On Sep 11, 2005, at 7:51 pm, eleventhvolume wrote: > ... I've also just been issued with a fairly > high-end Dell portable behemoth with a screen resolution of something > like > 1920 x 1200 (I can't remember the exact dimensions, but it's a Dell > Precision with the high spec). > > ... the screen makes everything - particularly web pages - > look tiny, to which he took great exception. I think he's blessed with > better eyesight than me, but he also owns the 17" Powerbook which has a > somewhat lower resolution than the Dell. I commented that I believed > that > the lower Apple resolution was an active design decision rather than > being > anything to do with money-saving.... It may be an active design decision on Apple's part, but perhaps based on the fact that you can change the size of the font & window details on a Mac? The 1920 x 1200 on your Dell is likely much more usable for a wider variety of people than a 1440 x 900 (as fitted to the current 17" Powerbook) would be - if you find the text too small you can increase its size. You should be doing this not by reducing the resolution (which, as you discovered causes pixillation) by by increasing the font size by % in the Advanced button of the right-most tab of display properties or by changing the font size in Themes (you may need again to click an Advanced button to do this). Font-smoothing will be correct for the original screensize. Between Windows 95 & 2000 it was quite easy to increase the font size only of the titlebar, desktop icon label or File/Edit Menu but now in XP it takes a little more twiddling; it IS however quite possible to have both a very high resolution & quite large fonts, icons & buttons. Although the defaults on the Mac might be more suitable for the large variety of people, the GUI is certainly less flexible in this respect. Although I love the combination of eye-candy & usability on my Mac, the way it's easy to navigate, this is the sort of thing that I miss about Windows. Stroller.