🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1177@tmiuv0.uucp>, rick@tmiuv0.uucp writes:
> 
> NTSC is not inferior.  Nor is PAL superior.  They're just "different".  But,
> I agree.  Software should sense what display is running and accomodate it.
> Many commercial programs do.  And some of the shareware/freeware/PD stuff do.
> Some don't.  That's life.
> 
> Besides, I think this thread got started by a flame on JRComm's lack of PAL
> support.  I think Jack answered reasonably by stating that JRComm is a terminal
> emulator, and 90% of the terminals out there use 80 or 132 character wide
> screens, 24 or 25 lines high.  In those cases, I'm not certain that the
> additional screen height in PAL mode would be of much use.  But then again,
> I'm in the States.  Must be my North American bias showing again. 

You're not joking!! A standard NTSC screen in just over half the area of my
overscan PAL screen. For almost any sort of program I can think of, if
resolution (by which I mean the number of dots on screen) is not important,
The actual physical space is.
                    
In the particular example you cite, VLT is an excellent example of a terminal
emulator which handles screen sizing properly, an gives a significantly 
better review window and terminal window size as a result. It also allows
for the placement of "function buttons" at the bottom of the screen which
do not reduce the real estate available for terminal emulation.

Surely if the additional 1/4 of the screen is not of use to PAL users,
they wouldn't keep asking folk to support it.

Regards Alan