home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!gatech!destroyer!fmsrl7!lynx.unm.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!ray
- From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
- Subject: Re: PowerPC/060 macs
- Message-ID: <1993Jan24.203055.6247@netcom.com>
- Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
- References: <YfKlxa_00VojA98mgu@andrew.cmu.edu> <C146u3.86x@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <1993Jan23.100744.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:30:55 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- patlin_s@cubldr.colorado.edu writes ...
- >, hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades) writes:
- >> Improved how? 72dpi = 72point = 1inch = WYSIWYG. How does one
- >> improve on the real thing? Granted not all Apple monitors actually
- >> display at "exactly" 72dpi but all of them are designed to be as close
- >> as possible.
- >
- >Why 72? Just because we use that now, I see no reason why a future standard
- >could not supplant it. Our printers are now commonly 300 dpi. Why not
- >have 300 dpi monitors that show everything at the same level of detail as it
- >is printed?
-
- Lessee. Ink jet printers use 300 and 360 DPI commonly. Fax is
- 200DPI. Laser printers are 300 and 600 DPI. Phototypesetters are
- 1200 and 2400 DPI. Scanners are 72/144/300/600 DPI.
-
- Also, most color monitors cannot display at 300DPI resolution. And
- 300DPI requires 16 times as much memory as 72DPI. That's 16 times as
- much information for the CPU to push around.
-
- Yes, a 300DPI 19" color monitor would be really nice. But I personally
- would rather use the money to buy a house.
-
- --
- Ray Fischer "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
- ray@netcom.com than lies." -- Friedrich Nietszsche
-