isn't it done already?

[Scott]

Michael Shigorin wrote:
>...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?

I bought my first TFT a year ago.  It's 19".   It took some doing to get 
used to 1280x1024  I'd spent the previous 6 years with a 19" CRT at 
1024x768 and prior to that a 17" @ 800x600.    I envy those with good 
eyesight.  Mine is *at best* 20/40 in eye and 20/60 in the other.

In Windows switched to "Large Icons" and "Large Fonts" and that made a 
reasonable difference.   Linux is a whole different thing, especially 
considering I switch between KDE and GNOME a lot, but I generally set 
the DPI to 100 or 110 and that helps.


> 
> 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.

I've never had a problem in Windows. It pretty much knows what to do 
with my monitor.  I just change the settings, because I'm "blind", not 
because Windows wasn't doing it right.



-- 
Scott
www.angrykeyboarder.com
© 2005 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved