Monitor Resolution & CS6 Magnification Level

at 500% and above, you are seeing the pixels, so if you're creating masks, you wouldn't want to "smooth" out the image.  When I work at that type of magnification, I want to see the jagged image and what the pixels are doing.

You lack a bit of knowledge when it come to resolution.  Its not your fault it has more to do with how the loosely the digital imaging community treats the subject. Most users form incorrect concepts.  Printers and Displays have different capabilities when it come to resolution.   Displays look best when run at the resolution the were designed for.  You may have seen the term Native resolution for LCD.  Lets stick with for there are there are very few CRT these days and CRT are more analog then digital.   LCD should be run at their designed resolution.  This means your LCD has a single resolution, a single aspect ratio and a fixed number of pixels.  Often you will see a display resolution listed as UXGA or 1080, or 1600x1200 Pixels this is very confusing.  Loosly these terms are resolutions but strictly speaking they are not for they only address part of resolution the pixel side of the story the rest of resolution is the screen size.  Knowing pixels are square; you know the images aspect ratio  Width Pixels : Height Pixels.  When you then know the screen diagonal length you can calculate  the screen width, height and DPI Resolution.

Digital Images are stored  as so many pixels wide by so many pixels at some DPI resolution.  Printers can print these correctly for printers can print at any  DPI resolution up to it max resolution.  Displays can only display images the have the same resolution as the display's native resolution correctly all other images will be displayed at the wrong size. Displays have a fixed DPI or PPI resolution.

Images do not display the same size on all displays.   The Size is a function of DPI.   Pixels do not have a fixed size.   Every HDTV 1080P screen  displaye 1920x1080 pixels.   You can by screens ranging from 17" to 80"  their DPI sizes are different. 

The Size and Image displays on screen is a function of the Display DPI.     An iPhone, An iPad, A MacBook Pro with retian display, and a Desktop with a 30" 16:10 2560x1600 px can all display  a 4:3 image 800px x 600px without a problem the only difference will be the actual image physical size. The image will be much larger on the desktop display for there are no high resolution desktop displays.  Most desktop displays have a resolution near 100DPI.  It make no difference that the 800px x 600 px Image DPI print resolution is 100DPI and will print 8" x 6".  Its just happenstance that the Desktop display displayed it 8" x 6" and all the others displayed smaller images.

May I suggest that perhaps the Pixel Grid is showing by default above 500%, which is why you feel you can't deal with magnificatoins larger than that.

Try selecting View - Show - (uncheck) Pixel Grid from the menus.

-Noel

Its the screen size a desktop 30"  2560x1600  16:10 screen is somewhere near 100DPI  Nexus 10" 2560x1600 16:10 something like 300DPI.

What I would like for my workstation is a screen size like 15" to 17"  2560x1600 with a resolution in the 160DPI range.   Most current UI text would still be readable at 160DPI resolution and images will be much better the 100DPI images.

I may have to settle fo a cintiq 13.3"  1920x1080 they are arounnd 160DPI the  Cintiq 13 HD touch is $1000 and the Cintiq Companion Hybrid is $1500.  For me that a lot of money particularly when you see that the Nexus android tablet with its 10" IPS LCD 2560x1600 is $500.  I want a screen larger then 10"... and one much smaller then 30"....

JJ, be careful what you wish for... 160 ppi might be a trifle too dense...

I have an older Dell Inspiron laptop, circa 2004, that sports 1920 x 1200 pixels on a 17 inch display, giving a resultant pixel density of 132 ppi.  That was on the hairy edge of usable with typical Windows fonts (at the time Windows XP).  I did run Photoshop on that machine, and it was usable.

From that expeirience, with 160 ppi resolution I believe you would have to exercise all the "larger font" settings (both in Photoshop and Windows), and you might still find the UI elements uncomfortably small, especially in applications that might not have the ability to "size up".  150ppi might be a better practical target.  I know it only seems like a little difference.

What I'd rather have is gargantuan screen space and 100 ppi, frankly.  I can always lean back in the chair if I want a better overview.

-Noel

My eyes with their replaced man made lens must be better then your's. My ThinkPads Laptops had 15" IPS UXAG LCD  4:3 aspect ratio 1600x1200 pixels at 133DPI  some found text too small on these but I never had any problems.   On a Windows system you can also have Windows scale fonts larger.  However when you do text does not always fit into GUI areas allocate to menu areas  and options bars  item areas.  I'm near sighted and when I lean back in my chair I would have a problem reading text on a 100DPI display for my eyes can not focus at that distance.  When your near sighted you want to get closer to see better and when you do 30" is too big.