14 Dec
2001
14 Dec
'01
6:47 a.m.
But I ask the question is bigger always better? I am
the guy who still
uses 640x480 cause this way he can read the screen and the menus at
the same time. I suspect the wheel of computer design will turn again
towards 'smaller' CISC (pdp8-style?) machines as the interconnect
in chips between modules is becoming larger compared to the the gate
speeds.
I never understand this- why not kick it up to 1027x768 and use the
Windows Appearance controls to make the menus and screen fonts larger?
That way graphics look nice and text is still readable and things
you have to click on (buttons can be made bigger too) are bigger
targets...
It's the best of both worlds, instead of being limited to one...
Regards,
-dq
12 Dec
12 Dec
10:12 p.m.
Douglas Quebbeman wrote:
I never understand this- why not kick it up to
1027x768 and use the
Windows Appearance controls to make the menus and screen fonts larger?
My vga monitors have a tendency to die, thus a old VGA is easy to come
by
and not have to FUCK with windows 'SAFE' mode.
That way graphics look nice and text is still readable
and things
you have to click on (buttons can be made bigger too) are bigger
targets...
I want smaller menus and buttons. I like a window filled with what ever
I
am reading, not clutter on the screen. It makes no sense to me to switch
to a
higher res and then defeat it by having bigger fonts. When I was running
Linux
I ran at 800x600 but only so I could run bigger fonts to give me a 80x25
xterm window. Also most on the games I play only run at 640x480 due to
speed
( P-150 here) or screen limitations.
It's the best of both worlds, instead of being
limited to one...
I have Hi-Res, I just don't use it. This was brought to you by
a
640x480 16 bit color display and the number 100110.
--
Ben Franchuk --- Pre-historic Cpu's --
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
8430
days inactive
8428
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
dhquebbeman＠theestopinalgroup.com