Re: wherefore CGM?

Robert P Cunningham (bob@lava.net)
Fri, 6 Dec 96 08:20 WET


Message-Id: <m0vW4sq-00164WC@malasada.lava.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 96 08:20 WET
From: bob@lava.net (Robert P Cunningham)
To: walter@natural-innovations.com, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: wherefore CGM?

>Let's see... (1600/72) * (5/4) = 27.7" diagonal.
>This assumes 72dpi and a 4:3 aspect ratio.
>I wouldn't recommend using 1600x1200 on a monitor much smaller than that,
>at least not for daily work; only for quick overviews. After all, just cuz
>one's video card supports two million pixel resolution doesn't obligate one
>to operate at that setting, though I can understand the urge to "get one's
>money's worth"... :)

But a steadily-increasing number of  people do run at a higher
resolution than 72dpi.  Most monitors and video cards support
better, and once anyone starts to use at least 100dpi they don't
want go back to 72dpi.  (1024x768 is the worst resolution I'll
voluntarily use on a 17" screen.)

Planning for, and designing strictly for 72dpi made sense several
years ago.  Now it's as senseless as designing only for VGA screens.