Start menu items inncorrectly sized when changing screen DPI

[Guest]

Last night I hooked up a new 17" monitor to my PC, and naturally wanted to
take advantage of the new resolution (previously I was using a 15"). The most
comfortable (as far as flicker is concerned) resolution was 1280x968.
However, to make the text readable, I had to set up the DPI of the monitor.
I set the 'Custom...' setting under Display Properties>Settings>Advanced to
104% so that holding a ruler up to the screen gave exactly and inch on
screen. I saved these settings, restarted, and I had a beautiful presentation
with all fonts the correct size.
However, on opening the start menu, the width the the menu was not wide
enough to show all the text in the menu. Presumiably the start menu is sized
to the text before the text is scaled up. This is a serious bug and should be
rectified.
Also, I hope there will be better integration of the DPI setting in
Longhorn, which should better support scaling with its vector graphics. Is it
really that difficult in the setup process to ask the user to measure an inch
on the screen?

 

[Kelly]

What is wrong with 96 DPI?

--
Happy Mardi Gras,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

 

[DanS]

Last night I hooked up a new 17" monitor to my PC, and naturally
wanted to take advantage of the new resolution (previously I was using
a 15"). The most comfortable (as far as flicker is concerned)
resolution was 1280x968. However, to make the text readable, I had to
set up the DPI of the monitor. I set the 'Custom...' setting under
Display Properties>Settings>Advanced to 104% so that holding a ruler
up to the screen gave exactly and inch on screen. I saved these
settings, restarted, and I had a beautiful presentation with all fonts
the correct size. However, on opening the start menu, the width the
the menu was not wide enough to show all the text in the menu.
Presumiably the start menu is sized to the text before the text is
scaled up. This is a serious bug and should be rectified.
Also, I hope there will be better integration of the DPI setting in
Longhorn, which should better support scaling with its vector
graphics. Is it really that difficult in the setup process to ask the
user to measure an inch on the screen?

flicker is not caused by the screen resolution, it caused by most likely
having the refresh rate set to 60 hz, which is pretty much default for any
video driver's installed.

i would also suspect that setting the resolution to a non-3:4 ratio will
cause some display problems as well.

the preferable way to change the display size of items is thru the display
properties -> appearance tab -> advanced. from there you can change the
sizes of windows elements individually. for example, you can increase or
decrease the size of the desktop icons....or the font size of the title
bars.... or the size of the menu font.

regards,

DanS

 

[alex.melhuish6388]

I know this. Think about the practicalities. As you increase the
resolution, the monitor becomes less able to handle higher refresh
rates. The resolution of 1280x960 (which I might add *is* a 4:3
resolution. 1280x1024 is *not*) seemed to be the best setting for
resolution to refresh ratio.
Also, I don't care if that's 'preferable' - it's technically wrong! I
do a lot of graphic design work, using professional applications like
Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop uses the DPI setting of the monitor to
determine what is a *real* inch (as *all* applications should). So that
when you choose view>print size, it really *is* print size. You could
literally hold up a piece of paper that size to the screen, and it
would fit exactly.

My point is there is a bug in Windows, which must be fixed. I can live
with this, but it's still a problem. I find it rather aggrovating that
so many people don't know how to setup their equipment properly. The
biggest horror must be the thought of application developers unaware of
this fact, who blindly design their software in 96 DPI (no doubt on a
21" monitor in 1600x1200 squinting at their tiny fonts).

Even if this problem isn't fixed in an update, I would hope that the
Avalon team wake up to monitor DPI, and stop calling it by a stupid
name like 'screen fonts'. It has nothing to do with fonts - it's about
physical resolution (not virtual pixel resolution). A simple routine
when installing Windows is all that's required:
Request the type of monitor and it's dimensions (i.e. CRT or LCD, 17"
or 21") then use the optimum resolution based on this data (i.e. LCD is
*always* run at full resolution, for 17" this is normally 1280x1024).
Then, ask the user to place a ruler on the screen, and drag the slider
until the physical ruler matches the virtual ruler on screen. Done -
now 12pt on screen is 12 pt on paper. 3 centimetres on screen is 3
centimetres on paper. When you select 100% in word, and hold up a piece
of paper to the screen, it's exactly the same size. Wouldn't that be a
lovely world? Would it really be *that* hard?
This would all be so much simpler in Avalon, as it's vector based
(rather than the pixels of Windows XP and previous) so scaling is very
simple.

Wake up Microsoft - people do want this, and you should've realised
this long ago. Find me a monitor that uses 96 DPI nowadays!

 

[DanS]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

I know this. Think about the practicalities. As you increase the
resolution, the monitor becomes less able to handle higher refresh
rates. The resolution of 1280x960 (which I might add *is* a 4:3
resolution. 1280x1024 is *not*) seemed to be the best setting for
resolution to refresh ratio.

you are absolutely correct, my mistake 1280 x 960 is 4:3

Also, I don't care if that's 'preferable' - it's technically wrong! I
do a lot of graphic design work, using professional applications like
Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop uses the DPI setting of the monitor to
determine what is a *real* inch (as *all* applications should). So that
when you choose view>print size, it really *is* print size. You could
literally hold up a piece of paper that size to the screen, and it
would fit exactly.

My point is there is a bug in Windows, which must be fixed. I can live
with this, but it's still a problem. I find it rather aggrovating that
so many people don't know how to setup their equipment properly.

is it a bug , or is it just that you think it should be done differently
? for the average user, what is there to set up ? how many people even
think that you should calibrate your scanner, to the screen, to the
printer ? i would NOT say it is a bug, as you are free to measure your
monitor, calculate the DPI, and then set the DPI to the result.

biggest horror must be the thought of application developers unaware of
this fact, who blindly design their software in 96 DPI (no doubt on a
21" monitor in 1600x1200 squinting at their tiny fonts).

i take offense to this, somewhat, as i do not 'blindly' develop
application's based on 96 dpi. i develop software with the default
setting of 96 dpi, because 96 dpi is what the majority of windows
installation's are set to. and by majority, in this instance, is probably
99.9%.

Even if this problem isn't fixed in an update, I would hope that the
Avalon team wake up to monitor DPI, and stop calling it by a stupid
name like 'screen fonts'. It has nothing to do with fonts - it's about
physical resolution (not virtual pixel resolution). A simple routine
when installing Windows is all that's required:
Request the type of monitor and it's dimensions (i.e. CRT or LCD, 17"
or 21") then use the optimum resolution based on this data (i.e. LCD is
*always* run at full resolution, for 17" this is normally 1280x1024).
Then, ask the user to place a ruler on the screen, and drag the slider
until the physical ruler matches the virtual ruler on screen. Done -
now 12pt on screen is 12 pt on paper. 3 centimetres on screen is 3
centimetres on paper. When you select 100% in word, and hold up a piece
of paper to the screen, it's exactly the same size. Wouldn't that be a
lovely world? Would it really be *that* hard?

i would think it's much more complex than that, on a regular CRT monitor
anyway. you would have to give exact height and width measurement's of
what the monitor is able to display, after you pick the refresh rate, re-
calibration would then be necessary for any simple geomety adjustment
made on the monitor.

This would all be so much simpler in Avalon, as it's vector based
(rather than the pixels of Windows XP and previous) so scaling is very
simple.

Wake up Microsoft - people do want this, and you should've realised
this long ago. Find me a monitor that uses 96 DPI nowadays!

so if you are a professional graphic artist, why do you not use a Mac, as
we _all_ know that there's _'no'_ 'bugs' or issues of any kind with
Mac's.

 

[[smiler]]

OK, as far as I can tell, this is the first true bug I've ever found in
Windows. I am a Windows user, not a Mac user, as much as I may want one
(I can't afford one - I'm not a professional graphic artist, I didn't
say I was).
The post was poorly structured, and you may have missed what I was
calling a bug. Try this: open the display properties, select
Settings>Advanced, then from the fonts size drop down select Custom...
Set the percentage to 108%, then close the windows. You'll be prompted
to restart. When the computer reboots, open the start menu, going into
'All Programs'. Now, is the menu sized properly (width wise) for you?
It certainly isn't for me - long file names are cut off at the edge.
This is what I call a bug.

As far as developing for the default is concerned, that's like saying
you draw all dialogue boxes where text is 9 point MS Sans Serif,
because that's what most people use. It's also like designing a web
site that looks beautiful in IE, but is completely unreadable in
Firefox/Opera/Safari/Lynx. No wonder Microsoft have a reputation for
ignoring standards and guidelines.

 

[DanS]

OK, as far as I can tell, this is the first true bug I've ever found in
Windows. I am a Windows user, not a Mac user, as much as I may want one
(I can't afford one - I'm not a professional graphic artist, I didn't
say I was).
The post was poorly structured, and you may have missed what I was
calling a bug. Try this: open the display properties, select
Settings>Advanced, then from the fonts size drop down select Custom...
Set the percentage to 108%, then close the windows. You'll be prompted
to restart. When the computer reboots, open the start menu, going into
'All Programs'. Now, is the menu sized properly (width wise) for you?
It certainly isn't for me - long file names are cut off at the edge.
This is what I call a bug.

As far as developing for the default is concerned, that's like saying
you draw all dialogue boxes where text is 9 point MS Sans Serif,
because that's what most people use. It's also like designing a web
site that looks beautiful in IE, but is completely unreadable in
Firefox/Opera/Safari/Lynx. No wonder Microsoft have a reputation for
ignoring standards and guidelines.

ok, so i just did what you suggested. of course, you did not say set the
resolution to 1280 x 960, as this may be the whole problem. i have no
choice for this resolution.

i see no problem what-so-ever.

this is the longest start menu link i have - 'Uninstall Norton AntiVirus
2003 Professional Edition', and this shows fine.

i would see if maker of the video card in your pc has any information on
this, maybe a driver issue. the driver then needs to scale everything to
different proportions than standard, and there is a possibility it could
be the drivers.

do yo uhave another pc to do this test on ?

 

[[smiler]]

I do, but it runs Windows 98SE so that doesn't really help. Thanks for
trying anyway. It seems strange that something like this would be video
drivers, but then I don't know what parts of the desktop are
'accelerated'.

Thanks for trying, I guess this bug will just live on. I've found 1152
x 864 to be a better resolution for this monitor - it's more natural,
and 96 DPI fits perfectly.

 

[Kelly]

Who are you speaking to and where is the rest of this post?

--
Happy Mardi Gras,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

 

[[smiler]]

I was talking to DanS. I'm using Google groups beta, and I can see the
entire thread except my original post.

 

[Kelly]

You need to include the original post within your reply.

--
All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com