Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!davewt From: davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: A2320 not sufficient Message-ID: <1990Dec24.034031.18252@NCoast.ORG> Date: 24 Dec 90 03:40:31 GMT References: <1990Dec22.125326.18870@marlin.jcu.edu.au> <1990Dec23.040355.20001@NCoast.ORG> <1990Dec23.061633.29185@marlin.jcu.edu.au> Organization: North Coast Computer Resources (ncoast) Lines: 72 In article <1990Dec23.061633.29185@marlin.jcu.edu.au> glmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matt Crowd) writes: > >Lets see......I go to the store to buy a video card that supposably >removes flicker, i get home put it in the computer ans *STILL* have to >adjust the colours and screen size/position to get rid of the flicker. I didn't say anything about adjusting color. Only that you must tune your monitor properly for the best picture. You wouldn't expect to buy a TV set and have the color and tint controls set the way you want them. Why would you expect that the monitor mfgr. will know how big you want your image? Especially in a time when most people put up with huge black borders. If they sent the units with the video pre-adjested to the edges, some people would complain about it, expecting the border. >>I use a 700+x500+ workbench all the time, much better than a normal VGA > ^^^^^^^^^ > This is in 16 colours or less. Only an idiot would want their main display for windows in more than 16 colors. Any more and you are starting to waste CPU time on stupid things like bitplanes that are usually blank. And besides, you comment was that the Amiga only did 640x400. I just stated that it wasn't true, not that I was using more colors. I use X under Unix all the time, and even though I am using a 33 Mhz '386 (a real one, not an SX), X is far too slow in deep color mode for any serious use. I have yet to see anyone who uses more than 4 or 8 color screens, because the response is too slow. > >>display. And under Unix you can get as part of your package the Lowell board >>which does much better graphics. Why compare the video used under AmigaDOS >>(which has to be compatible), with what can be done under Unix (which >>doesn't)? Have you ever SEEN how the display looks under Amiga Unix? >>I didn't think so. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ As a matter of fact I have seen it. If you have, you must not have been paying attention, or it was a long time ago. If you saw it with the Lowell board, the resolution was certainly higher than VGA, and with a faster response too. >> I don't know, but as the Amiga isn't limited to that resolution or >>screen depth, I don't see that that matters. >Can't see that screen resolution or depth matters??? There you go missquoting again. Read what I said again. >Ever heard of Image Processing??? A common use for UNIX workstations. And for Amiga's too. But I would hardly say that is a "common" use. Easily over half the Unix stations do not even run X yet, and probobly more than half the terminals are Wyse-60's or VT-100 type systems, with no real graphics at all. > >If you like SLOW ECS then use it. Tell me ONE area where the ECS is slower (or even as slow) as VGA. 1) It has much faster access to RAM than VGA 2) It does not require interaction with the main CPU like VGA does 3) It uses real "deep" screens, rather than an 8 bits side by side method, so it is much easier to scale displays and write portable graphics. What will you do with VGA when you need more than 8 bits? And why do you think VGA is limited to only 256 colors at a time? >Do you have a seeing eye dog??? There have been at least 100 complaints >about the 1950 in the last 3 months, so don't try to shrug it off like >it's o.k or something I saw more like 5-10 complaints, and most of them were from one or two people. There is nothing wrong with the 1950 design-wise. If there is some problem during shipment, or with QA at the factory (you know C= doesn't make them don't you), then that should be corrected. But that is not due to a faulty design. I would take a 1950 over a Nec-3D anyday. > >They do believe it AND buy them, maybe because it's got something to do >with having good business software........ I won't argue about that, as the Amiga just doesn't have the same amount of quality business software available for it *yet*. If any company other than Apple had tried to introduce the Mac, it would have flopped. The Amiga has done well *despite* C= (although they are doing fantastic now), so the current level of work and support being put out by C= can only help things. What else is there new for Apple to try? Dave (Hey, has anyone seen MB since he showed up?)