Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cs.yale.edu!favorini-francis
From: favorini-francis@cs.yale.edu (Francis Favorini)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Support for various monitor pixel densities??
Message-ID: <27711@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 11 Dec 90 03:39:06 GMT
References: <27667@cs.yale.edu> <1990Dec9.212436.20795@svc.portal.com>
Sender: news@cs.yale.edu
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 53
Nntp-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu
Originator: favorini@suned.CS.Yale.Edu

In article <1990Dec9.212436.20795@svc.portal.com> daven@svc.portal.com writes:
>From a programmer's standpoint, it seems to me that with QuickDraw being based
>on the pixel plane, descisions on drawing text and line would be invalidated
>if the MacOS started scaling fonts behind the applications's back.
>Applications are likely to produce some wild looking text displays should the
>MacOS start drawing the text in ways that consume more, or less, pixels than
>the application thought it would.

OK.  Several people have pointed this out.  It seems to me that the
benefits of a resolution (i.e. pixel density) independent drawing
metaphor are great indeed.  When the folks at Radius, SuperMac,
RasterOps, et al come out with cheap 100, 200 and even 300 dpi screens
(ok so they might not be cheap), do you want to be looking at your
pathetic 72 dpi screen.  We're talking *real* WYSIWYG, especially with
anti-aliasing, "true-color", etc.
  What we need is to bag the pixel-based QuickDraw system.  Pixels are
a bad unit to measure with since they come in different sizes.  We
should use real units of linear measurement: points, picas, inches,
centimeters, furlongs, who cares!  The point is to use something that
won't change from screen to screen.  Leave it up to the system
software to map these units to pixels on screen.  What's the downside?
Old apps will look UGLY, you say.  OK.  Make the old system's "pixels"
turn into 1/72" by 1/72" squares in the new system.  Thus, a 72 pixel
line drawn by MacDraw 1.0 using QuickDraw will be an inch on anyone's
screen using our new drawing system, SlickDraw. Yes, we must be
reverse-compatible to our previous mistakes.
  I can already hear people groaning about how ugly icons (16 x 16, 32
x 32 pixels, etc.) will look mapped to 90 dpi.  Fair enough.  Two half
answers: 1) Could be improved by anti-aliasing techniques.  I've heard of
a $20 chip (made by a company whose name I forget) that does this at
the bitmap level on VGA boards (yes, IBM stuff).  The chip is totally
transparent to the software and even the hardware.  It replaces a
standard chip found on almost all VGA video boards.  It performs that
chip's functions, in addition to its own.  Pretty sneaky.  And only
$20 bucks for ~50% better perceived resolution.  (This is all off
the top of my head, so please excuse inaccuracies and holes.  This is
from an article in PC Week, I think.)
	2) Hardware vendors could limit their resolutions to multiples
of 72 (or maybe 36 or 18, say).  This would minimalize the UGLIES.
Note also, that this would probably be unnecessary at resolutions >200
dpi, due to all those dots.  Any hardware types care to comment on
cutting-edge technology re: hi-res monitors and their ETA's?  Five
years 'til I get my 216 dpi Apple Hi^3Res monitor?  Ten?  I can't
wait.  Of course, it won't emit any harmful radiation, it'll be flat,
and won't need any cables to connect to my CPU. ;^)

"Pay no attention to that man behind the asbestos curtain!"

-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
Francis Favorini					favorini@cs.yale.edu
							favorini@yalecs.bitnet
							...!yale!favorini