Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:41259 comp.sys.mac:45497
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!Apple.COM!lsr
From: lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: 'Virtual Monitors'
Message-ID: <6020@internal.Apple.COM>
Date: 5 Jan 90 02:02:20 GMT
References: <1086@crash.cts.com>
Sender: usenet@Apple.COM
Organization: Objects-R-Us,  Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 28

In article <1086@crash.cts.com> uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) writes:

> your preferred resolution (up to about 710X490).  For the programmer, the
> amigas way of doing this is MUCH more flexible.  For one it allows you 
to save
>a lot of memory on systems with less memory equipped, since you can 
choose a
>lower resolution screen in this case.  Admittedly for the mac II audience,

It turns out that the Macintosh architecture doesn't really waste any RAM 
(except on the Mac IIci).  That's because the video RAM is on the graphics 
card, and isn't used for program storage.  The Mac IIci is the first 
machine which can use program RAM for video, and if a user is using the 
builtin video then s/he can save RAM by using a smaller screen depth.

Also, your statement implies that the program chooses the display mode for 
its windows, while the Macintosh puts that capability under the user's 
control.  (Where it belongs IMHO.)  

For the most part applications don't have to worry about what screen depth 
the user has, because Color QuickDraw automatically handles it.  To me, 
that seems easier for the programmer.

Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc.
Object Specialist

Internet: lsr@Apple.com   UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr
AppleLink: Rosenstein1