Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: World GeoGraph
Message-ID: <13371@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 18 Jul 90 14:16:37 GMT
References: <3575@crash.cts.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 18

In article <3575@crash.cts.com> lbotez@pro-sol.cts.com (Lynda Botez) writes:
>The resolution is acceptable, but with the rest of 'em capable of 640 x 400
>and better, our machine is getting way behind.

I think the restriction to 4 colors (per scan line, might as well be for
the whole image in practical applications) is even worse than the spatial
resolution.  640x400x4 would still be appreciably behind current expectations
for small-computer graphics.  640x400x256 would be good enough for almost all
purposes.

>I don't want an IBM inside my Apple.  I want my Apple to be as good as an IBM
>(I know it can be).

That's for sure.  If I need an IBM PC clone I'll buy one; no point in
setting up an incompletely compatible hybrid for about the same cost.
But I'd much rather continue to have just one computer on my desk that
supports my large library of existing software AND provides the
capabilities I need for new applications.