> > At 03:43 PM 19990706 -0500, Tony Havelka wrote: > > Contrarily, I think that this just shows that a good display is now > the minimum necessary component for the tasks that people want to put > a wearable on. definately... I could care less about the processor as long as I can see 80x24 or better on it... A 386 running linux will work fine for me thank you... > > If I want a lightweight general purpose computer with a crappy display, > I can get a Pilot really cheaply. (I did, in fact.) But in order for me > to make the compromises in weight and battery life to get a serious CPU > (386/486/Px/StrongArm) then I demand a real display at a reasonable > price point. If I was going for this I too would end up with a pilot or a HPLX series palmtop. However, they just don't have the 80x24 aspect as a remote possibility > > Note that a 386 PC/104 setup plus a camcorder CRT will fit in a student's > price range - but if you're going to convince them to drop $500-800 on a > display, it had better have a minimum resolution that lets them feel like > they've made a serious investment. Even 640x480 is too wussy these days, > and in a year or so the baselevel for a mass-experimenter's HUD will be > 1024x768. > > -dsr- > 640x480 I would do only if it was cheap. I mean come on we are talking about lagging behind the rest of the computer industry by close to a decade on display technology. We can't even get a "cheap" priced display that can do 80x24. Now I know I keep harping on 80x24 which some people say can be worked around. Unhappily though I am a Unix based person doing support for a large University. I can't edit all the scripts/programs/config files and such so that they fit a 52x14 or some other wierd size. The computer world is stuck on 80x24 at the minimum and I agree with them. As for more resolution, I would definately go for a 1024x768 since that means I can fit 4 xterms on one page and can get a decent netscape window on a second desktop. HOWEVER, if I could just get a decent 80x24 I could (and more importantly would) use linux and its virtual terminals and do 95% of the work that I do today through the wearable. With X now supporting multiple video cards it would be trivial to have one output to my HMD while the other can output to my monitor when I sit down to do hardcore work. I could even have the 2 overlay each other and add 3d to my work if needed. Or if my HMD was just text I could run tickers and ruptime info on it to keep me informed. There are uses out there for a 320x200 display but it is not for day round computer use. You can't just expect to use information formatted to be 80x24 friendly in a 52x14 or 65x20, etc HMD. My dream would be a display that could do 80x24 with full color ANSI support. Could use whatever resolution that entailed to also display X or maybe some pictures (7x9 font means minimum of 480x216 or there abouts), had a decent battery draw (150-500mw or less) and was transparent or could be turned that with a software option or switch. Most importantly though it should be priced under $300-500 US. LCD screens don't even cost that much for this resolution (Not even near) Sound far fetched? We had this technology on our home PC's in the 80's so I don't see why it should be absent from a wearable 10+ years later. -- Todd Freeman CS Unix Support CAST Online Editor Web site: http://www.andrews.edu/~freeman/ -- Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" toWear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.blu.org
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail