isn't it done already?

Michael Shigorin mike at
Mon Dec 19 19:59:47 GMT 2005

On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 02:39:54PM -0500, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> > > and that's on those ginormous screens (1600*1200 & up).
> > Hey are you working with 640x480?  1600x1200 is just fine
> My eyes are better than 20/20 (16/20 vision), and, I still
> prefer to work at 1024*768 on 17" (and, correspondingly higher
> resolutions on larger monitors).

I find myself comfortable at ~100 dpi (that's like 1024x768 on
15" but slightly "over", 1152x864 on 17", 1400x1050 on 19"
and 1600x1200 on 21" -- my corrent device can handle 2048x1536
with surprisingly friendy 75Hz -- long-lived phosphorus might
help) but seriously, if you're power computer user for that much
years and have that good sight (mine was 10/15 last time I've
checked, and things went worse since then it seems) -- why not 
afford for at least 19" CRT or 17" TFT, whatever eyes would
accept better?

A whole bunch of words for usability isn't worth a good monitor
and a good keyboard (plus mouse or trackball for that matter).

> I regularly switch to something higher, but, it's nice to have
> full-sized letters and not stick your face up against the
> monitor..

Hm, when I was working with Macs I didn't really pay attention 
for DPI, I just noticed that the system "knew" what the monitor
size and "native" resolution were.  Windows is really severely
broken regarding handling physical sizes internally, and a lot
of applications are really hardwired (basically unsuitable for
running on ~200dpi TFT or inside wine which *knows* the real DPI
from X server and DDC ;-).  At least as far as devs here tell.

> > Advocating for single-app workarounds of Mac II days is a
> > lost cause when former high-end workstation grade display
> > hardware is somewhat more realistic at home.  As much as I
> > like MacOS Classic, just can't agree on that.
> Huh? Single-app workarounds from Mac II days? Not at all
> following you here.

Just what you told too, Mac UI didn't really change from the time
when Cinema display wasn't even a dream.

> I was just using the Mac II as an example for something or

I know :)

> I'm wishing I knew more about Amiga OS. They were the true
> pioneers of multiple applications and "true" multitasking (with
> shared access to CPU cycles) but, they unfortunately died a
> horrible death

BTW, folks insist that Amiga's not dead.  I somehow feel that
while somebody does that, they're right :-)

> > I do remember that in either KDE2 or the GNOME a few years
> > ago.  The mode was switched to by some quite reasonably named
> > switch in some kind of control center.
> KDE sort-of does this but it doesn't work particularly well
> (it's not been refined... there's a lot of dead space, and
> support is application specific).

Maybe you'd better try to politely file a bug report /
enhancement proposal at if that might be closer?
I'm not following Linus' steps, I don't really care for both of
the desktop heavyweights.  But your efforts might help more
there, I don't know.

Still it somehow seems to me that either folks at Eazel 
or someone thereabouts was tweaking some GNOME to behave
Mac-like exactly with menu bar...

> When you boot up Linux it behaves like a Windows GUI clone

*Me*?  No it isn't. :)

 ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike at>
  ------ Linux.Kiev

More information about the sounder mailing list