Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows Vista and the Future of Hardware

Zonk posted about 8 years ago | from the ch-ch-ch-changes dept.

300

NSIM writes to mention an article on ExtremeTech looking at the impact that Windows Vista will have on the future of computer hardware. In addition to obvious elements like CPUs, GPUs, and display interfaces, the article also touches on things like DRM (which Vista heavily supports) and audio formats. From the article: "Currently, only a few shipping products actually support the crypto-ROM needed to ensure compliance with Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, and CableCard. It's looking like next-generation cards will all implement the needed firmware. Continued... The impact on future displays is a bit more subtle, but we're starting to see the impact already. Widescreen displays offering very high resolutions, such as the Dell 2407WFP are starting to become more affordable. But a 1920x1200 resolution often creates legibility problems for some users resulting from the tiny size of the default Windows font."

cancel ×

300 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

at what point (5, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | about 8 years ago | (#15867317)

At what point does the advancement of technology become either irrelevant, unnecessary to the casual user, too expensive, too complex, or some combination thereof? This has already happened in audio -- how many people out there really are vested in SACD? How many people do you know who even know what SACD is?

How many people are using 7.1, or THX sound? Or, if they have it, have it set up correctly? Or, if they have it, have any reasonable collection of media to make use of it?

And now there is evidence of death on the vine with new and improved video formats -- HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray. Other than mostly a slashdot type crowd, who really cares about the arguably incremental improvements for hefty investments?

At what point do consumers shrug their collective shoulders at any news around HDTV (hint, they're already starting to)? And when do all of the complexities of the combinitorials to lace all of this technology together push new consumers away?

It's possible Vista may be entering that twilight zone of indifferent consumerism. I'm totally technology driven, and have most of my life been a bleeding edge investor, but lately it's become less interesting. I can tell the difference between 1600x1200 resolution and WVGA, but I have to explain it to everyone else. They don't care, and they're not willing to spend any extra dollars to get the extra resolution kick.

All I'm seeing around Vista is toned-down expectations from their original promise, and ramped up requirements for hardware. That hardly lights a fire for me, and is a frigging wet towel for the lay-people considering new computers.

I don't know many in the technology world knocked out of their socks by the announced features (especially after all of the un-announced, and I don't know anyone outside of the technology elite circles who are interested, or care, and have any inklings of plans to move to Vista -- and if new rollouts of computers are significantly more expensive at all because of Vista, I know lots of people who are proactively not buying.

Maybe the world is reaching a point where people really don't need mini-Crays to read e-mail, manage photos, and surf the internet. And maybe the fork in the computing world can finally focus on useful applications and customer service rather than eye-candy translucent windowing graphics.

Re:at what point (4, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 8 years ago | (#15867379)

Other than mostly a slashdot type crowd, who really cares about the arguably incremental improvements for hefty investments?


Gamers.

Re:at what point (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | about 8 years ago | (#15867421)

Other than mostly a slashdot type crowd, who really cares about the arguably incremental improvements for hefty investments?
Gamers.

".But I repeat myself."
- Mark Twain

Re:at what point (1, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | about 8 years ago | (#15867740)

A heavy weight OS such as vista is not good for gaming, all the extra memory, cpu and gpu time consumed by the OS is no longer available for the game.

Re:at what point (4, Funny)

cp.tar (871488) | about 8 years ago | (#15868016)

What do you think quad core processors are for?

Re:at what point (5, Interesting)

MasT3quila (836268) | about 8 years ago | (#15867468)

I find that as I approach the end of the 18-35 year old male target group, I find myself caring less and less about the latest tech. All of a sudden I'm not rushing out to get an XBOX 360, I haven't pre-paid for a PS3, I keep waiting for the next i-pod only to say "meh. I can wait for the next one again", I won't be in line at midnight for Vista like I was for Windows 95. OMG I'M AGING! Come on advertisers, make me WANT STUFF!!

Re:at what point (3, Insightful)

Data Link Layer (743774) | about 8 years ago | (#15867654)

I was in line at midnight for windows 98. I have no idea why I was so excited for a new windows release, it's unimaginable.

Re:at what point (5, Interesting)

Tatsh (893946) | about 8 years ago | (#15867939)

I'm actually just into the 18-35 male target group, and the only things I'm caring about lately is HD size and portability in technology. However, I just haven't figured out why I just really don't want a PSP, or Nintendo DS. I just feel like it wouldn't be worth my money in the long run (besides Pictochat on DS). I've gone through 2 PS2's (and MAYBE will buy another), back when I had a PS2 I would only use it to play like 5 games out of the 30 or so that I had. PC games are seriously uninteresting today. I tried to get into WoW and got bored to hell, made it to level 3 which was tiring.

Recently I bought a new laptop, and now I don't ever want to buy a desktop again. This laptop has 100GB, my desktop has a 400GB HD and a 500GB HD (will buy external enclosure soon). None are close to full but it's very useful. I really no longer care about video cards as my laptop can handle most games, and most games aren't worth the time anyway (I want a fun game, not graphics!). It's nice to have eye candy, but not at the expense of a good game. The PS2 has plenty of games with mediocre graphics that you can really have fun with, beats the hell out of the Xbox 360 (I don't plan on buying a PS3 or Xbox 360). If I really care, I'll buy a Wii. Due to price and non-rediculous information surrounding it, it seems everyone around me is getting a Wii, so I can play with them.

I could really care less about Vista now. It's the most pointless thing, and I have even beta tested. The last time I customized it and installed most of the software I use on my Windows XP partition, but every 2 seconds the screen would fade to warn me about system changes. I know exactly where Microsoft gets this from, most Linux GUI's do it now, and Mac OS X does it too. But it only happens on seriously important stuff (Synaptics for Ubuntu, applying update on Mac OS X). I couldn't find the option to disable it entirely or disable it to a certain extent (which I would prefer). If Windows Vista is just going to be me clicking Yes to warnings every 2 seconds, then forget about it. I'll stick with XP and Ubuntu, and I'm going to switch to Ubuntu entirely soon enough.

Re:at what point (1)

GmAz (916505) | about 8 years ago | (#15868019)

I have to agree with that. A few years ago, I was all about getting the latest and greatest hardware in my system. Getting it overclocked to the point of melting the socket. Now, its no big deal. I realize my system is quite powerful for being a year old and I personally don't want to upgrade. Its expensive and I have a baby now. Besides, I need money to get my Nissan 350Z when I plan on having my mid-life crisis. I mean, women get menopause and expect us men to deal with it and give them what they want during their "hard time". Well, I want my mid-life crisis which means a new sports car for me.

at what point-My reality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15867472)

"At what point does the advancement of technology become either irrelevant, unnecessary to the casual user, too expensive, too complex, or some combination thereof?"

When we all change our names to yagu.

Re:at what point (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 8 years ago | (#15867535)

I agree with much of what you say, but being able to use much better screens, such as the large Dell TFT mentioned in the submission, is definitely a plus as far as I'm concerned.

This is partly because of the productivity benefits of getting more on-screen: try editing a book or magazine in a DTP program when you can actually see two real-size pages side-by-side at a useful resolution, and suddenly the idea of zooming in to part of one page on a 19" CRT to make out the details seems quaint and old-fashioned.

Equally important, newer TFTs tend to be a lot easier on the eyes than the older TFTs and mid-range CRTs that fill offices around the world. As someone whose eyes are degrading because of unfortunate genetics anyway, I want to make sure I do as much as possible to help them, and since I sit in front of a computer screen for a large proportion of my waking hours...

I think the problem alluded to in the submission, where large, hi-res screens become effectively unusable under Windows due to poor UI scaling, is a very real one. So, if a new version of Windows will support proper scaling for things like fonts, icons and UI widgets, and thus make bigger and better screens more usable, that is a clear benefit for me.

Re:at what point (4, Insightful)

SpryGuy (206254) | about 8 years ago | (#15867893)

I loved the new Dell Wide-screen 24" display. It rocked.

And then I discovered ClearType. Why ClearType isn't on in Windows XP by default (or even installed by default) I don't know. I had to go to a microsoft website to turn it on and download a control panel applet to let me tweak and configure it. But it made a great display even better... to much so that it was like getting glasses! I even use it on my CRT display at work, and it's better there too. It just seems odd to me that it's not the norm...

Re:at what point (1)

ePhil_One (634771) | about 8 years ago | (#15867972)

I agree with much of what you say, but being able to use much better screens, such as the large Dell TFT mentioned in the submission, is definitely a plus as far as I'm concerned.

But I use it just fine on Windows XP, I don't see how Vista will improve it at all. And I found the article comment on the pixel size on the 240FFPW surprising too, since its about the same as any other LCD. Now had he mentioned the display on my new D820, whose 15.4" display ALSO sports a 1920x1200 resolution, I might agree with him. But the reality is the display is so amazingly clear, its not much of an issue at all. My only real concern is mousing accross such an expanse tires out the finger, perhaps I need to reconsider "the stick".

Re:at what point (4, Interesting)

eno2001 (527078) | about 8 years ago | (#15867579)

You're mostly correct until the industry cooks up a "must have" reason that makes a user *THINK* they need a new PC/OS/Gadget/what have you. The auto industry went through this with tail fins back in the 50s. Software is going through it with more and more eye-candy that requires a hefty investment, but doesn't actually produce much of value in the end. (Don't get me wrong, I'm usually the first on the block to get new eye candy as long as it's something that is worth it to me) But, think about the number of average people who go out and buy a new PC just because their old one (that's only a year and a half old) is "slow". They are convinced by sleazy salesholes that their PC is slow because it's "old". They don't realize that maybe they have a virus, or some kind of software problem. Run an anti-virus program on your system that monitors everything around the clock and you'll have a slow PC, for example. Or some new software comes out that the user MUST HAVE but it only runs on the latest OS which only runs on boxes no older than two years. There's the artificial drive to buy new crap even if they don't need it.

As far as the complexity, well... sadly it really is a case of "your brain is too small for this century" when it comes to most users. There is no way to provide the flexible and advanced functionality that a user may want and not add complexity. Take for example the concept of de-interlacing. It's a complex issue with video. I use Xine on Linux and the TV Time filter to take care of my DirecTV signal and make it look as nice as possible on my LCD HD monitor. (Heh... it actually looks better than connecting the DirecTV box right to the monitor's composite in) But, in order to actually take advantage of this with a simple click of an icon for my wife to use, I had to write a script that calls 'xine' with the appropriate options, and tunes the GeForce driver for optimal color overlay. It's once click for her and hours of work at the outset for me. Joe User will NEVER do this. The only way to offer it to him is to have the application make automatic (and stupid) assumptions about how things should work and then give him the lowest common denominator result. If Windows Media Player took care of this, you know it would make lame assumptions about how the de-interlacing should work and he'd wind up with a crap signal unless he had all his ducks in a row hardware-wise. And then you're back to complexity that he shouldn't have to deal with...

Re:at what point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15867596)

Maybe the world is reaching a point where people really don't need mini-Crays to read e-mail, manage photos, and surf the internet.

Oh, but they will! And Microsoft will make damn sure of it when they stop patching windows XP one day.

Re:at what point (3, Interesting)

jandrese (485) | about 8 years ago | (#15867650)

To me, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are a lot like SVHS compared to regular VHS. They don't offer any particular new features that your average person is going to notice (they don't have the right equipment), but they are more difficult to set up (very few TVs had S-V jacks when SVHS was still big), far more expensive, and seemingly aimed at the high end videophlies. In the end S-V decks were just a niche market while plain old crappy VHS kept on chugging. It took a major technological overhaul to get people to switch (much like what it took to get people to switch from Cassette tapes to CDs).

The industry certainly isn't helping the problem by coming up with new and inventive DRM obsticles that they'll force the consumer to hurdle. Nor will they win a lot of friends by burning early adopters.

Ultimately if we get to the point where the DRM doesn't matter and the HD-DVD/Blu Ray decks are only slightly more expensive than regular DVD decks, and the cost for premanufactured discs is the same either way, then it will be adopted (but nowhere near as fast as DVDs were adopted), but if the costs are higher or there is some onerous DRM to contend with, then the technology is going to be stillborn like SVHS.

Re:at what point (4, Insightful)

DeeDob (966086) | about 8 years ago | (#15867663)

"It's possible Vista may be entering that twilight zone of indifferent consumerism"

XP entered that "twilight zone".

Almost no one bought XP when it came out (compared to the other OS microsoft sold). People gradually switched to XP when they replaced their old computers with newer ones that came pre-installed with XP.

Even now, people don't upgrade their PC every two years like in the mid-90s. People now wait for 4 or 5 years, some even more.

Re:at what point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15867750)

"THX sound"

THX (or THX-II) is just a nebulous certification.

Re:at what point (1)

Tweekster (949766) | about 8 years ago | (#15867762)

It has already started to happen with computers, but will take a lot longer.

Right now, people are buying new systems cause "they need a new one" because their old system is crufted up too badly and because of a desire for new and shiny. The shiny idea will always persist, but because most computers do way to much, they become infected with crap making them get slow very quickly.

I stopped bothering to get a new computer because my older system works well for Ubuntu, and is still a decent system to use. I browse the web, I play music, I watch videos, I email/IM. That is it, that also sums up most of the population in their system needs. I treat it as an appliance, it does those things, it does them well and that is it.

computers dont need more features, they need less, they need to do those tasks well and be done with it. Lock the user from being able to install all kinds of crap without a few steps. Take away options and the system starts to function much better.

People like choice, they hate the results of having that choice.

Funny you mention that... (2, Interesting)

Belial6 (794905) | about 8 years ago | (#15868004)

While I don't necesarily agree with the why, my next round of computers are going to be considered downgrades by many. In the next few months, I will be replacing many of my full blow machines with much slower VIA systems. My wife mostly does email and web browsing. She likes her computer to be in the bedroom. She hates waiting for it to boot, and hates the fan noise even more. I will replace her system with a fanless VIA. This way she can leave it on 24/7 and not be bothered by the noise. I will reinstall Windows (she is currently on linux) on her current machine, and she can boot it up on the rare occasion that she wants to play a game or two.

My son is in a similar boat. At two years old, he watches movies, plays music, and plays gComprise on his system. All of these can be handled on a fanless, low power VIA system. While his can boot his computer and load his software fine, he is not the best at turning everything off when he is done, so a no noise system would help.

My file server, email server, car PC, and camper PC don't need much power so those can go to fanless low power boards too. Heck, I figure that at the end of the day, I will only need one monster machine total. All the rest can be low power fanless systems.

Re:at what point (1)

shelterpaw (959576) | about 8 years ago | (#15867987)

There's always first adopters and then the it trickles down to the consumer. 10 years ago, not many people had surround sound systems in their homes. Today, you find them in many homes and can even buy them for your computer. Essentially you're tired of being a first adopter, but technology will keep progressing and getting cheaper as time goes on.

It's good to have things like Vista or OS X that keep pushing the hardware requirements and the technology envelope. Of course most corporations wont be first adopters, maybe in 5 years they'll switch over, but there's a group of consumers that are first adopters, they'll buy Vista and the hardware too.

Re:at what point (1)

FriendOfBagu (770778) | about 8 years ago | (#15868028)

At what point does the advancement of technology become either irrelevant, unnecessary to the casual user, too expensive, too complex, or some combination thereof?
You're right. Nobody will ever need more than 1 Gig of RAM.

--Bill Gates Jr.

The ever vanishing pixel (4, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 years ago | (#15867327)

But a 1920x1200 resolution often creates legibility problems for some users resulting from the tiny size of the default Windows font."

Fonts and documents can be scaled, in browsers, word processing, Adobe Acrobat, etc. Even Flash objects can be scaled, if the page is set up properly (which they often aren't, so you get a postage stamp at hires)

The worst thing is images. I have a picture on a web page which was, back in 1999, a large image. Now it's tiny and I can hardly make out the detail. Some images can be stretched, but others, particularly those which include text can be rendered poorly if not scaled by even multipliers. Where is all this resolution going, anyway? It's nice for some things, like photo editing of large images, but redundant for most other applications.

your new computer consumes 200 watts on idle, requires a 64 bit processor, 2 GB RAM, and a phat video card, so you can do what? Work in MS Office and surf the web? Seems about as appropriate as requireing everyone in Manhattan to have a Hummer.

Re:The ever vanishing pixel (2, Informative)

zlogic (892404) | about 8 years ago | (#15867466)

Vista's Avalon addresses the resolution issue in an elegant way (at least as Microsoft described it):
display resolution and font size are NOT related. So you can have a 4000x3000 resolution on a 15" monitor and all the fonts will be the correct size; in fact most sizes are defined as they will appear on the screen (e.g. cm, inches) and not as they are stored (pixels). However I think this applies only to fonts and not images; I'm not entirely sure.

And Opera alows you to zoom html pages scaling everything including images and fonts. Great feature because the layout never breaks (unlike IE and Firefox).

Re:The ever vanishing pixel (4, Insightful)

AJWM (19027) | about 8 years ago | (#15867871)

Vista's Avalon addresses the resolution issue in an elegant way [...]
display resolution and font size are NOT related. [...] in fact most sizes are defined as they will appear on the screen (e.g. cm, inches) and not as they are stored (pixels).


About time. This is hardly rocket science -- some of us have been doing that with apps since the late 1980s (sometime around the X10 to X11 transition). Yeah, the software needs to know how big a screen pixel is (the old DEC and Sun graphic monitors were about 0.35mm -- huge by today's standards) but that's easy enough. From there it's simple arithmetic to convert a font or feature size in screen inches (or cm) to pixels.

You could also do stuff like choosing to rescale or not when you zoom in or out, handy for maps. (The apps mentioned above were GIS and mapping software). And yes, we interpolated raster images too so you could specify the image display size without worrying about its stored pixel dimensions -- although obviously a 20x20 pixel image is going to be pretty blurry blown up to 10cm x 10cm.

Display Postscript could probably do this too, that's been around for about as long.

Re:The ever vanishing pixel (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | about 8 years ago | (#15867475)

No kidding. They are complaining about the Dell 2407WFP? That's 1920x1200 pixels on a *24*-inch monitor. I have that exact same resolution on my 15" inspiron 8600 laptop. Crank up the fonts in an application if the default is too small. Many other apps scale just fine. There are relatively few apps I have a problem with font size with.

I love that screen (2, Interesting)

grahamsz (150076) | about 8 years ago | (#15868035)

I've got the 1920x1200 at 15.4" on my latitude and it's fantastic.

With the editor font in eclipse at 8pt, i can fit so much code on the screen. Probably about 80 lines vertically and enough columns to get two full size code views side by side.

It's an amazing productivity booster and for the first time I'm actually using a windows system like a unix box and not having everything maximized.

Re:The ever vanishing pixel (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 8 years ago | (#15867499)

This high resolution == legibility problems is one of my pet peeves.
High resolution improves the legibility of text. Just you a bigger font! Your average printed page is 5100x6600. Do you find that hard to read?
Pick the right font and you will not have a problem.
images are a different matter but even those can be re-sized.

Re:The ever vanishing pixel (2, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | about 8 years ago | (#15867786)

A sensible gui environment will work out the DPI of your screen (Dots Per Inch) and ensure the default font size is actually a default physical size as viewed by you, and not a default size in pixels (and therefore smaller on a higher DPI screen).

Re:The ever vanishing pixel (2, Interesting)

catbutt (469582) | about 8 years ago | (#15867776)

Seems to me that the image issue is more of a weakness of web browser/server technology than anything. There are solutions, but they are currently a major pain in the ass, and are probably better thought of as "theoretical" solutions.

For instance, say I have a web site with images on it. I could have some javascript detect how big the page is and the user's text size, then request appropriate resolution images. Server side there would presumably be something that resizes and caches a variety of different size images from the highest resolution original.

As it is, almost no site does this because it is such a hassle to do and maintain. If it was "built in" to servers and browsers and the html spec, though, it would solve the problem, in my opinion.

You've hit, I say, You've hit the nail on the head (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 years ago | (#15867916)

For instance, say I have a web site with images on it. I could have some javascript detect how big the page is and the user's text size, then request appropriate resolution images. Server side there would presumably be something that resizes and caches a variety of different size images from the highest resolution original.

Hence the ever increasing bload of code required to render a page and hardware capability on your end. It seems we're a bunch of hamsters always running in wheels, but never getting anywhere.

icons! (3, Informative)

coyote-san (38515) | about 8 years ago | (#15867930)

Images are bad, but icons are worse!

My workplace issued new laptops with ~150 DPI (measured with a ruler). Basically twice what the old standard was. Twice what everyone designs their icons for, so those icons take up 1/4 the amount of screen real estate as they should.

I was able to get my applications to use reasonable fonts. It's NOT as simple as just setting the Windows display resolution to 150 DPI -- many apps merrily continue to insist on what they know you really meant and I still had to specify 24pt font to get what should be a 12pt font. But you can largely force the apps to behave.

But icons? WHERE ARE YE OLDE INSTRUMENTS OF TORTURE?!

I'm serious. Few applications support multiple icon sizes, so I have to take it at faith that the icons on this application actually mean something. E.g., I'm told that the subversion plug-in indicates if the file has been modified, if it's been modified on the server, locally, or both, and probably other nifty information. I can't tell since the icons force that information into about 6 pixes square.

Controls aren't quite as bad since they're not trying to cram the information into such as small space, but they're still so small that I have to remember that the icon for the local webserver is the grey box that's the second icon in the third group, not the little icon of a server.

I'm only in my 40s and only need reading glasses occasionally, but mild presbyopia and icons a fraction of their intended size is a bad combination. ... and coworkers still wonder why I prefer the command line instead of the nifty new tools.

Defaults (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 8 years ago | (#15867364)

But a 1920x1200 resolution often creates legibility problems for some users resulting from the tiny size of the default Windows font.
That's kind of a trivial concern. Sure, its a problem, but unless Vista's changed something this default can be changed quite easily. It would be an improvement if Windows had sensible default setting combinations that applied based on the current resolution, but certainly this isn't a new problem with Vista.

Re:Defaults (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15867625)

It would be an improvement if Windows had sensible default setting combinations that applied based on the current resolution, but certainly this isn't a new problem with Vista.

Maybe that isn't the specific point of this story but it does beg a question: after soooo long working on it and sooo many other improvements in eye-candy that increase cost of video hardware then just why in the fsck doesn't Vista address what has obviously been a problem for a long time?

Re:Defaults (1)

TeraBill (746791) | about 8 years ago | (#15867881)

And I have to wonder on what we are running 1920x1200 resolution? I just upgraded to a 24" LCD and am running 1920x1200 on all desktop systems via that display. I run 1600x1200 on the 15" display of my ThinkPad and it is fine. If you translate the pixel density of this display, you get 1920x1200 on a 17" widescreen display (like the Apple MacBook Pro 17"). So, 24" makes that quite a lot larger. Personally, I would buy a MB Pro today if they could do 1920x1200 on the 17" display. But then people always seem to tell me that they don't understand how I can read my display, so maybe I am not the norm. (Certainly not THE Norm.)

Re:Defaults (1)

burndive (855848) | about 8 years ago | (#15867913)

unless Vista's changed something this default can be changed quite easily. It would be an improvement if Windows had sensible default setting combinations that applied based on the current resolution, but certainly this isn't a new problem with Vista

I just bought a new Dell Laptop with XP on it and it has a setting in the Display Properties dialogue for DPI. Initially I found it quite annoying, because I didn't know about the setting and I was trying to set the fonts and GUI elements to a smaller size and they wouldn't go that small, but since it was a Dell and comes preinstalled with bloatware, I reformatted the hard drive and reinstalled everything, and the new install defaulted to the normal setting, and prompted me later on when I was installing "Dell QuickSet". I'm not sure if the setting is native to Windows and the interface was just exposed by Dell's configuration software. Maybe it's part of Media Center.

Anyway, it's a concern that is being addressed in new versions of Windows. Though personally, prefer things to be small by default and I can increase the size later on if I want.

Some people can't see, and don't know how to change configuration settings, so I think it's a good thing that they make it simple to change globally.

So how long? (2, Interesting)

y5 (993724) | about 8 years ago | (#15867371)

Given the projected surge in sales of higher resolution displays, how will it be until 800x600 fixed-width layouts finally die off?

Re:So how long? (1)

jfengel (409917) | about 8 years ago | (#15867624)

800x600 may die one of these days. "Fixed with" layouts are very popular with web designers, who like the amount of control it gives them. Combine that with weaknesses in CSS, whose ability to set column widths based on their content is sketchy.

Slashdot, for example, displays some very unpleasant behavior when fonts are scaled large. Every site that I know that handles font-scaling well does so with a layout whose total width is fixed.

If you're going to do fixed width, it should probably be no more than 1024x768, and 800x600 isn't a bad measure.

Re:So how long? (5, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 8 years ago | (#15867804)

"Fixed with" layouts are very popular with web designers, who like the amount of control it gives them.

And by "web designers," I'm sure you mean "control-freak relics from print publishing who don't know how the fuck to use the new medium properly," right?

If you're going to do fixed width, it should probably be no more than 1024x768, and 800x600 isn't a bad measure.

If you're going to do fixed width, you're already doing something wrong. How wide the page should be is the user's decision, not yours!

Re:So how long? (1)

aftk2 (556992) | about 8 years ago | (#15867933)

Assuming the fixed-width site is built with separated CSS and relatively semantic HTML, the user can apply a custom stylesheet, if he or she feels so strongly.

Re:So how long? (1)

CaptnMArk (9003) | about 8 years ago | (#15868023)

Actually, it seems that many sites that use 'css layout' are fixed width.

In the good old 'table layout' days, it was easier to do dynamically flowed layout.

Just my observation/impression. May be wrong.

Re:So how long? (1)

jfengel (409917) | about 8 years ago | (#15867965)

And by "web designers," I'm sure you mean "control-freak relics from print publishing who don't know how the fuck to use the new medium properly," right?

Yes. That's EXACTLY who I mean.

Re:So how long? (1)

Reziac (43301) | about 8 years ago | (#15868027)

Pet peeve relevant to that -- fixed width on the web page is always 5-10% wider than an equal-sized browser window, since you've got to account not only for window margins, but also that some browsers slightly stretch everything side to side. So a fixed-width page set at 1024 wide can require sidescrolling even on a 1024x768 display (the commonest default at present).

As to the rest of the comment chain... hear hear!! :)

[Me, I design for a *browser window* set at 800x600, but I test how it floats both at larger and smaller sizes.]

Yeah... (2, Funny)

eno2001 (527078) | about 8 years ago | (#15867375)

"But a 1920x1200 resolution often creates legibility problems for some users resulting from the tiny size of the default Windows font".

Then the end-user does something stupid and makes the font legible and you lose desktop real estate again making 1920x1200 pretty small. While high resolution is nice and all, what we really need are 37" wide screen desktop monitors to come down in price. Or better yet, something that paints the image directly onto the rods and cones in our eyes. Of course at that point a screensaver will be mandatory if you don't want to be walking around with a Start button floating in view even when you're not on the system.

Re:Yeah... (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 8 years ago | (#15867486)

While high resolution is nice and all, what we really need are 37" wide screen desktop monitors to come down in price.

While I agree that cheaper bigger monitors would be a good thing, I really would like to know who has that *desk* real estate for such beasts. Back when LCD monitors were a novelty and cost up to 1200€, I decided to buy one. I could have gotten a nice big aquarium of a 21" CRT for less, but I opted for a 1200€ LCD screen, simply because my desk would be too tiny having a big CRT on it. I still use my 15" LCD screen (1024x768) to this day, and it's just fine. Sure, I could put a 19" where it stands now, but much larger would be very impractical on my desk. Especially because those 19" LCDs are very affordable these days. Still, I keep my 15" LCD because it's smaller, does the job just fine and well, it was so damned expensive back then. (I know: eary adopter curse...)

Re:Yeah... (1)

eno2001 (527078) | about 8 years ago | (#15867637)

I know I don't have the desk space for it here at work. But at home it becomes a matter of wallspace. You press the monitor into double duty as both your "TV" and your computer display. That's what I've got in the living room right now. It works great for my audio/video editing sessions. Nice large desktop with very readable 14 point fonts in X window. But it's also used by my wife for watching TV, listening to music, etc... At work, I think the best I could do is a dual screen set up.

Re:Yeah... (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 8 years ago | (#15867979)

I understand your concept. This is not going to come over well when my wife want to watch TV and I want to write some emails. But, yes, your idea is an option in some cases.

Re:Yeah... (1)

aricept (810752) | about 8 years ago | (#15867909)

My roommate's boss uses a couple of the 30 inch CinemaDisplays [apple.com] . For, you know, spreadsheets. Know how many columns you can fit on there?

Re:Yeah... (2, Informative)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about 8 years ago | (#15867488)

I've run into many problems with end-users who cannot read even large or extra-large fonts at 1024x768, while they do fine at 800x600 with normal fonts. Yes they are older folks, and sure they are stuck using a 14" monitor, but like most small to medium size businesses they simply cannot find the funds to get something larger. Price for even replacing a 14" with say a 21" is a major concern, and most of the older monitors out there are not going to handle anything over 1280x1024. I've seen companies replace computers 2 or 3 times while keeping the same old monitors, only replacing them when they die.

Jonah HEX

Re:Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15867813)

Simple solution, I use to work with a guy who, when on his shift would set the resolution to 320x280.
Solution: group policy so they can't change the resolution; set the resolution at a sane value; tell them to buy a pair of fucking glasses.

Re:Yeah... (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about 8 years ago | (#15867833)

You can pick up a 20 or 21" CRT for virtually nothing nowadays, i just threw a few of them out.

Re:Yeah... (1, Funny)

jamesshuang (598784) | about 8 years ago | (#15867608)

Oh god, think of what happens if you leave it there too long... BURN-IN! Can you imagine spending the rest of your life with a Start button permenantly etched into your retina?!

Re:Yeah... (1)

eno2001 (527078) | about 8 years ago | (#15867790)

Welcome to the world of Microsoft. :P

direct eye hookups (1)

Quevar (882612) | about 8 years ago | (#15867950)

Or better yet, something that paints the image directly onto the rods and cones in our eyes.

Actually, that would result in incredibly low resolution. The resolution of the human eye is somewhere around 512by512. The reason you can make out so much detail in what you see is because the eyes are constantly moving back and forth and integrating all the knowledge together. It requires the brain the know how the eyes are moving along with what it is seeing. There is also a huge amount of assumed knowledge that your brain uses to fill in the gaps.

Vector based graphics systems are the answer (3, Interesting)

also-rr (980579) | about 8 years ago | (#15867386)

Lossless/procedural scaling allows detail to go up as resolution rises instead of apparent quality going down. I believe that Vector Icons and Fonts are a target for KDE4.

In any event DRM hardware that stops popular garbage being played without a license isn't really an issue - it'll push people who don't like the situation to make their own. In fact that's kind of the best thing that could happen to indie media, increasing the pool of contributors massivly.

The only kind of bad DRM hardware is the kind that stops users playing, modifying or distributing their _own_ stuff cheaply and easily*. That's the real issue.

Re:Vector based graphics systems are the answer (1)

0racle (667029) | about 8 years ago | (#15867610)

Lossless/procedural scaling allows detail to go up as resolution rises instead of apparent quality going down. I believe that Vector Icons and Fonts are a target for KDE4.
Everything that was old is new again. Welcome to Irix.

It's called SVG (1)

retro_alt (993965) | about 8 years ago | (#15867741)

Gnome, and I thought KDE support vector graphics already. SVG support has been a part of Gnome for quite a long time, for exactly the reason you're talking about.

Assuming Vista is Widely Adopted (1)

Oz0ne (13272) | about 8 years ago | (#15867443)

I see no indication that people will switch to vista, other than new hardware vendors preloading it. It really seems that no one is excited, or even INTERESTED in the features. Most corps I deal with will delay as long as possible for several reasons. I see Vista as the #1 opportunity for alternative operating systems to gain ground. Really, I see this as the begining of the end of MS reign, but that may be a tad premature.

Re:Assuming Vista is Widely Adopted (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 8 years ago | (#15867581)

Most corps I deal with will delay as long as possible for several reasons. I see Vista as the #1 opportunity for alternative operating systems to gain ground.

Well, go look at slashdot posts from a few years ago.... We said exactly the same thing about Windows XP. Hey, I was running W2k back then and I said I wouldn't switch. I still think that W2k is one of the best operating systems from Redmond, but fast user switching was reason enough to go to XP... especially in a family setting.

In companies the situation is indeed different: I have worked on Win NT4.0 SP4 systems when Windows XP SP2 was current. That was at a big bank and switching to W2k or XP was not considered at that time. (I do not know what they run these days) Still, it is enough that the big boss of a company buys a new Vista PC at home and requires an upgrade in his company because he is now more familiar with Vista. I have seen these things happen....

Re:Assuming Vista is Widely Adopted (1)

NSIM (953498) | about 8 years ago | (#15868020)

Corporates have never rushed into new operating system releases, they'd be crazy to, so nothing new there. As to consumers, they'll get Vista on any new PC next year without even thinking about, the only issue is how many XP customer upgrade on existing hardware and that's hard to predict, though it's never been a problem for MS in the past. As to Vista "as the beginning of the end of MS reign," please can I get some of what you're smoking. I've tried new releases of platforms like Ubuntu side by side with my beta test work on Vista and while I like Ubuntu, it's a thousand years away from being a desktop for anybody but a self-confessed geek!

Opportunity for Linux (3, Insightful)

ecorona (953223) | about 8 years ago | (#15867446)

I see this as a great opportunity for Linux. As MS Windows restricts what can and can't be done on their OS, Linux should get their crap together and work on hardware support and on making an user friendly distribution to get the average joe on board (it was painful and took MANY tries for me to learn linux from scratch and this was just a year ago). We generally won't get the older Mom and Pops to install Linux but the average Joe is all we need.

Re:Opportunity for Linux (0)

Jediman1138 (680354) | about 8 years ago | (#15867521)

Seriously, what isn't? a perfect opportunity for Linux for some of you?

I realize that Linux has many many benefits to other OS's, but for the love of God, if it was going to takeover like everyone believes it should, then why hasn't it by now? Probably because of no centralization. If Linux was one product, one marketable, boxable product, then one company could advertise, and perhaps it could take off.

If the Linux model stays the way it is, it will never be the desktop of the masses, I promise you. Linux is a great thing, and I love it, and yes, some distros are usuable by anyone, but it's a niche OS. Without one unified group, it simply cannot win. /off-topic rant.

Re:Opportunity for Linux (4, Interesting)

giorgiofr (887762) | about 8 years ago | (#15867732)

The majority of Linux users plain doesn't care about converting the world over. They mostly want to Get Things Done(tm) and the tool they like best happens to be a *nix. Please do not mistake the small vocal minority for the reasonable majority.

Re:Opportunity for Linux (1)

OmegaBlac (752432) | about 8 years ago | (#15867889)

As MS Windows restricts what can and can't be done on their OS, Linux should get their crap together
I was unaware that Linux was one entity or a company with one agreeable goal. Here I thought the Linux community was a mix of users and developers all with various and sometimes conflicting goals.
and work on hardware support
Maybe you should direct that question toward the hardware vendors.
and on making an user friendly distribution to get the average joe on board
There have been many user friendly distros over the years: Red Hat/Fedora, Suse, Xandros, Linspire, PCLinuxOS, Ubuntu, etc. I would hardly classify Windows as user friendly with its multitudes of malware, totaltarian activation procedures, and DRM.
We generally won't get the older Mom and Pops to install Linux but the average Joe is all we need.
Linux preinstalled, already working out the box is all they need. Big OEMs like Lenovo, PCs sold at Walmart, and many smaller companies already do this. Those that care about Linux reaching mainstream acceptance just need to spread the word (marketing) more.

Future of Linux (1)

0xABADC0DA (867955) | about 8 years ago | (#15867458)

An operating system emulator to allow us to run our legacy unix / foss applications. User must demonstrate compelling need in order to get linux.exe authorized and activated.

Re:Future of Linux (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 years ago | (#15867734)

What do you mean? "I want to" is no longer a good enough reason to run on my hardware the software I want to run?

Then screw your system and I stick with the stuff I got. Because that runs what I want. And that's what matters to me.

Yes, I'm selfish. I learned from the industry.

Re:Future of Linux (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 8 years ago | (#15867990)

*Sigh* -- If only more of the non-technical public shared your attitude...

Vista vs. Hardware (1)

truthsearch (249536) | about 8 years ago | (#15867463)

Currently, only a few shipping products actually support the crypto-ROM needed to ensure compliance with Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, and CableCard. It's looking like next-generation cards will all implement the needed firmware.

What does this have to do with Vista? On the software side it only relates to drivers, which can be written for any OS. I fail to see how selling Vista has anything to do with demand for this hardware.

Re:Vista vs. Hardware (1)

bersl2 (689221) | about 8 years ago | (#15867522)

It's because MS (and Big Content, too) has most of the hardware companies by the balls.

Re:Vista vs. Hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15867895)

If a new hardware will be required (besides the actual drive) to play blu-ray and hd-dvd content, then I'd say, it will fail to establish itself the market.

DVD's will be here at least for another 10 years, before all people switch to HDTV equipment. And don't expect it to happen soon, there will certainly be more delays in switching-off dates for NTSC TV. More so in Europe and else where vast majority still watch regular TV.

In the Audio Seciton of TFA.... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15867493)

I didn't see anything about DRM.

Ya see, I copy CDs of music recorded at a local church. This enables the choir to actually listen to themsevles, hear the choir director's version, and just help them do a better job.

My point is if DRM gets in my way of copying non-RIAA, non-MPAA, non-[Insert big corp here],... Someone's "Base" is going to be really pissed that they can't record their music because they can't produce CDs of their church's music that they performed.

BTW, the music itself is in the public domain - like just about all church hymes and other music.

DRM? (2, Interesting)

Tokin84 (919029) | about 8 years ago | (#15867508)

For example, Windows Vista will support an unprecedented level of DRM (digital rights management), but that's at the behest of the content providers rather than Microsoft itself.

Why can't Microsoft use its position in the software industry to leverage content providers away from DRM. What if Microsoft stopped supporting DRM... what would the Record/Movie Industry do? They'd be forced to adopt a universal standard, to ensure their music could be played (because we all know that someone would hack the encryption, convert to mp3, and find a way to distribute it anyways). I'd really hope that Microsoft, instead of buckling to DRM requests, refused and did something that helped the consumer.

Oh, and make a decent operating system which doesn't have a blue screen of death, require over 4GB of RAM to make worthwhile, and necessitate the latest graphics card to gain access to the "revolutionary" (*cough* Aqua-like *cough*) new graphical interface. That might be nice too...

Re:DRM? (1)

ChronoReverse (858838) | about 8 years ago | (#15867590)

If by latest you mean integrated graphics like the Intel GMA950, you'd be correct. Areo Glass doesn't require that much _power_. It just needs some features that have been around for a few years now and have been moved to the integrated.

Re:DRM? (2, Insightful)

nizo (81281) | about 8 years ago | (#15867597)

Lets see, if a Microsoft license is required to play brand-spank-me-new-drm DVDs on your brand-spank-me-new-drm DVD player in your pc, this would put a big dent in the desktop market for any other OS that can't make them play wouldn't it? So I can see exactly why Microsoft is gung-ho on the DRM issue. They can claim to be "doing the right thing" when in fact all they are really doing is increasing their stranglehold on the desktop.

Re:DRM? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 8 years ago | (#15867673)

What if Microsoft stopped supporting DRM... what would the Record/Movie Industry do?

Lawsuit because they help pirates? DMCA is there for something... If they would not support DRM, your media-enabled PC would be able to play not much media anymore. I'm not saying it is right, but all current DRM media would suddenly be locked out from that new shiny Vista PC you got. Circumventing the current DRM in the OS itself is simply a big no-no with DMCA.

Re:DRM? (2, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | about 8 years ago | (#15867770)

Why can't Microsoft use its position in the software industry to leverage content providers away from DRM.

Because they want to control the DRM. They want to do what Apple did with iTunes and the iPod. If all downlaodable media is designed for Windows, then they when downloadable content becomes mainstream, people will want PVRs with download capability running Windows CE because that will be the OS that's most compatible with the exisitng downloadable contnet.

Re:DRM? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 years ago | (#15867772)

Well, let's ponder a few things for a moment...

MS does not compete with the MI.

They compete against other OSs.

Linux is in their way, gaining shares even in the Desktop environment.

They can't do the usual routine of "buying and dissing", since there's nobody able to sell them Linux.

"The user" (being generic here, forgive me) wants to watch movies on his computer, and play songs (or load either to his portable medium).

It is near impossible to implement completely throughly DRM in open source software.

Catch my drift?

Bluray and HD-DVD are garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15867509)

I am not accepting yet more attempts from big business to control what I can do with movies / audio that I have purchased.
I am making a point of letting everyone I know aware of the corrupt interests behind this technology.

High resolution and legibility (2, Interesting)

ErichTheRed (39327) | about 8 years ago | (#15867516)

With the advent of LCDs that have only one native resolution, this is a big problem for Windows. Imagine that either (1) you're visually impaired enough to not be able to read small stuff, but don't need things like screen magnifiers, or (2) you're tired at the end of a long day and don't feel like squinting at tiny fonts. Windows does let you scale the fonts, but the problem with this is that the graphics widgets don't scale porportionately in XP. Also, some applications and web pages start looking really ugly with scaled fonts. Also, you need to reboot the computer for the font change to take effect, which doesn't make sense to me.

Scaling has to be something that all app vendors take into account in their code for it to work. I actually have my large LCD at a higher DPI right now, and several aopps don't resize their icons, etc.

When everyone was running 17" or 20" screens at 1280x1024 or so, this wasn't an issue. Now, look at monster displays like the Apple 30" widescreen display. Mac OS finally got around to letting you scale the cursor size...before, it was a fixed-size tiny speck on that huge monitor when you ran it at the native resolution. The old solution was to change your resolution...doing this now either doesn't work or makes LCDs look really ugly.

Re:High resolution and legibility (1)

setirw (854029) | about 8 years ago | (#15867588)

Wrong; You don't have to reboot. Windows incorrectly states that scaling font DPI requires a reboot.

but the problem with this is that the graphics widgets don't scale porportionately (sic) in XP.

Yes, they do. Only poorly written applications which use bitmapped widgets/graphics don't scale properly. Ironically, ATI's control panel doesn't work at any other font resolution besides the default 96dpi.

Re:High resolution and legibility (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 8 years ago | (#15867789)

Apple's 30" display is 100 dpi. As long as the monitor is viewed at the normal distance the cursor will be the same size as it always has been.

Having exprienced the Vista BETA... (3, Interesting)

bealzabobs_youruncle (971430) | about 8 years ago | (#15867520)

and knowing my hardware isn't up to snuff and much of my software needs replacing, I bought a Mac. I mean, if I have to replace all that stuff anyway, why not get something truly "new" by comparison? Now my current XP box will become an Ubuntu file and print server in the next few months and I'll move my gaming to consoles. My last Mac still felt fast for about 2-3 years by my standards so I figure I'll grab something new around 2008-09 unless something really earth shattering gets released in the interim.

I suspect this will happen to a number of us who have been at this a while and even some casual home users will opt out of the MS patch cycle. I wonder if anyone at MS feels this way, or if they just assume their current dominance is pre-destined?

Re:Having exprienced the Vista BETA... (3, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 8 years ago | (#15867814)

Now my current XP box will become an Ubuntu file and print server in the next few months and I'll move my gaming to consoles.
I hope you're prepared for disappointment, unless you primarily play sports games.

I suspect this will happen to a number of us who have been at this a while and even some casual home users will opt out of the MS patch cycle.
I've already moved out of the patch cycle for my home workstation, WGA did it for me (and I'm running a legit copy). I'd rather deal with more aggresively scanning for malware than deal with the patch cycle and WGA.

And, wonder of wonders, my technological impaired wife asked me yesterday about getting a linux box (to be fair, she didn't use quite those words. It was more like "If we get a Linus [sic] machine next, does it come with a security blanket?") But the fact that she had even been thinking about the existence of *nix boxes was... exilarating. Titillating, even. A sign of the endtimes for MS? Dunno, but it gave me the warm fuzzies.

Continued... (5, Funny)

TPIRman (142895) | about 8 years ago | (#15867532)

When your article can't even be quoted for a a paragraph without a page break slipping in there, you have

Continued...

officially crossed the line.

os (5, Insightful)

agentdunken (912306) | about 8 years ago | (#15867534)

Why does a OS need to take all your hardware? Its called a OS for reason. Its not a video game, its a Operating System,something that allows you to give your computer commands for it can do your functions. A OS should never, EVER, take so much high system requirements.

Font size? Huh? (4, Interesting)

Zarhan (415465) | about 8 years ago | (#15867547)

Umm, font sizes are measured in Picas, not pixels, and all new monitors let the operating system know their physical charasteristics. Pica corresponds to 1/96 inches (yeah, ridicilous unit, but it comes from typesetting background). If you select font size as 96, and type a few letters That uses the entire "box", something like Íg, the distance between the aposthrophe and g:s curve is one ince on the screen. For most characters, 72 means an inch (THESE LETTERS ARE ONE INCH HIGH WITH SIZE 72).

I know that Windows used to act rather weirdly if trying to set the DPI factor to anything other than the default - back in '95, but the situation cannot be the same anymore...can it?

Linux and X-servers support this too. I haven't seen any problems except with a few gtk+ 1.x apps - and sometimes some windows are sized improperly. You can even manually specify the monitors physical measurements if autodetect does not work, with DisplaySize option in xorg.conf.

Anyway, with 1900x1200 screen, you get the same physical font sizes as before, there are just more pixels to draw them with, so they look nicer.

Re:Font size? Huh? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15867817)

Many web sites depend on pixel precision placement of images and their elements to display properly. Fonts sizes are defined in pixels with CSS on almost every site I visit. CSS was to solve the problem of displaying web sites on different devices, but the way it's used, layouts don't even flow as well as it used to with simple HTML and tables.

Re:Font size? Huh? (2, Interesting)

dfghjk (711126) | about 8 years ago | (#15867900)

My experience is that none of the OS'es handle scaling right, Linux included. The main difference is that screen resolution is easy to specify in Windows and painful in Linux. OS X is well known to fully support screen resolutions as long as they're 100 dpi. Frankly, they are all fucked.

I use a 200 dpi display for both Windows and Linux so I get an extreme look at what goes wrong. I set both to 100 dpi and deal with matters in other ways.

Interestingly, only one monitor provides this resolution. OS X supported it at one time but is now reported to be broken. Windows just works with it as long as you select the right video card. Linux thinks it supports it (to a degree) but getting it to work requires the patience of a saint. Once I got it working I didn't dare change the machine again. x86-64 worked but the exact same config in x86-32 would not. Got to love Linux.

fuck a 7rollkore (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15867605)

steadily fuCKing

Broken font rendering? (3, Interesting)

zdzichu (100333) | about 8 years ago | (#15867618)

But a 1920x1200 resolution often creates legibility problems for some users resulting from the tiny size of the default Windows font.

Only if font rendering are broken on such OS. Font size is configured in points, which are physical unit equaling about 0.35 mm (or 0.014 inch). Now matter what resolution is, ten point font will always be 3,5mm high. Higher resolution can help -- if resolution is bigger, there will be more pixels per those 3,5mm, so font will look better. That's why configuring display DPI is so important when it's not autodetected.

Re:Broken font rendering? (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about 8 years ago | (#15867964)

but how big a glyph is on the screen is less important than how large it is perceived. you have to consider screen dpi and viewing distance. admittedly, font size doesn't consider viewing distance BUT font size alone isn't an answer to anything.

Too bad Windows doesn't completely support display dpi. I have purchased Dell laptops with 130dpi displays and Dell configures the display dpi properly (130) from the factory. trouble is that the initial boot dialogs didn't display properly. How embarrassing!

I think Windows should be set to 96dpi and actual screen dpi handled separately. Hopefully MS (and Apple too) will get this fixed.

mo3 down (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15867660)

partneR. And 4if [goat.cx]

Not readable? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about 8 years ago | (#15867709)

Surely the fact that the default font is unreadable on high resolution screens, is the fault of windows and not of the screen.
X11, and i`m sure OSX too, takes the DPI of the screen into account, and sizes the fonts accordingly, so they're still readable.

Cracked Foundation (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 8 years ago | (#15867726)

I can't wait to see all the millions of cheap PCs, most made in China, which carry cracked "crypto ROMs". When those PCs are untrustworthy to either user or publisher, will the entire "snitch PC" system collapse under its own weight?

Is this the road to the glue factory? (2, Insightful)

Keith Russell (4440) | about 8 years ago | (#15867747)

(sigh) Zonk, what are we gonna do with you?

...the article also touches on things like DRM (which Vista heavily supports)...

DRM is imposed on operating system vendors by Big Media. OS vendors' choices are limited to compliance, getting sued for lack of compliance, or lack of support altogether. So Microsoft complied with Big Media's demands for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray in Vista. Why do people keep acting like it's some stunning revelation, when Microsoft's stance has not changed between XP and Vista? Yes, that's rhetorical. Kinda like asking why Buffalo Sabres fans hate Brett Hull.

And yes, I know I'm beating a dead horse. But every time I turn a corner, there's a carcass and a convienently-placed blunt object...

1920x1200 (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 8 years ago | (#15867778)

But a 1920x1200 resolution often creates legibility problems for some users resulting from the tiny size of the default Windows font. - on my 15.4" laptop screen, the 1920x1200 is so useful. I can have more than one window opened on the screen without tabbing through them.

Anti trust proceedings? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15867810)

Seems there may come a time when we can no longer buy reasonably priced TCPA and DRM feature free hardware. Will we be able to file a suit against Microsoft for using their monopoly position to manipulate the hardware market in favor of DRM capable proprietry OS's?

Windows Fonts (1)

Guanine (883175) | about 8 years ago | (#15867859)

High resolution displays should _not_ be making users squint. I believe Apple has the underlying technology to make OS X scalable (increases relative size of application elements, including fonts, as screen real estate increases) ... I should hope Vista has the same. In fact, I would hope that Vista enables a scalable environment by default to push OS X further down that path.

Anybody know more about this - I was a little unclear when I read the article's "12-point type will actually be 12-point on the screen." I think this means the scalability I referred to will be present.

Early Adopter... pfft (1)

theJamAbides (947551) | about 8 years ago | (#15867940)

Why did I go and get a Sony HDTV when it was new and shiny? Now I dont' have the wonderful HDMI port to supply DRM information through the data stream, and I won't be able to hook it up to Vista now too. What is it going to mean for the many of us who got HDTV's early without regard to the future implementation of DRM and PVR's running Windows Vista?

Windows Vista? Really? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 8 years ago | (#15867955)

NSIM writes to mention an article on ExtremeTech looking at the impact that Windows Vista will have on the future of computer hardware.

From what I've seen yesterday (WWDC 2006 keynote video), Apple are gonna be the ones pushing the future of computer hardware. Microsoft simplies (tries to) follow them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>