After pushing the launch of Windows Vista to late 2006 for corporate customers and early 2007 for consumers, Microsoft insisted that quality, not timing, would dictate the product's release schedule. The company's loyalty to that guiding principle is soon going to be put to the test.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2006-05-29
Sorry, but that is nonsense. The problem is, the higher you push dpi the more flawed displays are getting produced which you can't sell and have to throw away.
The same goes for bigger displays.
So the current situation just is what is feasible with current technology at decend product/fallout ratio.
That is also the reason why prices don't raise linear proportional with size of the displays, because that isn't a matter of more material but a matter of more fallout.
Member since:2006-08-19
> Sorry, but that is nonsense.
Oh yeah? Well, you're ... nonsense. 
> The problem is, the higher you push dpi the more flawed displays
> are getting produced which you can't sell and have to throw away.
...
> The same goes for bigger displays.
Yep, no disagreements here.
> So the current situation just is what is feasible with current
> technology at decend product/fallout ratio.
The industry reached an acceptable product/fallout ratio to sell LCD monitors to the general public /years ago/. And they have continued to improve their processes since then, as made apparent by the ever-dropping prices. However, usually when old technology (lo-res) drops in price, there is a better technology (hi-res) that takes its place at the expensive end of the spectrum. But we haven't seen this -- why?
It's possible that a 200dpi display is so much more difficult to manufacture than a 100dpi display that manufacturers aren't even close yet. But I suspect it's more because of the underlying demand problem -- that the lack of ubiquitous vector scaling (read: available in Windows) means there is little demand for such monitors. If there's no demand for hi-res displays, then manufacturers are going to put their effort into reducing the price and improving other aspects of the successful lo-res displays.
The way you stated it above, it sounds like you think that product/fallout ratio just magically improves over time and manufacturers are simply waiting for it to cross the threshhold of profitability. In reality, low defect rates are the result of significant effort and investment, which companies won't make unless they think their will be a profit at the end of the day.
Vista released
= Increased demand from the masses
= $$ Incentive to improve yields
= Improved yields realized
= Prices reach consumer-level
= Hi-res displays for everyone
= Profit
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2006-05-29
uhm, you have recognized that windows doen't use Bitmap fonts since Windows 95, probably since 3.11? Can't remember that far back.
And surprise: if you choose a fontsize eg for the titlebar, that would be too big to fit in, then that element gets resized to fit the font.
TrueType came out far later. If you want to zealot around, better make sure to know what you are talking about.
Member since:
2006-08-19
I've been putting off buying a new monitor for years because LCD resolutions are still stuck in the 100dpi Stone Age.
Admittedly, I don't know much about LCD tech. But I have long suspected that the LCD makers haven't spent big dollars working on higher resolutions because the end result is all too predictable: "The letters on my expensive new computer screen are too tiny to read!"
I don't know if I'll ever run Vista on my computers, but I will be very happy when it comes out. Only then, with all its fancy scalable vector graphics and text, will device manufacturers begin to compete for consumer dollars based on "true" resolution again.