So, rather than make the interface more flexible, they chose to support resolutions that were graceful degradations from their target resolutions. It makes sense, but it's not very satisfying. I would have expected a bit more extended GUI support from an OS with the word "windows" in the name.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Saif @ Feb 17th 2006 9:50AM
So, rather than make the interface more flexible, they chose to support resolutions that were graceful degradations from their target resolutions. It makes sense, but it's not very satisfying. I would have expected a bit more extended GUI support from an OS with the word "windows" in the name.