Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | NBJack's commentslogin

This still baffles me. Never mind Windows; I can get sub-pixel font rendering with the ability to fine-tune it on virtually any major Linux distro since around 2010.

Meanwhile, Apple had this but dropped it in 2018, allegedly under the assumption of "hiDPI everywhere" Retina or Retina-like displays. Which would be great...except "everywhere" turned out to be "very specific monitors support specific resolutions".


To be frank, it's kind of embarrassing if an entry-level Windows laptop with a decent integrated GPU handles this without much effort.

Apple is free to make its own choices on priority, but I'm disappointed when something that's considered the pinnacle of creative platforms sporting one of the most advanced consumer processors available can't handle a slightly different resolution.


Nope, no windows laptop will render to an 8K framebuffer then downsample that by 2x in each direction to display it at 4K. That’s what the OP is complaining that MacOS won’t let him do.

It's a bit nit-picky on my part, but this bizarre world of MacOS resolution/scaling handling vs. other operating systems (including Windows 11 for crying out loud) is one of my biggest gripes with using Apple hardware.

I remember having to work hard to make my non-Apple display look 'right' years ago on an Intel-based mac due to weirdness with scaling and resolutions that a Windows laptop didn't even flinch handling. It was a mix of hardware limitations and the lack of options I had to address the resolution and refresh rates I had available over a Thunderbolt doc that I shouldn't have to think about.

I honestly hope they finally fix this. I would love it if they allowed sub-pixel text rendering options again too.


https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17477526

This reminds me of this comment, which I feel is a somewhat unsatisfying explanation, given that despite these difficulties, Windows somehow makes it work.


You need the right ones.

Xreal One glasses anchor the screen (i.e. it stays in place as you look around), have specific (and adjustable) tech for text clarity, have low chromatic distortion, and do things entirely onboard in the hardware. I've been able to use them for hours comfortably, and have gotten corrective lens inserts to avoid having to use my glasses with them.

They now have a 32:9 mode for ultra wide resolution, which is a real boost to using my work laptop. My aging phone doesn't play as nice as it used to with this mode, but it's a real win having 3 windows arrayed comfortably.

I code and read documents for a living, and I love these things.


thanks - I tried ViturePro when the came out, but felt like I was seeing monitors wearing blinders/through a slit, that wasn't quite big enough to see the whole screen.

Can you fully see the 3 monitors you're using there, And are you on mac or on windows? ie can you see kind of 1.5 monitors at a time, the middle one, and .5 of oneish?


If ATT had been applied uniformly, sure. But Apple has exemption from its own rules. So, less trickle down benefit, and more tilting the playing field wildly in their favor. Its new advertising system is doing great!


I don't think the online advertising field is tilted "wildly in Apple's favor". Yes, Apple squeaked out one area of advantage, eliminating some crushing abuse by others in the process.

In a sane world, no one would have the kind of market power that so much hinges upon their competitive actions.


A return to laserdiscs (with CD or BluRay technology and information density) would be wild.


Most high end headphones have a replaceable cable. What have you tried on the expensive end of the spectrum?


Not even high-end nowadays, you really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for something with a nonreplaceable cable. Even for iems.


Legitimately listening to this book for the first time after a coworker recommended it. It's rapidly becoming one of my favorite books that balances the truly alien with the familiar just right.

Not so ironically, it came up when we were discussing "software archeology".


It has been a while, but I remember a project of mine trying to port a FTP client to a 'secure compiler' (this was long before Rust and probably a distant ancestor of Checked C). In theory, if I could successfully port it, it would be much more resilient to particular kinds of issues (and maybe even attacks). This was in the era where formal proof coding was trying to take off as well in the industry.

After wading through an impressive number of compiler errors (again, it was technically compatible) and attempts to fix them, I eventually surrendered and acknowledged that at the very least, this was beyond my abilities.

I probably would had gotten much further just rewriting it from scratch.


I'm not sure anyone at the company can say that with a straight face anymore.


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

Search: