High resolution screens and Linux

Hello

I have a question, maybe somebody here has some experience with this:

Many new laptops feature high resolution screens which go beyond 1920x1080. Let's take the current 13" MacBook Pro retina as an example. That screen has a resolution of 2560x1600. However, the scaled resolution is 1680x1050.
So, effectively, you are working on 1680x1050, but each dot is much sharper on this screen than on a regular 1680x1050 screen, right? (Which some people simply describe as: "You can barely see the pixels!")

How does Linux (Ubuntu, for example) fare with these high resolutions? My guess is that the first time you install Ubuntu on a 13" rMBP, everything will be REALLY small, since it will run at actual 2560x1600. What do you do then, in order to be able to work properly? Do you simply change the resolution in Ubuntu to 1680x1050 and you're all set? Or do you have to play around with scaling options? If it's the latter, how does Ubuntu fare in the scaling-department?

It would be nice if people could share their experience with this.

Thanks!

 

There's a lot of information on this subject online.

Currently, no desktop environment for Linux (kde, gnome, xfce, etc.) has native support for resolution scaling. At least, not the way Apple supports it in Mac OS. Microsoft is getting there, but support is still sub-par. Linux is way behind in this department and the changes required to include this support are quite lengthy. As such, I don't expect to see full blown support for quite some times (years).

So, your choices are either:

- As you said, install Linux (whichever flavor you desire) and then lower the resolution to something more visually appealing.
- Install Linux through using a VM (VirtualBox, VMWare, etc.) and the host OS will provide the resolution scaling.

And yes, everything will appear super tiny in Linux if you have, for example, a Retina Mac Book Pro.

BTW: KDE has some support for DPI scaling, but I don't believe you are going to get exactly what you are expecting.

 

Thanks for the info!

 

The default scaled resolution on 13" rMBP is actually 1280x800, you do get the option to scale to 1440x900 and 1680x1050 though but it's not quite 1:1 (or pixel doubled, if you will) in both directions, it's still sharp though. (1440x900 (default), 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 for 15")

I'm not sure how scaling works in Linux, I've never used any of its scaling options, but just setting the resolution to 1680x1050 on a 13" 2560x1600 screen looks much better than setting that resolution on a 23" 1920x1080 monitor.

Setting it to 2560x1600 natively and increasing the DPI probably works better, but expect to run into some visual issues with certain software.

 

Just got Fedora 20 working on my XPS 15 9530 (3800x2400 resolution), so I have a little experience to report.

KDE handles text scaling without any trouble. Some icons scale properly, others don't (most noticeably in the window decorations and system tray). Window borders (used for resizing) and scroll bars don't scale; this is the biggest annoyance I've run into so far.

On the whole I find the system usable, but some operations are a little irritating.

Allen

 

Of course you know these screens are just gimmicks since they don't conform to any specified standards, and are designed solely to boost sales. Its a classic case of one-upsmenship between competitor, but the benefits between them and the consumers will only be short lived.

 

Just to be sure, did you mean 3200x1800?

 

Yes, 3200x1800. Sorry about that!

 

More like: Apple introduced it because it provides tangible benefits for them and/or their users (buh-bye fuzzy text rendering). The rest of the world then jumped on the bandwagon without really understanding what's going on or why Apple did it in the first, just because they don't want to be seen as being "behind".

When will the rest of the world learn that copying Apple's actions without understanding their intentions is meaningless...

 

They did it as a simple enhancement to sell more laptops; and because they didn't have any original ideas.

Like I said before, its a meaningless upgrade because its not consistent with any certified resolution. Its a stop-gap measure that will last a short time then fall by the wayside like so many odd resolutions before it. Its a resurgence of the old resolution wars that we all have seen so many times before. In cameras, and in monitors.

Do you know of any compatible external monitors that offer that compatible resolutions? If you want a true upgrade, look for those that offers something useful like an enhanced bit depth or color space. If not, move along.

For now, call me only when you get to or find one that offers a QHD resolution. Only then, will you get my attention.

One more things, when it comes to copying, that's something ALL computers manufactures do. And its not just limited to computer industry either.

 

There are a few laptops with 4K screens.

 

Available only recently. And with no reviews thus far to determine their quality. Were going to have to wait and see how well they turn out.

 

I'll rant a bit about the scaling story on Linux, since it's actually worse today than it used to be.

Uhm, how do they not conform to any specified standards: these are resolutions that can be driven through DisplayPort 1.1a at 60Hz in different aspect ratios (quite common in computer industry: 16:10 and 16:9)? Since when does the _movie_ industry define standards for computer industry? It sure does influence it, but it does not define it (for instance, there are screens and laptops appearing with 21:9 aspect ratio, but they are in no way a pre-dominant form, nor will they be for foreseeable future, if ever).

Computer industry was never defined by movie standards of screen size, but only by the available bandwidth and aspect ratios. If you remember CRT screens, you were able to drive a ton of different resolutions, and everyone could fine-tune the settings as they pleased (X11 modelines, anyone?). Only due to move to the flat panels with low pre-set resolutions have we lost the configurability of the CRT days.

I, personally, love high DPI screens because I like better rendering. Ideally without subpixel rendering and anti-aliasing (yes, I'd like our pixels to be that small, and to not tax the CPU with emulation of higher resolution — as a matter of fact, since all OSes are using subpixel rendering, they are basically dealing with 3 times the horizontal resolution already). You may not care for good rendering, but you should not try to put down people who do. Especially with talk about standards. There were never standard resolutions in computer industry. VGA was introduced with a particular computer, and then became accepted as *common*. Similarly for all the other resolutions (SVGA, XGA,...). At one point, movie industry switched to digital, and they selected a couple of their own resolutions and defined them as SD, HD and FullHD. Computer industry, unfortunately, followed due to manufacturing costs.

And this has messed up so many things in the GNU/Linux world as well.

I believe that in a "practical" switch from XFree86 to X.org back in the day, we lost the ability to naturally scale stuff on X11 based desktops: previously, it worked out-of-the-box. If you set a font to 14pt, you'd get a font the size of 14/72 of an inch on your screen. Only with the resurgence of high DPI screens have I learned that this was hacked away in X.Org to better cope with lowest common denominator of users with low DPI screens (HD or FullHD) and web platform prominence (so web sites would look the same as in OSes they were designed in, which didn't scale properly): the DPI was fixed to 96ppi (pixels per "inch"), regardless of your screen size and resolution (thus "inch" in quotes). Often times, "practical" is backwards, but it does ensure that 14pt font is the same number of pixels across different screens. And therein lies the problem

FWIW, GNOME applications have had fully scalable UI and text for ages (since 2.0 at least, which is ~2002 timeframe), though scalable SVG icons never became common enough.

Oh, I do agree that the scaling problem is much bigger than just fixed PPI that most OSes have these days, but that was at least half of the problem we had solved in 2004, but don't have it solved today. The other part of the problem is scaling graphics (partially solved) and choosing appropriate sizing for different form factors (you may want a default 12 real-pt font for laptops, 14 real-pt for desktops and 9 real-pt for small handhelds). But, allowing the user to set their defaults and using scalable icons had us three quarters of the way there to full scalable UIs in 2005, yet we are much farther away today.

Our desktops today don't scale well because of the web developers of yesterday (and today): they could never figure out how to get their "pixel-perfect" designs yet cope with all the accessibility issues, so we are now stuck and rethinking the entire game. And these developers have turned into our desktop developers. Whatever app worries about accessibility first will scale properly to high DPI screens.

 

This post is honestly laughable. I dislike Apple more than most folks but you're getting a bit blinded by your bias. 2880x1800 may not be QHD but its still a very tangible advancement in spatial image quality. 720p isn't 1080p but that doesn't mean 720p doesn't have its uses. Besides, Linux's scaling issues have nothing to do with 2880x1800 not being a "certified resolution." Most Linux desktop environments are not resolution independent yet which means they would have issues with QHD small screens as well. Your idea of a "certified resolution" is an antiquity of a more limited computing era, not dissimilar to people making websites in absolute sizes. Going forward resolution independence is relatively simple to do as long as you design the underlying systems with it in mind. Despite its problems, Android is good example of near resolution independence.

 

I just tested yesterday KDE, and you CAN resize the scroll bars. I think it's somewhere in the theme or appearance settings. By the way, apart from adjusting the fonts, I also manually changed the size of the task bar to 50px and the dpi to 235.

I have done some tweaking with the fonts and it is usable now, but it doesn't look 100% good. As you said, icons on the window tops don't scale.

I have also tested GNOME 3, and Cinnamon.

With GNOME 3 I have got the best HiDPI experience so far. Just tweaking the fonts, I'd say everything was fine. That is, if you like GNOME 3, which it's very touch friendly, but still feels a bit confusing.

In Cinnamon, the experience is a bit worse than with GNOME 3. Also tweaking its fonts (it inherits some settings from GNOME's fonts, but ignores most others, which need to be set through its own font settings app).

I'd like to be able to export / automate these settings. Maybe we can add a section on the wiki ( Linux - XPS 15 Wiki), or even create a repo with HiDPI settings for different Desktop Environments in them?

 

Could you post some screenshots of the 3 desktop environments when scaled? I'd love to see a comparison

 

That's a good idea. But those screenshots are only useful if they go hand in hand with how to reach to that configuration. It's the automated/scripted/documented configuration what I am more interested in.

 

Only if you don't want to become an educated consumer.

Not bias. The same applies to any PC that conforms to the same parameters.

Like lines of resolution? Way back when there was 240 we had sets that resolved 350.

But back then broadcast out paced anything media. The displays were 450 and media was 420. Then 500 lines and DVD matched its output. Then along came a new method of measurement and 720p, was born. and again monitors were ahead.

But media never stopped there, at 720p did it? Instead, it leap-frogged, and relatively quickly, to 1080p. That's where the media and resolution matched up again, and you got to see the best of what media had to offer. So here we sit. Or do we?

Because then someone adds 1440p or 1600p and nobody really cared -- except maybe a scant few gamers and/or photographers? At 1880 we're still in relative resolution limbo, and who's gonna know the difference? Without media to support it, it all eventually fades away never having received any real following.

Can you tell the difference between DVD and 720? What about 720 to 1080? Is it a non issue on the typical monitor? So why is it even there? Can you choose 1800 on anything? No. And with the popularity of 4k growing exponentially everyday, you likely never will.

No my friend, 1800 is just a stop gap to generate income. A quick fix for Apple and a few PCs. Its nothing more than an example of one-upsmanship just like all the crazy mixed up results from the still cameras pixel wars. (BTW, they're still at it)

In an instant it will be gone. And five years from now, few folk will remember, with even fewer that will care.

 

I've just added screenshots for GNOME 3 and Cinnamon: Linux - XPS 15 Wiki

I haven't added KDE's because I have no plans to use it for the time being. I have played with it, and I have seen that it can be successfully tweaked. Feel free to add those yourself if you find the time

I'm really loving my non-standard high-resolution screen.

It doesn't come out of the box, and it is not 100% perfect, but I'm more than happy with the HiDPI' support of those desktop environments. Bye again, Windows.

 

For anyone interested, hidpi support is comming to cinnamon 2.2. This will be released with Linux Mint 17 (end of May). I think that, by the end of the year, linux will have great HiDPI support, seems everyone is working on it.

 

That's nice. But, to be honest, I don't see the big issue. After a few tweaks, I am using Cinnamon 2.1 perfectly fine. Maybe these efforts are trying to automate those tweaks so that it is not necessary anymore to tweak font sizes etc?

 

Some of the High-DPI support that's landing includes per-monitor scaling settings: solving the problems you'd see with frequently attaching a High-DPI laptop to a regular DPI screen. Ubuntu 14.04 (about to be released in April) is coming along nicely: I keep the scale set to 1.0 for my Dell U2711, and the scale set to 1.38 for my laptop, though I still increase the text-scaling-factor for GNOME/GTK applications further (I don't like my window frames to take that much space, yet I want my fonts bigger).

 

Using Gnome 3.12 (Arch package) now. Everything seems to be good.

 

The press-release of the new Ubuntu 14.04 states:
" Ubuntu 14.04 LTS is optimised for desktops and laptops with multi-touch trackpads and touchscreens, as well as support for high pixel density (DPI) screens. This means users can make the most out of the newest hardware on the market."

Don't shoot the messenger!

 

lol, this statement means exactly nothing. Sounds like apple has released the new ubuntu.

Haha!

 

I'm pretty sure this is not the first they have said something like this.

 

That's a great functionality. Do you know if that is only coming to GNOME, or are other desktop environments such as Unity, KDE or Cinnamon getting this feature as well?

 

I have used an IBM T221 with KDE in the past, yes, it's doable but you need to find all the pesky places DPI can be set and also change icon sizes. It's supported but it takes time to get set up.

 

As interesting as your note is (really nice beast for having been released in 2001, which even came along its own graphics card), desktop environments are evolving pretty fast, so I'd suggest to keep the thread to more recent versions, so as to not confuse people.

With a recent KDE (Ubuntu Trusty) I only needed a couple of tweaks to make it workable. Full perfection may still cost a lot of effort, but good enough is very easy to achieve.