Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!agate!aurora!labrea!rutgers!uwvax!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!mmm!ems!srcsip!shankar
From: shankar@srcsip.UUCP (Subash Shankar)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: VT220, GS+ (actually, just GS+)
Message-ID: <2409@altura.srcsip.UUCP>
Date: 20 Mar 88 22:02:29 GMT
References: <8803061316.aa29780@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> <37@fizban.Fizban.MN.ORG> <7438@brl-smoke.ARPA> <490@n8emr.UUCP> <7463@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: shankar@larry3.UUCP (Subash Shankar)
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN
Lines: 22

In article <7463@brl-smoke.ARPA> you write:
>In article <490@n8emr.UUCP> lwv@n8emr.UUCP (Larry W. Virden) writes:
>>Yet isnt it true that the Mac family all use the same fonts?  I am confused as
>>to how they do this if altering the resolution on the IIgs would cause major
>>problems with software, fonts, etc.?
>
>I don't know how the Mac II does this, if it does.
>The basic problem would be that the fonts are defined as bit-maps
>and if the resolution were doubled the 10-point bit-map (for example)
>would come out as 5-point on the display.  The programming problem

On a related question, does anybody know how the GS fonts are currently 
handled between the two different super-hi-res modes.  Presumably, different
fonts are needed for the 320X200 and 640X200 mode, but couldn't the 320X200
fonts be modified for use with a new 640X400 mode?  I also once heard that
the reason it can be done on a Mac II is that all monitors are required to
have an aspect ratio of 1, although I'm not sure about that.
 
The biggest problem I see with a 640X400 (>2 colors) is the amount of memory
needed.  Unless interlacing (yech) is used, it would need at least 64K for the 
screen memory, and an 8-bit bus doesn't give enough bandwidth for 60 frames/sec
with that kind of resolution (unless of course, the screen memory is seperate
like the older apple's).