jg@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (J.Grant) (07/12/88)
Some large Mac screen displays run at 95 dpi compared to the more normal Mac 72 dpi. Since this will make the text appear 7/9 of its normal size, I am concerned about the legibility (size distortion is probably of little concern here). Does anyone have any experience of the altered pixel size on the Mac ? Ps. I know that other machines use 95 dpi as standard, but I am (at this time) solely concerned about Macintosh usage.
chari@killer.UUCP (Chris Whatley) (07/15/88)
In article <5349@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>, jg@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (J.Grant) writes: > > Some large Mac screen displays run at 95 dpi compared > to the more normal Mac 72 dpi. Since this will make the text > appear 7/9 of its normal size, I am concerned about the > legibility (size distortion is probably of little concern > here).i >[stuff deleted] 95 dpi on a Mac absolutely stinks. I was considering the Sony 16" monitor for my Mac II in winter and for a few moments thought how great it would be to have such tiny pixels and clear text. Then, I sat down and used it for awhile and found that most Mac software like terminal emulators and HyperCard! were an incredible strain on my eyes because everything was so damn small. Basically the text looked great ( I think that the sony's are beyond comparison with any color monitors around ) if it was bigger than 12 pt. Anything smaller is terrible. I opted for the 19" Sony and I am still giddy about its quality and veiwing space. I suppose that you could get the 95DPI monitor and a pair of hi-magnification glasses and do just fine but, I'd stick with the 72 dpi monitor until QuickDraw becomes device/resolution independent (System 7.0 maybe?). Chris -- ___________________________________________________________ "Henry, have you and Mary had sexual intercourse?" -Mrs. X chari@killer.UUCP CI$:71370,1654
chow@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Christopher Chow) (07/15/88)
In article <5349@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> jg@ukc.ac.uk (J.Grant) writes: | | Some large Mac screen displays run at 95 dpi compared to the more | normal Mac 72 dpi. Since this will make the text appear 7/9 of its normal | size, I am concerned about the legibility (size distortion is probably of | little concern here). | | Does anyone have any experience of the altered pixel size on the Mac ? The computer store I used to work at had, at one time, a Macintosh II connected to three monitors: a standard Apple 13" color w/ 4-bits color, a SuperMac 19" Trinitron with 8 bit color, and a SuperMac 16" Trinitron with 8 bit color. Both the Apple and the SuperMac 19" were at approximately 72 dpi, while the SuperMac 16" was somewhere in the 90 dpi range. From my experiences on that machine, you do not want to even consider using any Mac screen with resolutions near 90 dpi! The higher resolution creates considerable eye strain, and fonts which normally look good (like the Geneva used in the Finder) looks really squished. Overall, graphics also suffer. Remember that little things which look nice (like the horizontal lines on an active window's title bar) become smaller and denser. Christopher Chow /---------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Internet: chow@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (128.84.248.35 or 128.84.253.35) | | Usenet: ...{uw-beaver|decvax|vax135}!cornell!batcomputer!chow | | Bitnet: chow@crnlthry.bitnet | | Phone: 1-607-272-8014 Address: 107 Catherine St, Ithaca NY 14850 | | Delphi: chow2 PAN: chow | \---------------------------------------------------------------------------/
kaufman@polya.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) (07/15/88)
I think the attempt to make a physical ruler match a screen ruler, while laudable in theory, is not good (for me, at least) in practice. I don't like putting my nose as close to a CRT as I do to a piece of paper. [In particular, paper doesn't usually 'crackle' at me when my nose gets too close]. I am using a 19" monitor with default (640 x 480) resolution. It is only 50 dpi, but I can sit back a comfortable distance and read the text. I expect that my preference is shared by many individuals over the age of 40. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@polya.stanford.edu)
Fabian@cup.portal.com (07/16/88)
Greetings, SuperMac Technology sells two monitors types for the Mac II, four 19" monitors with a resolution of 1024 x 768 @ 72/73 dpi and one 16" monitor with a resolution of 1024 x 768 @ 89 dpi. Most people prefer the 19" monitors because of the WYSIWYG display of 72/73 dpi, but there are some who like the 16" Trinitron because it doesn't take up as much real estate as the 19" Trinitron does. Of the five monitors (19" Trinitron, 19" Ikegami Color, 19" Ikegami Grey Scale, 19" Ikegami Monochorme, and 16" Trinitron), only the 19" Ikegami Monochrome monitor doesn't use the Spectrum/8 video card, instead it uses the SuperView II video card. All of the others (color and grey scale) use the Spectrum/8 video card. Usually, it comes down to a personal prefence. If you are used to the regular 9" Mac Plus/SE screen, then consider a monitor which is 72/73 dpi. However, depending upon your needs (ie display two pages side by side in actual size), a 19" monitor at 72/73 dpi cannot do this...at actual size. Radius for example sells a 19" monitor that allows you to display two pages, but it image isn't 72/73 dpi...technically it is still WYSIWYG, but it isn't 72/73 dpi. My personal recommendation would be to go to your dealer and/or trade show and take a look at the monitor(s) you're considering and make an informed decision. Plus it wouldn't hurt to give the Spectrum/8-19" Trinitron consideration. Fabian Ramirez SuperMac Technology fabian@cup.portal.com sun!cup.portal.com!fabian
dorner@uxg.cso.uiuc.edu (07/18/88)
> Does anyone have any experience of the altered pixel >size on the Mac ? I've been using a 90dpi screen for six months. It's marginally less legible than 72dpi, but really does fit more stuff on the screen. If I had the option to run at 72dpi, I'm not sure what I'd do; it would probably depend on the application. ---- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: dorner@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner IfUMust: (217) 333-3339
cordy@qucis.UUCP (Jim Cordy) (07/20/88)
I am a user of the Radius two page display (90 dpi, 63 Hz refresh), but I'm far sighted, so I'm also concerned with font sizes and readability. I found it necessary to hack my Finder and terminal emulators to give me a larger font to avoid going blind. The good news is that this is relatively straightforward if you know how to use ResEdit - just change the fonts in the application to the fonts you want. I use 10 pt instead of 9 pt in the Finder, 14 pt Courier instead of 9 pt Monaco in MacTerminal, and 14 pt Courier instead of smaller Mishawaka fonts in Unix Windows. For text processing, I suggest using WriteNow, since it allows you to edit on the screen in 12 pt but print the result in 10 pt without any distortion of either the page or the rulers. You can even use somthing larger than 12 if you prefer. Anyway, there's one way to take advantage of large dense screens even if you are half blind like me. Jim cordy@qucis.bitnet cordy%qucis.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu
lad@eplrx7.UUCP (lad) (07/21/88)
From article <112@qusunitf.UUCP>, by cordy@qucis.UUCP (Jim Cordy): > I am a user of the Radius two page display (90 dpi, 63 Hz refresh), > but I'm far sighted, so I'm also concerned with font sizes and readability. > I found it necessary to hack my Finder and terminal emulators to give > me a larger font to avoid going blind. This is pretty common statement from users of >80 dpi screens, not just from farsighted persons. I have a Mirage I screen and I find the 72 dpi very pleasing, along with the paper-white phospher. I looked at a SuperMac screen and a Sigma and both were very hard to read. I have only seen a Radius 90dpi screen once, and that was enough. It was almost impossible to use MacWrite without squinting. -- Lawrence A. Deleski | E.I. Dupont Co. uunet!eplrx7!lad | Engineering Physics Lab Cash-We-Serve 76127,104 | Wilmington, Delaware 19898 MABELL: (302) 695-9353 | Mail Stop: E357-302
pdj@nbires.nbi.com (Paul Jensen) (07/26/88)
This discussion of screen resolution seems pretty bizarre at times, with high resolution screens getting the reputation of being terrible to look at. I was developing a screen font for 6 point Helvetica on my usual non-Mac screen which has a resolution of 120 dots per inch, when a colleague observed: "That's not Helvetica! See, look at the serifs on the lower case 'p'!" Indeed, they were right - I had cloned a Times Roman face in hopes no one would notice. The charade was visible even at 5 points. So how come I can easily read a 6 point font on my 120 dpi screen, while the Mac 6 point font looks almost unusable on the same screen? Well, the Mac treats _all_ screens as if they were 72 dpi - ie, one pixel per point - so 6 points becomes 6/120'th of an inch on a 120 dpi screen rather than 6/72'nd of an inch. That's a character cell 6 pixels high when it should be 10 pixels high. Or, said in other terms, the 6 point cell is displayed as an apparent 6/120 * 72 = 3.6 point cell. Now that's tiny, even on a 300 dpi LaserWriter.* Well, actually, I fibbed a bit since my usual system tries to present a screen which is about 11% larger than real life, and the actual screen resolution is actually 108 dpi. Thus it treats the screen as if it were 120 dpi. Resolution independence will eventually have to be part of QuickDraw's definition to support outline fonts that can be scaled for the printer. Maybe the screen representations will even encorporate a user controlled aspect ratio. Or perhaps Display PostScript will replace QuickDraw. ________ * Curiously, a 4.32 point character can be sometimes be strikingly more legible than a 4 point or even 5 point character on the LaserWriter. Hint: think about the impact of 'units' - 1/18'th of a point. Courtesy of Dick Dunn.