Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!ames!amdahl!JUTS!duts!kls30 From: kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Sun's Competitive Strategy (Was: Re: P1754 Message-ID: Date: 6 Dec 90 20:41:35 GMT References: <1990Nov16.225515.494@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Nov25.194404.3376@dircon.uucp> <1635@unix386.Convergent.COM> <1990Dec2.014554.3491@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <2760@cirrusl.UUCP> <2764@cirrusl.UUCP> <76095@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes: > >386sx's are pretty much the same, operationally, as 68020's. I've got I don't agree because you have to get a PMMU on a 68020 which adds wait states to memory. But besides that they are equivalent. > >>You obviously haven't seen many Super VGA displays. Remember a Classic >>only has a 9" screen and something like 540x480 display (????) I know >>I wouldn't call a Classic's screen high resolution. You have to get >>a large monitor to get better than the resolution avail. on Super VGA >>800x600 and 1024x768. > >You're confusing resolution with pixels. The resolution of a Macintosh >monitor (any Macintosh monitor from Apple and almost all third party >monitors) is 72+/- 1 dpi. No I'm not, resolution is the number of pixels, dot pitch determines dpi. Look at any number of publications and manufacturer's literature and resolution is listed as 800x600, 1024x768, etc. Almost all SVGA screens have dpi greater than 72 +/- 1. The dot pitches for SVGA class monitors starts at .31mm (80 dpi) and the other standards are .28mm(90 dpi) and .25mm (100 dpi). BTW .31mm is considered not good for a SVGA since standard EGA and VGA had .31mm and .28mm dot pitches. By todays standard a monitor w/ a dot pitch of .35mm (72 dpi) is considered corse and grainy. 72 dpi IS corse dot pitch. The standard Mac IS low resolution and just looking at specs is definitly not better SVGA or VGA for that matter. > >>>winner!! And as a computer architect, I cringe every time I think of >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>Then you also cringe when you think of the design of 680x0 machines >>right ???? > >The 680x0 is a much cleaner architecture than the 80x86, if for >no other reason than that the backward compatibility is limited to >a reasonable processor (8086! gimme a break!). If I'm not mistaken the 68k is circa 8086. BTW what is wrong w/ backward compatibility in a processor. If you don't have backward compatibility you've got a different processor family. The 68040 is a kluge just like the i486 both use a RISC core wrapped up in a CISC instruction set. The 68k arch. is not better that the 80x86 they're just different. > >--John Before you start blasting away at arch. and screens check you sources. Mine are industry standard for what is called resolution and dot pitch. KeNT >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge >Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) >Copyright 1990 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. >You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well. -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */ Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com