Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!know!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!emory!att!att!dptg!ulysses!andante!alice!andrew
From: andrew@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: OS cost component of workstatio
Summary: tain't necessarily so.
Message-ID: <11619@alice.att.com>
Date: 15 Nov 90 01:58:52 GMT
References: <315@cadlab.sublink.ORG> <3300214@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1990Nov14.180502.27107@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
Lines: 15

In article <1990Nov14.180502.27107@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
~ In article <3300214@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
~ >Why don't we see monitors that are 2048*1532, at 150 dpi? ...
~ 
~ They do exist.  They are very expensive due to the small market and
~ the difficult technology.  Actually, there are monitors with even higher
~ resolution and tighter dot spacing, but the less said about the price
~ tags on them, the better...

	perhaps i am jaded but they don't seem to expensive to me.
megascan has at least two monitors of interest: a bitonal screen
at 300 (yes, 300 like your laser printer) DPI, 4096x~3300, and
a 2560x2048 8bit gray scale (150-200DPI). the costs aren't outrageous,
$3500 and $5000 respectively. I am currently trying to demo the
300dpi one as an alternate screen for my gnot.