On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 15:30 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le jeudi 06 janvier 2005 à 09:01 -0500, Alan Cox a écrit : > > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 03:23:53PM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > > So to me we're better off just saying "the desktop should dynamically > > > adapt to various resolutions" for example (we really need to do that > > > anyhow, for the default configuration). > > > > SGI had per desktop profiles on IRIX as an option. In most respects I'd second > > Havoc that if the desktop would just mind its own business the world will be > > happy. That will need tools like metacity to grow up and start behaving > > better. It would also need smarter awareness of resolution and dpi - eg if > > I move from 1600x1200 analog to 1024x768 on the laptop tft the right move > > for gnome-terminal is smaller fonts not 40x16 windows. > > ie use the real dpi setting as provided by xorg instead of forcing 96 > dpi everywhere to match windows (and add a user-side relative zoom > factor to take into account people with bad eyes) > > With modern screens you get nicer display with the highest dpi available > instead of limiting yourself to 96 anyway. > > Regards, Sometimes the DPI returned from the DDC probe isn't accurate, however . . . As a side note and "me too!" though, my SGI 1600SW flat panel *does* report DPI correctly at 108 (or 106, I can't remember) and unless I manually change this, the sub-pixel anti-aliasing produces very visible green and red outlines. -- Shahms E. King <shahms@xxxxxxxxxx> Multnomah ESD Public Key: http://shahms.mesd.k12.or.us/~sking/shahms.asc Fingerprint: 1612 054B CE92 8770 F1EA AB1B FEAB 3636 45B2 D75B
