Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!jessica.stanford.edu!aaron
From: aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ?
Message-ID: <1990Aug21.233312.7181@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 21 Aug 90 23:33:12 GMT
References: <1990Aug20.215727.4296@portia.Stanford.EDU> <3965@crash.cts.com> <5111.26cfe834@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> <1990Aug21.193917.9641@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: Aaron Wallace
Distribution: comp
Organization: Academic Information Resources
Lines: 36

In article <1990Aug21.193917.9641@Neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes:
>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?

Okay, maybe resolution was the wrong term; my point was that the Herc can
display more on the screen (or the same amount with better detail) than can
the compact Macs.  Most cheap Herc monitors are of the 10-12" variety, which
would translate to about the same resolution in terms of dpi.

Comparing 9" and 13" screens by counting pixels is not meaningless--the more
pixels there are, the more can be displayed.  A 4.5" 256x174 would have the
same resolution as the SE/Plus, but would be useless for word processing.
Likewise a 10" Herc (or so) would have roughly the same resolution but would
be able to display more, just as a Mac II can display more than an SE/Plus.

Anyway, my point was that the Herc is not "terrible," even by today's 
standards...

Aaron Wallace