[rescue] Is it kosher to post Craigslist links here?

[Don Y]

der Mouse wrote:
>>> Oddly enough, since having a device that is high enough resolution
>>> to read "ebooks" on, I actually think I read faster that way.  [...]
>> For me, the effect is the opposite.
> 
> Me too.
> 
> If such things were plain text, it might be different, but they are
> invariably PDFs or something even less amenable to straightforward
> reading, and it is a major strain to try to read such things on a
> display with as coarse a resolution as all computer displays I've seen.
> (There may exist a display with multiple hundreds of DPI of resolution,
> but that's what it would take; I've used about 100dpi, and that doesn't
> cut it.)

I just don't like the interface.  I want to *hold* it while
reading it.  I want to get that subliminal cue telling me how
many pages are left (based on the relative thickness of the
pages on the right side vs. the left side).

References that I consult often (e.g., K&R) magically open
to the right places -- not because the book has "learned"
that place but, rather, because I subconciously have learned
"about where" it will be in the book.

Doing the same with a PDF (et al.) is just not as intuitive.
Even if you know approximately where the slider/thumb should
be positioned, you rarely get it right "first time".

>> I find it harder to read an electronic display.  I can tolerate a god
>> B&W monitor but find things like LCD's make it look like I am looking
>> through lots of ice crystals (!)
> 
> I recently ran into such a problem, and yours may be related.  I use a
> Sun, with 1152x900 output.  I recently had occasion to hook it up to an
> LCD display.  The display was too brain-dead to display 1152x900; it
> insists on rescaling it up to fit the display (which has more pixels
> than that; I speculate it's 1280x1024).  This produces some very
> disconcerting blurs - which remain fixed as text scrolls, something
> visually even more disconcerting.

Depends on how "smart" the resampling is.  But, in general, LCD's
seem best suited towards one "natural" resolution.

> I know LCDs exist with an option to just display what's there, dammit,
> with a black border if necessary - I've seen such.  But apparently
> they've gotten stupider recently or something.

"Progress"  :>