Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!WOOZLE.GRAPHICS.CS.CMU.EDU!spot
From: spot@WOOZLE.GRAPHICS.CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Draves)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: OS cost component of workstation
Message-ID: <1990Nov8.054529.27758@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 8 Nov 90 05:45:29 GMT
References: <2840@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1990Nov6.222057.17797@ico.isc.com> <239@csinc.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@cs.cmu.edu (USENET News Group Software)
Reply-To: spot@WOOZLE.GRAPHICS.CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Draves)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Lines: 29

In article <239@csinc.UUCP>, rpeglar@csinc.UUCP (Rob Peglar) writes:
|> 
|> 640x480x256 is marginal for adequate imaging.  640x480x1k is better,
|> 640x480x16k is virtually indistinguishable (oxymoron, i know) from
|> television.  Sound odd?  Perhaps.  
|> 
|> Resolution is key if one is drawing huge, 2D (e.g. AEC-type) drawings,
|> and you want to be able to zoom into the drawing at factors like 1x10^15
|> and such.  For X, color ability and monitor capability is key, not
|> resolution. 
|> 
|> Rob
|> 

who uses X for imaging?  Most people use it to run a window system,
and that means there is a lot of text on the screen.  For text you
need high resolution.  640x480 is puny.  That's only 80-100 characters
across!!  My current screen is 191 across, and I wish it were more.


|>  very low resolution, but the images are spectacular.
|> Why?  Analog color.

yea.  right.


			Consume
Scott Draves		Be Silent
spot@cs.cmu.edu		Die