Comment by mdasen
14 hours ago
> I assume the dearth of other options was because macOS doesn't do fractional scaling
Except it does? I have a 14" MBP with a 3024x1964 display. By default, it uses a doubling for an effective 1512x982, but I can also select 1800x1169, 1352x878, 1147x745, or 1024x665. So it certainly does have fractional scaling options.
If you connect a 4k 2160p monitor, you can go down or up from the default 1080p doubling (https://www.howtogeek.com/why-your-mac-shows-the-wrong-resol...). If you select 2560x1440 for a 4k 2160p screen, that's 150% scaling rather than 2x (https://appleinsider.com/inside/macos/tips/what-is-display-s..., see the image where it compares "native 2x scaling" to "appears like 2560x1440").
macOS fakes fractional scaling by rendering a larger image at 2x and then downscaling it. For example, 1800x1169 renders a 3600x2338 at 2x scaling, then resizes the rendered image to 3024x1964. This is slower and looks worse than true fractional scaling would be, but makes the implementation a lot easier and in practice it’s hard to tell the difference. It’d look pretty awful if the native ppi wasn’t so high.
I believe it was 2x only early on. But as you said it’s fractional now and has been for a longtime.
The instant Apple wanted to use a panel that wasn’t 2x, the feature appeared.
They may have fractional scaling but font rendering absolutely sucks if you don’t have 200dpi or more.
I tried using macOS on a 4K 27 inch monitor and it was pretty unbearable. Worse than a 1080p monitor on Windows or Linux.
They stopped shipping computers that have less than that. They clearly think that’s the minimum that’s viable.
Personally, I’m fine with that. It’s 2026 and I don’t understand why people are using 1080p monitors for work.
1 reply →