From: eas3714@ultb.isc.rit.edu (E.A. Story )
Subject: Re: IFF database of .advocacy folks
Originator: eas3714@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:03:07 GMT

In article  das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>In article u> kuch@reed.edu (Jerry Kuch) writes:
>>In article  das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>>>In article pi.edu> danaf@bray1b.its.rpi.edu (Frank R. Dana Jr.) writes:
>>now, and the only conclusion I've come to is that you're a pretentious,
>>know-nothing wanker.
>
>I see. Perhaps you should enlighten me.
>
>>Run something that uses 320 x 200 mode.  On a VGA monitor, you will see
>>individual pixels, and you will see that the aspect ratio is pretty close
>
>You DO realize, don't you,that 320X200 *isn't* VGA resolution, right?
>320X200 is the common CGA resolution.  A VGA-capable monitor/card *can*
>display 320X200,of course, and can display up to 256 simultaneous at that
>resolution.  This is commonly called 'MCGA'.  Note that VGA resolution
>is 640X480 with 16 colors simulataneously display.

VGA is 320x200x256 and 640x480x16.  The only reason the term MCGA EXISTS
is because IBM decided not to put the 640x480x16 resolution in the PS/2
Model 30 when it was released.  Hell, I remember when VGA was first
released, the IBM demos I saw on TV (Computer Cronicles, I think) called
320x200x256 colors VGA.   There are TWO factors, resolution and colors,
making a graphics display system.  CGA DOESN'T have a palette mapped
display, CANNOT display 18-bit colors, and CANNOT do 256 of them.

Plus, anyway, no matter whether you call it CGA, VGA or JGA the pixels
are still blocky.. 

>>to unity.  On the Amiga, a 320x200 mode pixel is NOT square, and the lower
>>quality monitors generally used on Amigas will render a round pixel, with
>>a bit of pseudo-anti-aliasing chroma distortion between it and its neighbours.
>>It takes away some of the blockiness of the display as sort of an offhanded
>>side effect.
>
>But then again, we weren't talking about 320X200 resolution, we were talking
>about VGA resolution.  Once again: VGA is 640X480, and CGA is 320X200.

Wrong.  Since VGA does 640x480, should I call that hercules resolution?

>
>If the low quality monitors used on most Amiga distorts this to a circle,
>then so be it.  What you're basically talking about is the fuzziness also
>often found in TV sets.

I agree this is a pointless tirade.  Guess what? When the AA chipset
comes out, and we have 320x200x256 double scanned to VGA scan rates..
the pixels will be blocky...oh well.. I guess I'll go hang myself now..geesh!

>>Your moronic, condescending prattle up above demonstrates nothing other
>>than that you've missed the point.  The 1024x768 display that the SVGA
>>card is spewing onto the NEC Multisync 4DS in front of me doesn't betray
>>easily detectable single pixels.  But when I run a low-res game I damn
>>sure can see them, and, coming back to the original poster's point, they are
>>straight-edge and close to square.
>
>Once again, friend, the discussion has zero to do with PC games running
>in 8 bit CGA resolutions.  It was about VGA resoltion. I even gave an example
>of the tiny size of pixels in a MS WINDOWS Paintbrush application.  Do you
>think I was exampling MS Windows in CGA resolution?

No, he thought you were missing the point.  Since the orginal author
talked about blocky square pixels, which mode do YOU think he was
talking about?  I think you knew it wasn't VGA Hires, but you were being,
as he put it, a boob.  Instead of acting like an ass, SAY what you
mean.. Lores VGA isn't VGA to you.. instead of giving examples out of
thin air.

>>
>>Who incidentally had something of a point.
>
>Verily, much, MUCH more so than yourself, friend.

Not really.  


-- 
"THAT is a DRY turtle.  That turtle is NOT moist!"
Ezra Story, a student at RIT, and
eas3714@ultb.isc.rit.edu, his trusty(?) mailing address.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy