Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!csinc!rpeglar
From: rpeglar@csinc.UUCP (Rob Peglar)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Resolution, etc.
Message-ID: <240@csinc.UUCP>
Date: 10 Nov 90 21:26:38 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Control Systems, Inc., St. Paul MN
Lines: 28



Lots of people (too numerous) have posted about resolution and such, esp.
including bits and pieces of one of my postings.

Almost everyone who responded missed the point of the original posting,
but that's ok.  This is the net, after all.  

Point was - resolution of 1kx768 is not a big win for *imaging*.  Yes,
the subject was images, not text, not multiple 80x25 windows, not see-how-
many-characters-we-can-cram-onto-one-screen stuff.  

I fully agree that 1kx768 is necessary for other things.  In fact, you're
just playing around unless you have at least1600x1200x4 for text and 2D line
stuff.  Our sister company (Artist) has been around the block a time or two
in that camp.

As for television, I used it as an analogy to prove that *color* was the
important aspect of imaging, not *resolution*.  I received a piece of e-mail
which compared TV to "a crinkled piece of sh*t" as far as resolution goes.
Again, I agree.  The original analogy is still valid. (I think)

Rob
-- 
Rob Peglar	Comtrol Corp.	2675 Patton Rd., St. Paul MN 55113
		A Control Systems Company	(800) 926-6876

...uunet!csinc!rpeglar