adams.e@oxy.edu (Erik Adams) (03/09/90)
Howdy net people, This question is purely academic. Why is there such a large portion of unused space on the "compact" mac screen? On my 512ke, there's about 1/2 an inch between the edge of the screen and the desktop. It seems to me that it ought to be possible to squeek in another 10 pixels on all sides. So, why can't this be done? Or has it, and I've just never heard of it? Erik adams.e@oxy.edu "Floccinaucinihilipilification...the act of judging a bit of information to be utterly worthless." - The longest English word recognized by the OED, according to Cecil Adams
wiseman@tellab5.tellabs.com (Jeff Wiseman) (03/13/90)
In article <81927@tiger.oxy.edu> adams.e@oxy.edu (Erik Adams) writes: >Howdy net people, > >This question is purely academic. Why is there such a large portion of >unused space on the "compact" mac screen? On my 512ke, there's about >1/2 an inch between the edge of the screen and the desktop. It seems >to me that it ought to be possible to squeek in another 10 pixels on >all sides. I'm not sure that the "unused" space is supposed to be there in the first place. From somewhere way back I acquired a test program that would put a display on the screen based on the standard number of pixels (what is it? 72 per inch?). Anyway, The display was a grid of 1 inch squares based on this "standard". As it turned out, the 1 inch squares on my screen were less than one inch each. If they were the size that they are supposed to be, I would have virtually no unused space at the edges of my screen. It seems that in order to have a nice display (no distortion on the edges of a perhaps "moderate quality crt tube) you have to shrink the image to keep it away from the edges. I'm not sure I like this but a macs a mac I guess. -- Jeff Wiseman: ....uunet!tellab5!wiseman OR wiseman@TELLABS.COM