Re: wherefore CGM?

Walter Ian Kaye (
Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:21:16 -0800

Message-Id: <v03007804aecec814e410@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:21:16 -0800
From: Walter Ian Kaye <>
Subject: Re: wherefore CGM?

At 7:39p -0800 12/06/96, David Perrell wrote:
>Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
>> 72dpi works out perfectly for me, since at 12" away I can't see the
>> pixels, yet if I scrunch close to the screen, I can actually see
>where pixels
>> end. Best of both worlds!
>ZOOM! ZOOM ZOOM! ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM! (easier on the eyes)

When that's an option, I do, of course. (And now I'm stuck singing the theme
song to some kiddie TV show...arrghhh!;)

At 7:23p -0500 12/06/96, Ian Graham wrote:
>A recent Scientific American article (an isssue from
>this past summer) described a new LCD display with
>> 200 dpi resolution, in full color, and readable in
>daylight (I believe it was a passive panel that
>used reflective light) The researchers projected 600
>dpi before long.

And what of existing graphics? How will programs know what to scale (for
WYSIWYG size correction) and what to leave at pixel size? There is no
meta information like that in existing formats, so you'll need new graphic
formats to support those ultra-high resolution screens. Or must we throw
away all existing bitmap graphics and redo everything as vector art? That
would be a huge task and not backward compatible. I'm sure there is a
technical solution -- I just think it would come at a high price. May as
well switch to a completely new Operating System and start from scratch.
Perhaps someday all existing OS's will be gone -- Windows, Unix, MacOS,
BeOS, RISCOS, VMS -- and we'll be fully vector-based with a 64-bit Unicode
to handle languages from extraterrestrials. :)

    Walter Ian Kaye <>     Programmer - Excel, AppleScript,
          Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML     Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter