On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, James Cornell wrote: > They call that resolution independence. The whole thing behind Leopard and > Vista was measurement by inches or centimeters instead of the futile pixel > which has itself deeply embedded into everything. That's not to say that all > applications therein won't use pixels or that either system is a panacea, but > it's important to know what customers want and not just listen to your > engineer's pipe dreams as seems to be the norm at Sun. Personally I find > this is the reason the "viability" of X11 in general is a problem for most > regular users who expect consistency and modern practices.
I am confused because it seems that Microsoft Windows with its "small" and "large" icons (equivalent resolution determined in the early/mid '90s when high resolution for a PC was 800x600 on a 14" display) is the whole cause of this mess. Apparently the authors of Windows never considered that one reason why people choose "large" icons is because they are becomming blind, due to personal preference, or due to stupidity, and not because they have a higher resolution screen. The standards for typography pre-date Microsoft Windows by several hundred years. The basic arithmetic which forms the basis of resolution has existed for several thousand years. It seems to me that OpenSolaris should be adhering to these standards and should deliver the requested type sizes based on the actual resolution of the display. Bob ====================================== Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
