distracting. However it is easily offset
by the productivity gain from having all necessary windows constantly visible.
Also, if you need to concentrate on just one window temporarily, just move it
to another virtual desktop. Takes no effort.

------
jotosmurf
I reckon what the author is saying however one can solve the problem of MacOS
not picking up the proper scaling. I had to use a tool called SwitchResX.

My Dell 25" monitor has a native resolution of 2560x1440. You don't want to
use this native resolutions as everything gets too small to comfortably
read/work.

Had to input 3840 x 2160 as a 'scaled resolution' to get 1920 x 1080 HiDPI
which gets you a sharp retina like experience. To be honest everything is a
tad too big now but SwitchResX does somehow not save any other scaled
resolution for my monitor (UP2516D / U2515H).

------
tompark
Article says: "At least on macOS, the size of apps & notifications is not
adjustable. Toolbar symbols, Tab-bar in Chrome, native apps on MacOS are not
scalable."

This is factually incorrect.

By not explaining that what scaling options were tried in the article, it
strongly appears that the author did not try them.

By not explaining here on HN what was tried in more detail, it appears to be
handwaving away the issue.

It's totally possible that a smaller screen is better for his productivity,
but that's a minor argument compared to the incorrect assertion made in the
article and here.

~~~
s3nnyy
it didn't scale in a way that eg cmd+shift+ "+" scales a website on chrome.

i tried everything i could find in google.

~~~
tompark
Did you try `System Preferences > Display > Display tab > Resolution > Scaled`
?

Because that's what everyone here is talking about.

~~~
s3nnyy
yes thank you i tried but the results weren't great

appreciate all the help.

~~~
NicholasBoll
I had a problem with a cheap thunderbolt-to-HDMI adapter that only did
4K@30Hz. MacOS scaling options were very limited (full 4k, HiDPI 1080p or
scaled 1080p) and nothing looked great.

I tried the 27" 4k monitor at work with a thunderbolt to display port cable
and all scaling options were then available to me. I'm running 1440p
equivalent which seems to be about right for 27".

I chose a 4k for resolution flexibility and sharper text for code. I can fit
more code on a 27" 1440p vs a 24" 1080p and text is sharper.

The only productivity I've lost has been appreciating how good everything
looks. Well, that and trying to read about why I was missing the scaling
options.

Hopefully someone in your situation will find this and learn the cable
matters.

------
fit2rule
I have also done this. I found it immensely fatiguing to have a massive screen
on my desk, it was almost like information overload. But instead of a single
32" screen, I got two 24" monitors side by side .. for some reason I can't
explain, this was a lot more comfortable. Perhaps the physical divide promoted
a better organisation of windows - docs on left, code on the right - whereas
with a 32" monitor it was a free-for-all craziness.

------
mikhailt
The author didn't specify which Mac and external monitor he used but it sounds
like he had specific issues that most people probably don't.

1\. macOS has bugs related to font aliasing from misconfigured setups that
makes using external screens harder to use, such as font-aliasing settings
that were removed in the latest macOS updates. Some folks had to do a clean
macOS install that fixed the problem with Catalina.

2\. I wouldn't recommend using HDMI > TB port, DisplayPort is recommended for
any 4K setups IMO. He may be using a 30hz screen via HDMI where most older
Macs can't do 4k@60hz at all, in this case, even 4k @ 30hz is very
uncomfortable to use.

3\. If he never had retina screen before, it is possible by moving to a larger
screen, he is focusing his eyes more often and causing blurriness. This could
be a sign of an eye condition; such as not taking enough breaks and/or vision
has degraded. I had this issue and my astigmatism actually got worse, once I
got better glasses, no issues.

4\. He may need to readjust his desk setup or get a monitor arm that places
the monitor correctly to his eye vision. A lot of people used monitor with its
stand and they are looking at them facing down, causing more pain than need
be.

------
mnm1
I just got a 32" 4k curved monitor. Without the curve, I think the head
movement would be too much. I had a 40" 4k flat. The head movement was extreme
and contributed to my RSI. I downgraded to a 27" Apple thunderbolt first. I'd
say 28" or so is probably max for a flat panel with 32" or so being max for a
curved panel for comfortable use without painful head turning. His complaints
about scaling are unfounded and simply false. Too bad because this is a real
issue with monitor sizes, focus, and back/neck issues. I too found my focus
increasing when I dropped down from the 40", but the 27" and 32" are roughly
the same for focus. For me, that's much better than any smaller monitor.

------
davidy123
I have a workstation with a 32" display in landscape and a 22" display in
portrait, and a notebook computer with a 13" display, where the keyboard and
mouse (trackpoint, actually, I found a wireless Thinkpad keyboard which is a
game changer) are shared using Synergy. I sit about 30" away from them. It's
really helpful for software development sessions to have the editor, debugger,
tests, and built product available at the same time. I use Ubuntu and don't
have any problems with scaling. I use workspace switching so my distractions
are in another space altogether, so I can focus when I'm in the zone, and my
distraction-time is more, well, efficient.

------
smnrchrds
I have never had a Mac. Can someone please let me know how is it possible for
Mac and its app ecosystem not to support higher resolutions well, when iMac
has 5k resolution?

------
metalrain
I've been using 27" 4K screen with 15" 1440p laptop screen underneath. Maybe
1/4 width of bigger screen is for console and 3/4 for code editor. Laptop
screen is mostly splitted 50:50 for browsing and chatting.

Many people comment how small text is on my screen, but I think it's nice to
view a lot of code at once.

I think going back to FullHD would take some time to adjust.

------
sailfast
Why 1080 on the 24”?

I get not moving your head, but lower resolution seems odd. I found going from
Retina to 1080p was a bit jarring / pixelated.

------
milosz191
Probably it depends on your work type. I switched from only notebook screen to
3x24 to 1x24 to 32 4k. So far 4k 32 is the best experience for me. Its exacly
like 4 laptop(15) screens next to each other. I prefer using a ide verticaly
on one side and second side divided into two different windows. Personal
preferences I guess.

------
LargoLasskhyfv
Should have gone 1920x1200. Many excellent refurbished (professional) ones on
the market for cheap.

------
adrianscott
You definitely want to scale UI to readable. Also need to consider how to take
advantage of the extra screen real estate, e.g. code editor in right half of
screen, browser for research on the left, console in bottom left for random
command line stuff, etc...

------
ww520
I had the same experience. Tried a 4K monitor for a week. Didn’t like it.
Returned it and got back to the old 1080 monitor.

Main problem was everything was scaled so small. Also scrolling left some
white ghost shadow for a brief moment like half of a second.

------
michalpt
macOS scaling is the way to go here. I have been using LG 27UD88-W 4K monitor
which is set to 2560x1440 and it works perfectly without any noticeable
distortions.

~~~
s3nnyy
setting it to 2560x1440 brought its own problems sadly, macbook pro 2015-2016
don't seem to handle i well

------
tpmx
I find 40-43” @ 4k optimal. With a deep desk of course.

~~~
alanfranz
I'm using LG 43UD79-B and it's great at the proper distance, with full "retina
multiplicator". I don't use it for the estate. A larger screen with full
multiplicator just lets me see better.

------
Jaruzel
My personal story: Last year I went from a Dell 24" (1920x1200) to a Benq 32"
(2560x1440). I deliberate didn't choose a 4k because I knew that without at
least 150% scaling, my poor 48 year old eyes wouldn't be able to read
anything, so 4k seemed pointless. Additionally, I use a wide gamut of
software, half of which is not hiDPI aware.

Overall, I'm really happy with my Benq 32" it strikes a nice balance between
being a larger screen, but _still_ readable at 100% scaling.

~~~
TaupeRanger
That doesn't make any sense. A 24" 1080p monitor has the same "effective DPI"
(actual physical size of things on screen) as both a 32" 1440p monitor at 100%
scaling AND a 32" 4k screen at 150% scaling. You would be getting literally
the exact same amount of screen space on the 4k display at 150% as you do on
your 1440p screen, except that it would be even _easier_ to read because the
text, for example, would be sharper.

~~~
Jaruzel
And the older apps that are not hiDPI aware, would ignore the scaling request,
and be too small to use. No thanks.

