4 ms·
It's a shame that DPI hasn't benefited from Moore's law. Developers shouldn't need to worry about pixels, but there still aren't enough to spare. Unfortunately,
by qjz 16y ago
It's a shame that DPI hasn't benefited from Moore's law. Developers shouldn't need to worry about pixels, but there still aren't enough to spare. Unfortunately, netbooks and tablets have taken us a step backwards (most web developers had already abandoned support for 800x600 screens, and even some native apps can't accommodate such short vertical resolutions). I'd much rather target precise measurements or percentages and let the OS adapt the output to a very high resolution display.
- jseliger 16y agoIt's a shame that DPI hasn't benefited from Moore's law. Moore's law holds that the number of transistors that will fit on a chip doubles every two years, later reduced to 18 months: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moores_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moores_law . Unless I'm missing something -- which is always possible -- it doesn't have anything to do with monitors.
- jerf 16y agoIf you're going to be pendantic, do it right: Moore's Law is about the price of transistors on a single IC. For instance, the actual Moore's Law hasn't quite stalled yet, we're still getting transistors for cheaper even if clockspeeds themselves have stalled. It's also independent of the wafer size so you can still get a generation of Moore's Law just by growing the wafer size without raising the price. I daresay monitors actually have benefited from that, but instead of raising resolution we've been dropping prices. Though I would imagine LCD-related fab processes not technically under Moore's Law are responsible for more of that.
- endtime 16y agoIt should be obvious what he means, which is that the number of X in a piece of technology is multiplied by Y every Z <period of time>.