Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!boulder!tramp!rademach
From: rademach@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Simon Rademacher)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Atari screen rez
Summary: "Just the facts, ma'am."
Message-ID: <9338@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Date: 11 Jun 89 05:10:53 GMT
References: <16615@gryphon.COM>
Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: rademach@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Simon Rademacher)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 32

In article <16615@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
>In article <17222@swrinde.nde.swri.edu> kent@swrinde.UUCP (Kent D. Polk) writes:
>>
>>Yes, I know about the hardware limitation, but considering Amiga owner
>>discontent over 640*400 interlaced & the number of sales lost to the ST
>>because of it's hires mode availability,
>
>Wait a minute, is this the Atari 620x200 noninterlaced "hires",
>the same thing that apple calls super-hi-res on the GS.
>
>Hrmph. Sounds like low res to me.
>

A clarification for the benefit of those considering buying an Atari or
Amiga:

If I remember correctly from when I did comparison shopping, you get the
Atari in either a color or monochome configuration.  The computer adjusts
its mode according to what kind of monitor is attached.  (Yes, this means
you have to use an Atari monitor so the computer can "read" it.)  In the
color mode, the display is 320x200 w/ 16 colors.  The monochrome is 640x400
non interlaced.

For me, I said to myself, "If I got the Atari, I would have to go with the
color set-up.  But if I get the Amiga, I get a mode with the same resolution,
but with more colors.  I also have the availability of 640x400 at no extra
cost, which isn't possible with the Atari color set-up.  And no matter how bad
interlace looks, it'd be better than nothing at all."

=======================================
=          Simon Rademacher           =
= rademach%tramp@boulder.colorado.edu =