Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!csc From: csc@watmath.UUCP (Jan Gray) Newsgroups: net.micro.cbm Subject: Re: Amiga -- is the screen readable? (monochrome vs 16 colours) Message-ID: <16182@watmath.UUCP> Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 08:48:45 EDT Article-I.D.: watmath.16182 Posted: Thu Aug 15 08:48:45 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 16:34:52 EDT References: <206@cernvax.UUCP> <228@uwai.UUCP> Reply-To: jan@looking.UUCP (Jan Gray) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 27 Summary: In article <228@uwai.UUCP> neves@uwai.UUCP writes: >Look on page 90 of the August issue of Byte for a picture showing the >Workbench display of the Amiga (in 640 by 200 mode). I don't know >about you but I couldn't look at those characters very long. On page 91 >you see a sample MAC display. Much more readable. To get a good idea of what the characters on the 640 x 200 Amiga desktop feel like, find an IBM PC w/colour graphics adapter. Both are 640 x 200 pixels. On the "desktop", more colour doesn't do much for you. And forget about using 640 x 400. For that you will need interlacing -- and a long persistance monitor. Does anyone know if the standard Amiga colour monitor being sold by Commodore is long persistance? The Macintosh (and forseeable future Macs) use monochrome technology to provide high quality, readable displays, because the great expense of providing the equivalent resolution in colour doesn't get you much -- unless you like painting or playing games. Given a bitmapped monochrome display and the same resolution (not interlaced!) in 4-bit-deep colour, I'd rather have the monochrome display. Although there is an argument to be made for setting the Amiga colour tables to get 16 level gray scale. Jan Gray watmath!looking!jan Looking Glass Software, Waterloo 519-884-7473