That said (and that particularly goes to the blog author): Microsoft released WPF a long ago, and WPF is all vector, not pixel based. I’m not going to say the API is flawless (it isn’t), a gift from the Gods (it isn’t) and can’t be abused by developers hellbent on making their solution inflexible (it can), but it also goes a long way of solving this particular problem and it is supported all the way back to Windows XP SP2.

For developers on the Win32 platform I see little to no reason for not using it, especially now with the tool-support shaping up, and in that remark especially the upcoming Visual Studio 2010 release. Why Microsoft didn’t add a fully featured XAML/WPF editor into Visual Studio 2008 is still something I can’t comprehend.

At any rate, Windows 7 does in fact still have cruddy fonts while OS X 10.6 looks kinda decent:

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/4135/screenshot20091104at124.png

Reviewers with the new higher-density Android do say the higher dot pitch does make a big difference compared to 160DPI.

One issue with higher-density displays is defect rate. I don’t have any inside information, but it must be harder to create flawless high-density displays of any great size, so it’s not just a matter of economies of scale.

Anyway, thanks for your comment and for reading!

Mac OS X has had resolution-independence on its radar for several releases now. Since they control the whole widget, I’d look to Apple to deliver a high-resolution solution before Microsoft. Their market share isn’t huge, but even in Japan it may be enough to push other manufacturers (as they did in making USB ubiquitous and getting touch controls on phones).