Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!shelby!neon!pescadero.Stanford.EDU!philip
From: philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ?
Message-ID: <1990Aug21.193917.9641@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 21 Aug 90 19:39:17 GMT
References: <1990Aug20.215727.4296@portia.Stanford.EDU> <3965@crash.cts.com> <5111.26cfe834@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>
Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Reply-To: philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
Distribution: comp
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 22

In article <1990Aug20.215727.4296@portia.Stanford.EDU>,
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes:
> Herc resolution: 720x348 = 251,000 pixels, and this is terrible...
> VGA/Mac II resolution: 640x480 = 307,000 pixels, which is generally
> 				agreed to be good.
> Mac +/SE resolution: 512x348 = 176,000 pixels, and this isn't???
> 
> I agree that the +/SE resolution is barely usable for text processing (the
> most recent InfoWorld claims that even a 10 pt font on a Mac is barely
> readable; I agree).

I don't want to get into this little war - just a correction. I don't believe
it is correct to equate number of pixels with resolution. Number of pixels
per inch (per cm or whatever if you prefer), maybe. To compare a 9" screen
with a 13 inch screen by counting the pixels is meaningless.

The "standard" for Mac screens is 72dpi. Whether this is adequate for a
10pt font depends on the font (Times is not great at this size; some others
are OK). How many dpi is Hercules? Do Hercules screens have square pixels?

Philip Machanick
philip@pescadero.stanford.edu