daniel at fooishbar.org
Mon Jun 30 11:51:29 PDT 2008
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:40:37PM +0100, Steven J Newbury wrote:
> I really don't understand this argument. Surely this is only the case
> because most people use 1024x768:
> [ http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox51_screen_resolutions_internet.html ]
> Yes, that's right, most people set the resolution of their display to a
> value lower than the display hw optimimum so that text (and image) sizes
> are what they are accustomed to. Most(!) people work around the fact the
> 96dpi hack by adujsting the resolution!
Also because Windows is generally terrible at autodetecting these
things, but yes.
> I'm sorry, but computers *should* act in accordance with rigid priciples
> otherwise what's the point? That's why we have standards, no?
Depends on whether the rigid principles are in opposition to general
expectations or not.
> This just makes no sense. If the true DPI is 220 on a decent size
> screen, text at 12pt will be unreadable by most if the system DPI is
> fixed to 96! It will only give the expected (readable) result by either
> setting a lower screen resolution or by using the true DPI to render the
Right, because all 220 DPI screens are usually viewed from long
distances, right? Except that the vast majority of higher-density
screens are used in mobile devices, hence my example of the
770/N800/N810 having forced the reported DPI to be artificially low.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the xorg