Description: Check the screenshot attached[0], the icons on the left side, indicating whether a standard or customized installation should be performed. Noticed that even though the screenshot is about 6.4.4.2, it does happen on 7.0.3.1 aka. latest fresh release. Yes, the installation goes fine, but it is just a small glitch. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Download windows installer from official site 2. Open installer 3. Check the page asking for which kind of installation user wants to perform. Actual Results: Icons are tiny under 4K resolution. Expected Results: Should be the same relational size in the window as under 1080p or lower. Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: Yes OpenGL enabled: Yes Additional Info: Sorry, I'm afk from the Windows box, will update it asap.
Created attachment 168086 [details] the bugged screenshot
Roman, Mike, * can the MSI itself be made dpi aware?
(In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #2) > Roman, Mike, * can the MSI itself be made dpi aware? MSI *is* DPI-aware. And all its dimensions are, in fact, in special units related to a font size scaled to the screen resolution [1]. It is obvious that our installer does follow the resolution properly on the screenshot, if you look at the top banner with "6". The problem here seems to be because of using ICO images for these specific problematic places (and Icon type in Control.idt), not BMP (and Bitmap type). The Icon type [2] has some bits that might be related, namely FixedSize and IconSize, and maybe we can just modify those, and not change the type. [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/msi/installer-units [2] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/msi/icon-control
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #3) > (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #2) > > Roman, Mike, * can the MSI itself be made dpi aware? > > MSI *is* DPI-aware. And all its dimensions are, in fact, in special units > related to a font size scaled to the screen resolution [1]. > > It is obvious that our installer does follow the resolution properly on the > screenshot, if you look at the top banner with "6". > > The problem here seems to be because of using ICO images for these specific > problematic places (and Icon type in Control.idt), not BMP (and Bitmap type). > > The Icon type [2] has some bits that might be related, namely FixedSize and > IconSize, and maybe we can just modify those, and not change the type. > > [1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/msi/installer-units > [2] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/msi/icon-control I think we could rework all icons into bmp format instead .ico and then use Bitmap type instead Icon type in configure files. From another side we already have all icons in SVG format in https://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/instsetoo_native/inc_common/windows/msi_templates/Binary/ but I'm not sure MSI installer can use SVG directly inside Rizal, can you add icons in BMP format from existing SVG files in address above?
(In reply to Roman Kuznetsov from comment #4) MSI does not support SVGs. I would not be so sure before evaluating. In theory, ICO has a potential advantage of supporting *several* resolutions in a single file; and it *possibly* could allow us to have it automatically choose proper resolution icon for each screen resolution - without the ugly stretching, having pixel-perfect result. But that needs investigation.
(In reply to Roman Kuznetsov from comment #4) > Rizal, can you add icons in BMP format from existing SVG files in address > above? If the icons are fine with current latest stable (7.0.3.1) release, so why we need to change current situation?
No, it isn't fine under 7.0.3.1 under 4K resolution. I'd attach another "normal" screenshot under 1080p
Created attachment 168120 [details] LO7.0.3.1 1080p zoom@100%
Created attachment 168121 [details] LO 6.4.4.2 @4K zoom 125%
(In reply to Chaoting Liu from comment #8) > Created attachment 168120 [details] > LO7.0.3.1 1080p zoom@100% I can not see any problem here
> I can not see any problem here Yeah, the 1080p screenshot demonstrated the somehow "pixel perfect" UI. While, the 4K screenshot is where this "bug" lies. I still cannot reach that 4K monitor in this near few days. So I'd ask in humble that if someone can give me some "yes, I can reproduce that on my 7.0.3.1 with resolution higher than 1080p!"
Created attachment 168125 [details] 175% vs 100% Very easy to repro without any special screens. Windows Settings->System->Display->Scale and Layout->change it from 100% to another value, and restart installer. Attached is side-by-side screenshot of the dialog on 175% scaling vs. 100%. It's apparent that dialog itself, fonts, radio buttons, and top banner have scaled accordingly; while the icons stay as they were (they keep the same pixel size, not relative size).
(In reply to Rizal Muttaqin from comment #10) > > I can not see any problem here The .ico are not scaled with the rest of the installer dialog, so they appear under sized. Providing as .BMP would scale, like the other graphics. Alternatively, the .ico can contain values for rendering at multiple scales as pointed out comment 3.
Unassigned myself. I created icon files with different resolution from 16x16 to 128x128, but I didn't found an info about icon scale handling in MSI.
Dear Chaoting Liu, To make sure we're focusing on the bugs that affect our users today, LibreOffice QA is asking bug reporters and confirmers to retest open, confirmed bugs which have not been touched for over a year. There have been thousands of bug fixes and commits since anyone checked on this bug report. During that time, it's possible that the bug has been fixed, or the details of the problem have changed. We'd really appreciate your help in getting confirmation that the bug is still present. If you have time, please do the following: Test to see if the bug is still present with the latest version of LibreOffice from https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ If the bug is present, please leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. If the bug is NOT present, please set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a comment that includes the information from Help - About LibreOffice. Please DO NOT Update the version field Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker) Set the bug's Status field to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case) If you want to do more to help you can test to see if your issue is a REGRESSION. To do so: 1. Download and install oldest version of LibreOffice (usually 3.3 unless your bug pertains to a feature added after 3.3) from https://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/ 2. Test your bug 3. Leave a comment with your results. 4a. If the bug was present with 3.3 - set version to 'inherited from OOo'; 4b. If the bug was not present in 3.3 - add 'regression' to keyword Feel free to come ask questions or to say hello in our QA chat: https://web.libera.chat/?settings=#libreoffice-qa Thank you for helping us make LibreOffice even better for everyone! Warm Regards, QA Team MassPing-UntouchedBug