On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 15:30 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le jeudi 06 janvier 2005 à 09:01 -0500, Alan Cox a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 03:23:53PM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > So to me we're better off just saying "the desktop should dynamically
> > adapt to various resolutions" for example (we really need to do that
> > anyhow, for the default configuration).
>
> SGI had per desktop profiles on IRIX as an option. In most respects I'd second
> Havoc that if the desktop would just mind its own business the world will be
> happy. That will need tools like metacity to grow up and start behaving
> better. It would also need smarter awareness of resolution and dpi - eg if
> I move from 1600x1200 analog to 1024x768 on the laptop tft the right move
> for gnome-terminal is smaller fonts not 40x16 windows.
ie use the real dpi setting as provided by xorg instead of forcing 96
dpi everywhere to match windows (and add a user-side relative zoom
factor to take into account people with bad eyes)
With modern screens you get nicer display with the highest dpi available
instead of limiting yourself to 96 anyway.
Regards,
Sometimes the DPI returned from the DDC probe isn't accurate,
however . . .
As a side note and "me too!" though, my SGI 1600SW flat panel *does*
report DPI correctly at 108 (or 106, I can't remember) and unless I
manually change this, the sub-pixel anti-aliasing produces very visible
green and red outlines.
--
Shahms E. King <shahms(a)shahms.com>
Multnomah ESD
Public Key:
http://shahms.mesd.k12.or.us/~sking/shahms.asc
Fingerprint:
1612 054B CE92 8770 F1EA AB1B FEAB 3636 45B2 D75B