Re: widget size independant to screen resolution

Actually, if you just used a scaled font (since the server should be
handling fonts anyhow), then it would be at nearly no extra cost at
all (or less cost,even).
I'm not talking about scaling the window after it's rendered. I'm
talking about rendering it smaller to begin with (with options to
change this scaling, of course).
And since I just want to be watchiing progress, I wouldn't care at all
if the text was readible (which couldn't really be expected from such
a tiny window anyhow), therefore you could simply store a scaled-down
version of the font in memory (a fixed-size font since it's a terminal
application) as a bitmap, and do fast blits rather than render the
fonts over and over again (silly for fixed-width fonts anyhow, unless
maybe you're anti-aliasing on a bitmap or multi-color background or
something. for a fixed background color, like the standard black, even
anti-aliasing could be pre-rendered)

Even with rendering fonts on-the-fly, it wouldn't take any longer than
rendering full-sized ones, probably less time, since you wouldn't be
going into the curves with as much detail.

Am I wrong in these assumptions? Scaling a bitmap would be slow, yes,
but scaling fonts shouldn't be since they only need be scaled once, or
will be rendered with less detail, which would be faster...

--Paul Bonser

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:39:52 +0000, Phil <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Bonser wrote:
> > There are many times where I will want to watch a window, but don't
> > need it to be full size, like a download window or when I'm doing an
> > emerge or something. It'd be nice to scale the window down a bit, so I
> > can keep an eye on it without taking up too much of my precious screen
> > real estate.
> 
> To give a reasonable impression of an active 1/4 size 600x400 pixel
> terminal (this is smaller then a gnome-terminal on my machine) in
> real-time would have a prohibitive CPU cost.  Non real-time would look crap.
> 
> > It could also be used for completely pointless eye-candy, of
> > course...which always attracts people to things :P
> 
> Really?  _Pointless_ eye-candy deters me.
> 
> Phil
> 


-- 
"C++ also supports the notion of *friends*: cooperative classes that
are permitted to see each other's private parts." - Grady Booch