Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.

In article <mcc775-l5m.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2008-01-30, dorayme wrote:
In article <60c7kjF1prbblU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Besides that, I'm curious why people who are so sure that it isn't worth
building a more flexible design now don't see why it's even less worth
building a design that will require a complete overhaul when the
resolutions are even higher a few years from now. I'm thinking about the
people who built fixed designs that worked at 800 x 600 several years
ago and now have a presentation that can't be read on screens with twice
the pixels in each dimension (text too small

I wish some operating system makers thought more flexibly on this
one too. When I moved from CRT to LCD and got higher res, great
for pics, the menu fonts got peskily smaller.

I have never seen one that didn't have that flexibility.

Which flexibility? The one that my ungrateful self (considering
the impressive flexibility that there already is) wants more of?
<g>

Have you experience with Macs (I may be missing some preference
setting)? How do you hold the resolution at native for a LCD
screen or any resolution for that matter while yet allowing one
to set the size of the menu fonts that run across the top of the
Finder (to take an example of a Mac environment). Never mind
other things I have in mind for the moment?

--
dorayme
.

Relevant Pages