Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!esosun!ucsdhub!sdcsvax!hutch
From: hutch@sdcsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.graphics
Subject: Re: PC2 Graphics beats Amiga
Message-ID: <3062@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>
Date: Wed, 29-Apr-87 02:48:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.3062
Posted: Wed Apr 29 02:48:47 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 1-May-87 00:49:35 EDT
References: <500@titan.camcon.co.uk>
Reply-To: hutch@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Jim Hutchison)
Organization: UCSD EMU Project (Educational Microcomputer Unix)
Lines: 32
Keywords: Kill this subject quick
Xref: utgpu comp.sys.amiga:4038 comp.graphics:544

<Just the facts maam.>

In article <500@titan.camcon.co.uk> anc@camcon.co.uk (Adrian Cockcroft) writes:
>All models use the Inmos  IMSG171 colour  lookup table,  this has 256
>entries and 6 bit  DACs per  colour giving  18 bits  or 256K possible
>colours.

Yes, I like it.  Still, is 256 choices of 18 bits better than 256000
choices of 12 bits (640x480 resolution)?

>The low  end PC2's  seem to  have a  gate array  that generates video
>timing to give noninterlaced 640  by 480  at 70  Hz refresh.   Due to
>memory limitations this resolution is at most 4  bits per  pixel.  At
>320 by 240 a full 8 bits per pixel can be  generated.   The memory is
>encoded  as packed  pixels in  bytes rather  than multiple bitplanes.
>All drawing is done in software.  Summary vs  Amiga:   better to look
>at (no flicker, more colours) but much slower.

Correction, *fewer* colors & no flicker.  Why 70 Hz, 65 would be very
stable, and they could use the rest of the bandwidth for something useful
like blitting.

The plug in frame buffer does sounds very nice though...

I still lust after the Amiga 2000 with the 68020/68881 co-processor,
and a darker side likes the 8088 and its PC slave slots.

-- 
    Jim Hutchison   		UUCP:	{dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!hutch
		    		ARPA:	Hutch@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
Disklame'r:
    One greater than the greatest signature representable with 184 symbols.