Є┴┌═┼╥ █╥╔╞╘┴

Press RESET immediately, Wladimir Bulchukey! On Wed, 22 Jun 05 23:32:27 +0400, Wladimir Bulchukey wrote: WB> Hardware issue. WB> The subject item in the screen properties is grayed out. Video card S3 Trio 3D/2X. WB> On other machines with more powerful video devices I configured WB> (due to the transition to TFT monitors - on their 17 inches it is small by default WB> and, as you know, changing the screen resolution is not recommended; have to WB> change subject). Ha! You said it. Screen resolution "pixels per inch" is expressed the ratio of resolution in pixels to the physical size of the monitor and MUST CHANGE when the resolution or monitor size changes. Otherwise, you have no True Type and nothing WYSWYG. If you don’t understand, open Word, type something in 14 font and print it out. Apply it to the screen and tell me why it’s 1.5 times on the screen more than on paper? After all, this is the same font size, exactly such as on any Yatran typewriter (compare!) The point is that for some reason Windows is set to 96 dpi by default, which matches only a very good monitor (or a good video card). In practice, for 15" and 800x600 there is ~75dpi, for 1024x768 and 17" - ~85dpi. Perhaps this is done this way because if you set the realresolution (AND THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE) the appearance of many Windows programs is changing horrifying: fonts are now displayed in real coordinates (inches, millimeters, points...), and GUI elements, hard-wired into soft coordinates - to a point. The inscriptions are superimposed, they cannot be done, or, on the contrary, they turn out to be too small... The trouble is probably that the tools popular in the Windows environment "visual" creation of interfaces (mostly MFC) is not supported so-called layout managers available in modern GUI toolkits like GTK, QT, Tk, Motif, wxwidgets, etc. And another thing is that Windows does not provide for the tool user to adjust the interface settings as desired at our own discretion... And as a result, we have software with hard-wired settings, looking acceptable only on monitors with something like this permission as the authors. To set the real DPI (Dots Per Inch) in "display properties", it seems like there was a ruler (to compare the readings with a real ruler on screen). I don't remember. Perhaps this is only in XP/2003. But you can recommend many graphic editors, like GIMP, that have Built-in resolution calibration functions. Finally, we can calculate manually. According to the formula dpi = sqrt(width^2 + height^2)/d, where d is the diagonal screen measured with a ruler (in inches), and width and height are the width and screen height in pixels. Instead of d, you can take the passport diagonalmonitor, just don’t forget that manufacturers indicate not the real diagonal of the screen, namely the diagonal of the monitor (i.e. together with a body - so more ;-), therefore one and a half to two inches are needed take away. WB> Is this what it’s like to scam the bosses about a new video card? Regarding your question: “font size” is called there display resolution (DPI, dots per inch). The situation is only getting worse when you buy a large monitor: you can’t see anything on it and I have to "increase the font size". But actually increase DPI is much higher than it actually is. And the sizes are everything, again they remain at the points! Now the fonts do not fit into the margins, they are cut off, overlap. Well, as mentioned above, True Type turns in type True (type indefinite article). I'm afraid it's not the video card: it's all about fonts and sizes does not have. Changing the operating system to a sane one (this is where any pen you can twist it if you want, fonts are set by user settings, not by the application, dimensions are measured in real units, not in pixels and much more...) will undoubtedly correct the situation. Of the insane operating systems, Windows 2003 seems to be the most sane. At least At least there are no unnecessary beauties and many drivers are in place. On the other hand On the other hand, backward compatibility is lame with server licensesoffice versions of the problem. You can use OpenOffice. Excel is bad there (prices do not load - does not support more than 32000 lines), and so quite tolerable.

Press RESET immediately, Eugene Palenock! On Fri, 24 Jun 05 02:08:40 +0400, Eugene Palenock wrote: EP> As a result, I live at 1024*768 by 17"... Because it turned out to increase the fonts EP> unacceptable. I took the ATI 9250 to try. My old, old monitor can do 1200x1024 It turns out that you just can’t see anything. On the other hand, no Font smoothing is simply no longer necessary - everything is blurred as is. In XFree You could tweak the settings and be happy. Gave it back... To what extent? ATI's software is crooked (Windows - with Linux, traditionally, everything is completely even if it’s not bad, then I don’t have enough money for patches and reassemblies of anything and everything energy or time). And hard too: linux won’t start without the noapic key In general, it hangs immediately. W2k3 does not hang, but all the software says that my firewood is not installed, even dxdiag swears ;-( And W2k hangs every 5 minutes. Maybe this is the mother? BX however, straight from the museum... Who would recommend a card for: tv-in, tv-out, support for all this in linux and in w2k3... Apparently, only ATI or Nvidia, because there are all sorts of avermedia is not friendly with Linux. Maybe older and more expensive models much better? And here’s another pressing question: do I need a TV-in to watch? Spectrum in the window. What software should I use for this? I mean Windows.

Press RESET immediately, Eugene Palenock! On Sat, 25 Jun 05 15:14:26 +0400, Eugene Palenock wrote: EP> If you are talking about “better” in terms of video input and video output, then look at what they are EP> input and output chips are installed. In general, they did not change often, there are 4 of them for EP> inputs. Development was going on in terms of teletext support (if from video from a tuner EP>signa What, do you have something to read teletext with? Just not with your eyes. I once saw that it is given for avermedia - you can only read it with your eyes it is possible (but, for example, not written to a file - why such teletext?) KF>> And here’s another pressing question: do I need a TV-in for KF>> viewing Spectrum in the window. What kind of software is there for this? KF>> use? I mean Windows. EP> There, as a rule, is what is given with the card ;) But nothing was given to me, that’s why I’m asking.

Hello Kirill! Sunday June 26, 2005 21:08:47 Kirill Frolov -> Eugene Palenock: KF>>> And here’s another pressing question: do I need a TV-in for KF>>> Spectrum viewing in the window. And what is the actual software for KF>>> this KF>>> use? I mean Windows. EP>> As a rule, there is what is given with the card ;) KF> But nothing was given to me, that’s why I’m asking. Fly2000 [REAL ZX]