If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
In message , Ken Springer
writes: On 9/10/19 2:50 AM, Paul wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Ken Springer snip On the left is OLPC screen, on the right a "regular" LCD panel. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../XO_screen_01_ Pengo.jpg/450px-XO_screen_01_Pengo.jpg When they mess around like that, it could have some impact on how lines appear on the screen. The OLPC reminds me of dot pitch in CRTs. LOL It certainly reminded me of CRT discussions. Though I think CRTs always had finer shadowmask structure than beam width - certainly for (SD) TV [except on tiny - 5" or less - sets], but I think most of the time in computer monitors too. The left one will certainly let through a lot less, so need a more powerful backlight (and run hotter). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Today, I dare say more people know who starred as /The Vicar of Dibley/ than know the name of the vicar of their local parish. - Clive Anderson, Radio Times 15-21 January 2011. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
In message , Ken Springer
writes: [] For the common computer monitor aspect ratios, don't forget 5:4. I Crikey, I hadn't come across 5:4 since the early days of TV ... actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found .... or thought I hadn't, but I have come across that one! I'd just thought it was the next one up from 1024×768, and hadn't done the sums. one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it. The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange, and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384. Do you _mean_ ratios or resolutions? There are a lot more resolutions than ratios. When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier to read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different sizes for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit looking at that spec. They _do_ vary, but not as much as you'd think; at any one date, most of the panels on sale will have a similar pixel pitch, i. e. bigger panels have more pixels. Within a broad range, anyway; if you get into advertising panels, things are different, but those tend to be individual LEDs these days anyway. (And 'phones are different again.) If you don't have visual acuity (such as some eye problems), you _can_ sometimes find a big low-resolution panel (big pixels) at a low price - end of line, or of course second-hand. (I think I have a 20" 1024×768.) [] And the width may not be of importance. There's an online maintenance management software called Podio. The program, when I was using it, used one of those light greys as a background. But they did not put any kind of border around the fields you needed to fill in. The monitor displayed the background as white, and the fill color of the fields was... you guessed it, white. LOL Made it hard to determine where the input field was! LOL One day, out of curiosity, I tilted the monitor top edge away from me to about a 40-450 practical solution, though. VBG Ah, the infamous viewing angle problem! [] When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see: | \ | | / | More or less. LOL Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions) will fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs don't move, to preserve alignment. I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or 150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you can't get to them! The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:. All of this is just part of the reason I won't be using W10, and will stick to W7 when I use Windows. W7 gives me more options for correcting the screen display so I can see it. I don't think MS gives a damn. Worse: I don't think enough of them _know_ about these matters. There's _some_ attempt - I'd like to think it _is_ more than just "good PR" - to increase provision for disabilities, but I think such matters aren't matched by adequate programming knowledge. And certainly any such "standards" are hardly enforced at all when it comes to third party software. [] But the integral resolution may not exist. For instance, I've not found an example of 320 X 240. No, but - assuming you can set that as a resolution these days! (I thought 640×480 was the minimum for, maybe, Windows '9x, and that went up to 800×600 for, possibly, XP) - there would be no _blurring_ if viewed on a monitor of native resolution 640×480, or 1280×960; each 320×240 pixel would actually occupy a whole number of native pixels. (In these hypothetical examples, 2×2 or 4×4.) 1. Some modern monitors and graphics cards talk to each other, which might mean that the graphics card knows what shape the monitor is, and may refuse to offer "incorrect" resolutions. What's your definition of "incorrect" resolutions? Not mine, the hardware/firmware! I haven't really looked into it as tend to use native anyway, but I have encountered cases where I know the graphics card can offer some resolutions that Windows is not listing because it knows they don't suit a particular monitor - either because the user has told Windows what monitor they're using, or because the monitor has "told" Windows something about itself over plug-and-play. I wonder if those aren't the resolutions you see that are greyed out, when you move the slider in the resolution display. You might be right about the presentation (greyed out rows). I'll admit I haven't really looked at how the options are presented for an edition or two of Windows. I've just looked, and I see what you mean about a slider and greyed options on Windows 7. If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution. [] No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed as a square, not a rectangle. Mine too. When shortscreen displays first started to be the norm, though, I was amazed how many people accepted squashed displays - or, even, seemed not to notice that they _were_ squashed. It has improved of late as shortscreen has become the norm for both monitor and OS. [] This Pro-Art rotates 900 Or 8:5 (-: I think the need for rotating the monitor is generally limited. You're not going to gain anything visually from what I can see with my testing on this monitor. Instead of having 1920 X 1200, you have 1200 X 1920. If you have the form of astigmatism that _just_ makes you see the world with the wrong aspect ratio, it _could_ help. Depends on whether your distortion matches (in the other direction) one of the distortions available by playing with resolution settings, monitor rotation, and so on. I agree, though, monitor rotation is less used these days; it first became a fad with word processing where it matches paper shape better, but these days people tend to use multiple side-by-side windows on a big monitor. (And often multiple monitors too.) Even side by side isn't as good, especially for page layout in newspapers, or editing a widescreen photo where the camera has been turned 900 You won't change the shape now. Shortscreen came in, to a rough approximation, when someone in the marketing departments thought people were going to be watching movies on their computers, since movies had been shortscreen for some decades. It's _not_ ideal for most computer use; arguably it's not so bad now monitors are big enough to display two portrait windows side by side (though in practice lots of people still work maximised, i. e. the "two windows" argument doesn't wash), but that certainly wasn't the case when the shape change came in. (Even for movies, the shortscreen format isn't _that_ wonderful - fine for a row of "Injuns" on the horizon, or someone lying down; it was mainly introduced to be something different to TV. But that's history ...) So we're stuck with horizontal shortscreen, most of the time. [] Both have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with 16:10, I just don't want 16:9. Interesting. I found it amazing how much that extra vertical unit affects my enjoyment of what I'm doing. Now, when I use a 16:9 screen, I find it feels "cramped". See above re screen shapes. Though I've got used to having multiple windows open now, and might find it difficult to go back to 4:3; probably OK if it was the same _width_ (and resolution) as I'm used to. I immediately became a convert to the idea of "the more screen real estate, the better" when I went from a 14" to a 17" CRT monitor. I had Provided you've got room for it, bigger is always better! I have a big old laptop that has a 17" screen: it's rather underpowered for most purposes, but what I use it for - TeamViewer support of friends (especially blind ones; their description of what they "see" on the screen is often _very_ different to what I'd say!) - it's good. a 19" Atari branded Moniterm B&W monitor attached to a TT030 computer, and simply loved it!! Gave the system away, and have regretted it ever since. If we're talking CRT, B&W was always intrinsically higher resolution than colour. I wanted to go 27", but but couldn't find anything that fit my specs. 32" is what I really would have liked, but physical, available space prevented that. 32" CRTs were big, heavy beasts. Could you rearrange your working environment so you could use wall-mounting (or on a pivot arm)? Assuming you can find an 8:5 32", that is. My "main" systems are in computer desks with this design style: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...bih=919&ei=87Z 3XeyeJYHZ-gT2joGABw&q=computer+hutch+desk&oq=computer+hutch& gs_l=img.1.2 .0l4j0i5i30l2j0i8i30l4.587.2507..5237...0.0..0.89 .988.14......0....1..gw s-wiz-img.3jCItgMUz-E Mine are much smaller in width that those shown. In one, 24" diagonal is all that will fit. In the other , 27" diagonal *might* fit, but I'm Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the advantages of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed, still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_ some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen. sure the physical vertical dimension would be an issue. But an IPS monitor seemed to be nonexistent in that size. And with anything wall mounted, what happens if you are renting an apartment, or selling your house? G Good question! I suppose you could use a floor stand, but that'd have to be pretty heavy - or some sort of arm thing attached to the desk. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I've never really "got" sport or physical exercise. The only muscle I've ever enjoyed exercising is the one between my ears. - Beryl Hales, Radio Times 24-30 March 2012 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 9/10/19 9:32 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer wrote: snip The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange, and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384. which one is that, where the resolution is not an even number? Aw, crap. That should be screen resolutions is 57, and one of the resolutions works out to be an aspect ratio of 683:386. But I see Paul apparently figured out my mistake. When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier to read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different sizes for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit looking at that spec. pixels do have different sizes, and by quite a bit, with hidpi displays having the smallest. It may be I gave up too soon. snip If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution. With the Windows units I've tested, dragging the resolution slider up and down will show multiple options, but only those resolutions that are listed when you are not dragging the slider have the same aspect ratio. Magnification _without_ *blurring* would need integral ratios. It is _possible_ that the integer could be different in the two dimensions, though I suspect the right ratios for that don't exist in practice. It's more likely, if you need magnification, that you won't see the blurring caused by a non-integral ratio, and as you say in that situation ensuring the same aspect ratio will give you magnification without *distortion*, which is probably more important. No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed as a square, not a rectangle. all lcds do that. As long as the screen resolution in use has an aspect ratio that is correct for the monitor in use. -- Ken MacOS 10.14.5 Firefox 67.0.4 Thunderbird 60.7 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
In article , Ken Springer
wrote: No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed as a square, not a rectangle. all lcds do that. As long as the screen resolution in use has an aspect ratio that is correct for the monitor in use. that doesn't change the specs of the display. obviously, whatever is displayed can be stretched or compressed in all sorts of ways, including compensating for mismatched aspect ratios. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 9/10/19 2:49 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer writes: snip actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found ... or thought I hadn't, but I have come across that one! I'd just thought it was the next one up from 1024×768, and hadn't done the sums. I thought the same thing, years ago, when I was experimenting with screen resolutions on a CRT monitor. Wanted the highest resolution I could comfortably use. Then, I noticed that 1280X1024 just didn't look right, so did the numbers. one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it. The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange, and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384. Do you _mean_ ratios or resolutions? There are a lot more resolutions than ratios. OH, I meant resolutions, ans noted in my reply to nospam. When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier to read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different sizes for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit looking at that spec. They _do_ vary, but not as much as you'd think; at any one date, most of the panels on sale will have a similar pixel pitch, i. e. bigger panels have more pixels. Within a broad range, anyway; if you get into advertising panels, things are different, but those tend to be individual LEDs these days anyway. (And 'phones are different again.) If you don't have visual acuity (such as some eye problems), you _can_ sometimes find a big low-resolution panel (big pixels) at a low price - end of line, or of course second-hand. (I think I have a 20" 1024×768.) I think it may have more effect on the quality of the image, than anything else. [] When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see: | \ | | / | More or less. LOL Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions) will fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs don't move, to preserve alignment. Yep. Nothing except a new eyeball will fix that. I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or 150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you can't get to them! The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:. They're so crappy, why do they bother to keep them? All of this is just part of the reason I won't be using W10, and will stick to W7 when I use Windows. W7 gives me more options for correcting the screen display so I can see it. I don't think MS gives a damn. Worse: I don't think enough of them _know_ about these matters. There's _some_ attempt - I'd like to think it _is_ more than just "good PR" - to increase provision for disabilities, but I think such matters aren't matched by adequate programming knowledge. And certainly any such "standards" are hardly enforced at all when it comes to third party software. The really sad thing is, for everything in a window, it could be adjusted and changed in XP and earlier. But then they got rid of it. snip This Pro-Art rotates 900 Or 8:5 (-: Does it really display as 900 on your system? I ask, because I used the degree sign when I typed the message. snip Even side by side isn't as good, especially for page layout in newspapers, or editing a widescreen photo where the camera has been turned 900 Another place where I typed the degree sign. You won't change the shape now. Shortscreen came in, to a rough approximation, when someone in the marketing departments thought people were going to be watching movies on their computers, since movies had been shortscreen for some decades. It's _not_ ideal for most computer use; arguably it's not so bad now monitors are big enough to display two portrait windows side by side (though in practice lots of people still work maximised, i. e. the "two windows" argument doesn't wash), but that certainly wasn't the case when the shape change came in. When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe. I guess they just never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job done faster. (Even for movies, the shortscreen format isn't _that_ wonderful - fine for a row of "Injuns" on the horizon, or someone lying down; it was mainly introduced to be something different to TV. But that's history ...) So we're stuck with horizontal shortscreen, most of the time. You can blame the movie people for the widescreen today, IMO. [] Both have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with 16:10, I just don't want 16:9. Interesting. I found it amazing how much that extra vertical unit affects my enjoyment of what I'm doing. Now, when I use a 16:9 screen, I find it feels "cramped". See above re screen shapes. Though I've got used to having multiple windows open now, and might find it difficult to go back to 4:3; probably OK if it was the same _width_ (and resolution) as I'm used to. If I'm using a laptop with a smaller screen, I have no problem using my 5:4 monitor. It comes closer to what the owner of the laptop will see when I'm finished. IIRC, it may have a DVI video input, too. I immediately became a convert to the idea of "the more screen real estate, the better" when I went from a 14" to a 17" CRT monitor. I had Provided you've got room for it, bigger is always better! I have a big old laptop that has a 17" screen: it's rather underpowered for most purposes, but what I use it for - TeamViewer support of friends (especially blind ones; their description of what they "see" on the screen is often _very_ different to what I'd say!) - it's good. Teamviewer is installed on all my desktops, for the same use as you. Then when they call, I don't have to go to a particular computer. snip Mine are much smaller in width that those shown. In one, 24" diagonal is all that will fit. In the other , 27" diagonal *might* fit, but I'm Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the advantages of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed, still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_ some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen. The newest, and biggest, cabinet is now 18 years old. The other, at least 10 years older. snip -- Ken MacOS 10.14.5 Firefox 67.0.4 Thunderbird 60.7 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:13 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote: When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe. I think I know what you mean. When I encounter people who think everyone else should do things the way they do, I similarly want to cringe. I guess they just never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job done faster. Either that, or they're doing things exactly how they want to do them. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
In message , Ken Springer
writes: On 9/10/19 2:49 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Ken Springer writes: [] When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see: | \ | | / | More or less. LOL Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions) will fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs don't move, to preserve alignment. Yep. Nothing except a new eyeball will fix that. _Could_ a _contact_ lens - or surgically attached one? In other words, is the distortion in your lens, retina, or image processing brainware? I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or 150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you can't get to them! The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:. They're so crappy, why do they bother to keep them? Good question. (By the way, when I was looking yesterday, this system only offered 100% and 125%. No 150%.) Probably lethargy. [] The really sad thing is, for everything in a window, it could be adjusted and changed in XP and earlier. But then they got rid of it. If pressed, they'd probably say they removed those settings because some people change them then don't remember how (or _that_) they did, and think something's wrong. Rather like you could change various aspects of the display (colours, widths, fonts ...) in Windows 95 - and still could in '98, but had to press an "Advanced" button to get at them (-:. snip This Pro-Art rotates 900 Or 8:5 (-: Does it really display as 900 on your system? I ask, because I used the degree sign when I typed the message. Yes. At least, I didn't amend the quoted text; I think it had been amended by the time I got it, rather than my system, which can display the ° sign OK. (That's the degree sign, in case it has been amended by the time _you_ see it.) snip (I use "[]" to mean the same thing.) [] When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe. I guess they just never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job done faster. Me too, though we should be aware of Char's view (-:. [] You can blame the movie people for the widescreen today, IMO. Yes and no. As I said, widescreen isn't that great even for most movie scenes, but (on the whole) we're stuck with it for movies - but its introduction in the PC world was due to the belief that movie-viewing was going to be a large part of what PCs were going to be used for, which I dispute (even now, and certainly at the time of its introduction). But any such discussion is pointless as we are where we are. (And it's preferable to VVS!) [] Teamviewer is installed on all my desktops, for the same use as you. Then when they call, I don't have to go to a particular computer. Have you had the false diagnosis of commercial use? (When I got it, I looked into the pricing: it's such a good utility that I would have considered it. But it's so high it really is only for the professional user - especially as it's monthly rather than a one-off.) [] Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the advantages of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed, still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_ some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen. The newest, and biggest, cabinet is now 18 years old. The other, at least 10 years older. Ah, so designed in the CRT era; fair enough. I assumed that the ones (computer desks) on the page you gave me a link to were mostly new ones, and I was surprised they all still showed the monitor as standing in one of the boxes, rather than fixed thus wasting less space. snip -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Never be led astray onto the path of virtue. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
In message , Char Jackson
writes: On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:13 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe. I think I know what you mean. When I encounter people who think everyone else should do things the way they do, I similarly want to cringe. Point taken - but, the happy medium is somewhere in between (never saying _anything_ when we see someone doing something in a way we think could be changed to benefit _them_, and always saying "do it my way"). Some softwares (word processing often) default to maximised, which may be appropriate for some users but not all, especially where a large (and non-portrait) monitor is in use, but some users may never have thought of changing it (or in some cases may not be aware they can), so _suggestion_ is never out of place, if made diplomatically. I guess they just never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job done faster. Either that, or they're doing things exactly how they want to do them. Nothing lost by asking, though, as long as you accept that answer if they give it. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Gentlemen, you can't fight in he this is the war room!" (Dr. Strangelove) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 9/11/19 4:58 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Char Jackson writes: On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:13 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe. I think I know what you mean. When I encounter people who think everyone else should do things the way they do, I similarly want to cringe. Point taken - but, the happy medium is somewhere in between (never saying _anything_ when we see someone doing something in a way we think could be changed to benefit _them_, and always saying "do it my way"). Some softwares (word processing often) default to maximised, which may be appropriate for some users but not all, especially where a large (and non-portrait) monitor is in use, but some users may never have thought of changing it (or in some cases may not be aware they can), so _suggestion_ is never out of place, if made diplomatically. I've found software generally only opens maximized when run for the first time. After that, window size and position is remembered. I guess they just never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job done faster. Either that, or they're doing things exactly how they want to do them. Nothing lost by asking, though, as long as you accept that answer if they give it. -- Ken MacOS 10.14.5 Firefox 67.0.4 Thunderbird 60.7 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 9/11/19 4:51 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer writes: On 9/10/19 2:49 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Ken Springer writes: [] When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see: | \ | | / | More or less. LOL Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions) will fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs don't move, to preserve alignment. Yep. Nothing except a new eyeball will fix that. _Could_ a _contact_ lens - or surgically attached one? In other words, is the distortion in your lens, retina, or image processing brainware? A contact lens would have to be oriented correctly when you put them in. Possibly new lenses, as you get with cataract surgery, but then what do you do if you eyeball changes? Thee surgery is quick, but it isn't cheap. I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or 150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you can't get to them! The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:. They're so crappy, why do they bother to keep them? Good question. (By the way, when I was looking yesterday, this system only offered 100% and 125%. No 150%.) Probably lethargy. I noticed no 150% just recently, somewhere. I wonder if that was a laptop with a smaller screen. [] The really sad thing is, for everything in a window, it could be adjusted and changed in XP and earlier. But then they got rid of it. If pressed, they'd probably say they removed those settings because some people change them then don't remember how (or _that_) they did, and think something's wrong. Rather like you could change various aspects of the display (colours, widths, fonts ...) in Windows 95 - and still could in '98, but had to press an "Advanced" button to get at them (-:. That's a possibility I hadn't thought of. End result is penalizing the majority for just a few ignorant ones. snip This Pro-Art rotates 900 Or 8:5 (-: Does it really display as 900 on your system? I ask, because I used the degree sign when I typed the message. Yes. At least, I didn't amend the quoted text; I think it had been amended by the time I got it, rather than my system, which can display the ° sign OK. (That's the degree sign, in case it has been amended by the time _you_ see it.) It must have been amended, as your degree sign came through. snip (I use "[]" to mean the same thing.) [] I noticed. LOL snip You can blame the movie people for the widescreen today, IMO. Yes and no. As I said, widescreen isn't that great even for most movie scenes, but (on the whole) we're stuck with it for movies - but its introduction in the PC world was due to the belief that movie-viewing was going to be a large part of what PCs were going to be used for, which I dispute (even now, and certainly at the time of its introduction). But any such discussion is pointless as we are where we are. (And it's preferable to VVS!) Long ago, I was reading movie trivia, and discovered there were various aspect ratios to the new widescreen movies. IIRC, one was 16:9. [] Teamviewer is installed on all my desktops, for the same use as you. Then when they call, I don't have to go to a particular computer. Have you had the false diagnosis of commercial use? (When I got it, I looked into the pricing: it's such a good utility that I would have considered it. But it's so high it really is only for the professional user - especially as it's monthly rather than a one-off.) Teamviewer screwed up, a bug in an update that erroneously mislabeled the use. I think this was exacerbated if you chose the combo private/commercial option when you installed it. All I had to do was send an email to a specific email address, and my stuff was reset. [] Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the advantages of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed, still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_ some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen. The newest, and biggest, cabinet is now 18 years old. The other, at least 10 years older. Ah, so designed in the CRT era; fair enough. I assumed that the ones (computer desks) on the page you gave me a link to were mostly new ones, and I was surprised they all still showed the monitor as standing in one of the boxes, rather than fixed thus wasting less space. The older one, definitely. Smaller widescreens may have been coming in with the newer one, but I simply don't remember. -- Ken MacOS 10.14.5 Firefox 67.0.4 Thunderbird 60.7 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 2019-09-11 9:30 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 4:51 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Ken Springer writes: On 9/10/19 2:49 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Ken Springer writes: [] When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see: | \ Â*Â* | Â*Â* | / | More or less.Â* LOL Â* Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions) will fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs don't move, to preserve alignment. Yep.Â* Nothing except a new eyeball will fix that. _Could_ a _contact_ lens - or surgically attached one? In other words, is the distortion in your lens, retina, or image processing brainware? A contact lens would have to be oriented correctly when you put them in. Â*Possibly new lenses, as you get with cataract surgery, but then what do you do if you eyeball changes?Â* Thee surgery is quick, but it isn't cheap. I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or 150%.Â* Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the windows.Â* And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you can't get to them! Â* The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:. They're so crappy, why do they bother to keep them? Good question. (By the way, when I was looking yesterday, this system only offered 100% and 125%. No 150%.) Probably lethargy. I noticed no 150% just recently, somewhere.Â* I wonder if that was a laptop with a smaller screen. Â*[] The really sad thing is, for everything in a window, it could be adjusted and changed in XP and earlier.Â* But then they got rid of it. If pressed, they'd probably say they removed those settings because some people change them then don't remember how (or _that_) they did, and think something's wrong. Rather like you could change various aspects of the display (colours, widths, fonts ...) in Windows 95 - and still could in '98, but had to press an "Advanced" button to get at them (-:. That's a possibility I hadn't thought of.Â* End result is penalizing the majority for just a few ignorant ones. snip This Pro-Art rotates 900 Or 8:5 (-: Does it really display as 900 on your system?Â* I ask, because I used the degree sign when I typed the message. Yes. At least, I didn't amend the quoted text; I think it had been amended by the time I got it, rather than my system, which can display the ° sign OK. (That's the degree sign, in case it has been amended by the time _you_ see it.) It must have been amended, as your degree sign came through. snip (I use "[]" to mean the same thing.) [] I noticed.Â* LOL snip You can blame the movie people for the widescreen today, IMO. Yes and no. As I said, widescreen isn't that great even for most movie scenes, but (on the whole) we're stuck with it for movies - but its introduction in the PC world was due to the belief that movie-viewing was going to be a large part of what PCs were going to be used for, which I dispute (even now, and certainly at the time of its introduction). But any such discussion is pointless as we are where we are. (And it's preferable to VVS!) Long ago, I was reading movie trivia, and discovered there were various aspect ratios to the new widescreen movies.Â* IIRC, one was 16:9. [] Teamviewer is installed on all my desktops, for the same use as you. Then when they call, I don't have to go to a particular computer. Have you had the false diagnosis of commercial use? (When I got it, I looked into the pricing: it's such a good utility that I would have considered it. But it's so high it really is only for the professional user - especially as it's monthly rather than a one-off.) Teamviewer screwed up, a bug in an update that erroneously mislabeled the use.Â* I think this was exacerbated if you chose the combo private/commercial option when you installed it.Â* All I had to do was send an email to a specific email address, and my stuff was reset. [] Â* Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the advantages of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed, still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_ some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen. The newest, and biggest, cabinet is now 18 years old.Â* The other, at least 10 years older. Ah, so designed in the CRT era; fair enough. I assumed that the ones (computer desks) on the page you gave me a link to were mostly new ones, and I was surprised they all still showed the monitor as standing in one of the boxes, rather than fixed thus wasting less space. The older one, definitely.Â* Smaller widescreens may have been coming in with the newer one, but I simply don't remember. I don't know if I have mentioned this in this thread, but here is a very useful utility to change individual font sizes. https://www.wintools.info/index.php/...m-font-changer BTW, my Windows 10 shows 100% 125% 150% 175%. Rene |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 9/11/19 8:49 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
I don't know if I have mentioned this in this thread, but here is a very useful utility to change individual font sizes. Are you referring to Advanced System Font Size Changer? I have that installed on my W10 system, but of course, does nothing for text you've entered into a word processor, for instance. I've noticed that sometimes, when you switch to different fonts, the design of the font will no longer fit into a field that you populate. Both of these problems are solved with out any tweaking by simply lowering the screen resolution. But as I mentioned, you do need a larger monitor, unless you already own one. -- Ken MacOS 10.14.5 Firefox 67.0.4 Thunderbird 60.7 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 2019-09-11 10:09 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 8:49 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: I don't know if I have mentioned this in this thread, but here is a very useful utility to change individual font sizes. Are you referring to Advanced System Font Size Changer? I have that installed on my W10 system, but of course, does nothing for text you've entered into a word processor, for instance. I've noticed that sometimes, when you switch to different fonts, the design of the font will no longer fit into a field that you populate. Both of these problems are solved with out any tweaking by simply lowering the screen resolution.Â* But as I mentioned, you do need a larger monitor, unless you already own one. Yes, and yes it has some drawbacks and is only helpful for certain things. I had a 23" IPS monitor but due to my very poor eyesight I have now switched to a 27" Asus IPS which helps a lot I suffer from Albinism, astigmatism and Nystagmus Which gives me about 20/240 with my glasses on I don't know what it is without glasses. I look at my monitor from a distance of about 6 inches so it involves a lot of head swiveling, but I manage. Rene |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 9/11/19 9:23 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 10:09 a.m., Ken Springer wrote: On 9/11/19 8:49 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: I don't know if I have mentioned this in this thread, but here is a very useful utility to change individual font sizes. Are you referring to Advanced System Font Size Changer? I have that installed on my W10 system, but of course, does nothing for text you've entered into a word processor, for instance. I've noticed that sometimes, when you switch to different fonts, the design of the font will no longer fit into a field that you populate. Both of these problems are solved with out any tweaking by simply lowering the screen resolution.Â* But as I mentioned, you do need a larger monitor, unless you already own one. Yes, and yes it has some drawbacks and is only helpful for certain things. I had a 23" IPS monitor but due to my very poor eyesight I have now switched to a 27" Asus IPS which helps a lot I suffer from Albinism, astigmatism and Nystagmus Which gives me about 20/240 with my glasses on I don't know what it is without glasses. I look at my monitor from a distance of about 6 inches so it involves a lot of head swiveling, but I manage. Could I ask you for a favor? Would you set your screen resolution to the next lower resolution that is listed in your screen display options, and let me know if it is any help? My monitors are 24", and switching from 1920X1200 to 1600X1000 works well for me, and now I just never notice I'm not at optimum resolution. "Optimum" is a crappy word to be used the way MS and the manufacturers use it. "Optimum" is what works best for the user. -- Ken MacOS 10.14.5 Firefox 67.0.4 Thunderbird 60.7 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 2019-09-11 10:55 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 9:23 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: On 2019-09-11 10:09 a.m., Ken Springer wrote: On 9/11/19 8:49 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: I don't know if I have mentioned this in this thread, but here is a very useful utility to change individual font sizes. Are you referring to Advanced System Font Size Changer? I have that installed on my W10 system, but of course, does nothing for text you've entered into a word processor, for instance. I've noticed that sometimes, when you switch to different fonts, the design of the font will no longer fit into a field that you populate. Both of these problems are solved with out any tweaking by simply lowering the screen resolution.Â* But as I mentioned, you do need a larger monitor, unless you already own one. Yes, and yes it has some drawbacks and is only helpful for certain things. I had a 23" IPS monitor but due to my very poor eyesight I have now switched to a 27" Asus IPS which helps a lot I suffer from Albinism, astigmatism and Nystagmus Which gives me about 20/240 with my glasses on I don't know what it is without glasses. I look at my monitor from a distance of about 6 inches so it involves a lot of head swiveling, but I manage. Could I ask you for a favor? Would you set your screen resolution to the next lower resolution that is listed in your screen display options, and let me know if it is any help? My monitors are 24", and switching from 1920X1200 to 1600X1000 works well for me, and now I just never notice I'm not at optimum resolution. "Optimum" is a crappy word to be used the way MS and the manufacturers use it.Â* "Optimum" is what works best for the user. 1680x1050 is my next lower one, It does make things larger but being 16:10 it leaves a 1 inch black border on each side. I get best results using 125% or 150% at 1920x1080. Rene |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|