Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!awessels
From: awessels@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Low cost Mac's ?
Message-ID: <36573@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 22 Aug 90 01:41:22 GMT
References: <1990Aug20.215727.4296@portia.Stanford.EDU> <3965@crash.cts.com> <5111.26cfe834@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> <1990Aug21.193917.9641@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <1990Aug21.233312.7181@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@ut-emx.UUCP
Reply-To: awessels@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels)
Distribution: comp
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 10

In article <1990Aug21.233312.7181@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes:

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

While I'll agree that Hercules res isn't terrible, you can't just compare dpi.
If I remember right, Hercules res is around 720x350.  The Mac is 512x342.  If
you work out the dpi, you'll find the Herc doesn't come out so well.  Pile on
top of that the fact that the pixels on the Mac screen are much more crisp than
on a Hercules screen.