Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Start button? (Score 1) 172

Yeah, I can't think of any reason they should have kept ClearType on behind the scenes when scaling is done like that. It's just plain stupid.

I think it was back when XP came out that Microsoft started recommending all apps include a 256x256 alpha-channel icon instead of just 16x16 and 32x32 and 16/256 color with palette transparency. Any app that actually follows those specs will scale down the icon to the 64x64 needed in that screenshot. The stupid thing is it's all MS apps that don't follow the guidelines and look terrible with fonts or icons: VS2003, MMC.EXE (which runs Device Manager, etc)

Comment: Re:Start button? (Score 1) 172

I guess, except the Desktop always gets cluttered with files... and you can't make icons 4 difference sizes at once depending on how important the icon is on the desktop, and you can't really group or label icons like the start screen does, unless maybe you fix it into your wallpaper or use folders, which seems silly.

Comment: Re:Start button? (Score 2) 172

Apps have to opt-in to being able to support that via a new manifest setting. Older apps, even ones that declare them selves DPI-aware, will just get the setting of the monitor that they open up on, then scale pixels if you drag the window to a different screen. Newer apps can now add a new per-screen-DPI-aware manifest setting, and then listen to some API calls to rescale themselves when needed I guess. Seems like a lot of work for corner cases for most people really, compared to, you know, having one programmer at Microsoft make mmc.exe at least regular DPI-aware?

Comment: Re:Start button? (Score 1) 172

Well you can always turn on the option to show your same desktop wallpaper behind the start screen. Might help some. I for one LOVE the fact that I don't have to manually delete all the crap extra icons programs install on the start menu like I used to on Win 7 and below. I can just leave all the garbage in the down-arrow screen and type-to-search the few things I want, and pin just those to the main screen. Once you remove all the junk on the start screen that came there by default, you can easily get a screen that doesn't even need to scroll sideways and fit all the commonly used icons there, neatly organized.

There does not appear to be any filtering at all, at least not at 200% where it can just double up the pixels with ease. It might filter at 125% or 150%, I don't know. Here is a screenshot where I put arrows pointing at good and bad font rendering on a few screens of common OS things: http://ark42.com/win8.1/192dpi...

Comment: Re:Start Screen (Score 1) 172

It probably tells you about Win+X and all the other keyboard shortcuts in one of the tutorials or other junk at first boot that I didn't watch. I also know on the start screen you can click your login name and get a menu with shutdown/restart/etc. In control panel somewhere you can also toggle additional options on/off for that menu like hibernate.

Comment: Re:Start button? (Score 2) 172

I don't really see what the big deal is. I just got a new laptop with Windows 8.1 on it. First time ever actually using Windows 8, and at first, I was disgusted by the start 'screen'... but after a VERY short while, I realized that it was basically just a full-screen start menu that let you organize things by importance (how big the tile is) and also lets you see everything at once, vs the old way of having to carefully navigate up and right and into the menu hierarchy. Do I really need to see my open windows and part of my desktop behind the start menu when I'm just clicking to start a program? Not really.

What I really STILL hate after a few days of using this laptop is how HORRIBLE the support for high-DPI screens is. This laptop is 15" with 2880x1620 pixels, and is set to 200% scaling/192 dpi. Windows OS components like mmc.exe are labeled as NOT dpi-aware in their manifest files, so you get this really stupid looking font scaling on half of the dialogs from Windows itself. Windows renders everything to an off-screen 96dpi buffer, then just scales that up 200%. The whole ClearType sub-pixel rendering is completely useless when you double all the red and blue pixel edges around fonts! Half of the programs I have installed look like complete garbage because they just don't care about supporting anything but 96dpi. Even Google Chrome suffers this horrible font issue, but luckily I prefer Firefox anyway, which is DPI-aware and renders fonts beatifically.

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Working...