Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!navas From: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Why no 320*200*8? (was: Wake up, Commodore!) Message-ID: <12389@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 2 Apr 91 17:23:13 GMT References: <2984@tpki.toppoint.de> <1991Mar24.203644.10678@starnet.uucp> Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU Lines: 19 In article <1991Mar24.203644.10678@starnet.uucp> sschaem@starnet.uucp (Stephan Schaem) writes: >It will not be has easy now , since the 256 word table would not be >consequtive with the 2.0 adition. >But I dont know why it wasn't done the first time? I alway wonder >why the cut down, since the gfx library only ask for it! The simple answer is (as the software guy says): It's a hardware problem. The chips are created using rather old technology, and as it is things are rather kludged to get the hires and productivity rates out of them. We need CMOS chips, that's all there is to it :) From a software point of view it'd probably be rather trivial. David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu 2.0 :: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus