Dell Precision M3800 - 2013!

How does Windows actually deal with the QHD+ resolution? I've seen Windows 8 running in Desktop mode on an rMBP and it's not pretty (either everything is blurry on lower-res settings, or wrecked by Windows' DPI scaling system). Would there any real advantage to getting the 3200x1800 over the 1080p display?

 

It will be the same as it is on the rMBP, just a few more pixels. There are supposed to be improvements in Windows 8.1 but I think these boil down to making some settings easier to find and improvements to multi-display situations where different scaling is needed for different monitors (in other words, the actual scaling works about the same as always) --- but, maybe I will be impressed?

Anyway I always thought that Windows handles the DPI scaling OK, mostly the problem is that third-party apps just don't pay any attention to it at all.

 

This x100 times, IIRC there are more than one ways to make the UI scale in Windows and that is part of the problem. Microsoft does things right, but it doesn't keep a tight leash on UI design like Apple does so the scaling on third party apps is of viriable quality. The new QHD+ displays are bound to force them to improve things.

Some info on how 8.1 handles scaling: Windows 8.1 and high-PPI displays: Better, but still lacking | Ars Technica

That said, it is not MS' job to "fix" poor scaling on third party apps. It's their job to provide detailed guidelines on how to make things work with Windows scaling and the tools to do it, note that I don't know if they do, and it's the third party devs' job to implement it properly.

 

So it might be better to wait a bit for websites and software in general to work properly with such high resolutions?

I know that 95% of the time, 125% DPI works great on my FHD laptop. But with QHD, scaling would be 150% or more in order to see properly. That might cause some issues with things such as graphics in websites. I know that sometimes, the text might be fine but the graphics or other content might not display as intended.

 

You could always run it at 1920x1080 (shouldn't look too bad with such high pixel density) or 1600x900 which would prevent pixel interpolation.

 

I'm not sure if it would. Windows looks just as bad at 1440x900 on an rMBP as it does at 1680x1050, though that could be caused by driver issues.

 

Possible, I tried reducing my 1920x1080 display to half the pixel count on both side and it still looked crisp, not as crisp due to the lower resolution, but no fuzzy image due to interpolation. We'll know for sure when someone gets a M4800/M3800 with the display and report back to us.

 

I'm inclined to think that issue may be more on the driver side. The 1080p LCD on my Latitude looks exceedingly nice (one of the best displays I have had the pleasure of working with). This is in Windows 7 with 150% scaling IIRC.

 

Anyone can run the W8.1 preview. Technet and MSDN can get the RTM now.

 

Well there's an awful lot of subjective comments here. But thus far nothing really concrete. What Id like to see is some sort of an example of these "good/bad"displays. Or at least a link.

Of course, I can't go past 1080 so an example of UHD would be lost. Nevertheless, something is would be better than nothing. Don't you think?