15 Jun
2013
15 Jun
'13
4:30 p.m.
On 06/15/2013 06:32 PM, ben wrote:
On 6/15/2013 3:19 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Why what?
On 06/15/2013 04:17 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
I didn't miss the point. (at least I don't think I did!)
Ben is stuck in Windows land. Windows users are accustomed to
reducing the
resolution of the graphics system in order to get larger text. This
has, of
course, been ludicrous since day one. Just increase the friggin' font
size.
Apparently that's "hard" in Windows land.
Why? I
would too! I get eye fatigue at anything less than about
1280x1024.
Um. Are you joking, or did you miss the point here?
If you're kidding, um, well, er, hey, I am not one to attack poor
taste humour generally, but, er... well... if I set the screen font size to what I can see, I am
back to the
same screen
size as before. I have small computer desk, so getting a bigger screen
is not a option. I just grumble that *24x80* text size (full monitor)
are not a Windows option under windows. If had good text emulation then
I would be using VIM more often for editing. Is there a way to set the
fonts for that option under windows rather than dancing toasters.
My point was, the rest of the world doesn't do this insane switching
of video modes resolutions crap that the PC world still does. A
graphics subsystem should run at its highest resolution. Beyond a
what-should-be-impenetrable abstraction layer is font rendering. The
latter is what determines how big the characters are on your screen.
Anything less is a design limitation and a bug that needs to be fixed.
IMnsHO.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA