Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Mine is 2560x1440 which is a pretty nice "sweet spot" size. A comparable 5k to 6k display still commands a substantial price, and - given that I work at two locations - would need me to have two of them. The screen I use as my current (a 3x2 BenQ) also has some amount of subsampling going on, because running it at 2x ("Retina native HiDPI") all the UI controls are too damn big, and space is not enough. Running it at 1x (everything teeeny-tiny) is just not very good for my eyesight and not very workable - and, again, with Zed bumps into the same broken antialiasing rasterizer they have.

And it is not an OS thing. The OS renders subpixel antialiased fonts just fine. But Zed uses its own font rasterizer, and it completely falters when faced with a "standard passable resolution" screen - the letters become mushy, as if they have been blurred - and rather sloppily at that.



It depends on your OS.

Linux and Windows are significantly better for both 1440p and 4k monitors. Both Linux and Windows have subpixel rendering and configurable font hinting for 1440p. And they both have fractional scaling UIs for 4k. macOS on the other hand only really looks acceptable on a 5k monitor.


When people says things like "mine is 2560x1440" on HN, are they talking about the mac scaled resolution? I feel like some context is always missing from resolution discussions, and it's a topic non-technical people can weigh in on as well.


The 2560x1440 is QHD which is kind of a happy medium: high resolution enough to look really sharp, but not so high resolution that you have to scale it up like Macs do on retina displays. Having had retina Macs (and been very happy with them) since they came out, I've been using 16" and 17" QHD panels on my linux laptops for about five years... and they are actually just fine.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: