%% Krzys Majewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: km> OK I've never understood what's so great about high resolutions. The km> higher the resolution, the smaller the stuff on your screen, the km> closer to the screen you sit, the more you squint to see stuff, the km> sooner you go blind. Also, the screen flickers more, so you go blind km> *and* crazy faster than otherwise.
If you have a big enough monitor (a nice 21" flat monitor with a decent display area, for example) then even at high resolutions it's not so bad. Also, any modern hardware should be able to drive a monitor at 1280x1024 (or even higher) at _very_ reasonable refresh rates; no problem with screen flickers. As for sizes, that's up to you. The higher resolution gives you the ability to get much cleaner text at smaller physical sizes, so you can read more easily, sometimes, even at slightly smaller sizes. If you get a big enough monitor it's not a big deal. As for why, it's obvious (to me): I'm much productive when I can see more stuff at once. With a 21" monitor in 1600x1400 like I have at work, I can fit easily fit 3 non-overlapping 80x24 xterms vertically using a reasonable-sized 8x13 font, and a decent Emacs window next to them using -misc-fixed-medium-*-15-140-*, which is 80x72. I can see a lot of code at once in 72 lines, and I get ~35 lines of code if I have a split buffer. And, that leaves room for window manager decorations and button bars at the top and bottom of the screen. I _need_ all those windows, and it's simpler for me if more are visible at the same time. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> HASMAT--HA Software Methods & Tools "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
