Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site caip.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!caip!CC004049%BROWNVM.BITNET
From: CC004049%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: 640x400
Message-ID: <1042@caip.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Mon, 20-Jan-86 22:33:29 EST
Article-I.D.: caip.1042
Posted: Mon Jan 20 22:33:29 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 09:14:04 EST
Sender: daemon@caip.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 26

From: George S. Musser Jr.

Mike Farren writes:

> The necessary fix would be fairly expensive. The biggest reason for the
>640 X 200 limitation on each field is to reduce the bandwidth requirements
>of the coprocessor and the memory, and to allow the CPU more cycles.
>Maintaining the current hardware capabilities and adding the extra capability
>you describe isn't an easy job. (Before I hear anything about the Atari ST
>and its 640X400, 70Hz screen, let me remind you that that is a one-bit-per-
>pixel monochrome screen.  It's ONLY color option is 320X200.  If you are
>willing to accept THAT limitation, then the problem isn't too hard.  If you
>want a color screen such as the Amiga's, at a reasonable cost, compromises
>have to be made.)

Why couldn't the custom chips be modified to accept a 640x400 non-interlaced
display with a maximum of one or two bit planes?  The machine is already
limited to 4 bit planes when the horizontal resolution is 640 pixels.

The interlacing of 640x400 is my biggest complaint about the machine.  In
its ads, CBM-Amiga stresses that the 640x400 resolution outdoes IBM and
Mac, yet the interlacing makes this mode all but useless.  I live for the
day when the beautiful characters shown by SetLace won't leave me
with a headache after 30 seconds.

George