Chris Forrester wrote:
> people do realize that 1280x1024 is a non-square screen res, yes? it goes
> 1024x768, 1280x960 and then 1600x1200. I realize that 1280x1024 is
> supported
> and in fact encouraged by most video cards/os setups, but it's still a
> stretched res.
>
Define 'non-square' ??
If you are talking about the full screen size, 1280x1024 is by
definition a rectangle becuase it's sides aren't equal. But then
again, 1280x960 is a rectangle too.
If you are talking about the shape of each pixel, then I'd say
you're making a really bad assumption. It all depends on the monitor!
You don't know that everyone's monitor has a screen area that is
shaped in a 4:3 ratio.Some are 5:4, some are even 16:9 or 16:10.
On a 5:4 monitor 1280x1024 does have square pixels (assuming the user
hasn't played witht the tuning too much,) and 1280x960 would be
stretched vertically. Either way the stretching or squishing would
be hardly noticable
It's generally a bad idea to assume you know anything about the user's
hardware. You'll get the least complaints if you just go with what the
user has because she knows better what hardware she has, how she wants it,
and the limititions of her setup.
-Kyle
--
_
-------------------------------ooO( )Ooo-------------------------------
Kyle J. McDonald (o o) Systems Support Engineer
Sun Microsystems Inc. |||||
Enterprise Server Products [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 Network Drive BUR03-4630 \\\// voice: (781) 442-2184
Burlington, MA 01803 (o o) fax: (781) 442-1542
-------------------------------ooO(_)Ooo-------------------------------
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
