Re: Once Again I Make Things Happen!

In article <260420081634220026%mitch@xxxxxxxxx>,
Mitch <mitch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <znu-57ECD0.01503226042008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ZnU
<znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

That's why computer displays are considered low-resolution by the
standards of typeface reproduction.

Sure, by the standards of all of the ways available.
But all of those are NOT available to computer users. For users, a
high-end publishing printer is outside the practical range of output
devices.

Um... just about any printer will produce significantly higher
resolution text than a computer screen. HP's cheapest laser printer
($99) is 600 dpi, which means it has ~36x more dots per square inch than
a typical desktop display. Even the cheapest inkjets will produce far
crisper type than a computer screen these days, at least if you use the
right paper (laser printers aren't as fussy about paper).

People also see the output of higher end printers every time they open
magazines, books, or even newspapers.

That difference is exactly where the problem was in the complaint. The
idea that there _are_ high-resolution devices available in the world is
not useful, and it is wrong to say that computer displays are low-res
for viewing material, when no one uses high-end and high-res devices
for the same thing.
You don't use a printer (at any resolution) to work on the document,
printing it for every step in the process. You use the monitor for
that.
You also never use the monitor for output, carrying it around or
mailing it somewhere to show what you produced.
They are two different functions, in nearly every way. So criticizing a
monitor as having lower res than a printer just makes no sense -- they
are used TOTALLY differently.

You use both for reading text, at similar sizes. Why make it more
complicated?

In other words, computer displays are lower resolution than just about
*any* other devices regularly used to reproduce large amounts of text.

Yes, but you've generalized all forms of output here by referring to
them only as 'used to reproduce text.' That's fairly pointless, isn't
it?

No. Why?

Again, you can buy a car that goes fast. But just because there is a
rocket that goes faster doesn't mean that the car is somehow incredibly
slow. It's still fast, because the context of using a car is different
from the context of using a rocket.

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
                        --George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Once Again I Make Things Happen!
    ... by the standards of all of the ways available. ... idea that there _are_ high-resolution devices available in the world is ... *any* other devices regularly used to reproduce large amounts of text. ... you can buy a car that goes fast. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Win XP Pro Fax Doesnt Track Anything - !!FIXED!!
    ... Microsoft cannot reproduce this behavior. ... Yesterday, out of the blue, my fax monitor started ... I heard the RINGIN wav ... it's dead as a door nail regarding notifications via fax ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.print_fax)
  • Re: Grocery Store pricing
    ... I'm not neccesarily happy with the standards - I was astonished to ... find that it's impossible to get an 'organic' certification on a ... anything that cannot reproduce itself is not "organic". ... (Plant hybrids can _reproduce_, they just don't produce quite the same ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Grocery Store pricing
    ... cryptoguy wrote: ... I'm not neccesarily happy with the standards - I was astonished to ... anything that cannot reproduce itself is not "organic". ... (Plant hybrids can _reproduce_, they just don't produce quite the same ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: Units question for Americans
    ... mindless absurdities people repeat without thought. ... in the sense that most of the world uses it, and standards are better than ... So how many people care how hard it is to reproduce those without ... I'd say his armpit was about 97.6. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)