Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!convex!killer!chari
From: chari@killer.UUCP (Chris Whatley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: 72 vs. 95 dpi large screens
Summary: 95 dpi on a Mac sucks!
Message-ID: <4799@killer.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jul 88 20:12:57 GMT
References: <5349@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 32

In article <5349@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>, jg@eagle.ukc.ac.uk (J.Grant) writes:
> 
> 	Some large Mac screen displays run at 95 dpi compared
> to the more normal Mac 72 dpi.  Since this will make the text
> appear 7/9 of its normal size, I am concerned about the
> legibility (size distortion is probably of little concern
> here).i

>[stuff deleted]

95 dpi on a Mac absolutely stinks. I was considering the Sony 16" monitor for
my Mac II in winter and for a few moments thought how great it would be to
have such tiny pixels and clear text. Then, I sat down and used it for awhile
and found that most Mac software like terminal emulators and HyperCard! were an
incredible strain on my eyes because everything was so damn small.

Basically the text looked great ( I think that the sony's are beyond comparison
with any color monitors around ) if it was bigger than 12 pt. Anything smaller
is terrible. I opted for the 19" Sony and I am still giddy about its quality
and veiwing space.

I suppose that you could get the 95DPI monitor and a pair of hi-magnification
glasses and do just fine but, I'd stick with the 72 dpi monitor until
QuickDraw becomes device/resolution independent (System 7.0 maybe?).

Chris

-- 
___________________________________________________________
"Henry, have you and Mary had sexual intercourse?"  -Mrs. X
chari@killer.UUCP
CI$:71370,1654