>1920x1200 >24" monitor >100% DPI scaling Are

>Yotsuba

Are you 15?

>>60054805
Can't read shit, I use at 150%

>>60054829
The text is extremely small with this resolution and monitor size. And if you view a thread on 4chan in a maximized window everything is weighted to the left and you have a bunch of empty space on the right.

>>60054805
What's the ploblem?

>>60054805
I don't have bad eyesight but I changed it to 133% on my 27 inch monitor a few months ago because I moved my chair farther away and I literally can't go back. If you can't clearly read it from 2+ feet away it's worthless.

File: yotsuba green.png (439KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1920x1200px

>>60054843
What's wrong with Yotsuba? I have messed around with other themes but I always come back to it.

I normally use 150% scaling.

>>60054843
Is this a moot reference or something?
Post the way it's meant to be posted™

File: example.png (256KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1920x1200px

>>60054856

>>60054877
I don't have bad eyesight either. I tried some other sizes like 125% and 133% but I think I found somewhere that said 144 ppi was the "correct" setting for a 24" 1920x1080 monitor.

>>60054850
I'm surprised winfags can read anything at all given how fucking shitty their font rendering is

>>60055235
Mactype

What is the problem? I use a 23" at 1080p and see no problem with the font size.
I like the space it gives me.

>>60055235
>uses linux
>talks shit about font rendering on Windows
KEK
>>60055383
you must be sitting 6 inches away from the screen or squinting like crazy because without changing ppi settings in firefox is painful at 1080p. Do you wear glasses?

Fucking eyelets itt go kys.
120 physical dpi at 100% is perfect for desktop.

>>60055434
I do. I'm short sighted but I see no problem. I normally sit 20 inches away from my monitor.

>>60054805
Yes. My eyesight is shit, too, but I have no problems whatsoever.

Dell E248WFP

>>60055460
It seems normal to you because you're wearing shit that magnifies and corrects your shit tier vision. 20 inches is also way too close, so it's no wonder it looks fine to you.

>>60055542
How far away do you sit from your monitor? Also my short sight is corrected by my glasses, I don't suddenly become far sighted by using them -.-

File: Cap.png (213KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1920x1080px

>>60054805
21.5" @ 1920x1080, 100% scaling (win7)
I've honestly always thought higher scaling values were for old people. I set it to 125% for my father and uncle's computers.

I have a 23" (1920x1080) at work and I can see the pixels, which is disturbing.

>>60055623
at least 2 and a half feet

>>60055685
Isn't that too far away for a 24" monitor?

>>60054850
>>60054856
>>60054877
>24"
>scaling
>1200p
What the fuck are you doing I use unscaled 4k at 28"

>>60055262
It looks like shit.

File: Untitled.png (2MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1440px

>>60054805
1440p master race :^)

>>60055928
As a thumb rule: anything between the monitor's diagonal size and thrice this value is fine.
So assuming a 24" monitor:
When you're reading stuff, you shouldn't have to go closer than 60 cm. And when sitting back to watch something you should be able to go as far as 1.8 m without feeling the picture is too small.

Are you using fucking vista?
Or is this just a tweaked version of 7 or something?

>>60056012
So for a 23" monitor, 23" is fine. The what's the problem with me being just 3" too close?

>>60056012
Also, have you ever used a laptop?

>>60054805
That's a pretty bad resolution for a 24-inch display.

>>60056157
It's not a problem. (I'm not the one who said it is)

>>60056173
Not for a while to be honest. I think this rule applies to desktops only, not to smaller devices like laptops, tablets, etc.

>>60054805
Yeah, I have 2 1920x1200 24" monitors at work and a 1920x1080 23" screen. The DPI is kind of shit after getting used to a main 27" UHD screen at home, but it's still OK.

>>60054850
same

File: 1491527806347.jpg (21KB, 412x351px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 412x351px

> 1366x768
> 15,6"
>90% scaling or lower where I can

>>60054805
>dat keming...i mean kerning

>>60055235
>os x
Looks good the first hours then it becomes unusable without an HDPI display.
>windows
Looks bad but it is easier on my eyes to read.
>linux
Needs some work but it looks OK, smooth but readable.

File: 1XTI7gV.jpg (411KB, 1900x952px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1900x952px

>>60054805
so comfy desu

>>60055939
>What the fuck are you doing I use unscaled 4k at 28"
you're insane

>>60056711
Yeah, it's not great but it's the best I have been able to make of a bad situation.

File: Screenshot (71).png (393KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 3840x2160px

>>60058269
You're just shit.

>>60058352
Are you really posting this as a serious screenshot? Do not realize how ridiculous that looks?

>>60058594
Nope, looks fine to me

>>60060040
looks retarded

>>60054805
That's a complete normal resolution for the size, so yes.
Sane people don't use Windows or their browser fullscreen.
>>60055021
No, it's not. 96 was declared the standard PPI years ago before scaling and small high-res monitors.
1080 at 24" is like 94 or something.

>>60060347
>t. eyelet

>>60060405
>Sane people don't use Windows or their browser fullscreen.
You might as well not even have a big monitor.

>>60060468
Reading text that's stretched across a widescreen is very uncomfortable. My browser is almost always at half-width.
Use a phone if you want to look at one application at a time.

>>60054843
>wasting time changing the theme on a mongolian finger puppet discussion group
Sounds like something a twelve year old would do.

>>60060468
I'm perfectly happy having my browser be 1920x2160. Using a 40" 2160p display is way better when you let it act like two tall displays side by side.

>>60060492
I like to bump up the scale and use centered threads for a shorter line length. Using only half the screen gets annoying with large images. Also I wish goot would fix the CSS to base everything except the images off one font size so I could just bump that up and not have blurry images.

>>60055637
Maybe you should turn on antialiasing then you double nigger. I bet you're the one always complaining about Firefox font rendering.

>>60054805
>are there people who use this day to day?
3 U2412M's actually. Comfy as fuck for everything.

>>60054856
Looks fine to me.

File: Untitled.jpg (366KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 2560x1440px

>>60061527

>>60054805
you might need glasses, m8

>>60054899
>windows
>>>/r/eddit

>>60054805
>1920x1200
>22"
>100% DPI scaling
close enough

File: Screenshot_20170424-223826.png (296KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1080x1920px

>phone posting
Yeah Yeah,

Keep in mind this is 5 inches.
Running 340 dpi iirc

>>60054805

1440P @ 100% scaling master race reporting in.

1920x1080 @ 24" monitor has less pixel density than 1366*768 @ 14" laptop

>>60061791
1600p @ 100% scaling real master race reporting in.

>>60061992
30'?
I use 24' 1080p 100% and 30' 1600p 100%
It's just a blind phonetard bait thread.
Report and move on.

>>60054805
I use a 15.6" FHD at 100% yes

100% scaling only works up to 90 ppi. At 96 ppi you have to bump it up at least 10%

>>60061713
That's even worse. You're killing your eyes.

>>60061663
The reason I don't need glasses is because I don't squint at ridiculously small text all day.

>>60055445
This. 25" 2560x1440 + 34" 3840x144 user here.

>>60060448
Who are you quoting?

>>60064246
Anyone who scales their screen above 100%

i've just ordered a new 24" monitor

should i have got a 27" one instead?

I have a 1920x1200 display but I don't run my fucking apps full screen, especially the browser.

>people not understanding the concept of a "desktop" with "windows" on it you can move around as needed

>>60064246
the guy who said that s4s trash like you should do the society a favour and off themselves.

>>60054805
I generally find 125% is a good balance, but when I was actually working / programming on my computer for 8hrs+ every day I used 150% to keep fatigue minimal.

Really such a shame that 4:3 or even 5:4 monitors aren't widely available for productivity, since they are way better than 16:9 or 16:10 for work involving lots of text.

File: htwe0CJ[1].png (270KB, 1920x974px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1920x974px

>>60054805
I use 175% on 24" 1080p

>>60064982
reason being is that I sit 3-4 feet away from the screen, I want to upgrade to 4K 40 inch+ in the future

what the fuck is going on itt

my only guess is that people doing this are 15 year olds who grew up with smartphones and are used to have no screen space and viewing one window at a time

File: cap_2017-04-25_542735.png (922KB, 1204x1920px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 1204x1920px

>>60054805

Yes. Using it right now, as a matter of fact, on a 24" monitor in portrait mode ... my default web browsing / text / PDF / coding monitor.

My other (27") monitor is in landscape mode, 2560x1440.

File: watg.png (651KB, 3834x2160px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 3834x2160px

what seems to be the problem officer?

>>60054805

24"@1920x1200 has fairly big dot? No need for scaling there or I'm missing something?

>>60065094
there's no need for scaling, no

all the people talking about resolution and DPI and i'm pretty sure no one of them change windows border size, the size of the icons of the desktop or the interface of any application.

File: cap_2017-04-25_542736.png (437KB, 1024x1854px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1024x1854px

>>60065045

Also very typical for me, I have my browser set to 1024 width and something almost filling the vertical space so I can access other windows & desktop icons conveniently.

>16:9
>horizontal taskbar

F U L L   R
U         E
L         T
L         A
          R
R E T A R D