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