Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!styx!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Paperwhite
Message-ID: <8703081013.AA13924@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sun, 8-Mar-87 05:13:42 EST
Article-I.D.: cory.8703081013.AA13924
Posted: Sun Mar  8 05:13:42 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Mar-87 03:33:41 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 23


>My question: why? I have an Atari ST at home and must say I
>adore the monochrome monitor. As I use my computer for wordprocessing
>and an 'occasional' game, I very much like the solution Atari
>adopted to overcome the dilemma of color- and monochrome
>applications. That is: use a color monitor for games and a monochrome
>monitor for business-like applications.

	Monocrome *is* nice, but Atari screwed up by not integrating
monocrome/color into the operating system easily.  For that price, I'll
take a color-only (e.g. Amiga) anyday and simply get a good monitor.  

I have both an Amiga with a KV-1311CR analog RGB color monitor, and an 
IBM-XT with a monocrome monitor.  Although the monocrome does look better, 
it doesn't look all that much better.  It's not that it's sharper... it isn't,
it's that the monocrome characters use a larger dot matrix and thus look 
better in a slightly higer resolution screen.  Thank you, I'll take the color.
Besides, I can get 702x230 non-interlace on my Amiga anyway.

My personal opinion is that Atari screwed up by having their two different
overall video modes require different physical monitors.

					-Matt