Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!toddpw
From: toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: GS PALETTE
Message-ID: <1991Jun9.030323.1164@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 9 Jun 91 03:03:23 GMT
References: <4044.apple.a2.net@pro-nbs>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 17

asong@pro-nbs.cts.com (Andi Song) writes:

>        I don't get it. Why would the GS palette have to correspond to the
>IIe palette? They are unrelated unless you want to convert the pics, but
>Thye Chean is right; to have 320 and 640 compatibility makes much more
>sense as they are more closely related than haveing 320 and IIe
>compatilbilty(sp?), which is not as closely related or that often
>converted.

Damn straight. It's just that these palettes were assigned back in the days
of "backwards compatibility with a capital B". It should be possible to make
an INIT that fixes the problem by replacing the default 320 mode palette with
a 320 version of the dithered 640 palette, but I haven't gotten around to
writing it yet.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu