Posted: Mon Jan 20 22:33:29 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 09:14:04 EST
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
From: George S. Musser Jr.
Mike Farren writes:
> The necessary fix would be fairly expensive. The biggest reason for the
> 640 X 200 limitation on each field is to reduce the bandwidth requirements
> of the coprocessor and the memory, and to allow the CPU more cycles.
> Maintaining the current hardware capabilities and adding the extra capability
> you describe isn't an easy job. (Before I hear anything about the Atari ST
> and its 640X400, 70Hz screen, let me remind you that that is a one-bit-per-
> pixel monochrome screen. It's ONLY color option is 320X200. If you are
> willing to accept THAT limitation, then the problem isn't too hard. If you
> want a color screen such as the Amiga's, at a reasonable cost, compromises
> have to be made.)
Why couldn't the custom chips be modified to accept a 640x400 non-interlaced
display with a maximum of one or two bit planes? The machine is already
limited to 4 bit planes when the horizontal resolution is 640 pixels.
The interlacing of 640x400 is my biggest complaint about the machine. In
its ads, CBM-Amiga stresses that the 640x400 resolution outdoes IBM and
Mac, yet the interlacing makes this mode all but useless. I live for the
day when the beautiful characters shown by SetLace won't leave me
with a headache after 30 seconds.