Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!gmdzi!strobl From: strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Apple Computer wins ruling against 'Windows' Message-ID: <4329@gmdzi.gmd.de> Date: 18 Mar 91 10:00:05 GMT References: <46873@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <1991Mar15.101202.1@csc.anu.edu.au> <1468@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> <4321@gmdzi.gmd.de> Organization: GMD, St. Augustin, F.R. Germany Lines: 27 francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu writes: >In article <4321@gmdzi.gmd.de> strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > What about this tiny, 512 pixel wide screen? Does that count as high-res > graphics? >Yes, it does. 72 pixels/inch. And that's universal (except for this >blasted new 64 pixel/inch CheapColor monitor they just came out with), >so developers know their screens will look the same wherever. Gee, then my watch has a high-res screen :-). Standardizing on a fixed resolution seems to be a good idea, if you have all the hardware under your control. Calling that fixed resolution "high-res" sounds a bit like marketing hype, because it suggests that other systems use mostly lower resolutions, and that this is inferior. If the lower resolution is the result of using a bigger screen, it isn't. Having the GUI tolerate variable resolution is a good thing, in my opinion, if it has to support a broad range of output devices. It is not simple to abstract from hardware characteristics like resolution, and the applications may have to cooperate in order to do it, but it can be done and it has been done. Wolfgang Strobl #include