Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: new amiga computers
Message-ID: <1391@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Feb-87 17:06:20 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.1391
Posted: Mon Feb  9 17:06:20 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Feb-87 07:05:56 EST
References: <4047@utcsri.UUCP> <479@linus.UUCP>
Reply-To: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: Contel Business Systems, Torrance, CA
Lines: 18

In article <479@linus.UUCP> sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes:
>On the other hand, the article states that the graphic and sound chips
>for the Amiga 2000 are identical to those on the current Amiga 1000.
>That's too bad.  I was hoping that the Amiga 2000's graphics would at
>least fix the interlace flicker that occurs with 640x400 pixel mode.

Personally, I think keeping within the NTSC video standard was one
of the smartest things that Amiga did.  If you want 640x400 flicker-free,
get a high persistance monitor.  DON'T change the Amiga to non-NTSC and
dump the 'desktop video' marketplace on the floor.

I would hope that the 2000's video chips are not EXACTLY identical
however, and are the rumored 2MB addressable ones we've been hearing
about.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
#  cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa