On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 00:08 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Adam Jackson <ajax(a)redhat.com>
> It's funny you should say that.
> We've had 800x600 as the expected minimum for _years_. Like, since it
> was called Red Hat Linux. It's not even a particularly egregious
> assumption, that's the fallback resolution for Windows 2k and later, and
> it's the Gnome HIG minimum design size.
> That's why anaconda has a fixed-size UI, and why that fixed size happens
> to be 800x600.
Well minimum is fine; but it is also the maximum which is rather
sucks, it shouldn't be hardcoded to be always 800x600 even on a
On a 2560x1600 screen, mousing all the way from the text entry fields in
the top left to the buttons in the bottom right is something of a chore.
1920x1200 isn't much better.
Arbitrarily scalable UIs are really really hard.