Does anyone make hi-res LCD displays? It appears that except for laptops, most LCD displays sold nowadays have the same mediocre resolution--basically equivalent to 1024x768 on a 15" screen .. That's about 90 dpi (!) So you go tho the store .. you buy a 15" monitor and you get your 1024x768 pixels .. you buy a 17" or even a 19" monitor you get the same mediocre resolution plus the few extra pixels to make up for the additional screen size .. 1280x1024 in "wide mode", maybe? With a 21-22" inch and double the price you might then graduate to something like 1650x?? same resolution of course .. etc. What I had been looking for was something of manageable size .. 15-17" or thereabout .. that doesn't use up too much space -- or power .. that I don't have to position on Joe's lawn across the street .. unless I absolutely need to count the all-too-visible pixels .. something that's small enough I don't have to twist my neck right left up down to see everything that's on-screen .. simply something that provides what laptops designed ten years ago or so offered. Does someone have an explanation as to why even cheap digital cameras currently boast five-six megapixels when even the larger consumer-grade LCD monitors cannot even display half that many? How does this make sense? Pure speculation on my part, but I'm beginning to think that display manufacturers & vendors came up with the clever idea that consumers will spend anything for that high they get when they finally open the oversized cardboard box and wrestle a 32"-inch+ display out of it (yeah, much bigger than Joe's across the street..) and have therefore all jumped on this marketing ploy in order to improve their bottom-line. My understanding -- I'm obviously not an expert, just curious.. is that it works a bit the same with LCD's as when you sell diamonds: Twice bigger ten times dearer. Personally, what I was in the market for was something that provides 200 dpi or better .. something with the quality of the very low-end printers of yesteryear .. something markedly better than my 7-year old SXGA+ .. I mean .. 7 years after .. Am I really asking for the moon? Apart from the better laptops (ie. the grossly overpriced ones) .. there does not seem to be anything nowadays that even comes close to such capabilities. Heck, I just took a peek .. it seems even the resolution of my cheap cell phone is better than any of the "monitors" I have seen demo-ed at the local stores. So if the technology is there why can't I have it? :-( Pointers .. thoughts .. suggestions .. opinions .. anybody?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:47:11 +0100, Wolfgang Draxinger wrote: > I think you misunderstood the OP: He doesn't request something > technologically impossible. In fact, the technology he wants has > been around for years: Mediocre sized (19" e.g.) TFT panels, > that have 1920x1400 pixels resolution, e.g. > > Take my Laptop for example: That one has a 1400x1050, 15" TFT > screen. OTOH, next to that there's a 17" Desktop TFT with merely > 1280x1024 pixels. Had I thrown in a few bucks more, I'd have got > a 19" TFT instead, but that one would've had 1280x1024 pixels, > too. > > My guess is, that we have to "thank" Microsoft Windows for that. > That stupid OS is unable to scale UI fonts to the physical > dimension. It's always 9 pixels high and I think people were > just complaining, that the fonts on their screen become too > small to read, if they connect a high resolution TFT to it. You > can of course switch to a "high resolution" mode, where bigger > fonts are used, but 90% of the applications will then be > unusable, as all UI elements have been placed by the pixel, and > not flexible layout containers, like we are used to use in GTK > or Qt, thus resulting in clipped text, or overdrawn controls. I thought that too; but then what happens in laptops? Are they usable with high resolution screens because the user is assumed to be close to the screen?

Bob Tennent staggered into the Black Sun and said: > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:47:11 +0100, Wolfgang Draxinger wrote: > > I think you misunderstood the OP: He doesn't request something > > technologically impossible. In fact, the technology he wants has > > been around for years: Mediocre sized (19" e.g.) TFT panels, that > > have 1920x1400 pixels resolution. > > > > My guess is, that we have to "thank" Microsoft Windows for that. Not just that. Fixed-pixel-size widgets (and fonts) are all over the place. > I thought that too; but then what happens in laptops? Are they usable > with high resolution screens because the user is assumed to be close > to the screen? Not quite. I think the lack of high-DPI LCDs is caused by multiple factors. High DPI = somewhat more expensive to manufacture. High DPI = harder to read for older people who don't see too well. Add the problems with 'Doze and you have a set of compelling business reasons for sticking close to 96 (or 72) DPI. -- Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night." Charles M. Schulz (1922 - 2000), Charlie Brown in "Peanuts" Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:48:32 -0800 (PST), robertharvey@my-deja.com <robertharvey@my-deja.com> wrote: > On 29 Nov, 18:47, Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxin...@darkstargames.de> > wrote: >> My guess is, that we have to "thank" Microsoft Windows for that. >> That stupid OS is unable to scale UI fonts to the physical >> dimension. > > Absolutely. I worked on a research ship once that had a CRT display > intended to display about 4800 pixels across driven by a Unix > workstation. When that was replaced by something bigger, the boss > took the old screen for his Pee Cee, and then brought it back > complaining it was broken. I put it on my red hat system and it was > fine and dandy. Thanks to all for your valuable comments.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:48:32 -0800 (PST), robertharvey@my-deja.com <robertharvey@my-deja.com> wrote: > On 29 Nov, 18:47, Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxin...@darkstargames.de> > wrote: >> My guess is, that we have to "thank" Microsoft Windows for that. >> That stupid OS is unable to scale UI fonts to the physical >> dimension. > > Absolutely. I worked on a research ship once that had a CRT display > intended to display about 4800 pixels across driven by a Unix > workstation. When that was replaced by something bigger, the boss > took the old screen for his Pee Cee, and then brought it back > complaining it was broken. I put it on my red hat system and it was > fine and dandy. Thanks. Peed Cee .. that would Windows, right? I also had a feeling that Windows was not quite ready for the desktop. :-0