Microsoft Talks High DPI Displays for Windows 8

diverse

Responding to the points I made last week in Compete Report: Apple iPad (2012), Microsoft this week reiterated that Windows 8 will indeed support high DPI displays just like the Retina display on the iPad. And Microsoft claims that Windows 8 will benefit from a more diverse portfolio of device and screen types, furthering its claim that Windows 8 is a "no compromises" system.

"Windows 8 PCs will come in a variety of shapes and sizes, from small tablet screens to laptops and large desktop monitors and multi-monitor setups," writes Microsoft senior program manager David Washington in a new post, Scaling to different screens, on the Building Windows 8 Blog. "They will also scale to different pixel densities; from that of the typical tablet to new high-definition tablets."

Given that I've already described why Windows 8 won't offer as seamless an experience on high DPI displays as does Apple in its new iPad, I am of course most interested here in the new bits of information that Microsoft supplies in this post. And there are a few:

Common display resolution sizes. Microsoft claims that Windows 8 PCs will arrive with support for a variety of screen resolutions, as we knew, with the most common being 1366 x 768 (the so-called "reference design" for all Windows devices and Metro-style apps). But it will scale up to display sizes like 2560 x 1440 as well. It's worth noting, however, that Microsoft sees these types of displays as being appropriate for high-end "family hub" PCs for the most part. Remember, where Apple has moved the bar to 2048 x 1536, Microsoft is stuck in the past with 1366 x 768 in Metro. It just is.

1024 x 768 is the minimum. Again, we knew this, but I'm curious about the explanation of why, given that Apple has just left this resolution in the dust (the iPad from 2011 was 1024 x 768). "We chose 1024x768 as a minimum for Metro style apps [because] it is large enough to support the rich and beautiful layouts that we expect to see," Washington writes, "web sites are typically designed for 1024x768 as the minimum, [and the] new platform supports the devices of today and tomorrow." That's the crux of things, folks. Windows, as always, has to hit that least common denominator. You can see how this is both a pro and a con.

And the MAXIMUM resolution of a Metro style app is ... 2560 x 1600. Well, sort of. Actually, Microsoft says there's no maximum. But it's unclear that resolutions over that offer any benefit or are even being tested. Because, again, stuck in the past.

Scale. Microsoft talks about how Metro-style apps scale to fit larger screen sizes, and if you use the ribbon in applications like Office today, you get the idea: You see more stuff and if you go big enough, the stuff just runs out and you get blank space. Compare that to the iPad, where the screen looks the same whether its on the iPad 2 or the new iPad; Apple just scales things correctly rather than making everything smaller. So the home screen, web pages, apps, whatever, all look the same on the new device. They're just amazingly crisper and clearer. That is what users expect and want. And we've never really gotten that in the Windows world. This ties into... 

Pixel density. Yep, Windows supports high DPI displays as I wrote about last week. Poorly, but it does. From what I can tell, that support will continue in Windows 8. The biggest benefit, of course, will occur in Metro apps, not on the desktop, which has never scaled properly or well. "As the pixel density increases, the physical size of objects on screen gets smaller," Washington writes, noting the central issue here. "If Windows wasn’t built to accommodate different pixel densities, objects on screen would be too small to easily tap or read on these tablets."

The problem is, Windows isn't built to accommodate different pixel densities. Not today, and not for the desktop in Windows 8. But Metro apps will make a concession to this need, though they will not work like apps do on the iPad. Instead, Windows 8 will provide three, hard coded scale percentages that will apply automatically according to the device: 100% when no scaling is applied, 140% for HD tablets, and 180% for quad-XGA tablets. Honestly, on tablets, I think Apple's is the better approach, but then Apple only currently supports a single device/screen size, so it's easier for them to be consistent.

Put simply, I'm glad Microsoft has explained themselves here. But let's face it, Windows is just never going to be as simple and elegant as the iPad, and that's particularly true in this area. Windows' diversity of devices, as always, remains both a blessing (choice) and a curse (inconsistency).

And in parting, a stab at humor. Here's what the new iPad home screen would like if Apple did things like Microsoft:

ms_ipad

You know its true.

Discuss this Article 19

Buju127
on Mar 22, 2012
I respect you Paul and watch you on GFQ and Twit but I think what Microsoft is doing is about as much as they can in this area. Remember Apple controls ever display on their products. Microsoft doesnt make hardware so all they can do is make reference points. Even with Apple total control there is a lot of iphone apps that look really bad on iPads so that tells me they are not doing a great job of scaling. What Apple is doing in my opinion is making a different set of icons for each screen size they sell. This is extra work but remember they know in advance every screen size their products will use because they have total control. Again Microsoft doesnt have this luxury. So yes the Apple products will look better most of the time but that all come at a price and if you can afford to pay the Apple tax you will get a nice looking product but I refuse to pay their tax. You wrote a story awhile back how is there even a need to update your computers anymore. In that article you talked about how even old computers now days can run what most people do daily very well (you also included yourself in that). So to the average use or business it is nothing wrong with using a display that is not the top of the line because we can get them a lot of the time at a fraction of the price of what Apple will charge you for it. A Hyundai Sonata and Mercedes Benz E Class can get you to NYC in the same amount of time. What I am trying to say is everyday people choose how with is important to them with their wallet. I dont know any Windows users that replace their computer every year the way many many Apple users do. Microsoft have to be able to hit Single, doubles, triples and Homeruns while all Apple have to do is sit back and wait for their pitch and hit homeruns. You know as well as I do that MS user base is much different than that of Apples.
Buju127
on Mar 22, 2012
I respect you Paul and watch you on GFQ and Twit but I think what Microsoft is doing is about as much as they can in this area. Remember Apple controls ever display on their products. Microsoft doesnt make hardware so all they can do is make reference points. Even with Apple total control there is a lot of iphone apps that look really bad on iPads so that tells me they are not doing a great job of scaling. What Apple is doing in my opinion is making a different set of icons for each screen size they sell. This is extra work but remember they know in advance every screen size their products will use because they have total control. Again Microsoft doesnt have this luxury. So yes the Apple products will look better most of the time but that all come at a price and if you can afford to pay the Apple tax you will get a nice looking product but I refuse to pay their tax. You wrote a story awhile back how is there even a need to update your computers anymore. In that article you talked about how even old computers now days can run what most people do daily very well (you also included yourself in that). So to the average use or business it is nothing wrong with using a display that is not the top of the line because we can get them a lot of the time at a fraction of the price of what Apple will charge you for it. A Hyundai Sonata and Mercedes Benz E Class can get you to NYC in the same amount of time. What I am trying to say is everyday people choose how with is important to them with their wallet. I dont know any Windows users that replace their computer every year the way many many Apple users do. Microsoft have to be able to hit Single, doubles, triples and Homeruns while all Apple have to do is sit back and wait for their pitch and hit homeruns. You know as well as I do that MS user base is much different than that of Apples.
spivonious
on Mar 22, 2012
So do the fixed scaling ratios mean that my 125dpi monitor is out of luck? It might explain why Metro IE10 isn't zooming like desktop IE10 does.
WebHobbit
on Mar 22, 2012
But I LIKE having room for MORE STUFF. I like knowing that something ___X___ pixels looks a certain way at a certain size. I guess I would HATE Apple IOS style pixel handling - seems like a phenomenal waste of space. But I am a desktop guy (24 inch 1920x1200 screen here). So I suppose by extension I will hate Metro as well.
WebHobbit
on Mar 22, 2012
But I LIKE having room for MORE STUFF. I like knowing that something ___X___ pixels looks a certain way at a certain size. I guess I would HATE Apple IOS style pixel handling - seems like a phenomenal waste of space. But I am a desktop guy (24 inch 1920x1200 screen here). So I suppose by extension I will hate Metro as well.
mghartman
on Mar 22, 2012
Wow, quite a few pissed off devs on that MSDN blog post. It seems like a lot of extra work to do it right and test on all resolutions, but I'm hoping that everything works out and we get apps that look great no matter what device. The bigger question will remain whether Microsoft can maintain the dominance in the enterprise sector while trying to push forward the Metro objective.
dalestrauss
on Mar 22, 2012
I finally registered just to +1 buju127's comments. Perhaps Windows 8, particularly the tablet market, will give Microsoft the opportunity to lock down requirements for hardware configurations, but again, that is also part of the charm and usability the Windows platform vs iOS and OSX.
gocheif
on Mar 22, 2012
Bravo Microsoft for actually doing this the right way. On this topic Paul is just dead wrong. If MS made Win8 work like Apple: - Screen resolutions could only increase in multiples of the base resolution - This would not be conducive to the many different sizes of screens that will be available in Windows devices - This would be a problem for all existing displays where the native resolution does not match one of the multiples of the base resolution - Having larger screens with higher resolution providing more on-screen space is useful when using a PC for work With a HUGE ecosystem of devices both past & present to support, MS took the much more logical and flexible approach.
arrow22
on Mar 22, 2012
In my opinion, your statement that MS is "stuck in the past" because its reference design is of a lower resolution than that of a high dpi display is inaccurate. Resolution is honestly irrelevant in this discussion. Here's my point: Apps developped for the new iPad are still developped for 1024x768. In fact, so are Metro apps, as you've mentionned. In iOS, the OS scales it up by a factor of 200%, that's all. Microsoft's max. scale factor of 180% is indeed lower, but I fail to see how this warrants all the talk of Microsoft being behind the times. A new scale factor could always be added if the market demands it, just as Apple has done when it introduced the latest iPad.
Info Dave
on Mar 22, 2012
Once again the path taken by Microsoft is much different than Apple. These represent two philosophically different solutions to a common problem. So here's something else to keep an eye on. Watch how each company melds the desktop and mobile offerings together. With Windows 8, Microsoft is expecting touch on desktop monitors. Apple is not bringing touch back to OS X, but they are bringing iOS gestures back to OS X. To make this work, Apple supports multitouch on their mouse and track pad devices. The two-finger swipe, left or right, replaces the back and forward buttons in your browser. That small step is a huge leap in desktop productivity. Great stuff, Paul!
guruguru
on Mar 22, 2012
"But Metro apps will make a concession to this need, though they will not work like apps do on the iPad. Instead, Windows 8 will provide three, hard coded scale percentages that will apply automatically according to the device: 100% when no scaling is applied, 140% for HD tablets, and 180% for quad-XGA tablets. Honestly, on tablets, I think Apple's is the better approach," lol, ok, so apple offers two options 100% or 200% and that's a better aproach? what if I want a smaller tablet and 140% is the right choice? what if I want a larget screen and 250% is the right choice? the windows approach seems superior. it should just be a slider. let you pick whatever looks rigth to you instead of the random apple number.
yoshipod (not verified)
on Mar 22, 2012
Resolution independence is a tough nut to crack. Apple's way works better only because they control the hardware, so they can limit the number of possible configurations of physical screen size, ratio, and pixel density. Apple can much more easily control how the end user will experience an app. MS does not have that ability since hardware manufacturers can and will use a seemingly endless combinations of sizes, ratios and pixel density. The hard part for MS is finding the balance between the number of possible scaling factors developers need to consider and number of different shapes and sizes of the devices. So even though many devices use a 140% scaling factor, they will still look different because they will have different sizes, ratios and densities. That is the trade off users have to live with. If you want multiple devices to choose from, the end experience won't be as consistent.
The Other Paul
on Mar 22, 2012
I can't blame you for pining over the beautiful display of the new iPad. But that doesn't mean Apple's way is any better than Microsoft's way. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and to me a beautiful display is one that makes me productive. I don't like looking at the world through a paper towel tube. I want my maps, spreadsheets, inbox, web pages, file folders, drawings, memos etc etc to be as wide open visible as possible. I'm always looking for ways to get more information on the screen at once, and Microsoft is the only one that is even trying to help me with that. My criticism of Metro is that it doesn't put enough information on the screen: it's too much like the iPad.
rth314
on Mar 22, 2012
Apple's "superior" approach doesn't support different screen ratios. So Apple is stuck with an old-fashioned 4:3 screen ratio with no way out. They also offer no choice at all between fitting more on the screen or having everyting larger. Windows users would revolt if Microsoft decided for them what size everything should be regardless of the resolution the users selected. Apple's decison to map 4 pixels to 1 was really their only choice. Paul seems impressed by this approach, but it's really a simplistic solution that isn't as flexible. Microsoft's approach shouldn't be judged solely on the less-than-perfect results in previous versions of Windows. They have an opportunity to do a much better job with metro style apps, while preserving the flexibility of their approach in contrast to Apple's "one size fits all" (literally) approach.
rth314
on Mar 22, 2012
Paul, with your screenshot you've pointed out how dumb the iPad interface is. Your screenshot looks really silly, as you intended. But you know that Windows 8 looks great whether there are 3 rows of live tiles on the Start Screen or 6 rows of live tiles. So maybe Apple did all they could do with their old-fashioned interface, but Windows 8 tablets will look great regardless of the dpi and resolution.
pthurrott
on Mar 23, 2012
That's quite a statement. You have no idea how good or bad a Windows tablet will look. The issue here is simple: Microsoft is not handling high DPI on the desktop any differently in Windows 8 than they are currently. That's a mess. For tablet users, there are three automatic zoom settings and auto-reflow capabilities if each app is individually created to support that. This is probably OK, and probably not excellent. But we'll see, I guess. Speaking of guessing, since we're all just doing it. Most Windows 8 tablets will be 1366 x 768 for years to come.
JimmyFal
on Mar 23, 2012
All this talk is too much. What I want to know is will I be able to get a Win 8 screen on a laptop that I can touch, that has that highest resolution (over 2000 that for some reason is still a pipe dream with pc monitors?!), so that the screen looks nice and sharp and so I can read stuff without my eyes hurting? And how much are these touch enabled UltraTops going to cost?
eboyhan
on Mar 30, 2012
2560x1440 is not the end of the road. At CES several vendors were showing 4k and 8k displays. Fixed scaling may be a workable stopgap. The problem isn't with vector graphics which will scale correctly to any display surface, but with bit-mapped graphics where scaling often involves pixel interpolations that can lead to unpleasant visuals. That said I think what we need is a set of APIs that can be called at app initialization to query display characteristics (x by y; ppi; etc), and some calls that could use this information to optimally adjust app display behavior. That might be complex and involve a multiyear transformation of app development practices. Another approach would be a mechanism that could display a dialog that lets the user set the scaling factor on an app by app basis. Once set it could be "remembered" and the dialog would not need to be used unless the physical display changed. Given all the display idiosyncrasies of individual apps, a per app scaling factor rather than a Windows global scaling factor is to be preferred. Letting the user enter any scaling factor they like also would immunize us from ever higher display resolutions as new displays appear on the market
vahnx
on Feb 1, 2013

Well Windows 8 has been out for a while now so it's proven MS doesn't care about high resolutions/DPI in Windows 8 or it would work flawlessly by now, unless they don't care about the desktop anymore. It works great in the modern UI but the classic desktop still has it's quirks. Heck, even if the modern UI the cursor doesn't even scale properly; something you see 99.9% of the time.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use