Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!a344
From: a344@mindlink.UUCP (Tom Klok)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.8bit
Subject: Re: 8) Research Help (8
Message-ID: <615@mindlink.UUCP>
Date: 23 Oct 89 02:39:48 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Lines: 37

> rbrown writes:
> 
> Msg-ID: <33446@cornell.UUCP>
> 
>         (320 X 192 X monochrome) > (640 X 350 X 16 colors)?
> 
>         If that was a typo, and intended to be CGA, rather than EGA, then
> I ask, how is even
> 
>         (320 X 192 X monochrome) > (320 X whatever X 4 colors)?
> 
> I mean, player missiles and stuff like that are neat, and all that, but I'm
> not
> buying.  I mean, I have two each 400s and 800s, and together they don't add
> up to EGA.

Ah, but resolution is not everything!  If technology marches on, then why can I
move my entire screen around hundreds of times faster on my XL than anyone else
can on their IBM whatever or ST?

Why is it that the IBM's EGA card doesn't support IRQ's for horizontal and
vertical sync?  How come you can't overlay something on the screen without
going through all sorts of code to mask it in and out?  Why can't you change
your colour selections on the fly, without watching closely (spending almost
all your CPU time) to see when a status bit flips?  Why use a blitter when a
pointer does the same job?

Their graphics may be "bigger", but they are certainly not more advanced.  In
fact, they are a definite step backwards.

My little Atari does a fine job for what I ask of it:  telecommunications, and
an interesting platform to write assembly language and Forth code on.  I may
buy a PC clone in the future, but if I do it will be for job opportunities --
not for pleasure.

Tom Klok
a344@mindlink.UUCP