Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!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: 7 Dec 90 14:49:29 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 writes: >kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes: >>In article <1990Dec6.005211.7490@julius.cs.uiuc.edu> coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes: > > > >>>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. > >Manufacturers who don't understand English, either conversational ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well I guess NeXT, IBM, PC Magazine, Sony, Mitsubishi, NEC, Relisys, Accuvue, JVC, and Nanao all need to go back and learn english. Resolution in standard terms, used in manufacturers literature states resolution is (some num.)x(some num.) and dpi is specified seperately. So I'll say that resolution is a function of both dpi and number of dots on the screen. >or technical. Resolution has a very clear and precise meaning, and >it isn't the number of dots on your (arbitrarily big) monitor. >Resolution, in monitors as in printers, is the number of dots placed >in a given area. Dot pitch and dpi are both measures of resolution, >dots on the screen is not. The term is based on the idea of resolving >a point --- how precisely can you display images of a given size? >Clearly the number of dots on your display impacts this --- more dots >on a display of the same size affects resolution. Adding more dots, >but making the screen bigger, doesn't change resolution. It just >gives you the ability to put more things on your screen at the same >resolution. > But you still haven't addressed the argument you made that said a 72 dpi Mac monitor is better than a SVGA monitor on an IBM system. Which is definitely false. Once agin SVGA moitors range from 80-100dpi which translates .32mm to .25mm per pixel. > >Those two years are one of the reasons why a 68030 is only about twice >as slow as a 80486 at the same clock speed and why a 68040 is about >half again as fast as the 80486. The 680x0 series maintains backward ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'll believe this when there are more than a handfull of '040 in systems. I know that Motorola started shipping in volume and as soon as the systems are out there to compare (running ral applications) I'll believe it. What Motorola or any manufac. claims as mips is not valid. Also speed is going to depend a lot on operating system overhead and compiler design. I'll venture to say that they are comperable processors and leave it at that. >compatibility with the 68000, which was two years later and based on >a number of lessons learned in those two years (as well as borrowing >a few more good ideas from the mainframes of yore, from whence quite a >lot of microcomputer 'advances' come). > >>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. > >I agree; they're both 'kludges' in the sense you describe. They're >both processor families that are popular but aging. There are clearly >better processors around then either of them by a number of criteria. >But, comparing only the two, I believe the 680x0 series to be a better >architecture than the 80x86 series, at least from a programmer's point >of view (I'm not a hardware designer, I'm an operating systems person. >I know which series I'm happier working with). > >>Before you start blasting away at arch. and screens check you sources. >>Mine are industry standard for what is called resolution and dot pitch. > >I have checked my sources. They indicate (you guessed it) that, on >the subject of resolution, I'm correct. On the comparison between ~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm looking at a bunch of stuff that people call industry standard reviews, product literature. What are your sources??? I quoted mine. See above. >80x86 and 680x0, there's clearly a lot of opinion involved in the >comparison. On the factual questions I stand by my sources. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ What sources?????? > >--John > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 */