Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: VT220, GS+ (actually, just GS+)
Message-ID: <7438@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 11 Mar 88 22:06:17 GMT
References: <8803061316.aa29780@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> <37@fizban.Fizban.MN.ORG>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <37@fizban.Fizban.MN.ORG> sds@fizban.Fizban.MN.ORG (Steven D. Splinter) writes:
>2)	640x400 (at least!?!), well, the GS is already impossible to use in
>	native mode w/o at least 768k.  This request will make the 32k screen
>	64k (at least), and, since the size of everything (all bitmaps) will
>	also double, will erase much of the effects of (1,3,6).  This will also
>	require a *much* more expensive monitor (see Mac II monitor prices).

My Apple RGB monitor has sufficient resolution for 640x400 already.  The scan
lines have a quite evident dark gap between them that interlacing would fill
quite nicely.  I don't know how much extra it would take to make an Apple RGB
monitor interlace, but I don't think it would have cost very much more.

The biggest problem with 640x400 at this point is the severe incompatibility
with the initial IIGS.  (fonts, etc.)  The IIGS should have had this
resolution all along (I hear that some of its designers wanted this), but I
really don't see how they can fix it now.