Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!es1 From: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: (Video) Hardware Idiots ? Message-ID: <1991Jun9.151244.8883@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Date: 9 Jun 91 15:12:44 GMT References: <1991Jun8.085839.3556@news.iastate.edu> <1991Jun8.191231.18699@lelan <1991Jun9.012550.19228@news.iastate.edu> Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News) Reply-To: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) Organization: Columbia University Lines: 53 Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu In article <1991Jun9.012550.19228@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> >>In article <1991Jun8.085839.3556@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> >>> Unfortunately, you will have to wait a while (probably a very LONG while) >>>for that. This is NOT supported in AmigaDOS 2.0, and will not be supported ------------------------- >>>on the Amiga for several years. ------------------------------ >> > > Who has told you that DIG will NOT take several years? The fact is, >nobody knows how long DIG will take. However, I do not think DIG will ----------------------------------- >be available in less than three years, simply because 2.0 itself has >taken three years to develop, and doesn't have anywhere near the radical >changes that DIG will most certainly require. > Marc: How long has DIG been worked on so far? That's flaw number one. Flaw number two (the main one): look at the underlined lines. First you state as an outright fact that DIG won't be supported for several years. Then, you go on and say nobody knows how long it will take. Certainly you and I don't so you shouldn't go stating things as facts. > The fact is, it is right now impossible to have a Workbench with more >than 16 colors and a non-interlaced resolution higher than 640x480. This >is inadequate compared to the very nice 256-color display you can get on >the MAC LC, for instance. > First off, my workbench is 732x480, small point. Second, I don't WANT a 256 color display! In fact, I don't even want 16 color, at least not on my workbench. Those colors are useful for DISPLAYING an image, but I don't feel comfortable WORKING with an image in that many bitplanes. Way too slow. > I would like to take a poll sometime. I am willing to bet that a >very sharp display with lots of colors at a high resolution is a lot >more usable to most people than being able to 'download to a coprocessor >straight out of the box'. > Sharp display is more important, to me at least, than colors. At least that is true with the business programs. Video people want the colors, but resolution is already fine. 1024x768 with 4 colors would be great. If there were a way to deinterlace 640x960 even that would be much better! -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin