Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!romp!auschs!cello!reed!d75!awdprime!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif
From: tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: OS cost component of workstation
Message-ID: <4167@awdprime.UUCP>
Date: 8 Nov 90 18:02:27 GMT
References: <2840@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <1990Nov6.222057.17797@ico.isc.com> <239@csinc.UUCP>
Sender: news@awdprime.UUCP
Reply-To: tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain)
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin, TX
Lines: 18
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Keywords:

In article <239@csinc.UUCP> 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.

Spectacular?

640x480x16k may be great to look at the stuff from alt.sex.pictures but
running multiple ~80x~24 windows just isn't useful with dinky resolution.
X's usefulness is supposed to come from multiple windows.  For real 
development work, I'd rather have 2048x2048x2 (_LESS_ bits).

I agree with 1kx768 minimum.  If it'd make a difference economically,
I'd settle for 16 colors (and sacrifice the quality of my gif's  :-)   ).

And, BTW, I'm interested in cheap-ix but don't know that I can help.

Paul Chamberlain | I do NOT represent IBM.     tif@doorstop, sc30661 at ausvm6
512/838-7008     | ...!cs.utexas.edu!ibmchs!auschs!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif