Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu!hankd
From: hankd@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Hank Dietz)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: the new NeXT machine
Summary: another guess
Message-ID: <1990Oct1.202415.3672@ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 1 Oct 90 20:24:15 GMT
References: <0093CF4F.80076240@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> <1990Sep20.175913.11599@zoo.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@ecn.purdue.edu (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 13

In article <1990Sep20.175913.11599@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <0093CF4F.80076240@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>    two speakers built built-in to the 1120 x 832 pixel grey-scale display 
>>    (why didn't they go for 1280 x 1024 or 1024 x 768? ...
>
>It's not uncommon to start with a requirement that says something like
>"roughly 1024x768, but do better if you can" and end up with some odd set
>of numbers like 1120x832.  The cost-of-resolution curve is not linear:  it

I don't think that's all.  I suspect that they did it so that you could
get a 1024 x 768 framed window...  but that's just a wild guess....

								-hankd