text size on 27" 2560x1440 monitor

Right now I'm using 1920x1080 23" monitors and I'm okay with the standard text sizes in Windows 8.1 but I wouldn't want the text to go any smaller. I'm considering a couple of 27" monitors at 2560x1440 and I was wondering if the default text size is really tiny and, if so, how good it would look if I used the Windows control panel to upscale it.
The monitors I'm considering are Asus PB278Q and BenQ GW2765HT.
Any thoughts on this?

I my opinion text is too small in those, but this is very personal.

With Windows 10 you can pick 125% and it will look fine. In all browsers you can scale websites with CRTL+ / CRTL- in 10% steps.

I use a 27" 2560x1440 monitor on my Win7 PC and find the standard size text is readable at the standard 100% default of Windows.

At my working distance, about 18-30" at my workstation. Text is generally fine at 2560x1440. If some pages or files are hard to read, zooming in or cmd/ctrl+ solves the problem.

Edit: my monitor setup is a NEC PA272 and an Apple thunderbolt dual display.

I have the Dell UP2715K which is a 27" 5120×2880 monitor. I find that I like running it at 175%, although Win 10 suggests that it should be 200%. Running my monitor at 200% implies that MS feels that 27" 2560×1440 is actually optimum. I think the Win 10 screen scaling is very good, when I got my computer it was much better than my friends iMac on OSX, which still required you to change the screen resolution if the display was too small looking for you. Win 10 will take you all the way to 450%, while maintaining native resolution.

If you use Adobe products be aware that they do not use the Win 10 screen drawing system, so you need HiDPI support in the program. So although I can still run Office 2007 without issues on the hi res screen, you need a minimum of Lr6 for HiDPI support. I'm not sure where they got to with Ps, I think that might need you to go to the subscription versions. Adobe's HiDPI support is actually pretty poor still, with only small or large options.

Alan

Wilt wrote in post #18636759
I use a 27" 2560x1440 monitor on my Win7 PC and find the standard size text is readable at the standard 100% default of Windows.

I think you have better eyes than I do.

Well, I don't know what I'm going to do. I don't have to worry about Adobe, and the Win10 scaling sounds nice but I'm on Win8.1 and won't be going to Win10 unless the next weather report from Lucifer is really surprising.
I guess it really is just a personal thing; some people's eyes are better than others'.
Thanks for all the feedback.

BigAl007 wrote in post #18637610
If you use Adobe products be aware that they do not use the Win 10 screen drawing system, so you need HiDPI support in the program. So although I can still run Office 2007 without issues on the hi res screen, you need a minimum of Lr6 for HiDPI support. I'm not sure where they got to with Ps, I think that might need you to go to the subscription versions. Adobe's HiDPI support is actually pretty poor still, with only small or large options.

Adobe CS6 for the Macintosh supported hi-DPI (since Apple had released their Retina specifications). Adobe CC has supported hi-DPI for PCs. The current version of PS does use the desktop scaling you set in Windows. With some earlier versions of CC, there were options for scaling PS fonts to 150 or 200 percent, but with current versions that's gone. Windows 7 is pretty bad for hi-DPI. It would allow the same desktop hi-DPI settings for apps that supported hi-DPI (but there weren't many). With apps that didn't support hi-DPI, you could do a hack and create a .manifest file. The problem is that it may not scale icons very well, and the text was blurry (because it was basically enlarging pixels). The current version of Windows 10 is very good about scaling non hi-DPI apps. I only have a few apps now that don't support hi-DPI, but I can get crisp enlarged fonts if I go to the app's properties/compatibili​ty/ "System(Enhanced)" with 'Over-ride high DPI scaling. Scaling performed by: ' checked. Windows 10 is definitely the best version for hi-DPI scaling, and the latest builds have supposedly gotten even better.

RE: upgrade from Windows 8.1 to 10: 10 is more versatile and stable. I don't like the default control panel, but you can find the classic version in Windows. The big controversy around Windows 10 was how much personal information you could be giving to Microsoft: there are plenty of articles on the web on what features to disable to prevent that.

davesrose wrote in post #18638325
The big controversy around Windows 10 was how much personal information you could be giving to Microsoft: there are plenty of articles on the web on what features to disable to prevent that.

Actually the big controversy for a lot of people is to not have control over when or whether updates are installed. Sure, it's important to install some of them, but I should get to choose what and when; it's my computer. Sometimes for practical reasons, sometimes just because of the principle. I've had computers for as long as there have been computers, I've built them, I know how to take care of them, I don't need somebody else taking over and doing it for me. (Especially since I'm one of those who considers MS to have gone over to the dark side.)

ncjohn wrote in post #18638477
Actually the big controversy for a lot of people is to not have control over when or whether updates are installed. Sure, it's important to install some of them, but I should get to choose what and when; it's my computer. Sometimes for practical reasons, sometimes just because of the principle. I've had computers for as long as there have been computers, I've built them, I know how to take care of them, I don't need somebody else taking over and doing it for me. (Especially since I'm one of those who considers MS to have gone over to the dark side.)

Because new threats to browsers, OS and also devices are so frequent and damaging, it is good that security updates are installed without consent. If you do not do those security updates, you may become the one who passes bad stuff to others without knowing it.

When the PC is a work machine get the Pro version. Windows 10 Pro lets you postpone security updates up to 30 days without any hacks, feature updates (like the last big one) can be postponed up to a year. There is also a "pause updates" button which works for 35 days. I run 10 pro and like it a lot.

Pekka wrote in post #18638502
Because new threats to browsers, OS and also devices are so frequent and damaging, it is good that security updates are installed without consent. If you do not do those security updates, you may become the one who passes bad stuff to others without knowing it.

Well Pekka, I just don't agree; if getting security updates when they first come out was such a good idea, enterprise users would be doing it. But they don't want to see their machines crippled by BSODs and rolling restarts, so MS allows them to wait while all the non-Pro users work out the bugs for them. That's totally unethical.

I should pay for an upgrade to Pro just so that I can run my machine the way I choose to? Again, I don't agree.

There is another, more personal factor: I've had Win10 since it first came out, on a second pc. And even with Classic Shell, it's just... ugly. I can't stand to look at it. It's one of those personal things, like whether or not text is too small.

You know this an argument that can't be won by either side.

ncjohn wrote in post #18638521
Well Pekka, I just don't agree; if getting security updates when they first come out was such a good idea, enterprise users would be doing it. But they don't want to see their machines crippled by BSODs and rolling restarts, so MS allows them to wait while all the non-Pro users work out the bugs for them. That's totally unethical.

It's been years since I've encountered a BSOD. Pekka is right that updates should be automatic for most people...Microsoft was pretty quick trying to come up with stable patches for Meltdown/Spectre. Not sure what you mean about Enterprise users being the first ones to need updates: the biggest Enterprise user is the DoD. I worked at a military base up until last year: their version of Windows was a more limited version of Windows 7 Enterprise (takes much longer to get through approvals for their updates). When I was there, they finally upgraded to IE10, but its version still didn't support as many HTML5 features as the commercial versions of IE10. Made web development much more challenging! Anyway, they have their reasons, but the home and pro editions of Windows have much quicker upgrade cycles because those markets want to have the latest support for new technologies/software. I have Windows 10 pro on my computers, and I keep my updates automatic (have had no issues with bugs). I think the main controversial update feature Microsoft had was the Windows Update Advisor that would automatically update Windows 7/8 to 10 if you didn't catch it and opt out.

davesrose wrote in post #18638602
I think the main controversial update feature Microsoft had was the Windows Update Advisor that would automatically update Windows 7/8 to 10 if you didn't catch it and opt out.

You're right about that, but there was a lot more to it than that. Not only should it have been an opt-in, not an opt-out, there were a lot of reports of people trying to opt out and being updated anyway, and reports of things like the "x in the red box" at the top-right of an update window that was modified so that people who tried to opt out by clicking on that x were updated. The whole way that MS approached the introduction of Win10 was really sleazy; that's why I referred to them going over to the dark side. I used to think they were a trustworthy company and now I really don't.