Talk:Resolution independence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Macintosh. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as an article pertaining to the Macintosh, but is not currently working to improve it. WikiProject Macintosh itself is an attempt to improve, grow, standardize, and attain featured status for Wikipedia's articles related to Macintosh and Apple Inc. We need all your help, so join in today!
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high-importance within Macs for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

Contents 1 Conceptual error in Apple's implementation? 2 Windows Vista? 3 Entry to narrow 4 Merge proposal

[edit] Conceptual error in Apple's implementation?

According to [1], the scaling factor is a system wide setting. Doesn't anybody else strike this as a bad idea in every multi-monitor setup (like laptop + external monitor), where monitors very likely don't all have the same resolution? Peter S. 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point! I hadn't thought of that. I think it might still make sense in consistency terms if the actual pixel size is the same on all the monitors, but otherwise it could look weird, yeah. —Zootm 16:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The scaling factor is per-screen. For example, in Cocoa, each NSScreen object (which corresponds to a monitor) has its own userSpaceScaleFactor instance method. The "system-wide" refers to the fact that this setting can be (and usually would be) applied in an application-agnostic manner; that is, it (by default) applies anywhere. chucker 03:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well my question is actually this: Since a future Mac OS will need to be able to dynamically scale windows up and down when they move from screen to screen, and since applications need to know what the current resolution for a window is, will the current api (for which some companies have already added support) be sufficient for this cause or will Apple have to create another one? Hope this makes sense... Peter S. 15:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Vista?

Some anonymous user added this: [2]. Can somebody confirm that Windows Vista will include Resolution independence? Peter S. 15:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I work at an IT help center and just installed the final version of Vista and, no, it is not resolution independent (though I can't prove this on here.) Big surprise.

Microsoft OS supports resolution independence in a certain sense for a long time. It was already possible to freely set the display DPI in Windows 95, and Windows 3.1 already supported 2 modes ('large fonts = 120dpi' and 'small fonts = 96dpi'). Unluckily there was not much support from the OS above the possibility to define the target resolution, so each application had to adapt itself, and most didn't, or did it at most for the 2 standard modes [3]. Vista seems to have more support [4]. 82.136.112.72 22:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to have a look at Vista's resolution independence "in action" and decide for themselves, there's a nice little applet here that lets you see the same screenshot in 96 DPI, 120 DPI, 144 DPI, and 192 DPI modes. -- simxp (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entry to narrow

Resolution independence should also include Adobe's PostScript, and Display PostScript. It's too focused on operating systems. --Navstar 22:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I propose merging Vector-based graphical user interface into this. Both articles are trying to cover the same ground, and though there's a lot of overlap at the moment, there's also a lot of good information in that article that this one could use. Thoughts? -- simxp (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolution independent UI's and vector-based UI's aren't the same thing. You can have a resolution independent UI with high resolution images (a la Mac OS X Leopard), and you can have a vector-based UI that's resolution DEpendent (a la Macintosh, circa 1984). I'm actually removing the proposal to merge—too many people are confused on this subject, and I fear that the merger request will add to that. --71.234.44.178 02:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I second the proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.198.39 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I third the proposal. The new article should be sure to mention NeWS the Sun Postscript based window system. Spot (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)