Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!necntc!husc6!husc4!hadeishi
From: hadeishi@husc4.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: new amiga computers
Message-ID: <1272@husc6.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Feb-87 14:01:06 EST
Article-I.D.: husc6.1272
Posted: Sat Feb 21 14:01:06 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Feb-87 05:40:18 EST
References: <4047@utcsri.UUCP> <479@linus.UUCP> <1391@cadovax.UUCP> <126@toylnd.UUCP>
Sender: news@husc6.UUCP
Reply-To: hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi)
Organization: Harvard Science Center
Lines: 55
Summary: Let's stay factual here

In <126@toylnd.UUCP> dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) writes:
>In article <1391@cadovax.UUCP>, keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>Personally, I would hope that the engineers at Commodore would have enough
>savvy to produce video interface circuitry that would disable the NTSC
>output for a 640 x 400 flicker-free mode to the RGB port while maintaining
>the NTSC compatibility for all the other modes.  While NTSC compatibility
>is nice I think the majority of Amiga buyers will probably not have
>much occassion to hook their Amiga up to a VCR etc. whereas limiting
>the Amiga display to as lousy a standard as a TV set is a serious
>detraction.
>I'm also really tired of the whole 'buy a lp phosphor monitor'
>response as I'm not really interested in buying a 1K monitor for a 1K
>computer.  While the price of monitors with at least 640x400 res is dropping
>the price of lp phosphor monitors hasn't budged.

**** FLAME ON ****

	This is total idiocy.  Please do some research before you make
such totally ridiculous comments.

	First of all, 640x400 analog RGB monitors are MUCH more expensive
than the long persistence monitors soon will be.  The only difference
between a long persistence monitor and a regular RGB monitor is the
phosphor *THAT'S IT*.  A total cost difference of about $20.  Rumor has
it that C-A will be marketing an LP RGB monitor for $500 retail, a LOT
cheaper than a 640x400 RGB analog monitor.  ALSO, when you look at
640x400 RGB monitor prices, be sure you're not talking about digital
RGB!  Analog RGB monitors are more expensive and will always be inherently
more expensive than their LP counterparts.

	Also, there is a fantastically good reason why you'd want to
keep the interlace mode on any future Amiga; with interlace you can get
twice the vertical resolution without any loss of bandwidth.  To force
the Amiga to put out color data twice as fast would make it necessary to
severely limit the number of colors you can see.  So even on a 1Kx1K
machine you might want to keep interlace so you can get double-vertical
resolution without loss of color depth.  However, on a 1Kx1K workstation
you would probably also want the choice of LP or non-LP depending on
the application (LP for CAD/CAM, non-LP for office use.)

>As People are likely to use their Amigas for a whole gamut of applications
>many of those applications could greatly benefit from a hi-res
>screen: games, WYSIWYG text processing, terminal emulators, even pre-viewing
>your video or producing artwork meant to use the 640x400 interlaced mode.

	Again, it is a question of bandwidth or not bandwidth.  Interlace
can be used on any monitor, not just NTSC-style RGB monitors.

			-Mitsu