|
|
Posted by rf on 09/15/05 06:42
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Had the wrong suffix on the model number, they do list the ...TB as
> 2048x1536. I still say on a 19" monitor at that resolution unrealistic,
> everything will be minuscule. At about 145 PPI a Windows 16x16 icon will
> be only just a tad over a 1/10 of an inch!
Which is why most programs that *require* such resolution (high end CAD and
such[1]) will provide up to 64x64 versions of their icons and toolbars
(allowing the user to choose) and why Windows supports such things as user
definable font size[2]. It's also why browsers have an easy way to change
the user font size.
The technology supports such resolutions. The software does. Why should we
not use it?
[1] Ever tried to use a very high end CAD system on, say, a 1027x760 screen?
Very tedious and annoying. I have my three screens set to 1600x1200 and I
*still* run out of desktop :-)
[2] Just tell Windows to use, say, 200 DPI and suddenly all text uses twice
as many pixels in each direction[3]. If any "program" does not notice and
support this different DPI setting then that program is broken.
[3] 200DPI on a 1600x1200 screen is twice as easy to read as 96 DPI on
exactly the same screen set to 800x600, yet the text is roughly the same
physical size.
Cheers
Richard.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|