V0RT3X wrote:I do enjoy a decent GUI thats scaled to fit nicely on a 4K screen.
But you don't run it at 4k, do you? You probably run it at half that, which is only slightly more screen space than HD. On the MacPros at work with 4k screens, if you run them at 4k the mouse pointer is so small you literally can't see it.
SciFiArtMan wrote:But no, there were NOT far more sizes of screens and resolutions 20 years ago! The sizes have moved upward in general scale, but with more and more powerful processors in a variety of systems able to produce music (and to a lessor extent, video), at least at a minimum level, there is a greater range of sizes and resolutions today, as pads, and laptops, and old and new monitors are all in some level of creative/production action today.
You fail to understand the most basic aspect of this - a CRT can run at any resolution so the same monitor can run perfectly well at 640x480, 2048x1536 or anything in between, whether it is 10" or 27". The one and only limit was the ability of the GPU to drive it. OTOH, a flat-panel screen has embedded pixels that restrict the resolution to a maximum fixed size. So while a CRT could run at literally dozens of different resolutions, a modern LCD/OLED panel has a native resolution and a few scaling options. It is a lot more restricted than it used to be, hence the lack of variation compared to late last century.
Some people even use large production HD TVs as computer monitors today.
I am, in fact, one of those people. My 32" Bravia is infinitely preferable for running at full HD resolution than the 10.5" screen on my Surface Pro 2.
The point is, for a variety of reasons, including more aged eyes who have endured from those earlier days and feel the need to run their fancy new monitors at reduced rez
Again, that would include me if it was accurate. I turn 60 this year but I can still cope with full HD on the Surface when I need to. It's actually easier on my eyes than the scaled display on my smartphone.
many users prefer to use GUIs for their increasingly complicated and involved plugins that can be optimized for their systems
Why not optimise your system? That way you can fix everything at once, instead of having to rely on a dozen different vendors doing it the same way so it all works together.
however unconventional those systems may be. And that's why the need for resizable/multiple-sized interfaces is becoming a louder and louder outcry from the users.
No, this is nothing but people losing the ability to adapt to situations because they are so completely used to everyone else falling over backwards to accommodate them. If you can't make something work for you, throw it away and find something else that does. It's not like we aren't spoiled for choice and are forced to use things we don't want to.
But then some people enjoy basking the glory and relative ease of the "good old days".
What ease would that be? Would that be the ease of spending 90 minutes setting up for a half-hour set? Or the ease of photocopying the front panel diagram from a user manual 50 times so you could mark down settings with a pen because synths didn't have patch memories? Or even later, when things were much, much more sophisticated, the ease of replacing your wold workstation synth with a newer, better one, which required replacing every sound in every song and then reprogramming it all from scratch or via MIDI, instead of just saving it to a hard-drive?
You clearly haven't the slightest understanding of how easy you have it, you want to complain about the most unimportant things as though they were real issues. I don't know whether I am more amused or disgusted.
Jesus christicles, here we go again...
Just give me a cogent argument in favour that is more convincing than my arguments against. It's not rocket science.