Yes to the cable:) Nice thought about the Visit. Harder to coordinate with Spouse and Kids.

Bring them too! Expensive proposition. I had a month in England in June 2012 and it cost me ten thousand quid. Find a taxi that can take 5 passengers was a good game as well.

The monitor supplier just sent me an MDP-DVI cable - not dual link.

Should it work? It doesn't.

I assumed it ought to work at the lower res, as with the HDMI, no?

Nope. DVI can be fussy and Dual link more so:

MDP to DP is really the only sane way to go. Regular DVI is not a listed option...

CONNECTIVITY
1 Dual Link Digital Visual Interface connectors (DVI-D) with HDCP
1 DisplayPort 1.2 (DP)
1 High Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI)
1 Video Graphics Array (VGA)
USB 3.0 Hi-Speed Hub (with 1 USB upstream port and 4 USB downstream ports)
1 Audio out
DC power connector for Dell Soundbar (AX510)

He was trying to be helpful, bless him - and not lose the cable sale!

Still waiting for the "correct" cable to arrive from the UK.

So, here we are a month later and the MDP>DP cable has arrived. It's the Lindy Cromo one.

It's connected and the resolution is fabulous!

However, I have a problem now and that is that everything on the screen is so bloody small!

For instance, I need to increase the size of system text, Safari tab sizes and just about everything.

I know I can do this with Cmd & +, but I'd like to know if there is a way of making this permanent?

Glad the cable solved "the original" problem....

.... Interface interaction. Happens to me to, mostly on PC laptops with silly high resolution on very small screens. From the finder You can use View options for the Desktop where you can control Icon and Font sizes. System Prefs general also has Side Bar Font Size which you can choose large instead of Medium.
The rest of controls /Zoom, etc.. other then monitor resolution itself is under Accessibility.*

other tips
http://www.macworld.com/article/2026...r-in-os-x.html

***
I suspect you will find the most pleasure in lowering the resolution to something your more comfortable with. Everyone's comfort level is different. I have a 27 Inch Monitor with a 1900x1200 resolution, not sure I would have liked it if it was native at 2500x1400 like yours. Probably would want a 30 or greater then.
****
For quick changes to resolution use Option Brightness, up or down (F1 or F2). Since Apple banished the Monitor menu from the Menu Bar this is the only fast way other then one of several 3rd party utilities that adds their own monitor menu back to the finder window. The one i tired i did not like because it gave other screen resolutions that made the system unusable.

Dropping the resolution kinda defeats the purpose of buying that monitor, no?

How dangerous is Tinkertool? I see it will apparently do what I want, but at what risk?

I do not like SysMods. I believe Tinker tool is ok though. I do not expect you will find the results completely satisfstory. It should be reversible. Many tinker tool settings are just an interface to command line chnages.

As to changing resoultion, no i think changing the resolution is probably the best solution if the non native resoultion looks sharp, non native res sometimes does not.

I'll give it a go when I get home tomorrow. Now in the quietest Bangkok I have ever seen! All these political protests are keeping the tourists away and many residents seem to have relocated until things calm down a bit. Lovely! The hotel is nearly empty, the bars (and the girls) must be hurting for business badly. Never seen the place as quiet as this in 28 years.

The belief look I had at Tinkertool before I left yesterday showed me a Reset Defaults button, so "should" be ok...

Not at all. This is a common misconception coming from a failure to understand the important difference between "points" and "pixels"

A "pixel" is short for "picture element", the smallest part of a picture that can have its own color. A "point" is a unit of length, like "inch", "mile", "micron", or "light year". The conversion factor is that 72.28 standard points = 1 inch.

In the olden times, there was much confusion between these two terms. The original Macintosh had a screen that was exactly 512 pixels wide and 342 pixels high; each pixel could have either of the colors black or white, completely independent of the colors of all other pixels. (Remember that that's the definition of "pixel": the smallest part of a picture that has its own color.)

That original screen was 7 1/9 inches wide, and 4 3/4 inches high. That meant each pixel was 1/72 of an inch, close enough to the 1/72.28 inch size of a standard point, that Apple shrugged off the difference and said that a point was exactly 1/72 inch, and the size of each pixel was exactly one point square. That led to the notion that "pixel" and "point" were synonyms, a notion that has caused all sorts of confusion.

When a printer asks for a 12-point font, they're asking for a font that looks good at 6 lines per inch, so that each line is (approximately) 12 points high. That's points, not pixels. Printers dealt with movable type, actual pieces of lead that could be lined up to make text. Printers do not deal with pixels. (Well, not then anyway.)

When a program asked for a 12-point font, though, what it got was a font designed to fit in 12 pixels, because somehow the word didn't get out that pixels and points weren't the same thing. That was OK as long as real computer screens had pixels that were 1 point square.

But then along came multi-scan CRT monitors. Such a screen had a fixed physical size, but you could tell it how many pixels should fit in that size. The reason you needed to do that was that the computer didn't know how big the screen was until you told it. If it was 10 inches wide, you needed to say it was 720 points wide, because that's how many points there are in 10 inches. But everybody carelessly assumed that meant the screen needed 720 pixels on each row, and the multi-scan monitors were happy to oblige. Even if the monitor was capable of many more pixels than that.

What happened was that the program would ask for a 12-point font, it would get one designed for 12 pixels, and the CRT would display it that way, and it would look yucky. The screen could have displayed the same character at the same actual size but using, say 24 pixels for 12 points, but the program (and the programmers) didn't understand. They'd still try to draw a 12-point font using only 12 pixels, and the text would be tiny on the screen. The only way to get good-looking text was to lie and say there were, say, 144 points per inch, and get the program to use a 24-point font. The two lies would cancel out, and you'd get very pretty 12-point text on the screen.

But what a wondrous web we weave / When first we practice to deceive.

There were always programs (and programmers) who were just one lie out of step with everyone else, and you could never get decent and readable text on screen across all applications.

Along comes "resolution independence". Apple began trying to set right the mess they'd brewed, and they started hammering on developers to abandon the notion that "pixel" and "point" were synonyms. It took a long time (programmers being such a stubborn bunch), but we're finally pretty much there. The next stage in the battle is to get users to understand the difference. They still think they need to tell the computer how many pixels the screen has, when it already knows that, instead of how big it is in points.

The new rules are what they should have been all along:

• There are 72 points per inch. (Should probably be 72.28 points per inch, but close enough.)
• A pixel is the smallest part of a picture that has it's own color
• There is no a priori relationship between these two things
• When specifying a screen resolution, give the actual screen size in points. (The screen knows how many pixels it has, and so does the OS. You don't need to say how many pixels there are.) If the screen is 20 inches wide, you should say it's 1440 points wide, because that's how many points there are in 20 inches.
• Since the computer knows how many pixels wide the screen is, and you've told it how many pixels wide it is, the computer now knows how many points (or inches) there are in a pixel. This may be a fraction.
• When a program asks for a 12-point font, it wants one that looks good at 6 lines per inch. The OS figures out how many pixels high that is, and selects a font that is beautiful with that many pixels. (For example, if there are 300 pixels per inch, a 12-point font will try to fit characters into a 50-pixel high box.)
• The ratio between points and pixels well depend on the output device. If you have multiple monitors, the calculation will be repeated for each monitor. Move the image from one monitor to another, or to a printer, or send it as a fax, and your 12-point font will look as good as it can be in each place, but always the same size.

Now, you can lie about how big your screen is if you want. If it's 20 inches wide, you can lie and say it's 1920 points wide. 1920 points is actually 26 2/3 inches. The computer will render everything on that monitor as if it were 26 2/3 inches wide, but you see that shrunk down to 20 inches wide. That is, if you want, you can use the resolution setting to magnify/shrink the image on the screen.

If you say the screen has more points than it really has, everything will look smaller. Text will be tinier and more ragged, but you'll see more of it. If you say the screen has fewer points than it really has, everything will look bigger. You won't see as much text at one time, but what you do see will be larger and smoother.

But whatever you say, the computer knows exactly how many pixels your screen has, and will use every one of them to best effect. Set the "resolution" to whatever you find most pleasing, without fear that you're wasting your monitor's talents.

@ganbustein: I'll read that when I have a spare hour... ;-)

Tinkertool has messed up the View in Mail.app...

Any suggestions? the name of the sender is truncated laterally in message preview.

Tinkertool didn't help, as far as I could tell.

I wanted my Safari tabs and Email headers and bodies bigger, but it didn't seem to work and the email header was partially obscured by the first preview line.

Anyone know this utility well enough to point me in the right direction?

@ganbustein:

OK, I read your post and I "think" I get it.

As such, do I just cop out and leave it at the "Best for Display" option in System Preferences>Displays?

Sure, I can use Command>Plus, but my big problem is with the email Headers and preview lines in Mail and Safari tab size. Ideally, I'd have my menus identically larger across the system, but those 2 are my main bugbears at the moment.

Safari and Mail have their own fixes for Font Size...

Safari Under Preferences, Advanced, Never use a Font Smaller then... X to Render Pages
Mail: Mail lets you change the Size of Fonts, List, Column, and Email itself. Of course changing it for email itself makes the font bigger so you send out email in 14 or 16 point but heck of a lot easier to read.

* If the above does not do enough then your back to lowering the Res.

In Safari, that didn't see to help with the tabs, or anything else up along the toolbar though - did I miss that?

In Mail, this actual list of messages/preview line isn't getting any bigger and I'd like it to if possible.

Mail, Message List Size and Message Size should do the trick. Agree Tab Headers do not get bigger, but the Web page text does.

Now I have some websites displaying very narrowly (is that a word?), so does that have anything to do with font size, or just screen res?

As in some lists that I visit frequently for fund prices are centred on the centre ⅓ of the screen.

Any ideas?

Hmm. Well I would use Tinker tools Reset functionality to put things back as they were if you have not already. I do not believe those things stemmed from the Browser minimum font size settings.

OK, that made no difference.

Could it be the websites just not liking the res I am using?