Talk:Resolution independence

Apple Inc. High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Computer graphics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This doesn't make sense...[edit]

"This laptop has a display that is resolution independent and provides options to scale the display by showing relative resolution. The display can be given more or less screen space whilst not changing the actual display resolution."

The physical display is not the issue in resolution indepence. Displays can show different resolutions, but obviously "native" will look the best, but this is not resolution independence. Also, how can the the display be given more screen space? It can't grow, it's a set size. More pixels on the screen does not equal more screen space, it simply equals more pixels on the screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just6979 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual error in Apple's implementation?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Windows Vista?[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Currently the Mac OS (10.5) has some of the core work for true resolution independence. Vista also has a subset of this core work. Neither OS has any methodology to universally implement screen resolution. However, being able to tell the system that the screen is either 96, 120, 144 or 192 dpi is absolutely NOT resolution independence. This just changes the scaling of the drawings on the screen by a subset of pre-defined factors. True screen resolution independence must allow the user to input the true dpi of the monitor involved. For example: Dell's 30" monitor has an approximate dpi of 100.629. For truly screen resolution independence a 10" diameter circle drawn on the screen would have a diameter (center of the line drawing the circle to the center of the line drawing the circle on the opposite side) of 1006 pixels. For Apple's 30" screen with a dpi of approximately 101.646 this same 10" circle would have a diameter of 1016 pixels. However, both circles would have, as closely as possible, a 10" diameter. TheShadowself (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. The "96, 120, 144 or 192 dpi" are merely the resolutions that the author of the article chose to take his screenshots at. Windows Vista itself (as, even if you have never used Vista, which you clearly haven't, 10 seconds of Googling would show) allows arbitrary dpi to be set, up to a certain point (480, IIRC?). It provides an on-screen ruler (screenshot) which you can drag in order to match an actual ruler; similar to your circle example. -- simxp (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC the ruler thing and any DPI setting has been available since perhaps Windows 98 although as mrentioned above support for non standard settings (or even the large 120 DPI) setting was limited. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entry to narrow[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

This proposal should be removed. Resolution independence is a completely different concept from vector graphics. While it is true that virtually any realistic implementation of resolution independence would employ vector graphics, just implementing vector graphics does not inherently implement resolution independence.TheShadowself (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date[edit]

OSX has a lot fewer problems with this now than it did in 2005. iPhone OS also supports it. I suggest the above merge proposal be followed so that this info can be maintained more easily in one place. Telanis (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you change the resolution in Snow Leopard and before (using Quartz Debug), you will find that most applications display dislocated menus and buttons etc. Almost all applications would have to be revamped to conform to Apples resolution independence guidelines, including the Finder, Mail and iTunes. Since Lion, Apple has given up on resolution independence and instead seems to aim for fixed resolution increases (HiDPI modes by doubling the pixel count in every direction). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.170.97 (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some development in the Linux world that could be added.--89.100.89.24 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retina display[edit]

It just doubles the resolution of OS X in every direction. Is that technically resolution independence? -- Meow 03:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desktops versus OS[edit]

Is the article about desktop environments or operating systems? It may be a little confusing on that front. If OS, why isn't LInux mentioned? - KitchM (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twip & himetric[edit]

There are currently articles about twips and himetric, but they're no more than stubs and I don't see how they could ever grow beyond that. Are these to be kept as separate articles, or would it be better to merge the material here?