Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!svin02!rcpieter
From: rcpieter@svin02.info.win.tue.nl (Tiggr)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: OS cost component of workstation
Message-ID: <1553@svin02.info.win.tue.nl>
Date: 7 Nov 90 23:39:51 GMT
References: <2840@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1990Nov6.222057.17797@ico.isc.com> <239@csinc.UUCP>
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 17

rpeglar@csinc.UUCP (Rob Peglar) writes:

>1kx768?  It is a myth that 1kx768 resolution is necessary for X.  A prime
>example is television;  very low resolution, but the images are spectacular.

Indeed.  And as a result nobody uses television when displaying two moderately
sized (say, 90x40 characters) windows.

>640x480x256 is marginal for adequate imaging.  640x480x1k is better,
>640x480x16k is virtually indistinguishable (oxymoron, i know) from
>television.  Sound odd?  Perhaps.  

640x480 is barely suitable for displaying even a single window.

There are people who actually do other things than image viewing/processing.

Tiggr