Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!amdahl!ems!srcsip!shankar From: shankar@srcsip.UUCP (Subash Shankar) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: {640,320}x400 resolution (was: IIgs case redesign) Message-ID: <8133@srcsip.UUCP> Date: 5 Sep 88 23:08:36 GMT References: <8808291037.AA02419@crash.cts.com> <8040@srcsip.UUCP> <8428@smoke.ARPA> Reply-To: shankar@haarlem.UUCP (Subash Shankar) Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN Lines: 22 In article <8428@smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: >In article <8040@srcsip.UUCP> shankar@ely.UUCP (Subash Shankar) writes: >>Then again, I can't think of a use of these modes ... ^^^ > >Excuse me, but the main reason I haven't been spending much time >programming my IIGS is that all my interesting applications need >much better resolution than 200 vertical. If you can't think of >uses for a frame buffer then you're not very imaginative.. If the whole original sentence had been quoted, it would have been clear that what I was saying was that an interlaced mode with high vertical resolution is of limited uses except when doing paint-program type graphics and for games. With interlaced screens, unless you get a high persistence monitor (read $$$), the resulting flicker makes it hard for prolonged uses of applications involving text and business graphics, which probably have heavy use of fine lines. I wish that the GS had more vertical resolution, but I would rather have something between 200 and 400 in a noninterlaced mode rather then 400 in interlaced mode. Off course, if your intention is to do graphics and art work, the interlacing doesn't matter that much.