On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:13:11 -0500, Rich Pieri wrote: > On 1/6/2016 12:53 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote: >> But (at least for me) it doesn't need to be the same size if the >> resolution is higher. > > Perhaps not the same size but close enough. I doubt that you can go from > 10 point to 5 point just because the underlying pixel density is four > times greater. You might be able to go from 10 point to 8 point without > straining but you're still upscaling which means you're wasting much of > that alleged "improved definition". Marketing buzzwords like > "revolutionary" and "retina display" don't change basic geometry.
I use a 6x10 (pixel) font in emacs and xterm. Using a 9x15 font at twice the linear resolution would let me get quite a lot more on the screen. I'm currently using a 10 point font for general purpose on my laptop; I set my display to lie and claim 72 dpi. 8 (in particular) and 9 point fonts are harder to read not so much because they're smaller as because the screen doesn't have enough pixels to render them as cleanly as the 10 point font. -- Robert Krawitz <[email protected]> *** MIT Engineers A Proud Tradition http://mitathletics.com *** Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- http://ProgFree.org Project lead for Gutenprint -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
