Hall Stevenson wrote: > Isn't it actually the opposite ??
The docs are correct. For any given monitor size, the higher your resolution, the higher your dpi. > If you're running at 1280x1024 or > 1600x1200 or higher, you want more space for "stuff". You don't want > big-a** fonts taking up valuable screen space. That's an incorrect assumption. Some people want higher resolution to have more detail on the same "stuff" -- they want their fonts rendered better, not smaller. These are the people who will care about having their dpi set correctly. On my setup, I actually have just under 100 dpi -- I can verify this by drawing a line 500 pixels long and holding a physical ruler up to the screen, and seeing that the 500 pixel line is just a bit over 5 inches long. This equivalence is rather obviously useful for graphic design work, where you want what you see on the screen to match the printed output as closely as possible. (In the Gimp's preferences dialog, there's a dpi calibrator that you can use to see what your display's dpi actually is.) Even given your assumption that higher resolution == more stuff, your statement still doesn't make any sense to me. Why would someone running at a low resolution (say, 800x600 on a 17" monitor) want 100 dpi fonts? They'd be huge! So it seems to me that your point of view, based solely on an attitude of "how much stuff can I cram onto the screen at once", is that one should always use 75 dpi fonts. Which is fine if that's what matters to you. But if that were everyone's view, the 100 dpi fonts probably wouldn't even exist; if nobody cares about matching the display's metrics to that of the printed page, we might as well throw out the whole pretense of measuring fonts in points, and just count pixels instead. Craig
