Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uicadd.csl.uiuc.edu!steven From: steven@uicadd.csl.uiuc.edu (Steven Parkes) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: OS cost component of workstation Message-ID: <1990Nov8.174706.9654@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 8 Nov 90 17:47:06 GMT References: <2840@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1990Nov6.222057.17797@ico.isc.com> <239@csinc.UUCP> <1553@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Reply-To: steven@pacific.csl.uiuc.edu Organization: Coordinated Science Laboratory, University of Illinois Lines: 20 In article , peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: |> In article <1553@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> rcpieter@svin02.info.win.tue.nl (Tiggr) writes: |> > 640x480 is barely suitable for displaying even a single window. |> I'm sitting in front of a (click, click, click) 684 by *217* display that |> holds an 80 by 25 window, including several dozen pixels of borders and |> available backdrop. A multisync monitor would be nice, but in real life you |> don't really need all that display. Maybe people are thinking about the days when televisions were used as monitors ... although TV's have about 480 active lines, 1) they are interlaced, which limits vertical resolution and 2) the signal is band-limited, which limits horizontal resolution. A 640/480 progressive scan monitor is going to be a lot better than the old days of using a TV with an RF modulator. [I'm not saying 640/480 is great (I use 1024/864), but its a lot better than the 24x40 windows that old systems using TV's got.] steven parkes --------------------------------------- University of Illinois Coordinated Science Laboratory steven@pacific.csl.uiuc.edu -------------------------