Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!fluke!kurt
From: kurt@fluke.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Reactions to IBM PC2 graphics
Message-ID: <713@dragon.tc.fluke.COM>
Date: Wed, 8-Apr-87 11:35:58 EST
Article-I.D.: dragon.713
Posted: Wed Apr  8 11:35:58 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Apr-87 07:35:58 EST
References: <10726@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <1582@husc6.UUCP>
Distribution: world
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 22
Keywords: VGA Killer graphics

Wait a minute.  The VGA is supposed to do 256 colors at once.  Is that
perhaps done in sort of the same way the Amiga does 4096 colors at once?  If
all 256 colors may be assigned to any pixel, in any order, and in a way that
allows access to the screen in an ordinary way, then they have something.
But think about it, 256 colors.  They obviously aren't doing 256 bit planes.
Nobody can do that; you would need gigabits/second of bus bandwidth.  Maybe
one byte per pixel?  A 640x480 window in this mode would use 370Kbytes.  I
also don't see how a gate array of 12,000 gates complexity could compete
with a full-custom video chip.  (What is the complexity of the Amiga video
chip?  Anyone know?)  Does the PCII have a blitter?  Copper?  Is the VGA
even organized in a way that makes these things possible?

Anyone who has been around for 5+ years will have to be familiar with the
funny compromises made in microcomputer video systems.  The Apple II, with 8
colors, but they can't all appear at once, or in adjacent pixels, the
Commodore 64, where 8x8 blocks of pixels shared the same foreground/background
color nybble.  The list goes on and on.  I wouldn't sell my Amiga just yet.
Lets see the SPECS first.

By the way, the Amiga 2000 is still CHEAPER than the PCII/30, their bottom-
of-the-line product.  Phthththhpt!  It is also faster in every performance
parameter.