Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site aero.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack From: warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack) Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga Subject: Re: Big, Slimy Atari Ads Message-ID: <439@aero.ARPA> Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 15:20:00 EDT Article-I.D.: aero.439 Posted: Mon Sep 16 15:20:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 05:25:40 EDT References: <3644@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Reply-To: warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack) Followup-To: net.micro.amiga Organization: The Discordian Society Lines: 37 Summary: Resolution the other. In fact the reason why the Mac screen is so small is because the design team couldn't find a bigger monitor with the same resolution for a reasonable price. War is waging over interlace vs. non-interlace. A non-interlaced screen scanning at the same rate and the same 'SIZE' will have less flicker [discounting differences in phosphor, etc.] The advantage of interlace is that INFERIOR (not bad, just inferior) hardware can provide a decent emulation of more expensive better hardware. A monitor that is only capable of tracing 200 lines in 1/60 of a second can act like a 400 line monitor and still be bearable. It's NOT perfect, but comes really close. There are situations where it hurts though, like drawing 1 pixel wide horizontal lines on every other line (want a headache). But in most cases, and ESPECIALLY with text, interlace is a big win for the money. Chris -- _______ |/-----\| Chris Warack (213) 648-6616 ||hello|| || || warack@aerospace.ARPA |-------| warack@aero.UUCP |@ ___ | {seismo!hao | tektronix}!hplabs \ |_______| !sdcsvax - !sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack || || \ Aerospace Corporation, PO Box 92957, LA, 90009, Station M1-117 ^^^ ^^^ `---------(|=