>> /Windows/ doesn't support it? Or just that every 3rd-party
>
> Maybe it's just so clunky for devlopers to support it they don't bother?

I don't know. I haven't looked into this sort of thing. I thought there 
was a "change DPI" setting somewhere in the control panel, but I've got 
no idea how various programs would react to that.

> Android is an example of a better way to do it (but probably not the
> best way).

I know nothing about Andriod.

Post a reply to this message

> You need to learn how to make 4GB ones, or more correctly, how to build
> a factory to mass produce 4GB ones. And you're not going to do that
> overnight in the lab if you are currently only making 64MB ones. It
> simply won't happen, you'll go bankrupt (because your competitors
> figured out how to make 256MB ones and you didn't) before you figure it
> out.
>
> The only way to do it is to stretch your existing process to make 128MB
> or 256MB ones, trying to fix the odd few problems that will no doubt
> come up. That is called research and development.
>
> Once you have a stable process for 256MB ones, you can again try and
> push to make 512MB or 1GB ones, you will no doubt come up against
> different problems than you had last time, you might need some fairly
> big steps in technology development, but it's possible.

Perhaps it's because I don't work in that sort of industry. All this 
sounds kind of abstract to me. I don't see how going to 10x is "harder" 
than going to 2x. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying I don't understand 
why.

>> Then again, cars don't improve in performance at all. Today's cars have
>> performance within a few percent of cars made 40 years ago. And yet,
>> people still buy cars.
>
> Compare pretty much any criteria and cars have vastly improved.

How about, uh, speed?

30 years ago, cars could do 70 MPH. Today, cars can do 70 MPH. As far as 
I know, there's little to no improvement in acceleration either. 
Expensive cars were always faster than cheap cars, but other than that, 
not much change in three decades. Braking is the only thing I can think 
of which might have improved; we have ABS now.

Cars do seem to have more "gadgets" now than they used to. Once upon a 
time, if you wanted electric windows, you'd have to buy a luxury sports 
car. Today it's hard to find a car /without/ electric windows. I'm not 
sure how or why that happened, BTH.

>> On the other hand, pens and pencils don't improve in performance either,
>> and they still sell plenty of those.
>
> That's just because you don't work with designing pens :-) I'm pretty
> sure they are continually using the latest materials and inks available,
> you just don't notice that your pen doesn't snap as easily or
> clog-up/stop working as often as it used to.

To some extent, it's the sort of device that you only notice when it 
/stops/ working. That said, there's been no /noticeable/ improvement. 
And my point, of course, was that even if pens never did improve ever 
again, people would /still/ buy them. Because they're a consumable item.

Post a reply to this message

>> Compare pretty much any criteria and cars have vastly improved.
>
> How about, uh, speed?
>
> 30 years ago, cars could do 70 MPH. Today, cars can do 70 MPH. As far as
> I know, there's little to no improvement in acceleration either.
> Expensive cars were always faster than cheap cars, but other than that,
> not much change in three decades. Braking is the only thing I can think
> of which might have improved; we have ABS now.

This is what happens when you hit [send] too fast. ;-)

I wonder how much computers would have improved if it was illegal for a 
computer to perform more than seventy billion instructions per second?

Brings a whole new meaning to the words "Internet Explorer has performed 
an illegal operation and must be shut down". ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> Perhaps it's because I don't work in that sort of industry. All this
> sounds kind of abstract to me. I don't see how going to 10x is "harder"
> than going to 2x. I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying I don't understand
> why.

Short answer: Go and research how ICs are made.

Long answer: Think of something you could teach yourself to make (eg an 
origami bird or something) and imagine making those and selling them. 
Now consider how hard it would be to make them 2x smaller, a few folds 
might be a bit tricky, but you'd probably manage after a few tests.  Now 
consider if you had to make them 10x smaller, suddenly some folds might 
become impossible unless you use tweezers or something, you might need 
to buy different paper, change the design slightly, it is going to take 
orders of magnitude longer to teach yourself how to reliably make them 
repeatedly, and while you're doing that you're not making the bigger 
ones so you're not getting any money.

If you instead started making the 2x smaller version and got happy with 
that, you could then go 2x smaller again, maybe having to make 1 design 
change.  At each step you have far fewer problems, if you try and jump 
10x or 20x you're just going to give it up because it won't work and you 
won't be able to figure out why.

> 30 years ago, cars could do 70 MPH. Today, cars can do 70 MPH. As far as
> I know, there's little to no improvement in acceleration either.

The problem with speed is that for most people buying a car, price and 
economy comes before top speed, and especially in most countries it's 
illegal to drive much above 70 or 80mph.  So obviously car companies 
have concentrated on keeping price low and reducing fuel usage rather 
than top speed.  But then saying that, if you want to you can easily buy 
a cheap family car that will comfortably go well above 100 mph without 
shaking itself apart - how many cars could do that 30 years ago?

> Expensive cars were always faster than cheap cars, but other than that,
> not much change in three decades. Braking is the only thing I can think
> of which might have improved; we have ABS now.

All the other things I mentioned too, particularly MPG is the main one 
that is top of most manufacturers list of things to improve.

> Cars do seem to have more "gadgets" now than they used to. Once upon a
> time, if you wanted electric windows, you'd have to buy a luxury sports
> car. Today it's hard to find a car /without/ electric windows. I'm not
> sure how or why that happened, BTH.

Same for air-con, electric mirrors, information displays, immobilisers, 
CD players, navigation etc.  All stuff starts out on the 
top-of-the-range models and works it way down to standard on the 
cheapest ones.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/04/2012 16:53, Invisible wrote:
>>> /Windows/ doesn't support it? Or just that every 3rd-party
>>
>> Maybe it's just so clunky for devlopers to support it they don't bother?
>
> I don't know. I haven't looked into this sort of thing. I thought there
> was a "change DPI" setting somewhere in the control panel, but I've got
> no idea how various programs would react to that.
>
>> Android is an example of a better way to do it (but probably not the
>> best way).
>
> I know nothing about Andriod.

This is a good overview, there are no pre-requisites!

http://developer.android.com/guide/practices/screens_support.html

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012/04/10 11:53, Invisible a écrit :
>>> /Windows/ doesn't support it? Or just that every 3rd-party
>>
>> Maybe it's just so clunky for devlopers to support it they don't bother?
>
> I don't know. I haven't looked into this sort of thing. I thought there
> was a "change DPI" setting somewhere in the control panel, but I've got
> no idea how various programs would react to that.

There is. Display properties, Advance button, general tab.
Defaulted to 72 DPI in win 9x and 2000.
Defaults to 96 in Windows XP and probably Vista. Can be set to a 
"standard" 120 DPI or an arbitrary custom value.
The main problem, is that many applications' display will break down if 
you increase the DPI setting past 96. Some web page layout will also get 
broken if you change your DPI setting. That's why using absolute PIXEL 
values is realy bad.

A viable solution is to sellect the apearance tab and increase the point 
size of your characters. That won't affect the graphics elements but 
will make your text large enough to be read.
Selecting a good high readability font also help.




Alain

Post a reply to this message

>> I don't know. I haven't looked into this sort of thing. I thought there
>> was a "change DPI" setting somewhere in the control panel, but I've got
>> no idea how various programs would react to that.
>
> There is.

I thought so.

> The main problem, is that many applications' display will break down if
> you increase the DPI setting past 96.

Any specific reason?

> Some web page layout will also get
> broken if you change your DPI setting. That's why using absolute PIXEL
> values is realy bad.

Well, yeah, we all knew that. ;-)

(Though of course if the page is loaded with graphics, all of those are 
rendered at fixed pixel sizes, so...)

Post a reply to this message

On 4/10/2012 8:54, Invisible wrote:
> How about, uh, speed?

Look at cars where speed above 70MPH actually matters. Like, say, race cars. 
They've gotten much faster.

Cars certainly go faster than 70MPH. Have you tried the difference in ride 
quality at 140MPH between a modern car and a 30-year-old car?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/10/2012 7:55, scott wrote:
> text was all a bit blocky or blurry depending what setting you used.

300DPI is still a bit blocky and blurry on paper.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/10/2012 8:47, scott wrote:
> Maybe it's just so clunky for devlopers to support it they don't bother? I

One of my huge regrets in this profession is that we gave up NeWS in favor 
of HTML.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 02:05 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/10/2012 8:54, Invisible wrote:
>> How about, uh, speed?
>
> Look at cars where speed above 70MPH actually matters. Like, say, race
> cars. They've gotten much faster.

Pfft. Every time the engineers find a way to make the cars faster, the 
FIA finds a way to make them go slower again. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 02:07 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/10/2012 7:55, scott wrote:
>> text was all a bit blocky or blurry depending what setting you used.
>
> 300DPI is still a bit blocky and blurry on paper.

I still think you're insane. :-P

Post a reply to this message

>> text was all a bit blocky or blurry depending what setting you used.
>
> 300DPI is still a bit blocky and blurry on paper.

Another important point when discussing resolution is what the source 
data is you are trying to display.  If it's vector based then you can 
decide each pixel value perfectly using a simple algorithm, however if 
you're trying to scale a bitmap to display (eg from a webpage or camera 
data) it's very hard to make it look as good as the vector based data, 
no matter what AA algorithm you use.

Post a reply to this message

>> Look at cars where speed above 70MPH actually matters. Like, say, race
>> cars. They've gotten much faster.
>
> Pfft. Every time the engineers find a way to make the cars faster, the
> FIA finds a way to make them go slower again. :-P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars

The problem with top speed is that it depends on the cube root of power, 
so you need huge increases of power to get any significant top speed 
improvements.

The bigger improvements have been in cornering speeds and braking 
ability (both in racing cars and road cars).  If you look at videos of 
old F1 races there are many corners where they used to brake and change 
gear whereas in today's cars they just run flat out (Eau Rouge at Spa is 
the classic one, or 130R at Suzuka).  Tyres, suspension and aerodynamics 
have improved vastly to make such things possible.  Even in your road 
car braking distances have vastly reduced due to tyre, suspension and 
brake design (not ABS, that only really helps if you want to steer and 
brake or it's wet).

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> The main problem is that Windows doesn't work nicely with higher 
> resolutions.

  I think a bigger problem is that the amount of data that needs to be
transferred from the computer to the display becomes prohibitively large
as the resolution grows.

  There is, after all, a physical limit on how many bits of information
per second can be transferred through circuitry and cables.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 11/04/2012 10:07 AM, Warp wrote:
> scott<sco### [at] scottcom>  wrote:
>> The main problem is that Windows doesn't work nicely with higher
>> resolutions.
>
>    I think a bigger problem is that the amount of data that needs to be
> transferred from the computer to the display becomes prohibitively large
> as the resolution grows.
>
>    There is, after all, a physical limit on how many bits of information
> per second can be transferred through circuitry and cables.

I think the bigger problem is Windows. If that could be fixed and 
resolutions started climbing, eventually what you're talking about would 
become the next problem. But I don't think we're currently near that 
limit yet.

Post a reply to this message

>    There is, after all, a physical limit on how many bits of information
> per second can be transferred through circuitry and cables.

DisplayPort already allows up to 3840x2160x30bpp @ 60 Hz, so that should 
be enough for a few years before they come up with something else (which 
they surely will if there is demand for it).

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012/04/11 04:55, scott a écrit :
>>> Look at cars where speed above 70MPH actually matters. Like, say, race
>>> cars. They've gotten much faster.
>>
>> Pfft. Every time the engineers find a way to make the cars faster, the
>> FIA finds a way to make them go slower again. :-P
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars
>
> The problem with top speed is that it depends on the cube root of power,
> so you need huge increases of power to get any significant top speed
> improvements.
>
> The bigger improvements have been in cornering speeds and braking
> ability (both in racing cars and road cars). If you look at videos of
> old F1 races there are many corners where they used to brake and change
> gear whereas in today's cars they just run flat out (Eau Rouge at Spa is
> the classic one, or 130R at Suzuka). Tyres, suspension and aerodynamics
> have improved vastly to make such things possible. Even in your road car
> braking distances have vastly reduced due to tyre, suspension and brake
> design (not ABS, that only really helps if you want to steer and brake
> or it's wet).

ABS is very often bad. Most are all/nothing affairs taking only one 
sample per wheel rotation that can jerk you around and make you loose 
controll. In some cases, the brake pedal will shake and hit your foot 
real hard, even to the point of causing some injuries...

A real good ABS must be progressive, take MANY samples per rotation, 
gradualy reduce the breaking power as needed acording to the breaking 
related torque and wheel load. In short, find the limit of adherance and 
stay around it untill you stop.




Alain

Post a reply to this message

> A real good ABS must be progressive, take MANY samples per rotation,
> gradualy reduce the breaking power as needed acording to the breaking
> related torque and wheel load. In short, find the limit of adherance and
> stay around it untill you stop.

That won't work, as once you get past the limit of adherence, gradually 
reducing the braking power will not stop the wheel locking.  The 
friction gets less, so you need less brake power to lock the wheel, it 
gets slower so friction gets even less etc. it's in a positive feedback 
loop condition.

Once you are past the limit, the best thing to do is to instantly reduce 
the brake pressure completely, this will move the wheel back into the 
region of higher friction as quickly as possible and you can then 
reapply the brake pressure.  It may not seem intuitive though that 
totally releasing the brake pressure will make you stop quicker in the 
end, but consider that 99.9% of the time is probably spent below the 
limit and only 0.1% above the limit with the brake pressure cut.

Of course the faster your system is the less noticeable the "pulsing" is 
and the more you can stay around the limit, but a progressive or gradual 
system is not the best way to do it, and would be much more expensive.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2012 09:01 AM, scott wrote:

> That won't work, as once you get past the limit of adherence, gradually
> reducing the braking power will not stop the wheel locking.

> Of course the faster your system is the less noticeable the "pulsing" is
> and the more you can stay around the limit, but a progressive or gradual
> system is not the best way to do it, and would be much more expensive.

One winter I was driving along. I forget why, but I pulled into a side 
street, which turned out to have half an inch of solid ice coating it. 
The ABS cut in when I tried to coast to a stop. It sure juddered my foot 
around. (But then, it's a cheap car.) The car did stop, however. If only 
they could make a way for the steering to also continue working. :-P

The only flaw I noticed was that once the car is moving slowly enough, 
the wheels just lock, and won't unlock. (And by "slowly enough", I mean 
"slow enough that you could walk up to the car and play curling with it.")

Post a reply to this message