Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!mephisto!udel!udccvax1!brahms.udel.edu!don
From: don@brahms.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: investing in a II gs
Message-ID: <13803@brahms.udel.edu>
Date: 18 Sep 90 11:51:00 GMT
References: <9009180128.AA00716@apple.com>
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 45

In article <9009180128.AA00716@apple.com> $CSD211@LSUVM.BITNET (Mark Orr) writes:
>
>The A500 has better graphics than the GS, but not because of 400 mode.
>If you remember, the Amiga's 400 mode is interlaced (pronounced use-less)
>which causes the display to flicker on anything by a slow scan monitor.
>Microway produces a device called a "flicker-fixer" which de-interlaces
>the 400 mode. Interlaced graphics are quite poor for animation, which is
>the Amiga's forte. The Amiga has two custom processor chips for graphics:
>one to handle most of the drudgery, one to manage sprites, multi-planar
>graphics, etc. Very little software for the Amiga uses 400 mode, most use
>the 640x200 screen (which is the same resolution as ours, though much
>better for animation).
>
	Interlaced graphics are very useful... if you do video work.  That's
what's gotten the Amiga into so many TV stations, etc.  That interlace
is a part of the NTSC video signal... you see it whenever you turn on your TV.
I can also switch to PAL mode, which gives 640x256 or 640x512 interlaced
for compatibility with the european TV standard.
	Interlaced graphics are not inherently poor for animation.  There's
more data to move around on a 640x400 screen than a 640x200 screen, whether
it's interlaced or not.
	The new enhanced chip set (one of the two new chips has been available
for some time, the other is in the 3000 and will be shipping for the other
systems when v2.0 of the OS is ready to be put on ROMs) has a 640x480
and 1280x200 non-interlaced mode, as well as 640x960 and 1280x400 interlace
modes.  (Note that the resolutions I'm mentioning don't take into account the
ability to use overscan to further enlarge the screen size).  1280x800 mono
is possible on any Amiga with a Moniterm or A2024 monitor.

>On the other hand the Atari ST series had 640x400 resolution; but
>monochrome only. This wouldn't be bad for the IIgs since it would give
>you more room on the desktop, thus improving the usefulness of such progs.
>as GraphicWriter III and PublishIT.
>
>A lesson for Apple: Commodore realized the mistake they made by giving
>the Amiga a interlaced 400 Mode and have included de-interlacing hardware
>on the Amiga 3000 (plus 640x480 minimal VGA. I say minimal since VGA
>works with 640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768; and VGA cards for the 1024x768
>resolution on the PC aren't that expensive: $350 at most)
>
	That 'mistake' kept the AMiga alive and going strong in the video
industry when Commodore had no idea what was going on around them.  Now
Commodore has gotten its act together (I mean REALLY gotten it's act together,
all around) and has included the flicker-fixer device in the A3000 to broaden
the machine's appeal to other markets.