Re: wherefore CGM?

David Perrell (
Fri, 6 Dec 1996 11:39:41 -0800

Message-Id: <>
From: "David Perrell" <>
To: <>, "Walter Ian Kaye" <>
Subject: Re: wherefore CGM?
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 11:39:41 -0800

Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
> I think the FutureSplash plug-in support vector graphics, though it
> only available for "certain" platforms...

This is great! The Hawaiian Holiday sample is a scream. This certainly
is a visual aid to my argument regarding vector graphics. I'd still be
waiting to see some of this stuff had it been in gif format.

But what I had in mind was using an accepted standard as an option for
inline graphics, not a commercial solution that requires specialized
software for creation. I believe most vector drawing software has a CGM
export option.

> Let's see... (1600/72) * (5/4) = 27.7" diagonal.
> This assumes 72dpi and a 4:3 aspect ratio.

Ah, the mac-gical 72dpi! I currently run at 87dpi. My screen fonts are
anti-aliased TrueType, so they're no problem -- I specify pixel density
as a video driver variable and fonts size accordingly. The only problem
is bitmap icons.

> I wouldn't recommend using 1600x1200 on a monitor much smaller than
> at least not for daily work; only for quick overviews. After all,
just cuz
> one's video card supports two million pixel resolution doesn't
obligate one
> to operate at that setting, though I can understand the urge to "get
> money's worth"... :)

Are 72dpi displays 'good enough'? You may think so; I don't. I ran at
1536x1152x16 on 19.5" diag (98dpi) for a while, and I know that the
added pixel density makes a pleasant difference. My point about icons
as vector graphics is that there is no reason why the UI must limit
display quality. If you buy the power to push the pixels and the memory
to hold them, by all means you should get your money's worth.

David Perrell
>     Walter Ian Kaye <>     Programmer - Excel,
>           Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM, FoxPro,
>     Musician - Guitarist,