>> I often wonder why we don't have monitors with 300dpi or 600dpi yet. 
>> Then the text on screen would be nearly print-quality.
> 
> Because you view a computer monitor from further distance than a book, 
> an arbitrarily increasing the ppi is a waste of money and electricity.

I can see the pixels on my monitor. But yeah, maybe 600dpi would be 
overkill. Perhaps just 150 or something?

>> (Except that, to this day, changing resolution makes everything come 
>> out too small.
> 
> You can change the ppi setting somewhere in windows, but IME some badly 
> behaved programs don't like it.

Hell, there are programs that ignore you if you change the default 
window colours. Or programs that don't like it if Windows is installed 
on D: rather than C:. ;-)

>> Perhaps I live in a different country or something then? Most of what 
>> we receive doesn't appear to be widescreen.
>>
>> (Or are you talking about the HD channels? We only receive SD.)
> 
> No I only get SD too, everything I've seen is widescreen.

Mmm, OK. I shall investigate further...

> Oh wait, you're not still receiving analogue signal are you?  That might 
> be different.

I don't *think* we are... I thought we were using Freeview.

(Then again, my grandparents use FreeSat. Their TV physically has a 4:3 
aspect [it's an old CRT], and the picture seems to fit natively, so...)

Post a reply to this message