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.

[Back to original message]