Re: How long Win32 viable?
- From: "Roger Lascelles" <rogerlasAToptusnet.com.au>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:03:52 +1000
"Ingvar Nilsen" <my.adress@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42d8d955$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Roger Lascelles wrote:
> > Win32 so far is a bitmapped world where images map straight onto
> > monitor pixels.
>
> I think you mean graphics card pixels?
Yes.
>> You do find programmers turning off the TForm.Scaled property and
>> requiring users to run at 96 dpi.
> Well, if you have a bitmap painted on the form, and don't want to
> stretch it, you have no other choice..
When you say "you have no other choice", you are indicating the problem with
the pixel based world we have with the Win32 API approach to graphics. I
would translate your comment as meaning that your apps are designed for one
bitmapped screen resolution - a contradiction in a GUI world where device
drivers separate us from differences in actual hardware capabilities.
I think you do have a choice, even now, but you may have to write more code.
If you stop your form scaling, your app is out of step beside all the other
windows apps which are running at the same time - for example, at some
resolutions, users see small buttons and windows and small windows when
using your app.
I certainly do think that a non-scaled application might have a shorter life
than a scaled one, where both use the Win32 API. A real example is laptop
screens with their smaller pixels. With my eyesight, I would have to run a
1280 x 1024 15" laptop at 120 dpi - 96 dpi is unreadable. Now just imagine
if laptop pixel density comes to the desktop. Then add another degree of
pixel shrinking - not inconceivable over the next 10 years. 96dpi Win32
programs will look like midgets and people can't use them.
I design at 96 dpi and eliminate resolution assumptions. I test my apps
running scaled at 120 dpi. I tend to add code which calculates control
positions as forms are resized. I realise that button graphics will shrink
in proportion at higher dpi, and so I try to make them on the large side at
96 dpi, and put text on buttons when possible. Sizeable forms are also good
insurance against future resolution changes, because the user can always
size to fit their future mega screens. It is not easy when you have a
bitmapped background - I have had some success with stretched bitmaps,
expecially when the bitmap has a lot more pixels than the form it is
stretched onto.
Back in the old days of defining dialogs in resource files, Microsoft had a
special standard dialog unit which was screen resolution independent, so
they have known about this problem for 20 odd years. It is interesting that
Windows did not take off until scalable True Type fonts replaced the
bitmapped fonts.
Its just an issue ticking away which will affect the life of Win32 programs.
Microsoft built the issue into Win32 and Delphi accepts that limitation and
we can't defeat it - just minimize it to give our apps decent lifespans.
Roger
>
> > Only in the last few years have PCs had the power to run Avalon type
> > display technology.
>
> Interesting, I know almost nothing about this, yet, can you elaborate?
>
> --
> Ingvar Nilsen
> http://www.ingvarius.com
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How long Win32 viable?
- From: Ingvar Nilsen
- Re: How long Win32 viable?
- References:
- How long Win32 viable?
- From: Crazy Horse's crazier little brother
- Re: How long Win32 viable?
- From: Ralf Mimoun
- Re: How long Win32 viable?
- From: Dominic Willems
- Re: How long Win32 viable?
- From: Roger Lascelles
- Re: How long Win32 viable?
- From: Ingvar Nilsen
- How long Win32 viable?
- Prev by Date: Re: Relocating C:\Documents and Settings\
- Next by Date: Re: "Delphi Radio" as good guerilla marketing.
- Previous by thread: Re: How long Win32 viable?
- Next by thread: Re: How long Win32 viable?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|