Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!uwvax!oddjob!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG vs programmed phototypsetting
Message-ID: <13788@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 30 Sep 88 00:42:30 GMT
References: <1141@mmm.UUCP> <47700025@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 18

In article <47700025@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>On the IBM-PC and clones (as well as top end workstations) is IS possible
>to get essentially true WYSIWYG. There are display available at
>1200x1600 (portrait format) (relatively common) up to 3000x4000
>(at 300 dot per inch and not common at all).

Monitors capable of even the former resolution typically cost more than
the PC.  (The Philips monitor used on Suns can scan about 1k by 1k and
costs about $1k :-) .)  The prices *are* improving, but 3k by 4k is
indeed rare (and expensive), and that, to me, is a bare minimum for
printer resolution.  If you intend to publish, 300 dpi is not fine
enough: the degradation introduced in the process of printing demands
about an order of magnitude more resolution.

30k by 40k monitors, anyone? :-)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris