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
 ^^^ ^^^  `---------(|=