Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!coolidge From: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Sun's Competitive Strategy (Was: Re: P1754 Message-ID: <1990Dec7.210738.25872@julius.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 7 Dec 90 21:07:38 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> 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. Please pay more attention to your attributions. I never made the original comment; my remarks were limited to the misuse of the term 'resolution'. As a matter of fact, there are a number of SVGA monitors which are better than the average Macintosh monitor. There are also a number of Mac monitors which, while having fewer dots per inch, are sharper than many SVGA monitors (because many SVGA monitors that I've seen are very fuzzy). Fuzziness turns dots per inch into spots per inch and can lower the effective dpi. However, I agree that SVGA monitors are, quite often, higher resolution than Mac monitors whether the Mac monitors are 512x384 or 1152x870. >>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. I agree; manufacturer claims are notoriously overrated. I'm basing my speed estimate on benchmarks I've seen run on real 68040 boxes and real 80486 boxes. The 68040 seems to be about three times as fast as the 68030 at the same clock speed; hence, it is about half again as fast as the 80486. >I'm looking at a bunch of stuff that people call industry standard >reviews, product literature. What are your sources??? I quoted mine. On 'resolution': check several of the papers done by the X Window system implementers. For that matter, run xdpyinfo on your favorite machine and see what it reports for resolution. Or check a number of papers from SIGGRAPH or other graphics journals. Or check other postings in this string... On the 680x0/80x86: personal experience with machines using them for benchmarking; processor manuals for instruction sets; opinion on which I'd rather be working with. --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.