On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 14:30 +0000, Adam Williamson wrote: > I'm finding it very hard to think of any other remotely current bit of > hardware you might conceivably want to run Fedora on, which doesn't have > at least 600 pixels vertically. > > The last time I had a system with this problem was a Sony Vaio > Picturebook C1XD - which was 1024x480. I bought that system in 2001. The > Picturebook line went to 600 pixels vertically with the next revision. > It was discontinued several years ago... Well, we're still supporting CPU architectures that first appeared circa 1995...people are certainly still running systems they bought in 2001. It would be nice to tell my Dad (who was in this boat last week), "oh well it won't run Vista, but I'm sure if you do a minimal Fedora install on it you can still check your email" and not have his reply be "the installer was broken, I couldn't make it past the first screen" because the "Next" button fell off the screen. At some point, I certainly agree the cost to developers of supporting software for old hardware becomes greater than the cost to end users (who aren't even necessarily paying for software support) that would be involved in upgrading the hardware. But if applications and Anaconda responded to "by Jove, this screen is unreasonably small for my well-proportioned user interface" situations by throwing up emergency scroll bars or eliminating gratuitous whitespace, that doesn't seem like too much trouble to go to. Especially since small screens (real or virtual) could be in the unimagined future as much as they are in the wish-it-were-forgotten past. It *would* actually inform these sorts of decisions to see some Smolt data on what screen sizes real users actually have right now, but after poking around some in the web database this info is not jumping out at me. -B. -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
