NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/hardware/26841

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!yvax.byu.edu!physc1.byu.edu!seth
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: PowerPC/060 macs
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: 24 Jan 93 20:14:56 -0700
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 55

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Ray Fischer) writes:
> [e-mail] writes ...
>>, [e-mail] (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
> [e-mail]                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche


I like to day-dream sometimes about waht the future MIGHT hold for computers.
One of my day-dreams is that computers will not use the cpu for any graphics
work. In my imaginations, computers will have separate graphics processors
which are entirely object-oriented. Programs will have separate "forks" if you
will for graphics info, and the info will be accessible directly by the
graphics processor without any cpu-dependancy. Anything in the program code or
even in the os itself that causes something to happen with the graphics would
be accomplished by sending a message to the graphics processor. The cpu would
then be free to keep running program and os code, while the super-fast
dedicated graphics processor would grind out ALL graphics stuff. THis is not
too far-fetched in my opinion. And the memory issue is of little importance,
as memory is becoming cheaper and cheaper. I think it would be a possibility
in just a few years to have 300 dpi monitors running FAST graphics. My own
fantasy is that someday we will multiply our current resolution by 10 and
have 720 dpi monitors, and 720 dpi laser-printers, that would allow TRUE
WYSIWYG display and printing. At 72 dpi the pixels are still too big, although
I still rember our Atari 800 using a TV as a monitor, and the resolution there
was VERY bad. If you don't think 72 dpi is too big, just look at a PowerBook
screen; very jaggy. Before anyone flames me, let me say this: I am speaking
of my dreams for FUTURE performance, NOT complaining about present hardware.
If we constantly deny the possibility of performance wonders, then we will
never see them realised. I would be willing to bet money that within 10 years,
maybe even 5, super-high resolutio monitors will be commonplace.

Seth