From: nickb@primenet.com (Nick S Bensema) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: High resolution trends. Date: 31 May 1998 01:40:01 -0700 Organization: PrImE NuT (602)864-1005 <--- <--- <--- Lines: 78 Message-ID: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> X-Posted-By: nickb@206.165.6.203 (nickb) X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test58 (13 May 97) Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.vphos.net!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.wli.net!news.he.net!Supernews60!supernews.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail At the network party today, a friend of mine was complaining about his monitor. He says it's fine in 1024x768, but at 1152x999 it becomes blurry. (or whatever the vertical res is; they just called it 1152 as if everyone used it) Now..... You guys at 1024x768... apparently your mindset is "Damn, this text isn't microscopic enough. If I could just get it down to the point where I can fit my e-mail address on the head of a pin, I'll be cool..." So you invented 1152. Is there anyone out there who can look at identical pictures scaled to 1152 and 1024 and be able to tell the difference? Perhaps the only difference is more microscopic text. Hell, maybe the reason the monitor was blurry was because human eyesight, even of a normal fully-able sober 20-year-old college student, does NOT GO THAT DAMN HIGH. Now, I don't know why people want to get their resolution up that high. Perhaps it's because I'm visually impaired and can only work comfortably on a 640x480 screen. And small fonts aren't a picnic on 640, either. I consider myself lucky to have 640 to fall back on; for now. But I fear the day where I am put in a workplace environment and have to deal with people and their 1024 screens. And I know some people find this hard to read. Otherwise, books and newspapers would be printed in 5-point text. And some people at that party commented, as I was struggling with a computer who was at 1024 on a 15-inch monitor, at how small the text was. I was typing pretty much blind on Notepad; I could read it if I got up to, like, three or four inches from the monitor. The sad thing is, in Notepad you can't change the font. Furthermore, in a lot of dialog boxes, not only can you NOT change the font anywhere, BUT the default font is something that's even smaller than the Notepad font. How close do you have to get to a monitor before you can read it? Intel boxes aren't alone, or at least weren't in 1993. That year, I saw Macintoshes with GARGANTUAN MONITORS at a school for the blind. Apparently they bought the monitors thinking the text would be easier to read. No. Apparently Macs at the time were programmed to that no matter how big your monitor was, Chicago 14 would always be the same size. So now you have people five inches from the screen who have to physically move their head all over the place. With this kind of thinking, no wonder most people refer to RealVideo as "on a postage stamp". I've seen DOS boxes open on 1024 screens the size that a RealVideo clip would be on mine. I remember reading on Usenet about the 4096x4096 display. What the HELL is that like? No wonder people are suffering eyestrain after years of computer use. Is there going to be a point at which people decide they want to put things on the screen that are as large, at least, as it would be on paper? Actually, the current default font in Microsoft Word is 10-point, which is smaller than most typewriter or dot-matrix fonts I've been exposed to. Maybe newspapers are that small, but most everything else I've seen looks bigger unless it's something the advertiser wants you to ignore. So now Microsoft has effectively bumped down the standard for paper text sizes. I remember discovering that EGA and VGA cards could utilize 43- and 50-line modes. I remember seeing a lot of utilities released to take advantage of it. And I remember nobody I knew ever used them, ever. 25 lines was enough; it wasn't worth shrinking the text. What happened to those days? I can accept that 1024x768 resolution is an improvement upon 800x600 in terms of clarity, and may be necessary in some cases for things like ... well, it's got to be necessary for something. But I'd like someone to point out to me why 1152 is NOT excessive. -- Nick Bensema 98-KUPD Red Card #710563 UIN: 2135445 ~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!diablo.interworld.net!news.interworld.net!not-for-mail From: Bill The Cat Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 03:19:53 -0700 Organization: Save The Erisian Rat-Dogs (who are funnier than bumgas) Lines: 40 Message-ID: <35712EC9.B62E1FFD@geocities.com> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.126.142.148 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win16; U) Nick S Bensema wrote: > > I can accept that 1024x768 resolution is an improvement upon 800x600 > in terms of clarity, and may be necessary in some cases for things > like ... well, it's got to be necessary for something. But I'd > like someone to point out to me why 1152 is NOT excessive. It's *NOT* excessive... on a 19" monitor. I've been looking into buying one, too -- Circuit City had a decent-looking one for $600. I bugged the salesman into demoing all the 19" monitors for me and yes there's a significant difference between the quality of the $600 model and the next unit up, but the next unit up is $900. The $600 monitor did 1280x1024 nicely but flipped out at 1600x1200 while the $900 monitor did it without a problem. I still think the "cheap" 19" unit would serve me well for a few years. Of course I observed the system password for the store and after the demonstration I proceeded to make all the other computers do bizarre (but harmless) things like 640x480 on a 21" screen (which results in clown-sized pixels), or 1280x1024 (interlaced) on a 15" screen (which is like clowns in a Volkswagen, except flashing). I also set up one of the systems that had a CD changer to always use the first disc no matter what was requested. I bet that one took them a while to figure out. Oh, for the old DOS days where you could just add "ctty nul" to someone's autoexec.bat... or just delete/rename command.com... Oh wait, you can still do this, you just have to erase/rename explorer.exe (or you can uninstall IE4, it does much the same thing). Actual quote from a help desk call I handled: "I smell smoke... should I turn the computer off?" I said "yes" of course, and it turned out he'd forgotten his macaroni and cheese on the stove, hence the smoke. - bill the cat -- That which binds us together like a nutshell | Bill's counts only as one act | Clue Bat Tulum: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4273 | Scorecard Tasteless: http://members.tripod.com/~thiefofhearts/tasteles | Kills: 61 Gallery: http://www.stickykeys.org/gallery/ ICQ: 11401527 | LARTs: 2 ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!208.134.241.18!newsfeed.internetmci.com!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.mindspring.net!news.mindspring.com!abuse From: abuse@orion-com.com (Joe Thompson) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 05:58:25 -0400 Organization: Orion Computer Consulting Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-37kba88.dialup.mindspring.com X-Server-Date: 31 May 1998 09:56:26 GMT X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 In article <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com>, nickb@primenet.com (Nick S Bensema) wrote: > You guys at 1024x768... apparently your mindset is "Damn, this text isn't > microscopic enough. If I could just get it down to the point where I > can fit my e-mail address on the head of a pin, I'll be cool..." So you > invented 1152. Is there anyone out there who can look at identical > pictures scaled to 1152 and 1024 and be able to tell the difference? > Perhaps the only difference is more microscopic text. Hell, maybe > the reason the monitor was blurry was because human eyesight, even > of a normal fully-able sober 20-year-old college student, does NOT > GO THAT DAMN HIGH. I run at 1152. And it's not a limitation of human eyesight; I have a little blur but the added data density is worth it (and it doesn't impair my reading). I've seen perfectly crisp (Sony) screens at 1600 x 1200. Greater resolution, by definition, allows denser data. Also you get much bigger screen real estate. I used to freak people out when I ran eXceed at 1152 x 900 (or whatever) to log into my school Unix account. > ...Furthermore, in a lot > of dialog boxes, not only can you NOT change the font anywhere, > BUT the default font is something that's even smaller than the > Notepad font. If you use Win95, check out the Appearance tab in your Display control panel. There's an equivalent in Win3.1 also but I forget where. Allows you to change window color schemes, and fonts, font sizes, and text colors. And somewhere I think you can even change the default font for Notepad (an INI file or Registry entry someplace no doubt). > ...Apparently Macs at the time were programmed > to that no matter how big your monitor was, Chicago 14 would always > be the same size. So now you have people five inches from the > screen who have to physically move their head all over the place. This was optional with some big-display drivers... but it could be turned off. > I remember reading on Usenet about the 4096x4096 display. What the > HELL is that like? Terrific data density. I want one! IIRC those are flat-panel LCD screens. -- Joe -- Joe Thompson | By sending commercial | Tech support is a fine O- He-Who-Grinds- | e-mail, you agree to | art which, once mastered, the-Unworthy | pay US$1000.00/item. | ensures loss of sanity. http://kensey.home.mindspring.com/ - Electrify the gene pool's fence! ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!feeder.news.azstarnet.com!reader1.news.azstarnet.com!news From: bill_h Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 09:26:09 -0700 Organization: Starnet Lines: 50 Message-ID: <357184A1.C2D@azstarnet.com> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> Reply-To: bill_h@azstarnet.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 169.197.30.132 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (Win16; I) Nick S Bensema wrote: > > At the network party today, a friend of mine was complaining about his > monitor. He says it's fine in 1024x768, but at 1152x999 it becomes > blurry. (or whatever the vertical res is; they just called it 1152 > as if everyone used it) I've been fooling around with several work station 'fixed frequency' monitors, mostly Sony Trinitrons. You know, those formerly $3-4,000 jobs. You can find them surplus for less than fifty bucks, and some only 4-5 years old. The inside is built like a tank - much more solid than regular consumer grade stuff. And easy to work on, too. But the 20" ones are pretty heavy! Might need a re-inforced computer desk to put one on. Rough rule_of_thumb: if you can't sit on it, don't put one of these monitors on it! Okay, that bit aside, the Sony's, in particular, are VERY sharp. I prefer an SGI (Silicon Graphics) that's really a Sony 20D11. It even has power TILT on it's infra-red remote control. Cost all of thirty bucks. 'Native' mode for many of these monitors will be 1280 x 1024 or so. Even so, I usually use 640 x 480. There are several places now selling the card you need to run these things on a PC, and the cost is down to around maybe $150, even for a 3-D version. Plus you need a cable with either 13W3 or BNC's on one end, and in addition you MAY need a little device from Griffin Technologies ($30) that both puts sync on the GREEN signal AND combines the H and V syncs for 'composite sync'. If your monitor uses FIVE BNC's, you don't need this adapter, just the cable. Rather than buy a CHEAP 17" or 19"/20" monitor, why not go for quality and look for one of these things? Even with the card and adapter, you can keep spending down to around $200 and you'll have a monitor that is built to last AND sharp. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 10:58:44 GMT Organization: . Lines: 121 Message-ID: <357532ac.4549611@news.innet.be> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: uu194-7-231-34.unknown.uunet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes nickb@primenet.com (Nick S Bensema) told us > You guys at 1024x768... apparently your mindset is "Damn, this text isn't > microscopic enough. If I could just get it down to the point where I > can fit my e-mail address on the head of a pin, I'll be cool..." So you > invented 1152. Is there anyone out there who can look at identical > pictures scaled to 1152 and 1024 and be able to tell the difference? > Perhaps the only difference is more microscopic text. Hell, maybe > the reason the monitor was blurry was because human eyesight, even > of a normal fully-able sober 20-year-old college student, does NOT > GO THAT DAMN HIGH. Those > 20" monitors were not designed with the visually impaired in mind, you know ;) On my 15" monitor at home (and even my 17" at work) I stay at 1024*768 and lower, but my card can go up to 1600*1200. With a 21" monitor, that might be just the right resolution. If you are wondering why someone would want such a bug screen and put so much on it, you probably haven't been source-level debugging some C code with disassembly window, trace windows, call history window etc. all open at the same time yet. > > Now, I don't know why people want to get their resolution up that high. > Perhaps it's because I'm visually impaired and can only work comfortably > on a 640x480 screen. And small fonts aren't a picnic on 640, either. oops - sorry, I hadn't seen this when I wrote that other paragraph (must've read too fast the first time). Maybe a 21" is the solution for you (expensive, though). > I consider myself lucky to have 640 to fall back on; for now. But I > fear the day where I am put in a workplace environment and have to > deal with people and their 1024 screens. > > And I know some people find this hard to read. Otherwise, books > and newspapers would be printed in 5-point text. And some people At 1024*768, the characters I'm reading right now are larger than newspaper text. But I know what you mean. Not everybody uses these resolutions too, at work for instance, people sometimes ask me how I can read that text on my monitor: most of them use 800*600. > at that party commented, as I was struggling with a computer who > was at 1024 on a 15-inch monitor, at how small the text was. I > was typing pretty much blind on Notepad; I could read it if I got > up to, like, three or four inches from the monitor. The sad thing > is, in Notepad you can't change the font. Furthermore, in a lot > of dialog boxes, not only can you NOT change the font anywhere, > BUT the default font is something that's even smaller than the > Notepad font. What I'd do if I were you, is install Quickres. It allows you to change the resolution with a simple mouse click on an icon in the taskbar tray, without even closing the open windows. IIRC, it is part of MS's power toys (look for it at their web site, or at several freeware/shareware sites on the web.) > How close do you have to get to a monitor before you can read it? > > Intel boxes aren't alone, or at least weren't in 1993. That year, > I saw Macintoshes with GARGANTUAN MONITORS at a school for the > blind. Apparently they bought the monitors thinking the text would > be easier to read. No. Apparently Macs at the time were programmed > to that no matter how big your monitor was, Chicago 14 would always > be the same size. So now you have people five inches from the > screen who have to physically move their head all over the place. > > With this kind of thinking, no wonder most people refer to RealVideo > as "on a postage stamp". I've seen DOS boxes open on 1024 screens > the size that a RealVideo clip would be on mine. > > I remember reading on Usenet about the 4096x4096 display. What the > HELL is that like? About 16 million pixels ;) > No wonder people are suffering eyestrain after years of computer > use. Is there going to be a point at which people decide they want > to put things on the screen that are as large, at least, as it would > be on paper? At work, on my 17" monitor, things in Word in 1024*768 resolution are _larger_ than on paper. > Actually, the current default font in Microsoft Word is 10-point, > which is smaller than most typewriter or dot-matrix fonts I've been > exposed to. Maybe newspapers are that small, but most everything > else I've seen looks bigger unless it's something the advertiser > wants you to ignore. So now Microsoft has effectively bumped down > the standard for paper text sizes. > > I remember discovering that EGA and VGA cards could utilize 43- > and 50-line modes. I remember seeing a lot of utilities released > to take advantage of it. And I remember nobody I knew ever used > them, ever. 25 lines was enough; it wasn't worth shrinking the > text. What happened to those days? They didn't change the number of scan lines to do that, but used smaller font cells instead (i.e., less dots per character). I always found them unreadable not because of their size, but because of their shape. > I can accept that 1024x768 resolution is an improvement upon 800x600 > in terms of clarity, and may be necessary in some cases for things > like ... well, it's got to be necessary for something. But I'd > like someone to point out to me why 1152 is NOT excessive. I hope I just did. -- In keeping with current net realities TRN will be modified to give the following warning before you post- >This program posts news to thousands of spammers throughout the entire >civilized world. The resulting spam you will receive will cost the >net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send to you. Please be >sure you know what you are doing. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.wli.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!kali.wf.net!hime From: hime@kali.wf.net (Andrew Hime) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Followup-To: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Date: 31 May 1998 11:00:01 GMT Organization: cosuardstockapaloozathon 98 fest Lines: 9 Message-ID: <6krd7h$alg$1@supernews.com> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.129.168.25 X-Trace: 896612401 XDE.3SBPWA819D081C usenet52.supernews.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] We have a guy at work with fucked up eyes. No, not like yours, I mean his don't point in the right directions. And they gave him a 17-inch monitor, of course... and I think he has it set to 640 by 480, and he still puts his nose almost on the screen. That and they promoted him over me (among others they promoted) and he's not quite as good as me. All in all, I wanna smack him. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter.cosy.sbg.ac.at!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.mindspring.net!news.mindspring.com!abuse From: abuse@orion-com.com (Joe Thompson) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 12:33:57 -0400 Organization: Orion Computer Consulting Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <6krd7h$alg$1@supernews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-37kbabj.dialup.mindspring.com X-Server-Date: 31 May 1998 16:31:57 GMT X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 In article <6krd7h$alg$1@supernews.com>, hime@kali.wf.net (Andrew Hime) wrote: > We have a guy at work with fucked up eyes. No, not like yours, I mean > his don't point in the right directions. And they gave him a 17-inch > monitor, of course... and I think he has it set to 640 by 480, and he > still puts his nose almost on the screen. > > That and they promoted him over me (among others they promoted) and > he's not quite as good as me. All in all, I wanna smack him. Probably not really his fault. Most American companies I know have an unofficial policy of keeping handicapped employees on a slightly faster track than they normally would would follow, just to avoid ADA lawsuits. In many cases, where the difference between employees is marginal, you get such situations as the above. Then again, it could be just more cluelessness from management. -- Joe -- Joe Thompson | By sending commercial | Tech support is a fine O- He-Who-Grinds- | e-mail, you agree to | art which, once mastered, the-Unworthy | pay US$1000.00/item. | ensures loss of sanity. http://kensey.home.mindspring.com/ - Electrify the gene pool's fence! ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!199.60.229.5!newsfeed.direct.ca!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!bigdog!tc1-18.intercomm.com From: cha-ack-cha@ack.mactyre.net.ack (Chihuahua Gilliam Fnordling-5 (with an umlaut over it) Grub) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 14:57:09 GMT Organization: Dentists for Manatees and Christians With Guns Lines: 34 Message-ID: <35716e60.25820515@news.intercomm.com> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.160.40.6 X-Trace: 896626732 LO0AHNKJI2806D1A0C usenet14.supernews.com X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Olestra swami wombat nickb@primenet.com (Nick S Bensema) orpmatted scimonogre ad nauseum: |I can accept that 1024x768 resolution is an improvement upon 800x600 |in terms of clarity, and may be necessary in some cases for things |like ... well, it's got to be necessary for something. But I'd |like someone to point out to me why 1152 is NOT excessive. 1152 isn't excessive. 1600 x 1200 is excessive. Excessive is when your video card refuses to support it. Besides, I'm doing just fine at 1280 x 1024. 'Course, if I want to watch movies, I have to kick it down to 1152 x 864. Then again, it's all freaking huge on a 21" monitor. It's still not enough... I won't be satisfied until I can get ahold of one of those 28" monitors that you have to build a case for yourself (I was thinking welded steel tinkertoys). And maybe a radio keyboard, so I can read news from the couch 25 feet across the room. Now, if my computer didn't have the mentality of a 6-year-old retarded crack whore on 'ludes, I'd be one happy bastard. THIS ENTIRE POST IS DEAD SERIOUS. NO KIDDING. ***ATTENTION .SIG BOTS!*** Please snip everything above this line! fnord. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!phil From: phil@imbe.foo.com (Phil) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 31 May 1998 16:07:00 -0700 Organization: com.foo.imbe Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> Reply-To: /dev/null X-Posted-By: @207.218.35.232 (imbe) X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.5.2 UNIX) On 31 May 1998 22:45:20 +0200, Neil Franklin wrote: >nickb@primenet.com (Nick S Bensema) writes: >> At the network party today, a friend of mine was complaining about his >> monitor. He says it's fine in 1024x768, but at 1152x999 it becomes >> blurry. (or whatever the vertical res is; they just called it 1152 >> as if everyone used it) > >The standard on Macs and PCs is 1152x864. Sun uses 1152x900. Of course, for best results you drive it at the res that looks the best. there's sure nothing magic about any of these numbers. i'm running 1048x771 right now. Looks OK. If somebody's monitor goes icky at some *standard* res it's the monitor's fault or the driver's fault. Not the res's. Phil ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!diablo.interworld.net!news.interworld.net!not-for-mail From: Bill The Cat Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 17:27:36 -0700 Organization: Momomoto, famous Japanese, can swallow his own nose Lines: 25 Message-ID: <3571F578.A7D40EE5@geocities.com> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.126.142.148 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win16; U) Bruce James Robert Linley wrote: > > Now to shift this thread a little, why do most users still run in 8-bit > color? Even a few images on a single web page with incompatible color > palettes can look truly awful at an 8-bit depth. Is it because the > average PC is set to 8-bit color out of the box? Dunno. I have just a 486-100 with a 1 MB ISA video card (Cirrus Logic). Don't cry for me though, I run it at 800x600x64k. I paid $55 for this video card four years ago, and I have never regretted the purchase. It looks fine at 1024, but I can't stand 8-bit color. All the other computers I own (but rarely use) have standard 256-color Cirrus Logic (VLB) cards. Despite the VLB, these cards perform at exactly the same speed as my ISA card. Needless to say, I'll retire the mobo/video combo before I get that 19" monitor. I don't think I want to see 800x600 on one of those. - bill the cat -- A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no | Bill's brain. -- Lazarus Long | Clue Bat Tulum: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4273 | Scorecard Tasteless: http://members.tripod.com/~thiefofhearts/tasteles | Kills: 61 Gallery: http://www.stickykeys.org/gallery/ ICQ: 11401527 | LARTs: 2 ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!fci-se!fci!feeder.qis.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.he.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!diablo.interworld.net!news.interworld.net!not-for-mail From: Bill The Cat Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 18:07:28 -0700 Organization: Momomoto, famous Japanese, can swallow his own nose Lines: 22 Message-ID: <3571FED0.2551A7C6@geocities.com> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <3572f17a.32446014@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.126.142.148 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win16; U) Luc Van der Veken wrote: > > linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robert Linley) told us > > why do most users still run in 8-bit > > Speed reasons (less bytes to move around)? > I myself run 1024*768 at 16 bit depth, but I've got a pretty > recent card and a fast processor. The processor load saved by not having to dither more than compensates for having to write two or three times as much data to the video card, in my experience. I get better overall performance at 800x600x64k than at 800x600x256, at least in Windoze. The only exception I have seen was Fury3, because it was written for 256-color mode. - bill the cat -- A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no | Bill's brain. -- Lazarus Long | Clue Bat Tulum: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4273 | Scorecard Tasteless: http://members.tripod.com/~thiefofhearts/tasteles | Kills: 61 Gallery: http://www.stickykeys.org/gallery/ ICQ: 11401527 | LARTs: 2 ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 31 May 1998 22:45:20 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 112 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 nickb@primenet.com (Nick S Bensema) writes: > At the network party today, a friend of mine was complaining about his > monitor. He says it's fine in 1024x768, but at 1152x999 it becomes > blurry. (or whatever the vertical res is; they just called it 1152 > as if everyone used it) The standard on Macs and PCs is 1152x864. Sun uses 1152x900. > invented 1152. Is there anyone out there who can look at identical > pictures scaled to 1152 and 1024 and be able to tell the difference? Just looking at it makes no great difference. 10% is just about at the edge of human conciousness. OTOH I use an very detailed (i.e. hand calculated) window positioning and that extra 10% really allowed me to do a better job of arranging 4 80x60 character windows (2 stacks of 2) and an left side icon bar. > Perhaps the only difference is more microscopic text. Hell, maybe > the reason the monitor was blurry was because human eyesight, even > of a normal fully-able sober 20-year-old college student, does NOT > GO THAT DAMN HIGH. Human eye resolution is AFAIK about 10 times better than that. Actually I have no problems with 1152x864 or eben 1280x1280 on an 17". And an 21" is just an irrestible invitation to 1600x1200 (what I am writing this on). Your friends monitor may simply be at the end of it wits. Above resolutions result in 100dpi, that requires an 0.25 hole mask at the largest, also it requires for sensible 70Hz on an 17" amplifiers (in the monitor and on the video card) that will withstand 100MHz. My ATI Mach 32 failled on this and was fuzzy, while my old Tseng 4000 on the same monitor mastered it without problems. The Matrox Millenium I now have will do the 180MHz needed for 1600x1200 at 70Hz. > Now, I don't know why people want to get their resolution up that high. > Perhaps it's because I'm visually impaired and can only work comfortably > on a 640x480 screen. Now that looks awfull on this 21" screen (while booting in character mode I have 720x400 on it). > And I know some people find this hard to read. Otherwise, books > and newspapers would be printed in 5-point text. Ah at long last the discussion switches to points! 12pt is regarded as normal. That means an 6x12 font on an 72dpi screen or an 8x16 font on an 100dpi screen. I can actually work with 9pt, so I use 6x13 on 100dpi. > And some people > at that party commented, as I was struggling with a computer who > was at 1024 on a 15-inch monitor, at how small the text was. Auch! That gives you about 120dpi, would require an 10x20 font for 12 pt. 15" should be run at 800x600. That is most likely your problem. > I was typing pretty much blind on Notepad; I could read it if I got > up to, like, three or four inches from the monitor. The sad thing > is, in Notepad you can't change the font. No. But you can change the resolution in Windows to 800x600. Everything (incl Notepad and dialog boxes) will become larger. Also IIRC Windows for 800x600 and for 1024x768 has an small font and and large font video driver (at least it had in 3.11). > How close do you have to get to a monitor before you can read it? I usually sit at ca 30cm distance. > Actually, the current default font in Microsoft Word is 10-point, > which is smaller than most typewriter or dot-matrix fonts I've been > exposed to. Maybe newspapers are that small, but most everything > else I've seen looks bigger unless it's something the advertiser > wants you to ignore. So now Microsoft has effectively bumped down > the standard for paper text sizes. Yes, 10pt is too small for average users. But: it is MS... > I remember discovering that EGA and VGA cards could utilize 43- > and 50-line modes. I remember seeing a lot of utilities released > to take advantage of it. And I remember nobody I knew ever used > them, ever. 25 lines was enough; it wasn't worth shrinking the > text. What happened to those days? It would have been nice to use 80x30 (with 8x16 font on 15"), but too much software screwed on it. > I can accept that 1024x768 resolution is an improvement upon 800x600 > in terms of clarity, and may be necessary in some cases for things > like ... well, it's got to be necessary for something. But I'd > like someone to point out to me why 1152 is NOT excessive. Clarity comes from increasing dpi, withoout making the charcters smaller (i.e. with using an larger pixeled font. 1152x864 with an 8x16 font is beautifull, if your video card and monitor can handle it. -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 31 May 1998 22:46:44 GMT Message-ID: <6ksmkk$s09$1@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-197.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: irk.zetnet.co.uk 896654804 28681 194.247.40.250 (31 May 1998 22:46:44 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 May 1998 22:46:44 GMT X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X Lines: 40 On 1998-05-31 nickb@primenet.com(NickSBensema) said: :You guys at 1024x768... apparently your mindset is "Damn, this text :isn't microscopic enough. If I could just get it down to the point :where I can fit my e-mail address on the head of a pin, I'll be :cool..." hmm. we get ribbed for that one at work. 8pt text, 1024x768, 15" monitor. everyone complains that they can't read it. can't *think* why... :Actually, the current default font in Microsoft Word is 10-point, :which is smaller than most typewriter or dot-matrix fonts I've been :exposed to. Maybe newspapers are that small, but most everything :else I've seen looks bigger unless it's something the advertiser :wants you to ignore. So now Microsoft has effectively bumped down :the standard for paper text sizes. not really. most fixed-width fonts are 10cpi and pitched at 6lpi, which is about 12pt. if you use a 15cpi font and pitch it at 8cpi, that's nearer actually 9pt - things look both bigger and better when they're printed. and a lot of books have typographical information in the frontispieces, and they tend to be printed on 10/11pt these days (10pt text on 11pt leading), and we'd contend that it's the leading rather than the size of text that makes things more readable. our eyesight's not exactly 20/20 (although we aren't legally visually-impaired) and we get along fine with small text - it helps us to read more crap code at once - so long as the lines are sufficiently separated. :I can accept that 1024x768 resolution is an improvement upon 800x600 :in terms of clarity, and may be necessary in some cases for things :like ... well, it's got to be necessary for something. reading code somebody else wrote when they didn't know how. ever tried to figure out what a function 100 lines long is doing when you can only see 20% at a time? -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!island.idirect.com!news.uunet.ca!falco From: falco@vex.net (Golan Klinger) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 31 May 1998 22:57:46 GMT Organization: Vex.Net Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> Reply-To: falco@vex.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.119.193 X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.4.3 UNIX) I think it is all about the unending quest for real estate and it is a highly subjective thing. I like 1152x864 on 17" screens but I drop to 800x600 on 14 and 15" screens. I don't have a problem with 1600x1200 on a 20 or 21" monitor but I find the monitor is becoming a little overwhelming at that point. The key is to use a resolution that maintains the proper 1:1.33 ratio. 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, and 1600x1200 are all fine but 1280x1024 and 1600x1280 are both 1:1.25 and look a little off. Remember, you can use bigger fonts to make text easier to read even when you're using a very high resolution. Generally, more pixels is better. Lastly, the refresh rate is every bit as important to user comfort as is resolution. -- Golan Klinger [falco@vex.net] For long you live and high you fly And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry Good, fast or cheap. And all you touch and all you see Pick two... Is all your life will ever be ###### Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ix.netcom.com!linley From: linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robert Linley) Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Message-ID: Organization: Megami no Belldandy-sama no deshi References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> Date: Sun, 31 May 1998 23:10:15 GMT Lines: 40 Sender: linley@netcom12.netcom.com In ye olden post nickb@primenet.com (Nick S Bensema) spake... >At the network party today, a friend of mine was complaining about his >monitor. He says it's fine in 1024x768, but at 1152x999 it becomes >blurry. (or whatever the vertical res is; they just called it 1152 >as if everyone used it) Actually, 1152xXXX (the Y figure varies slightly) is very nice indeed. Let's suppose you have a 1MB video card and you run at 1024x768x256. You're using 768K of that 1MB video ram. The rest is WASTED. However, you won't have enough ram to go to 1280x1024 (1.25MB RAM needed). Now, 1152x910 at 8-bit color uses (1152*910=1048320 or almost 1MB) so you get the most out of your hardware. 1152 mode isn't common on PC video cards, but is very common on Macs. >Now, I don't know why people want to get their resolution up that high. For me, it's not about making the text fonts smaller, I want the high resolutions so I can have Netscape, my term program, my IRC window, a second terminal window, and maybe a clock and Xeyes all running and visible at the same time. Of course a bigger monitor is necessary to do this without eye strain or getting fuzzy text. In the earlier days of PCs, you were only running one app at a time so 648x480 was probably good enough. Now that more people can multitask, we need the space to do it. #ifdef SURVEY BTW, I usually run at 1280x1024 @ 24 bit color on a 17 inch display. #undef Now to shift this thread a little, why do most users still run in 8-bit color? Even a few images on a single web page with incompatible color palettes can look truly awful at an 8-bit depth. Is it because the average PC is set to 8-bit color out of the box? -- Bruce James Robert Linley | +---+---+--_ | "Tea is always bitter... but linley@netcom.com | | |NV | UT | blood is warm and sweet." Programmer, Fortunet Inc. | \ CA \ |___ | Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ----------> \*| AZ | - Miyu ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!peer.news.th.u-net.net!u-net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 00:12:00 GMT Organization: . Lines: 19 Message-ID: <3572f17a.32446014@news.innet.be> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool02b-194-7-226-38.uunet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robert Linley) told us > Now to shift this thread a little, why do most users still run in 8-bit > color? Even a few images on a single web page with incompatible color > palettes can look truly awful at an 8-bit depth. Is it because the average > PC is set to 8-bit color out of the box? Speed reasons (less bytes to move around)? I myself run 1024*768 at 16 bit depth, but I've got a pretty recent card and a fast processor. -- In keeping with current net realities TRN will be modified to give the following warning before you post- >This program posts news to thousands of spammers throughout the entire >civilized world. The resulting spam you will receive will cost the >net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send to you. Please be >sure you know what you are doing. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!nntp.ni.net!bhahn From: bhahn@spam-spam.go-away.com (Brendan Hahn) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 12:43:17 -0800 Organization: Transoft Corp Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> Reply-To: bhahn@transoft.mangle.net (unmangle address to reply) NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.180.87.35 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.4.0 falco@vex.net wrote: > I think it is all about the unending quest for real estate and it >is a highly subjective thing. It's application-dependent, too. For graphics, I like a high a resolution as possible--you get more image on the screen with greater sharpness and more detail (with a good monitor), and most graphics tools have built-in scaling support so you don't compromise the ability to work with detail. For text, though, increasing resolution doesn't directly affect information density, since text resolution is a matter of *letter* size. However many dots make it up, a letter still has to span X degrees of visual arc on the screen for me to make it out clearly from a reasonable distance. Increasing resolution does lower the minimum letter size that can be drawn clearly, but past a certain point there's no benefit. For the 8-12 pixel height fonts I find convenient, 100 dpi is the limit for reasonable work, 90 is more comfortable. I'm managing with 1152x870 on this 17", which is about 95 dpi. bhahn@transoft.mangle.net <-- unmangle to reply ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!server3.netnews.ja.net!doc.ic.ac.uk!gatsby.u-net.com!not-for-mail From: David Wragg Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 01 Jun 1998 19:57:25 +0000 Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK. Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sytry.doc.ic.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robert Linley) writes: > [snip] > Actually, 1152xXXX (the Y figure varies slightly) is very nice indeed. > Let's suppose you have a 1MB video card and you run at 1024x768x256. > You're using 768K of that 1MB video ram. The rest is WASTED. > [snip] With a half decent driver it won't be wasted. It will hold the bitmaps of the most common character glyphs, off-screen pixmaps, etc, so these can be copied to the screen by the graphics processor without going to the main memory. Thus the off-screen video memory should contribute to overall graphics performance. I've never actually done any tests to find out how pronounced this benefit can be though, so perhaps it is vaguely wasted. -- Dave Wragg ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.gip.net!news-stkh.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed1.funet.fi!news.cs.hut.fi!learnet.freenet.hut.fi!not-for-mail From: "S. T." Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 1 Jun 98 20:40:07 +0300 Organization: Freenet Finland Lines: 66 Message-ID: <357311A7.MD-0.198.no@spam.he.re> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-0-15.evitech.fi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: MicroDot-II/AmigaOS 0.198 Nick S Bensema (nickb@primenet.com) wrote on 31 May 1998 01:40:01 -0700: > At the network party today, a friend of mine was complaining about his > monitor. He says it's fine in 1024x768, but at 1152x999 it becomes > blurry. (or whatever the vertical res is; they just called it 1152 > as if everyone used it) > > Now..... > > You guys at 1024x768... apparently your mindset is "Damn, this text isn't > microscopic enough. If I could just get it down to the point where I > can fit my e-mail address on the head of a pin, I'll be cool..." So you > invented 1152. Is there anyone out there who can look at identical I believe the resolution used by NeXT is 1120x832, which incidentally is the same that I use in my Amiga with a 15" Trinitron tube. The grille pitch matches perfectly. I normally use font sizes that allow 40 - 64 lines per screen. The more the screen is used for text, the bigger fonts I use. There's *no way* I'd use anything less than 12 points for my Workbench screen, if I have to read the text. > pictures scaled to 1152 and 1024 and be able to tell the difference? That's not the issue, it's the screen real estate. I get 18.5% more pixels than with 1024x768, which I considered insufficient after using it for a few weeks. > Perhaps the only difference is more microscopic text. Hell, maybe > the reason the monitor was blurry was because human eyesight, even > of a normal fully-able sober 20-year-old college student, does NOT > GO THAT DAMN HIGH. Maybe a bad monitor cable, or a not-very-good display card, or a damaged CRT (in the sense of "turn contrast and brightness all the way up for a year or so"). > Now, I don't know why people want to get their resolution up that high. > Perhaps it's because I'm visually impaired and can only work comfortably > on a 640x480 screen. And small fonts aren't a picnic on 640, either. I can't, it's too cramped. > I consider myself lucky to have 640 to fall back on; for now. But I > fear the day where I am put in a workplace environment and have to > deal with people and their 1024 screens. Use bigger fonts. No, wait: Windows doesn't allow all fonts to be scaled. > How close do you have to get to a monitor before you can read it? Four feet, 832x624, 8 point font. And that's with my current glasses, that are "falling out of sync" with my eyes. > I remember reading on Usenet about the 4096x4096 display. What the > HELL is that like? Great, if you have a half-decent GUI. ;) > No wonder people are suffering eyestrain after years of computer > use. Is there going to be a point at which people decide they want > to put things on the screen that are as large, at least, as it would > be on paper? That's why I use the sizes I use, actually. 15" monitor is about 2/3 of an A4 vertically, and usually I just divide the lines by about 40. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news-lond.gip.net!news-raspail.gip.net!news-dc.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ais.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: "Joel C. Ewing" Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 22:04:43 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Message-ID: <6kvq6p$q3o$1@chile.it.earthlink.net> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> Reply-To: "Joel C. Ewing" NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust176.tnt25.dfw5.da.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (OS/2; I) Lines: 19 Nick S Bensema wrote: ... > Now, I don't know why people want to get their resolution up that high. > Perhaps it's because I'm visually impaired and can only work comfortably > on a 640x480 screen. And small fonts aren't a picnic on 640, either. > I consider myself lucky to have 640 to fall back on; for now. But I > fear the day where I am put in a workplace environment and have to > deal with people and their 1024 screens. ... If you are fortunate enough to use an Operating system and other software that is flexible enough to allow you to increase the font and icon sizes proportionally, I find that the better-formed characters at the higher resolution are much easier to read with low eye strain than comparably-sized images at low res. If you don't have that flexibiliy, the higher res displays require either a larger monitor or young eyes. Doesn't make much sense to try to display pixels that are smaller than the physical resolution of your monitor either. -- Joel C. Ewing, Fort Smith, AR jcewing@acm.org ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!news-stkh.gip.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Tue, 02 Jun 1998 18:24:29 GMT Organization: . Lines: 40 Message-ID: <35763295.2481528@news.innet.be> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <6kvq6p$q3o$1@chile.it.earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool02b-194-7-226-206.uunet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes "Joel C. Ewing" told us > If you are fortunate enough to use an Operating system and other > software that is flexible enough to allow you to increase the font and > icon sizes proportionally, I find that the better-formed characters at > the higher resolution are much easier to read with low eye strain than > comparably-sized images at low res. Perfectly true: the font I'm reading this in (courier new 10pt at 1024*768 on a 15" monitor) is smaller than the one used in VGA 50-line text mode, but it's a lot more readable. > If you don't have that flexibiliy, > the higher res displays require either a larger monitor or young eyes. Or, like above my nose, glasses :) I don't really need them to see clear, but they make an incredible difference in eye strain (looking at a CRT, but also when driving my car for long distances). > Doesn't make much sense to try to display pixels that are smaller than > the physical resolution of your monitor either. Which brings us back to something that was mentioned before: the picture becoming fuzzy. I think the reason of that fuzzyness is nothing else than pixels being smaller than what your monitor can display as a single dot. On my monitor that's only at 1600*1200 (and it's interlaced-only at that res too, causing "vibrating" interference patterns on top of it). You really don't want 1600*1200 on a 15" monitor ;) -- In keeping with current net realities TRN will be modified to give the following warning before you post- >This program posts news to thousands of spammers throughout the entire >civilized world. The resulting spam you will receive will cost the >net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send to you. Please be >sure you know what you are doing. ###### Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!199.181.164.14!news.seanet.com!nntp.picarefy.com!picarefy!jwbirdsa From: jwbirdsa@picarefy.picarefy.com (James W. Birdsall) Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Message-ID: <1998Jun2.212523.20739@picarefy.picarefy.com> Organization: Green Tiger Software References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 21:25:23 GMT Lines: 36 In article <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> nickb@primenet.com (Nick S Bensema) writes: >You guys at 1024x768... apparently your mindset is "Damn, this text isn't >microscopic enough. If I could just get it down to the point where I >can fit my e-mail address on the head of a pin, I'll be cool..." So you >invented 1152. Actually, 1152x900 is old. It was in extensive use on workstations while EGA was still a big deal in the PC world. That extensive use occurred on 19" monitors. The combination of larger screen dimensions and higher resolution meant that you could display a lot more AND have it be of a reasonable/readable size. That resolution, or even 1024x768, on a typical 14-15" monitor is only usable if you adjust everything to use larger fonts. I've done it, and enjoyed the smoother edges, but attempting to get more screen real estate that way was too much for my eyes as well. 640x480 is cramped and coarse; I normally use 800x600 on a monitor that size. 1024x768 works OK on a 17" monitor. >I remember discovering that EGA and VGA cards could utilize 43- >and 50-line modes. I remember seeing a lot of utilities released >to take advantage of it. And I remember nobody I knew ever used >them, ever. 25 lines was enough; it wasn't worth shrinking the >text. What happened to those days? Everybody I knew used those, at least for editing. With only 25 lines, you got diddly worth of context. The fonts for 43/50 lines were not as beautifully shaped, but that was a small price to pay. Sometimes the huge 25-line fonts that you could read halfway across the room were nice, but most of the time they were overkill. -- James W. Birdsall http://www.picarefy.com/~jwbirdsa/ jwbirdsa@picarefy.com "For it is the doom of men that they forget." -- Merlin Get the Sun-2 Hardware Reference from ftp.picarefy.com:/pub/Sun-Hardware-Ref Sun-2 Hardware Reference Web Page: http://sun-www.picarefy.com/ ###### Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.221.240.3!beaker.tor.sfl.net!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!gts!bdb From: bdb@GTS.Net (Bruce Becker) Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Message-ID: Organization: G.T.S., Toronto, Ontario X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test63 (15 March 1998) References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35716e60.25820515@news.intercomm.com> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:07:20 GMT Lines: 24 In article <35716e60.25820515@news.intercomm.com>, Chihuahua Gilliam Fnordling-5 (with an umlaut over it) Grub wrote: |Olestra swami wombat nickb@primenet.com (Nick S Bensema) orpmatted |scimonogre ad nauseum: | ||I can accept that 1024x768 resolution is an improvement upon 800x600 ||in terms of clarity, and may be necessary in some cases for things ||like ... well, it's got to be necessary for something. But I'd ||like someone to point out to me why 1152 is NOT excessive. | |1152 isn't excessive. 1600 x 1200 is excessive. I use a 1600 x 1280 19" mono monitor - it's extremely useful to have a lot of screen real estate to work with multiple windows which are open to various functions or remote systems... -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario 1 416 699 1868 a /i/ Internet: bdb@gts.org Uucp: ...!gts!bdb `\o\-e "When did the Me Generation become the meme generation?" _< /_ - Mimi Pond, historian ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news1.best.com!nntp2.ba.best.com!not-for-mail From: Marco S Hyman Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers Date: 03 Jun 1998 13:19:13 -0700 Organization: S.N.A.F.U. (www.snafu.org) Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dumbcat.codewright.com X-Trace: 896905165 29440 marc 206.86.0.12 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 nickb@primenet.com (Nick S Bensema) writes: > You guys at 1024x768... apparently your mindset is "Damn, this text isn't > microscopic enough. If I could just get it down to the point where I We just use systems that let us pick and chose appropriate fonts for the given screen resolution. Apparently you are used to something like Windows which doesn't give you much choice. My wife uses windows and won't go beyone 800x600 because the desktop it is too hard to read even when using the `large' fonts. On the other hand I use 1280x1024 on my sun and just tell X to use a font that I find readable at that resolution. Simple, no? No where is it written that a larger resolution requires a smaller font? // marc ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter.cosy.sbg.ac.at!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!ptah.visi.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> Organization: Plethora . Net - More Net, Less Spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test62 (21 February 1998) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Lines: 58 Message-ID: <4Nfd1.663$On1.2549371@ptah.visi.com> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 17:32:48 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: guild.plethora.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 12:32:48 CDT In article <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com>, Nick S Bensema wrote: >You guys at 1024x768... apparently your mindset is "Damn, this text isn't >microscopic enough. If I could just get it down to the point where I >can fit my e-mail address on the head of a pin, I'll be cool..." So you >invented 1152. Is there anyone out there who can look at identical >pictures scaled to 1152 and 1024 and be able to tell the difference? Yes. Or rather, I can tell easily with *text*. I am currently running my main desktops in 1280x1024 because I can use larger, smoother fonts - and I have to stare at these 10-12 hours a day, so this helps. I really like 1152x870 (or 860, or 900) on a 17-inch monitor, but I'll do 1280x1024 if I just need large readable text. >And I know some people find this hard to read. Otherwise, books >and newspapers would be printed in 5-point text. Imagine if books and newspapers were printed with 25dpi printers. That's the argument for higher resolutions. *USE LARGER FONTS*. >No wonder people are suffering eyestrain after years of computer >use. Is there going to be a point at which people decide they want >to put things on the screen that are as large, at least, as it would >be on paper? Yes! Actually, I use slightly *larger* fonts on-screen. I do most DTP at at least 125% magnification. I use "20 point" fonts for web browsing. (Obviously, it's really smaller than that, because I've got a high res display) >I can accept that 1024x768 resolution is an improvement upon 800x600 >in terms of clarity, and may be necessary in some cases for things >like ... well, it's got to be necessary for something. But I'd >like someone to point out to me why 1152 is NOT excessive. Because you can use larger fonts, and get a smoother display. Because it hurts my eyes a lot less to have everything in larger fonts. I'm typing this in an XTerm in -b&h-lucidatypewriter-bold-r-normal-sans-*-240-75-75-m-*-iso8859-1 which is a "24 point" font. It's lovely. I can read it comfortably from 8 feet away if I want. I can be over at a workbench, glance over, and remember what I was looking for. ;) And here I am, 1.5' away from the display, with it filling about the area I see most clearly in. I'm very happy with this. The display is 1280x1024, because in 1152x870, an 80-column screen of this font is too large. -s -- Copyright '98, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Not speaking for my employer. Questions on C/Unix? Send mail for help. Visit my new ISP --- More Net, Less Spam! ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!ais.net!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!ptah.visi.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> Organization: Plethora . Net - More Net, Less Spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test62 (21 February 1998) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Lines: 15 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 17:37:23 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: guild.plethora.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 12:37:23 CDT In article , Neil Franklin wrote: >The standard on Macs and PCs is 1152x864. Sun uses 1152x900. My Mac says 1152x870, but my PC's do x864, under X and Windows. I wonder what the Millennium II does. I once reprogrammed my PC version to run on a mac, but I didn't think to check that mode. -s -- Copyright '98, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Not speaking for my employer. Questions on C/Unix? Send mail for help. Visit my new ISP --- More Net, Less Spam! ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!scanner.worldgate.com!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!crash.videotron.ab.ca!not-for-mail From: jsavard@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 17:44:10 GMT Organization: Videotron Communications Ltd. Lines: 52 Message-ID: <35758915.622207@news.prosurfr.com> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: c9169-004.prosurfr.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 nickb@primenet.com (Nick S Bensema) wrote: >At the network party today, a friend of mine was complaining about his >monitor. He says it's fine in 1024x768, but at 1152x999 it becomes >blurry. (or whatever the vertical res is; they just called it 1152 >as if everyone used it) >Now..... >You guys at 1024x768... apparently your mindset is "Damn, this text isn't >microscopic enough. If I could just get it down to the point where I >can fit my e-mail address on the head of a pin, I'll be cool..." So you >invented 1152. Is there anyone out there who can look at identical >pictures scaled to 1152 and 1024 and be able to tell the difference? >Perhaps the only difference is more microscopic text. Hell, maybe >the reason the monitor was blurry was because human eyesight, even >of a normal fully-able sober 20-year-old college student, does NOT >GO THAT DAMN HIGH. Well, there are uses for high resolutions. 1) Adobe Acrobat Reader made it difficult to advance smoothly through a document with a mouse if you can't fit a whole page on the screen at once. The letters are big enough to be readable if you shrink the page down like that, but sometimes the fonts aren't. Ramp up the resolution, and then the letters are the same size, but they're readable. 2) I was running the X Window System under Linux, and wanted to play some of the games on it - a version of Milles Borne and a pool game. But my video card only goes up to 1024 x 768, and these games seem to have been designed for a 1280 x 800 display to fit. Also, monitors come in different sizes and so on, and the ability to have more windows open on a screen does make it easier to work. On a 17" monitor, 1024 x 768 is reasonable; on a 14" monitor, 800 x 600 is not bad for someone with normal eyesight. As noted under Adobe Acrobat, a resolution exceeding the ability of the human eye to see individual pixels is not a bad thing - if larger fonts can be used. Why should we put up with ugly fonts whose limitations are noticeable? And human eyesight normally goes quite a bit higher than 1024 x 768 or whatever, although for most purposes current Super VGA screens do provide good images. John Savard ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!woodstock.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!tnglwood.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: Robert Billing Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 20:42:06 +0100 Organization: Tanglewood Message-ID: <3575A70E.1795AD9A@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35716e60.25820515@news.intercomm.com> <6l4qv9$fo6$1@wombat.cs.monash.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: tnglwood.demon.co.uk:158.152.132.30 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 896911479 nnrp-06:7740 NO-IDENT tnglwood.demon.co.uk:158.152.132.30 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.31 i586) Lines: 13 > And of course, being a mono monitor, it doesn't have any "dot pitch" or > other such nonsense, but simply one nice, homogenous phosphor. Why don't > they make them anymore? I think they do, quite a lot of broadcast monitoring is done in monochrome, for one thing it's easier to see sharpness. Certainly every time I go in an OB van there are some monochrome monitors. -- I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/ "Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.idt.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!158.43.192.17!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 22:25:54 GMT Organization: . Lines: 32 Message-ID: <3577bd5f.3743202@news.innet.be> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35758915.622207@news.prosurfr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool02b-194-7-226-66.uunet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes jsavard@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) told us > Well, there are uses for high resolutions. > > 1) Adobe Acrobat Reader made it difficult to advance smoothly through > a document with a mouse if you can't fit a whole page on the screen at > once. [getting far off topic - sorry] Now there's a program I don't like at all, and not only for the reason you give here. Last week I printed out a 260+ page document, because it was _too_ long to read it onscreen (you can either have a font that's too small, or see half a page at a time). On paper, the screenshots that were in it looked like sh*t, plus there was no way to make it fill the pages: even when reading onscreen, it was something like standard textbook printing area on A4 or letter size pages. I realize that Acrobat reader exists for other platforms too, with word format for instance you're more likely to get in trouble. This was a document about windows software however, so that should have been no problem. Word may suck in some aspects too (like it's speed in long documents), but at least you can have it (even in wordpad) reformat everything to your own preferred margins and paper size - and to read something from the screen, it's _at least_ an equal match to Acrobat. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-lond.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!worldfeed.gte.net!intgwlon.nntp.telstra.net!news.telstra.net.nz!clear.net.nz!auckland.ac.nz!p.kerr From: p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 4 Jun 1998 04:01:18 GMT Organization: School of Music University of Auckland Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <357311A7.MD-0.198.no@spam.he.re> NNTP-Posting-Host: p.kerr.mus.auckland.ac.nz X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b6 In article <357311A7.MD-0.198.no@spam.he.re>, "S. T." wrote: > Nick S Bensema (nickb@primenet.com) wrote on 31 May 1998 01:40:01 -0700: > > No wonder people are suffering eyestrain after years of computer > > use. Is there going to be a point at which people decide they want > > to put things on the screen that are as large, at least, as it would > > be on paper? > > That's why I use the sizes I use, actually. 15" monitor is about 2/3 > of an A4 vertically, and usually I just divide the lines by about 40. 16" Portrait (AKA FullPageDisplay) is 640 x 870, 98% A4. Just the trick, altho' I do get these puzzled looks from PC dweebs asking why I turned my monitor on its side... -- Peter Kerr bodger School of Music chandler University of Auckland NZ neo-Luddite ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!24.128.1.125!chnws03.mediaone.net!24.131.1.12!denws01.mw.mediaone.net!news.gmi.edu!nova.kettering.edu!lee1089 From: Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 07:34:32 -0400 Organization: Kettering University (formerly GMI E&MI) - Flint MI Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35758915.622207@news.prosurfr.com> <3577bd5f.3743202@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: nova.kettering.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <3577bd5f.3743202@news.innet.be> On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Luc Van der Veken wrote: > jsavard@tenMAPSONeerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John Savard) told us > > > Well, there are uses for high resolutions. > > > > 1) Adobe Acrobat Reader made it difficult to advance smoothly through > > a document with a mouse if you can't fit a whole page on the screen at > > once. > > [getting far off topic - sorry] > > Now there's a program I don't like at all, and not only for the > reason you give here. > > Last week I printed out a 260+ page document, because it was > _too_ long to read it onscreen (you can either have a font that's > too small, or see half a page at a time). On paper, the > screenshots that were in it looked like sh*t, plus there was no > way to make it fill the pages: even when reading onscreen, it was > something like standard textbook printing area on A4 or letter > size pages. > > I realize that Acrobat reader exists for other platforms too, > with word format for instance you're more likely to get in > trouble. This was a document about windows software however, so > that should have been no problem. > > Word may suck in some aspects too (like it's speed in long > documents), but at least you can have it (even in wordpad) > reformat everything to your own preferred margins and paper size > - and to read something from the screen, it's _at least_ an equal > match to Acrobat. Of course, you've missed the whole point of Acrobat. PDF is portable document format, not editable document format. It was designed as a way to create a document and release it through the web and have it still look like the original no matter what platform or medium it's on at the moment. It's purpose is for you to *not* be able to change things. It's basically like a book. How many times have you asked someone at a bookstore to reformat a book from say, 5 by 8 to 8 1/2 by 11? That's what it was *designed* for. (Of course the feature I miss is the print odd/even pages and print back to front for printing on both sides without a duplexer.) ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!newsfeed.wli.net!news.he.net!Supernews60!supernews.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.optus.net.au!wombat.cs.monash.edu.au!not-for-mail From: bmeyer@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 4 Jun 1998 10:49:45 +1000 Organization: This is innd taking over... Lines: 17 Message-ID: <6l4qv9$fo6$1@wombat.cs.monash.edu.au> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35716e60.25820515@news.intercomm.com> Reply-To: bmeyer@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au NNTP-Posting-Host: modem16.cs.monash.edu.au bdb@GTS.Net (Bruce Becker) writes: > I use a 1600 x 1280 19" mono monitor - it's > extremely useful to have a lot of screen real > estate to work with multiple windows which are > open to various functions or remote systems... And of course, being a mono monitor, it doesn't have any "dot pitch" or other such nonsense, but simply one nice, homogenous phosphor. Why don't they make them anymore? Bernie -- ============================================================================ "It's a magical world, Hobbes ol' buddy... ...let's go exploring" Calvin's final words, on December 31st, 1995 ###### Date: 04 Jun 98 14:07:10 -0800 From: "Charlie Gibbs" Subject: Re: High resolution trends. References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35758915.622207@news.prosurfr.com> <3577bd5f.3743202@news.innet.be> <3578cacc.2722725@news.innet.be> Message-ID: <640.459T527T8473852@sky.bus.com> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Lines: 16 X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) NNTP-Posting-Host: news.skybus.com Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!204.244.4.2!news.westel.com!news.skybus.com!204.244.247.127 In article <3578cacc.2722725@news.innet.be> lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) writes: >_For_documents_regarding_Windows_software_and_other_ >_windows-related_things_ (can't put enough pressure on that), >this makes Word format a better choice than PDF. Not necessarily. Suppose you were working on a Unix box on the same network as your Windows box, and wanted to read the docs from there. A bit contrived? Perhaps. But my point is that there's no reason you should have to read documentation on the machine on which the application runs. -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-master.cisco.com!not-for-mail From: deborah@cisco.com (Deborah Gronke Bennett) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers Date: 04 Jun 1998 15:35:09 -0700 Organization: Cisco Systems, IOS Technology Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35716e60.25820515@news.intercomm.com> <6l4qv9$fo6$1@wombat.cs.monash.edu.au> <3575A70E.1795AD9A@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: deborah-ss20.cisco.com In-reply-to: Robert Billing's message of Wed, 03 Jun 1998 20:42:06 +0100 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.1 In article <3575A70E.1795AD9A@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> Robert Billing writes: > > > And of course, being a mono monitor, it doesn't have any "dot pitch" or > > other such nonsense, but simply one nice, homogenous phosphor. Why don't > > they make them anymore? > > I think they do, quite a lot of broadcast monitoring is done in > monochrome, for one thing it's easier to see sharpness. Certainly every > time I go in an OB van there are some monochrome monitors. I used to work for Ampex when it was a big power in the video industry. On one visit to a production studio, I asked why there was only one color monitor in the edit control room (where the clients reviewed material with the editors). The chief engineer told me it was to avoid having the client say something like "I'd like the blue letters like the blue on that monitor, and the green background like the green on that monitor over there". (It is very hard to color-match television monitors one to another.) In an OB (outside broadcast, what Americans call remote) van, it may also be because color television monitors subject to vibration go out of calibration and alignment more quickly than monochrome ones. -- Deborah Gronke Bennett System Software Engineer, IOS Technology deborah@cisco.com (408)-526-4000 Cisco Systems 170 West Tasman Dr., San Jose, CA 95134-1706 ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!24.128.1.125!chnws03.mediaone.net!24.131.128.14!elnws02.ce.mediaone.net!24.131.1.12!denws01.mw.mediaone.net!news.gmi.edu!nova.kettering.edu!lee1089 From: Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 18:08:17 -0400 Organization: Kettering University (formerly GMI E&MI) - Flint MI Lines: 86 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35758915.622207@news.prosurfr.com> <3577bd5f.3743202@news.innet.be> <3578cacc.2722725@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: nova.kettering.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <3578cacc.2722725@news.innet.be> On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Luc Van der Veken wrote: > told us > > > Of course, you've missed the whole point of Acrobat. PDF is portable > > document format, not editable document format. It was designed as a way to > > create a document and release it through the web and have it still look > > like the original no matter what platform or medium it's on at the moment. > > It's purpose is for you to *not* be able to change things. It's basically > > like a book. How many times have you asked someone at a bookstore to > > reformat a book from say, 5 by 8 to 8 1/2 by 11? That's what it was > > *designed* for. > > > (Of course the feature I miss is the print odd/even pages and print back > > to front for printing on both sides without a duplexer.) > > Did you never add your own notes in the margin of a book? > > Of course I knew what the P in PDF stands for, but (unless I > missed something vital in the PDF specifications) you seem to be > missing the point that Adobe is also selling "Acrobat" which > _does_ make it an editable document format. Acrobat Reader is > only the free reader companion, so it can best be compared to > MS's Wordview in that respect. That narrows the differences down > to PDF being supported on many more OSes. The purchase of Acrobat (not reader) can be likened to buying a press. If you had a press you could edit and publish any book any way you wanted. > You're partially right, however: I do believe to have read > somewhere that Acrobat's output can be locked however, > effectively disabling editing. Ultimately it would be the > publisher himself that decides whether you can edit it or not. > > And then, there's still a long way between editing and > formatting: just look at what your favourite browser does with > HTML files. The point is that PDF files are usually made to be like books. In other words your copy is exactly the same as everyone else's. It's the point behind the standard. > What you also seemed to miss (but a bit beside the point) is that > the document I was talking about didn't have to be portable at > all, because it was very specific about a piece of windows > software. It would still have to be portable. Not every PC has the same fonts. Of even the same programs. > What I was trying to say is that the disadvantages of Reader - > and the same for Wordview, for that matter - are that it's not > perfect for reading long documents onscreen, plus that I'd be a > lot happier if it had the capability of reformatting a document > so that it won't waste 50% of the paper you print it on. Make > that 75%: you're not the only one that would like to see it use > both sides of the sheets ;) Most PDF docs (or at least the ones I've seen) weren't meant for viewing large sections on screen. They were made to be printed. The publisher of your PDF file simply made a bad choice in paper sizes. > In word format (but, only on MS OSes), that's not so much of a > problem because there's WordPad that comes with the OS, and that > _is_ capable of reformatting. > > _For_documents_regarding_Windows_software_and_other_ > _windows-related_things_ (can't put enough pressure on that), > this makes Word format a better choice than PDF. For editing, yes. For turning out manuals, probably not. Again it's the book paradigm that Adobe is using. > For general use, PDF is still the choice because it writes > Portability with a boldface emphasized capital P. > For the time being that is, because both the Linux world _and_ > Microsoft, and maybe others too, are rapidly changing to HTML > format for docs. > > MS had to hide it in some form of archive of course, so you can > only use their own viewer, and you can't touch the actual HTML > code yourself, thereby depriving you of the possibility to add in > your own comments. Which is one reason I much prefer PDF to Word format. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ais.net!btnet-peer!btnet!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 18:19:42 GMT Organization: . Lines: 65 Message-ID: <3578cacc.2722725@news.innet.be> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35758915.622207@news.prosurfr.com> <3577bd5f.3743202@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool02b-194-7-226-228.uunet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes told us > Of course, you've missed the whole point of Acrobat. PDF is portable > document format, not editable document format. It was designed as a way to > create a document and release it through the web and have it still look > like the original no matter what platform or medium it's on at the moment. > It's purpose is for you to *not* be able to change things. It's basically > like a book. How many times have you asked someone at a bookstore to > reformat a book from say, 5 by 8 to 8 1/2 by 11? That's what it was > *designed* for. > (Of course the feature I miss is the print odd/even pages and print back > to front for printing on both sides without a duplexer.) Did you never add your own notes in the margin of a book? Of course I knew what the P in PDF stands for, but (unless I missed something vital in the PDF specifications) you seem to be missing the point that Adobe is also selling "Acrobat" which _does_ make it an editable document format. Acrobat Reader is only the free reader companion, so it can best be compared to MS's Wordview in that respect. That narrows the differences down to PDF being supported on many more OSes. You're partially right, however: I do believe to have read somewhere that Acrobat's output can be locked however, effectively disabling editing. Ultimately it would be the publisher himself that decides whether you can edit it or not. And then, there's still a long way between editing and formatting: just look at what your favourite browser does with HTML files. What you also seemed to miss (but a bit beside the point) is that the document I was talking about didn't have to be portable at all, because it was very specific about a piece of windows software. What I was trying to say is that the disadvantages of Reader - and the same for Wordview, for that matter - are that it's not perfect for reading long documents onscreen, plus that I'd be a lot happier if it had the capability of reformatting a document so that it won't waste 50% of the paper you print it on. Make that 75%: you're not the only one that would like to see it use both sides of the sheets ;) In word format (but, only on MS OSes), that's not so much of a problem because there's WordPad that comes with the OS, and that _is_ capable of reformatting. _For_documents_regarding_Windows_software_and_other_ _windows-related_things_ (can't put enough pressure on that), this makes Word format a better choice than PDF. For general use, PDF is still the choice because it writes Portability with a boldface emphasized capital P. For the time being that is, because both the Linux world _and_ Microsoft, and maybe others too, are rapidly changing to HTML format for docs. MS had to hide it in some form of archive of course, so you can only use their own viewer, and you can't touch the actual HTML code yourself, thereby depriving you of the possibility to add in your own comments. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!newsfeed.nacamar.de!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!krypton.inbe.net!INbe.net!not-for-mail From: lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 18:19:43 GMT Organization: . Message-ID: <357ae262.8760817@news.innet.be> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool02b-194-7-226-228.uunet.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Lines: 37 Marco S Hyman told us > nickb@primenet.com (Nick S Bensema) writes: > > > You guys at 1024x768... apparently your mindset is "Damn, this text isn't > > microscopic enough. If I could just get it down to the point where I > > We just use systems that let us pick and chose appropriate fonts for > the given screen resolution. Apparently you are used to something > like Windows which doesn't give you much choice. My wife uses windows > and won't go beyone 800x600 because the desktop it is too hard to read > even when using the `large' fonts. > > On the other hand I use 1280x1024 on my sun and just tell X to use a > font that I find readable at that resolution. Simple, no? No where > is it written that a larger resolution requires a smaller font? Windows offers a choice between "small" and "large" for quick changes in the "settings" tab, and allows you to completely customize your fonts (types, styles, sizes and colors) and other things, like icon spacing and background colors, in the "appearance" tab. Besides the 25 or so predefined ones, you can create as many new schemes as you want, save them, and switch between them when you feel like it - it's as easy as selecting "small" or "large". It will also, in the same schemes (at least NT will, I'm not sure about '95) let you rescale your icons in steps of 1 pixel in the range of 16x16 to 72x72. Will X let you do that? If it can, I'd like to know how (I haven't found out yet - but then I spend more time in windoze than in X ;) Luc. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!news.mindspring.net!news.mindspring.com!abuse From: abuse@orion-com.com (Joe Thompson) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 00:09:01 -0400 Organization: Orion Computer Consulting Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35758915.622207@news.prosurfr.com> <3577bd5f.3743202@news.innet.be> <3578cacc.2722725@news.innet.be> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-37kba95.dialup.mindspring.com X-Server-Date: 5 Jun 1998 04:06:58 GMT X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 In article <3578cacc.2722725@news.innet.be>, lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken) wrote: > _For_documents_regarding_Windows_software_and_other_ > _windows-related_things_ (can't put enough pressure on that), > this makes Word format a better choice than PDF. Then you would argue that information about Windows software is useless to non-PC users? You would be very wrong. For almost two years I did ISP tech support. Every day I had to do cross-platform support. Without the Web I would have gone insane. -- Joe -- Joe Thompson | By sending commercial | Tech support is a fine O- He-Who-Grinds- | e-mail, you agree to | art which, once mastered, the-Unworthy | pay US$1000.00/item. | ensures loss of sanity. http://kensey.home.mindspring.com/ - Electrify the gene pool's fence! ###### Message-ID: <35A51367.7092B783@danet.com> Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 15:00:56 -0400 From: "J. Benz" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: pc-135.danet.com Lines: 104 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!198.138.0.5!newshub.northeast.verio.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!news.nauticom.net!pc-135.danet.com What's the problem? Right now, I'm looking at a monitor set at 1280x1024. I'm sitting about 3 feet away, and can read quite clearly what I'm typing, in 12 pt font. The whole point of high-res is to enable you to fit more windows usefully on screen at the same time - right now, I can read info from 4 separate applications, all of which I refer to as I work. Perhaps if you are using a 10 inch screen, it might be a problem - don't know, I haven't used one of the old style tiny screens in a long time - the one I'm using is 19 inches diagonal. Actually, at this resolution and screen size, I would prefer to go even smaller in font size - the Sun workstations I worked with at other jobs made this PeeCee screen look sick - there, I could not only look at multiple windows, but the windows could all be doing something independently, and the screen could accomodate about 8 windows comfortably. With Microslop, only one window is actually able to process at a time, in most cases. I spend my full 8 hours a day looking at this, and rarely have a problem with eyestrain - and I too am somewhat visually impaired. Whenever I am forced to re-install Windoze, the default 640xwhatever screen that comes up is the first thing I reset - it reminds me too much of my old 6502 based Atari. My system at home is set at 1152 - but that's just because I mostly use it for games and such, and not for programming or other work, so I don't care - if I did, I would set it at 1280 too. Nick S Bensema wrote: > At the network party today, a friend of mine was complaining about his > monitor. He says it's fine in 1024x768, but at 1152x999 it becomes > blurry. (or whatever the vertical res is; they just called it 1152 > as if everyone used it) > > Now..... > > You guys at 1024x768... apparently your mindset is "Damn, this text isn't > microscopic enough. If I could just get it down to the point where I > can fit my e-mail address on the head of a pin, I'll be cool..." So you > invented 1152. Is there anyone out there who can look at identical > pictures scaled to 1152 and 1024 and be able to tell the difference? > Perhaps the only difference is more microscopic text. Hell, maybe > the reason the monitor was blurry was because human eyesight, even > of a normal fully-able sober 20-year-old college student, does NOT > GO THAT DAMN HIGH. > > Now, I don't know why people want to get their resolution up that high. > Perhaps it's because I'm visually impaired and can only work comfortably > on a 640x480 screen. And small fonts aren't a picnic on 640, either. > I consider myself lucky to have 640 to fall back on; for now. But I > fear the day where I am put in a workplace environment and have to > deal with people and their 1024 screens. > > And I know some people find this hard to read. Otherwise, books > and newspapers would be printed in 5-point text. And some people > at that party commented, as I was struggling with a computer who > was at 1024 on a 15-inch monitor, at how small the text was. I > was typing pretty much blind on Notepad; I could read it if I got > up to, like, three or four inches from the monitor. The sad thing > is, in Notepad you can't change the font. Furthermore, in a lot > of dialog boxes, not only can you NOT change the font anywhere, > BUT the default font is something that's even smaller than the > Notepad font. > > How close do you have to get to a monitor before you can read it? > > Intel boxes aren't alone, or at least weren't in 1993. That year, > I saw Macintoshes with GARGANTUAN MONITORS at a school for the > blind. Apparently they bought the monitors thinking the text would > be easier to read. No. Apparently Macs at the time were programmed > to that no matter how big your monitor was, Chicago 14 would always > be the same size. So now you have people five inches from the > screen who have to physically move their head all over the place. > > With this kind of thinking, no wonder most people refer to RealVideo > as "on a postage stamp". I've seen DOS boxes open on 1024 screens > the size that a RealVideo clip would be on mine. > > I remember reading on Usenet about the 4096x4096 display. What the > HELL is that like? > > No wonder people are suffering eyestrain after years of computer > use. Is there going to be a point at which people decide they want > to put things on the screen that are as large, at least, as it would > be on paper? > > Actually, the current default font in Microsoft Word is 10-point, > which is smaller than most typewriter or dot-matrix fonts I've been > exposed to. Maybe newspapers are that small, but most everything > else I've seen looks bigger unless it's something the advertiser > wants you to ignore. So now Microsoft has effectively bumped down > the standard for paper text sizes. > > I remember discovering that EGA and VGA cards could utilize 43- > and 50-line modes. I remember seeing a lot of utilities released > to take advantage of it. And I remember nobody I knew ever used > them, ever. 25 lines was enough; it wasn't worth shrinking the > text. What happened to those days? > > I can accept that 1024x768 resolution is an improvement upon 800x600 > in terms of clarity, and may be necessary in some cases for things > like ... well, it's got to be necessary for something. But I'd > like someone to point out to me why 1152 is NOT excessive. > > -- > Nick Bensema 98-KUPD Red Card #710563 UIN: 2135445 > ~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ###### Message-ID: <35A514AE.8F0B248@danet.com> Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 15:06:22 -0400 From: "J. Benz" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35716e60.25820515@news.intercomm.com> <6l4qv9$fo6$1@wombat.cs.monash.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: pc-135.danet.com Lines: 24 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!bignews.mediaways.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!news.nauticom.net!pc-135.danet.com They do - but they have to be special-ordered. Most folks today want color. bmeyer@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au wrote: > bdb@GTS.Net (Bruce Becker) writes: > > > I use a 1600 x 1280 19" mono monitor - it's > > extremely useful to have a lot of screen real > > estate to work with multiple windows which are > > open to various functions or remote systems... > > And of course, being a mono monitor, it doesn't have any "dot pitch" or > other such nonsense, but simply one nice, homogenous phosphor. Why don't > they make them anymore? > > Bernie > -- > ============================================================================ > "It's a magical world, Hobbes ol' buddy... > ...let's go exploring" > Calvin's final words, on December 31st, 1995 ###### From: daled@cds10832.Cadence.COM (Dale DePriest) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 9 Jul 1998 21:00:08 GMT Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc Lines: 159 Distribution: world Message-ID: <6o3b0o$l$1@news.cadence.com> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35A51367.7092B783@danet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cds10832.cadence.com Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news1.best.com!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!howland.erols.net!worldfeed.gte.net!news.airnews.net!cabal11.airnews.net!news.cadence.com!cds10832.Cadence.COM!daled In article <35A51367.7092B783@danet.com>, "J. Benz" writes: |> What's the problem? Right now, I'm looking at a monitor set at 1280x1024. |> I'm sitting about 3 feet away, and can read quite clearly what I'm typing, |> in |> 12 pt font. The whole point of high-res is to enable you to fit more |> windows |> usefully on screen at the same time - right now, I can read info from 4 Actually that is only one of the points of high resolution screens. |> separate applications, all of which I refer to as I work. Perhaps if you |> are |> using a 10 inch screen, it might be a problem - don't know, I haven't used |> one |> of the old style tiny screens in a long time - the one I'm using is 19 |> inches |> diagonal. Actually, at this resolution and screen size, I would prefer to |> go |> even smaller in font size - the Sun workstations I worked with at other jobs |> made this PeeCee screen look sick - there, I could not only look at multiple |> windows, but the windows could all be doing something independently, and the |> screen could accomodate about 8 windows comfortably. With Microslop, only |> one |> window is actually able to process at a time, in most cases. I spend my |> full |> 8 hours a day looking at this, and rarely have a problem with eyestrain - |> and |> I too am somewhat visually impaired. Whenever I am forced to re-install |> Windoze, the default 640xwhatever screen that comes up is the first thing I |> reset - it reminds me too much of my old 6502 based Atari. My system at |> home |> is set at 1152 - but that's just because I mostly use it for games and such, |> and not for programming or other work, so I don't care - if I did, I would |> set |> it at 1280 too. |> |> Nick S Bensema wrote: |> |> > At the network party today, a friend of mine was complaining about his |> > monitor. He says it's fine in 1024x768, but at 1152x999 it becomes |> > blurry. (or whatever the vertical res is; they just called it 1152 |> > as if everyone used it) It is usually about 900 or on some systems 826. This particular resolution is designed to efficently use 1 Meg of memory or multiples thereof. The idea of geting to a vertical resolution of 900-1000 is to get to the point of being about to see one full piece of paper on the screen so that you can see what it will look like when printed. WYSIWYG. |> > |> > Now..... |> > |> > You guys at 1024x768... apparently your mindset is "Damn, this text isn't |> > microscopic enough. If I could just get it down to the point where I Why don't we still use 9-pin printers. It is not the size of the text but the looks of the text that becomes important. When 300 dpi printers appeared the text didn't get smaller, just more readable. |> > can fit my e-mail address on the head of a pin, I'll be cool..." So you |> > invented 1152. Is there anyone out there who can look at identical |> > pictures scaled to 1152 and 1024 and be able to tell the difference? |> > Perhaps the only difference is more microscopic text. Hell, maybe |> > the reason the monitor was blurry was because human eyesight, even |> > of a normal fully-able sober 20-year-old college student, does NOT |> > GO THAT DAMN HIGH. Still using a 8x8 font on your screen are you. No wonder you want 640x200 screens like the good old days. On my system the font gets more readable at higher resolution rather than smaller. (I pick a larger font.) |> > Now, I don't know why people want to get their resolution up that high. |> > Perhaps it's because I'm visually impaired and can only work comfortably |> > on a 640x480 screen. And small fonts aren't a picnic on 640, either. |> > I consider myself lucky to have 640 to fall back on; for now. But I |> > fear the day where I am put in a workplace environment and have to |> > deal with people and their 1024 screens. |> > |> > And I know some people find this hard to read. Otherwise, books |> > and newspapers would be printed in 5-point text. And some people |> > at that party commented, as I was struggling with a computer who |> > was at 1024 on a 15-inch monitor, at how small the text was. I |> > was typing pretty much blind on Notepad; I could read it if I got |> > up to, like, three or four inches from the monitor. The sad thing |> > is, in Notepad you can't change the font. Furthermore, in a lot this is a problem and I hate it when someone dictates the font size for an html document and picks one that only looks good on a 640x480 screen. I can't read it either. The notepad is a hold over from an earlier time. In X-windows on Unix the font size is almost always selectable by the user in good applications. |> > of dialog boxes, not only can you NOT change the font anywhere, |> > BUT the default font is something that's even smaller than the |> > Notepad font. |> > |> > How close do you have to get to a monitor before you can read it? |> > |> > Intel boxes aren't alone, or at least weren't in 1993. That year, |> > I saw Macintoshes with GARGANTUAN MONITORS at a school for the |> > blind. Apparently they bought the monitors thinking the text would |> > be easier to read. No. Apparently Macs at the time were programmed |> > to that no matter how big your monitor was, Chicago 14 would always |> > be the same size. So now you have people five inches from the |> > screen who have to physically move their head all over the place. |> > |> > With this kind of thinking, no wonder most people refer to RealVideo |> > as "on a postage stamp". I've seen DOS boxes open on 1024 screens |> > the size that a RealVideo clip would be on mine. |> > |> > I remember reading on Usenet about the 4096x4096 display. What the |> > HELL is that like? It should show really good pictures! This is another real advantage of high resoultion. Graphic pictures in a 640x480 screen are terrible. |> > |> > No wonder people are suffering eyestrain after years of computer |> > use. Is there going to be a point at which people decide they want |> > to put things on the screen that are as large, at least, as it would |> > be on paper? I would agree. What is the resolution of paper? Standard type fonts are more that 1000 lines per inch. |> > |> > Actually, the current default font in Microsoft Word is 10-point, |> > which is smaller than most typewriter or dot-matrix fonts I've been The default is made to work on 640x480 displays because that is what it says on the box. I never use the default. |> > exposed to. Maybe newspapers are that small, but most everything |> > else I've seen looks bigger unless it's something the advertiser |> > wants you to ignore. So now Microsoft has effectively bumped down |> > the standard for paper text sizes. |> > |> > I remember discovering that EGA and VGA cards could utilize 43- |> > and 50-line modes. I remember seeing a lot of utilities released |> > to take advantage of it. And I remember nobody I knew ever used |> > them, ever. 25 lines was enough; it wasn't worth shrinking the |> > text. What happened to those days? |> > |> > I can accept that 1024x768 resolution is an improvement upon 800x600 |> > in terms of clarity, and may be necessary in some cases for things |> > like ... well, it's got to be necessary for something. But I'd Like pictures and mutiple windows. |> > like someone to point out to me why 1152 is NOT excessive. Like viewing a full page of text before printing. Like maps and many other graphic applications. Not everyone uses a computer for a word processor. -- _ _ Dale DePriest San Jose, California /`) _ // daled@Cadence.COM voice: (408) 428-5249 o/_/ (_(_X_(` ISO 9000 Program Manager fax: (408) 894-3484 ###### From: "Riboflavin" Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:49:39 -0400 Organization: Snake Knotting Inc. Lines: 12 Message-ID: <6o46o2$u20$2@camel18.mindspring.com> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35A51367.7092B783@danet.com> <6o3b0o$l$1@news.cadence.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-38ldd0o.dialup.mindspring.com X-Server-Date: 10 Jul 1998 04:53:22 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.221.240.3!beaker.tor.sfl.net!news.rdc1.on.wave.home.com!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!firehose.mindspring.net!news.mindspring.com!not-for-mail Dale DePriest wrote in message <6o3b0o$l$1@news.cadence.com>... >Actually that is only one of the points of high resolution screens. Dude, who cares about one freakin' point on a high resolution screen? My screen has like 785432 points on it right now, and I don't pay attention to one lone point. This doesn't make any sense at all. -- Kevin Allegood ribotrousers@mindspring.pants.com Remove the pants from my email address to reply. "It's not the heat; it's the stupidity." Joe Bay ###### From: wiss@unx.nu ("Jonas Wissting") Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 01:30:12 +0200 Organization: Algonet/Tninet Lines: 18 Message-ID: <5qj3o6.re2.ln@pluten.home> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35A51367.7092B783@danet.com> <6o3b0o$l$1@news.cadence.com> Reply-To: "wiss@swipnet.se" NNTP-Posting-Host: du134-155.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.8 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.algonet.se!pepsi.tninet.se!pluten.home!nobody In article <6o3b0o$l$1@news.cadence.com>, daled@cds10832.Cadence.COM (Dale DePriest) writes: .... .... >|> > Actually, the current default font in Microsoft Word is 10-point, >|> > which is smaller than most typewriter or dot-matrix fonts I've been > > The default is made to work on 640x480 displays because that is what > it says on the box. I never use the default. Is not point a unit of length? like 72.27 pt/in. And point!=pixel Jonas -- http://wiss.unx.nu http://linux.unx.nu ###### From: deke.spamblock@generous.net Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 06:07:28 GMT Organization: GenerousCity is a virtue - find romance at http://generous.net Lines: 39 Message-ID: <35a5ac27.3289764@news.bright.net> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35A51367.7092B783@danet.com> <6o3b0o$l$1@news.cadence.com> <5qj3o6.re2.ln@pluten.home> NNTP-Posting-Host: paul-cas1-cs-36.dial.bright.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news2.ais.net!ais.net!NewsNG.Chicago.Qual.Net!jamie!Qual.Net!news.bright.net!not-for-mail On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 01:30:12 +0200, wiss@unx.nu ("Jonas Wissting") wrote: >Is not point a unit of length? like 72.27 pt/in. >And point!=pixel I knew that it wasn't *exactly* 72 point to the inch, just from looking at my Gaebel line gage, but I didn't know how many there were. With lead type, the size of a type font is the height of the block of metal (typically lead, but they use steel type for some things, like making rubber stamps), and consequently, it is a smidgeon greater than the distance from the top of the highest ascender to the bottom of the deepest descender. Two fonts may appear to be the same size, visually, when the height of the letter 'x' is the same (or, for all caps, when the letters 'X' are the same height), but may have significantly different size specifications. When you were trying to fit type into a given space, it was really important to know how many lines to the inch you got. These days, with computer typesetting and plain-paper output, it isn't a big deal to play around with the type size once you are done, to tweak the copy fitting. Any assertion that a computer font is so many points is simply an approximation. As such, it would probably be more useful to develop a new size measure based on the x-body height. But until word processors start offering the option to use "10 point type with two points leading" instead of variations of the old typewriter-based "double spacing", measuring the size of typefonts is pretty "pointless" Deke Arrow, let's go play "triangle toss!" "Bark" (which means "Okay, Ooblio!") ---- Nice Guys. Not Married. And they like women with curves. Sound like you? Join us at GenerousCity. Search the profiles. Talk on our Discussion list, or join us for live chat. And you *never* pay anything. http://generous.net ###### From: Dan Strychalski Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 10 Jul 1998 15:08:08 GMT Organization: Cameo Communications, Inc. Lines: 29 Message-ID: <6o5aoo$puj$1@news.seed.net.tw> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.72.104.4 Originator: dski@ Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!news.idt.net!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!howland.erols.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!spring.edu.tw!feeder.seed.net.tw!news.seed.net.tw!!dski -- From deke.spamblock@generous.net came -- > > Is not point a unit of length? like 72.27 pt/in. > > And point!=pixel > > I knew that it wasn't *exactly* 72 point to the inch, just from looking at > my Gaebel line gage, but I didn't know how many there were. Adobe has decreed that a point in microcomputer-based typesetting shall be exactly 1/72 inch, and all the self-styled DTP gurus I've met or read now obediently say a point is exactly 1/72 inch. Adobe has also decreed that the word _leading_ shall denote not extra space between lines, over and above the nominal point size of the font, but the distance between baselines, and all the self-styled DTP gurus I've met or read now obediently say _leading_ means the distance between baselines. Others may have noticed that corporations are trying to get us into the habit of saying the xxx command is _on_ the yyy menu instead of _in_ the yyy menu. *Ptooey*. Oh, yeah -- high resolution trends. I expect my next monitor to be monochrome and to measure nine inches diagonally. I will not check the dot pitch or the "resolution," and I will use the monitor almost exclusively in text mode. When a decent GUI comes out, maybe I'll reconsider. I won't hold my breath. Dan Strychalski dski at cameonet, cameo, com, tw (no _x_) ###### From: "Sami Rosenblad" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 10 Jul 98 18:57:19 +0300 Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <35a5ac27.3289764@news.bright.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lug3mac.janton.fi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Cyberdog/2.0 X-News-Servers: news.kolumbus.fi X-Newsgroups-TO: nntp://news.kolumbus.fi/alt.folklore.computers Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-fra.maz.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!masternews.telia.net!news-stkh.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.kolumbus.fi!not-for-mail > On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 01:30:12 +0200, wiss@unx.nu ("Jonas Wissting") wrote: > > >Is not point a unit of length? like 72.27 pt/in. > >And point!=pixel > > I knew that it wasn't *exactly* 72 point to the inch, just from looking at my > Gaebel line gage, but I didn't know how many there were. The original typographical point was indeed 1/72.27th of an inch. Postscript technology effectively changed that to exactly 72 points per inch. Some DTP packages (like QuarkXPress) allow you to specify arbitrary definitions for 1 point, which may be valuable if you want to match your Postscript output to older analog drum scanners, like Screen. Macintosh monitors that are not multisync, default to 72 ppi display, i.e. the default resolution for 16" monitors is 832x624, for 19" it's 1024x768, and 20", 1152x870. That's only one of the points that clearly show the prepress background of the Mac. [snipola] -- Blade on bungie.net ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 10 Jul 1998 21:34:47 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <35a5ac27.3289764@news.bright.net> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 "Sami Rosenblad" writes: > Macintosh monitors that are not multisync, default to 72 ppi display, i.e. > the default resolution for 16" monitors is 832x624, for 19" it's 1024x768, > and 20", 1152x870. That's only one of the points that clearly show the > prepress background of the Mac. Of course 800x600 on 15", 1152x864 on 17" and 1536x1152 on 21" give a nice 96 pixel/inch which with an 16x8 pixel font gives you the same 12pt height with an 33% finer writing. Neil "Monitors below 21" or below 96pixel/inch suck" Franklin -- private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you ###### From: abuse@orion-com.com (Joe Thompson) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 03:29:32 -0400 Organization: Orion Computer Consulting Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35A51367.7092B783@danet.com> <6o3b0o$l$1@news.cadence.com> <5qj3o6.re2.ln@pluten.home> <35a5ac27.3289764@news.bright.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-37kba87.dialup.mindspring.com X-Server-Date: 11 Jul 1998 07:23:52 GMT X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.229.87.25!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!207.69.200.14!firehose.mindspring.net!news.mindspring.com!abuse In article <35a5ac27.3289764@news.bright.net>, deke.spamblock@generous.net wrote: > Any assertion that a computer font is so many points is simply an > approximation. As such, it would probably be more useful to develop a new > size measure based on the x-body height. But until word processors start > offering the option to use "10 point type with two points leading" instead of > variations of the old typewriter-based "double spacing", measuring the size of > typefonts is pretty "pointless" My word processing software has done exactly this for years. -- Joe -- Joe Thompson | Tanuki on spammers: "...the freezer is full, and the abuse@orion-com.com | body in the bathtub is starting to decompose." http://kensey.home.mindspring.com/ : O- He-Who-Grinds-the-Unworthy Support evolution! Electrify the gene pool's fence! ###### From: dumple@execpc.com (Stephen Will Tanner) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 04:26:56 GMT Organization: Angel's Jukebox Lines: 45 Message-ID: <6o6jgj$8tt@newsops.execpc.com> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35A51367.7092B783@danet.com> <6o3b0o$l$1@news.cadence.com> <6o46o2$u20$2@camel18.mindspring.com> Reply-To: dumple@execpc.com NNTP-Posting-Host: galaan-10.mdm.mad.execpc.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: daily-planet.newsops.execpc.com 900125011 9149 (None) 169.207.40.75 X-Complaints-To: abuse@execpc.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!newsops.execpc.com!posts.execpc.com!daily-planet.newsops.execpc.com!usenet On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:49:39 -0400, "Riboflavin" wrote: >Dale DePriest wrote in message <6o3b0o$l$1@news.cadence.com>... >>Actually that is only one of the points of high resolution screens. > >Dude, who cares about one freakin' point on a high resolution screen? My >screen has like 785432 points on it right now, ^^^^^^ Your random number wasn't very random. Have a better one ready if you ever lie to the police. Not that I condone lawbreaking. I'm a good citizen! I pay my taxes! Sure, these videos are storebought! really! the, uh, labels fell off. >and I don't pay attention to one lone point. This doesn't make any sense >at all. It's important to ME. And I'll tell you WHY. You know those little desk-toy blunt-needle sculpture blocks? The kind that you can smoosh your hand into? They look like beds of nails for Yoga action figures? (Or interrogation devices. "WHERE IS GI JOE'S SECRET BASE? TALK, OR WE'LL PUT YOU ON THE TURNTABLE AGAIN!") Anyway, I turned one of those into a peripheral for my pc. My monitor displays braille AND normal text, and I have to wear protective goggles to look at porn. One blinking pixel in the wrong place, and suddenly my jewelry possibilities start EXPANDING. They should make TVs with screens on all six sides, so that everyone could watch their favorite show. Even Fido. (woof! from under the coffee table) /---------\I was born as 1/2 of a/---------\ //---------\\pair of Siamese twins//---------\\ /// \\\joined at the hair./// \\\ {___} {___}A heroic barber{___} {___} | | saved our lives | | \___/ \___/and did not even\___/ \___/ | | charge us for | | | | two cuts. | | \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ ###### From: Pete Fenelon Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 09:34:07 +0100 Message-ID: References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35A51367.7092B783@danet.com> <6o3b0o$l$1@news.cadence.com> <5qj3o6.re2.ln@pluten.home> <35a5ac27.3289764@news.bright.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-045.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: roch.zetnet.co.uk 900232447 29399 194.247.41.56 (12 Jul 1998 08:34:07 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Jul 1998 08:34:07 GMT User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-980226 (UNIX) (Linux/2.0.32 (i586)) Lines: 14 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!btnet-peer!btnet!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail Joe Thompson wrote: >> variations of the old typewriter-based "double spacing", measuring the size of >> typefonts is pretty "pointless" > My word processing software has done exactly this for years. -- Joe Mine too. Even Windows programs can manage it. I was doing 10-on-12pt, 12-on-14 and a number of others in troff long before any mainstream GUI programs could manage it ;) pete -- Pete Fenelon, 3 Beckside Gardens, York, YO10 3TX, UK (pete.fenelon@zetnet.co.uk) ``there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas'' ###### From: p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz (Peter Kerr) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 13 Jul 1998 01:07:31 GMT Organization: School of Music University of Auckland Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <35a5ac27.3289764@news.bright.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p.kerr.mus.auckland.ac.nz X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b6 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!203.97.37.7!newsfeed.clear.net.nz!clear.net.nz!auckland.ac.nz!p.kerr "Sami Rosenblad" wrote: > The original typographical point was indeed 1/72.27th of an inch. > Postscript technology effectively changed that to exactly 72 points snip This topic flares up regularly on comp.lang.postscript. Whose inch is it 1/72.27 of, and when? And Adobe never claimed to have changed anything, not even redefined(TM) like a certain other co, they said the PostScript point = 1/72 inch, leaving the hotmetal fellers with all their measures intact. -- Peter Kerr bodger School of Music chandler University of Auckland NZ neo-Luddite ###### From: daled@cds10832.Cadence.COM (Dale DePriest) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 13 Jul 1998 16:07:51 GMT Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc Lines: 19 Distribution: world Message-ID: <6odbcn$bfh$5@news.cadence.com> References: <6kr511$ddn@nntp02.primenet.com> <35A51367.7092B783@danet.com> <6o3b0o$l$1@news.cadence.com> <6o46o2$u20$2@camel18.mindspring.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cds10832.cadence.com Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!newsfeed.nyu.edu!wesley.videotron.net!Pollux.Teleglobe.net!uunet!in5.uu.net!news.cadence.com!cds10832.Cadence.COM!daled In article <6o46o2$u20$2@camel18.mindspring.com>, "Riboflavin" writes: |> Dale DePriest wrote in message <6o3b0o$l$1@news.cadence.com>... |> >Actually that is only one of the points of high resolution screens. |> |> Dude, who cares about one freakin' point on a high resolution screen? My |> screen has like 785432 points on it right now, and I don't pay attention to |> one lone point. This doesn't make any sense at all. |> -- |> Kevin Allegood ribotrousers@mindspring.pants.com |> Remove the pants from my email address to reply. |> "It's not the heat; it's the stupidity." Joe Bay |> |> So what's your point? -- _ _ Dale DePriest San Jose, California /`) _ // daled@Cadence.COM voice: (408) 428-5249 o/_/ (_(_X_(` ISO 9000 Program Manager fax: (408) 894-3484 ###### From: Dan Strychalski Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 14 Jul 1998 02:50:24 GMT Organization: Cameo Communications, Inc. Lines: 39 Message-ID: <6oeh1g$k9$1@news.seed.net.tw> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.72.104.4 Originator: dski@ Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.cetlink.net!serv.hinet.net!spring.edu.tw!feeder.seed.net.tw!news.seed.net.tw!!dski Quoting deke.spamblock@generous.net, Joe Thompson (abuse@orion-com.com) wrote in : >> Any assertion that a computer font is so many points is simply an >> approximation. As such, it would probably be more useful to develop a >> new size measure based on the x-body height. But until word processors >> start offering the option to use "10 point type with two points >> leading" instead of variations of the old typewriter-based "double >> spacing", measuring the size of typefonts is pretty "pointless" > > My word processing software has done exactly this for years. -- Joe Back in the days of daisy-wheel printers (late 70s and early 80s), when software could control line height but not font selection (you had to pause the printer and change the wheel for that), the best-selling small-office word processor let you set line height in units of 1/48 inch. This made sense: that was the smallest distance those printers could move the paper up or down (VMI, Vertical Motion Index; I think HMI was usually 1/120 inch). Pretty weird, huh -- software using not inches, centimeters, or points, but units that reflect the physical capabilities of the output device. Then 300 and 600-dpi laser printers became the norm, and what was for several years the best-selling mass-market word processor let you set line height (and leading, and a slew of other parameters) in units of 1/1200 inch, so you could always use settings that translated into an exact number of pixels -- and it was always *right on the button*. I, for one, made good use of that, and thought, "Wow! This is PROGRESS!" Nowadays, of course, most of us are required to use software that lets us input settings in inches, centimeters, or points only. And many of us -- even many who consider themselves DTP professionals -- just drag the tabs on the ruler, further limiting ourselves to screen resolution and whatever step size the program comes set for. Goodbye, progress. Dan Strychalski dski at cameonet, cameo, com, tw (no _x_) ###### From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 15 Jul 1998 18:52:15 GMT Message-ID: <6oitov$mfq$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <6o5aoo$puj$1@news.seed.net.tw> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-070.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Trace: irk.zetnet.co.uk 900528735 23034 194.247.41.87 (15 Jul 1998 18:52:15 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Jul 1998 18:52:15 GMT X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X Lines: 46 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!ibm.net!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail On 1998-07-10 dski@cameonet.cameo.com.twx said: :Adobe has decreed that a point in microcomputer-based typesetting :shall be exactly 1/72 inch, and all the self-styled DTP gurus I've :met or read now obediently say a point is exactly 1/72 inch. Adobe :has also decreed that the word _leading_ shall denote not extra :space between lines, over and above the nominal point size of the :font, but the distance between baselines, and all the self-styled :DTP gurus I've met or read now obediently say _leading_ means the :distance between baselines. I've started seeing, even in fictional publications, things saying "typeset in 10/11pt Palatino", or the like. Thus, it's logical to assume the leading is 11pt - even if it is wrong. (I'd agree with you, and say there's 1pt of leading in that case.) On the other hand, 72pt = 1in precisely does fit in better with most computer technology (you can actually get an exact 1pt multiple on a 360dpi printer, rather than having to wuzzle around it). :Others may have noticed that corporations are trying to get us into :the habit of saying the xxx command is _on_ the yyy menu instead of :_in_ the yyy menu. Well, maybe they're just spending too much of your money in their local restaurants. :> :Oh, yeah -- high resolution trends. I expect my next monitor to be :monochrome and to measure nine inches diagonally. I will not check :the dot pitch or the "resolution," and I will use the monitor almost :exclusively in text mode. When a decent GUI comes out, maybe I'll :reconsider. I won't hold my breath. I WANT ONE!!! Small monitors aid system portability, and they are also delightfully cute. :> This is a 12" (text mode), and it's still too big for me. On the other hand, my 15" at work is too small, unless I maximise all windows and pretend I'm using a task switcher - then it's too big again. (Also, I find white on black much more readable in radiative displays.) But as for monochrome - well, you can't do ColorFORTH on it... :> -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. References: <35a5ac27.3289764@news.bright.net> Organization: Plethora . Net - More Net, Less Spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test62 (21 February 1998) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Lines: 23 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 03:36:55 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.166.146.8 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:36:55 CDT Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!ptah.visi.com!not-for-mail In article , Peter Kerr wrote: >This topic flares up regularly on comp.lang.postscript. >Whose inch is it 1/72.27 of, and when? I thought "inch" was fairly well defined. And I seem to recall that the 72.27 was only an approximation... >And Adobe never claimed to have >changed anything, not even redefined(TM) like a certain other co, they >said the PostScript point = 1/72 inch, leaving the hotmetal fellers with >all their measures intact. Well, yes, but it's pretty irritating to have two measures of typeface size both called "points" which are different sizes, and you get any number of people who believe that "a point is 1/72 inch" exactly and in all cases. -s -- Copyright '98, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Not speaking for my employer. Questions on C/Unix? Send mail for help. Visit my new ISP --- More Net, Less Spam! ###### From: Ian Stirling <000035ADBF53.NO_UCE@mauve.demon.co.uk> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 09:52:36 +0100 Organization: None. Message-ID: <000035ADBF53.NO_UCE@mauve.demon.co.uk> References: <35a5ac27.3289764@news.bright.net> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 900607155 mail2news:16396 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!post-11.mail.demon.net!post.mail.demon.net![158.152.209.66]!mauve.demon.co.uk User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-971106 (UNIX) (Linux/2.0.34 (i586)) X-Note: Anti-UCE in effect, replying should work if you are not UCE'ng X-Warning0: For unsolicited commercial email, sent or causing to be sent to my email address X-Warning1: on this message, I reserve the right to levy a charge for my time and expenses X-Warning2: of up to 100 pounds sterling per message, plus legal, penalty or other costs. Lines: 20 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!btnet-peer!btnet!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Peter Seebach wrote: : In article , : Peter Kerr wrote: :>This topic flares up regularly on comp.lang.postscript. :>Whose inch is it 1/72.27 of, and when? : I thought "inch" was fairly well defined. And I seem to recall that the IIRC it's been defined as 25.4mm I have an old book listing it as 25.438mm, however, as it was aimed at 10 year olds, I'm unsure if it was accurate, anyway, the results of a thread on rec.crafts.metalworking was that it's now 25.4mm. : 72.27 was only an approximation... -- See http://www.mauve.demon.co.uk/ |Linux PDA, cheap electronics/PC bits sale. See_header,_for_UCE_policy___________|_____________________________Ian_Stirling. What a wonderfull world it is that has girls in it! Robert A Heinlein. ###### From: wiss@unx.nu ("Jonas Wissting") Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 18:06:51 +0200 Organization: Algonet/Tninet Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <35a5ac27.3289764@news.bright.net> Reply-To: "wiss@swipnet.se" NNTP-Posting-Host: du219-155.ppp.algonet.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.8 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!bignews.mediaways.net!news-lond.gip.net!news-stkh.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!pepsi.tninet.se!pluten.home!nobody In article , seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) writes: ... > I thought "inch" was fairly well defined. And I seem to recall that the > 72.27 was only an approximation... def: 1pt=0.013837in (-> 72.2700007227(...?) pt/in) The TeXbook Jonas -- http://wiss.unx.nu http://linux.unx.nu ###### From: Shez@sv.span.junkblok.com (Shez) Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: Sun, 19 Jul 98 21:37:30 GMT Organization: Theorem 1 Message-ID: <900909450snx@sv.span.junkblok.com> References: <6o5aoo$puj$1@news.seed.net.tw> <6oitov$mfq$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 900928139 mail2news:22442 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!post-12.mail.demon.net!post.mail.demon.net![158.152.9.124] X-Poster: RAID@span.com, Sound & Vision Internet BBS [+44] (0)181-288-8444 Lines: 27 Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!btnet-peer!btnet!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail In article <6oitov$mfq$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> lisard@zetnet.co.uk writes: | | I've started seeing, even in fictional publications, Yes but what about real publications? | things saying | "typeset in 10/11pt Palatino", or the like. Thus, it's logical to assume | the leading is 11pt - even if it is wrong. Books have always expressed the size & leading in that manner in my experience, at least they used to back in the days when they actually credited the typeface and size. Nowadays hardly any books do. If the desktop publishing revolution is giving people pride in the fonts they use so that they start listing them again, that can only be to the good. -Shez. _________________________________________________________________________ We had to pulp an entire run of our environmentally friendly greetings cards, as they hadn't been printed on recycled paper. You have no idea how many memos I had to send out telling everyone we'd done this. -- Dell, in Caroline In The City _________________________________________________________________________ If replying by email delete .junkblok from address ###### From: brian@karoshi.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 20 Jul 1998 09:06:14 -0700 Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. Lines: 32 Message-ID: <6ovptm$qfa@karoshi.ucsd.edu> References: <6ov76c$823$1@news.seed.net.tw> NNTP-Posting-Host: karoshi.ucsd.edu Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!awabi.library.ucla.edu!132.239.1.220!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news1.ucsd.edu!karoshi.ucsd.edu!not-for-mail In addition to the Chicago Manual, I find _Words Into Type_[1] to be a most helpful manual when preparing text for formal publication. I believe that anyone who writes for publication should consider this a must for their profession. Regarding leading, it says "When matter is to be leaded, it is specifically noted on the type specifications, as 9 on 11 (i.e., 9-point type with 2-point leading; often written 9/11)." There is also reference there to Sir Cyril Burt's _Psychological Study of Typography_ of which I was not previously aware, and which intrigues me - I'll have to go look that up. "In terms of type size, he found that the amount of leading needed related to the actual rather than the point size of the type, and determined that leading about one and one-half times the x-height provided good legibility. Thus, while for most 8-, 9-, or 10-point type, 2-point leading may be desireable, for some ''small'' typefaces in this range 1-point leading may be sufficient.... In most cases, leading of more than 3 points with a conventional type size cut down on legibility." And in fact, 9/11 or 10/12 are the sizes and spacings I tend to prefer for laser printer output for reproduction. The campus' Linotype phototypesetter did a marvelous job with 9/11. - Brian [1] Skillin, Marjorie E., _Words Into Type_, Prentice-Hall, 1974, pp 243 ###### From: Dan Strychalski Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: High resolution trends. Date: 20 Jul 1998 10:46:36 GMT Organization: Cameo Communications, Inc. Lines: 34 Message-ID: <6ov76c$823$1@news.seed.net.tw> NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.72.104.4 Originator: dski@ Path: ccw.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!spring.edu.tw!feeder.seed.net.tw!news.seed.net.tw!!dski In , Shez (Shez@sv.span.junkblok.com) quoted Communa (lisard@zetnet.co.uk) and responded.... > In article <6oitov$mfq$4@irk.zetnet.co.uk> lisard@zetnet.co.uk writes: > >| I've started seeing, even in fictional publications, > > Yes but what about real publications? > >| things saying "typeset in 10/11pt Palatino", or the like. Thus, it's >| logical to assume the leading is 11pt - even if it is wrong. > > Books have always expressed the size & leading in that manner in my > experience, at least they used to back in the days when they actually > credited the typeface and size. Nowadays hardly any books do. If the > desktop publishing revolution is giving people pride in the fonts they > use so that they start listing them again, that can only be to the good. ``If 2 points of leading are wanted between lines of a 10-point Linotype face, the usual designation is _10 on 12_ (10-point typeface cast on a 12-point body). In Monotype or handset type, the usual designation is _10 pt. ld. 2_, because, generally, separate leads are inserted between lines.'' Source: The University of Chicago Press, _A Manual of Style_, 12th Edition, Revised. Copyright 1969 The University of Chicago. (Footnote, page 439.) Now, I've already been told by a self-styled DTP guru that "the Chicago Manual's treatment of typography is not well regarded by professionals in the field today," so spare me. Note that this is a person who considers the output from mass-market Windows apps and fonts "professional".... Dan Strychalski dski at cameonet, cameo, com, tw (no _x_) alt.religion.kibology (whatever that's all about) trimmed