Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Window Managers for High Resolution Displays?

Posted by Cliff on from the one-with-the-most-dots-WINS! dept.

cfish asks: "Recently, I was told by a manager at a major monitor maker that CRTs are phasing out. I have a very weak eye and I read text at 1024x768 on a 21" monitor, sitting 2 feet away. Each alphabet is about 1/4" tall. What makes me panic is the fact that LCDs have fixed resolution and they are simply too small for me to read icons and widget text, like Microsoft's. This is a great chance for Linux to get a head start in a certain market: older folks and those who have eye strain problems. Generally speaking, not many people can read Microsoft's widget text on a 150dpi display, which may explain why no one buys them even that they are available. Imagine how frustrating it could be for medical display (x-rays), cad, image editing to have a high resolution realistic image but cannot read the menu and text. If someone can come up with a Window manager to beat MS on 200dpi displays, no doubt this will capture a strong following in image related applications. I have read about these debates 5 years ago. What has been done about it?"

8 of 382 comments (clear)

  1. Workaround for you... by eaglebtc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ya know, LCDs don't *have* to be run at their native resolution all the time. You are free to set an LCD to run at 640x480, 800x600, or whatever you like. The nice thing about a 200dpi LCD display is that you can run it lower than the native resolution and still get a great looking picture. Another thing...Windows can be set to a higher "dpi" than its traditional 96. This will increase the font size for EVERYTHING. Just go to Display Properties > Settings > Advanced, and select the "DPI" from the General tab that you wish to use. Beware, as some applications may not look right because they weren't designed to use that resolution. FP!

    --
    Homestarrunner.net -- It's Dot Com!
    1. Re:Workaround for you... by Tet · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You are free to set an LCD to run at 640x480, 800x600, or whatever you like.

      Sure, you're free to run it at whatever resolution you like. Of course, unlike a CRT, it'll look like shit most of the time, but hey, flat panels are sexy, right, so who cares? To be fair, if your full reolution is an integer multiple of your scaled resultion, then it'll be a bit blocky, but otherwise OK. Personally, I'll be sticking with my CRT for some time yet.

      For cfish, my advice is relax. Yes, in time, CRTs will be phased out of the mass market. But they'll still be around for the forseeable future, they'll just be a niche device, so you won't be able to get them from high street shops. Even then, that's still a fair way off...

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    2. Re:Workaround for you... by josh+crawley · · Score: 5, Informative

      In Windows, the OS is precisely compliant to what the application developer wanted the program to do. For instance, if I write a web page with an "img src" tag with the height and width set in pixels, then the image will be that size, regardless of the resolution of the monitor. If I set the height and width in a proportional unit like points, or to be a percentage of the window size, then it will scale along with everything else. Programming using Windows Forms works the same way, although I know some of the old widgets refused scaling (I seem to recall some difference in the Picture vs Bitmap control in VB 5 or 6).

      In other words, it's up to the app developer to base their UI on the dynamic System Properties rather than on fixed values. If, for instance, Windows YP was developed to "override" fixed pixel sizes and try to make them proportional, it would probably screw up more than it would fix.

  2. Quartz by Microlith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Being based on OpenGL, PDF, and making extensive use of TrueType fonts, I was under the impression that Quartz and MacOS X were aptly suited for this sort of use.

    IIRC, essentially the entire UI is vector graphics (being done by OpenGL and all), so Apple might have this covered.

    Indeed, a 200ppi display would be nice, but not at 21" or smaller sizes.

  3. Scaling by compwizrd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Assuming you don't want to screw around with font sizes.

    Get a 21" LCD that has a native resolution of 1600x1200.

    Run it at 800x600. This makes it map each pixel to 4 pixels(2 vertical, 2 horizontal), which will scale perfectly no matter what.

    Congrats, you now have a 21" 800x600 monitor.

  4. Maybe... by Zagar · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is the perfect opportunity to invent some sort of magnifying device...Yes..it should be portable and light. I'll call it glasses.

    --
    YAFIRL (Yet another Free iPods referral link)
  5. Re:Change the font size! by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The trouble is there are still a lot of apps that specify things in pixel sizes rather than in real units (centimetres) or some other scalable unit (fraction of the total display size). So even if you increase the font size - and that would require a system with fonts that aren't ugly, so you're not forced to use a few predefined bitmaps - you may find everything else is too small.

    It'll be great when everything uses SVG icons which are rendered at the size you choose and at the right resolution for the display, but that day is a way off yet.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  6. "LCDs have fixed resolution:" (semi-)myth. by Slartibartfast · · Score: 5, Informative

    What they have is a fixed number of pixels. The entirely unsatisfactory solution to this dilemma is to merely drive it at an inferior resolution. It'll look like garbage, but it'll be bigger. A much better solution, however, is to drive it at an even divisor of the number of pixels, which will give you clean output. For example, a 1600x1200 LCD could be driven at 800x600; the letters will be nice and crisp, and will be four times larger.