Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!pacbell.com!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Costs of High-resolution graphical displays Message-ID: Date: 18 Nov 90 19:08:15 GMT References: <16870003@hpfcdj.HP.COM> <6726@uceng.UC.EDU> <1990Nov16.234227.3246@cs.cmu.edu> <6738@uceng.UC.EDU> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 16 In article <6738@uceng.UC.EDU> dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes: > In very large quantities, information is cheaper on the computer. In > small quantities it is cheaper on paper. On a plot of $/bit, the > computer has a substantially high Y-intercept (because you have to > buy at least one computer to read the first bit) and shallow slope. > Paper has a Y-intercept of practically zero, but the slope is > quite a bit higher, at least for text information. Photographics > stomp the computer a little harder. That's true for the first copy. In larger print runs paper gets the advantage again because of the large economy of scale of the printing press. For floppy disks, at least, the manufacturing costs of each floppy and the relatively slow reproduction rates shift the balance towards paper again. Of course CD-ROM has the potential of changing things again, but then the economy of scale is hurt because of the lower demand... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com