From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: IFF database of .advocacy folks
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:13:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.000307.17360@ultb.isc.rit.edu> eas3714@ultb.isc.rit.edu (E.A. Story ) writes:
>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.

We were talking about resolutions, not colors.  

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

Pixels at 640X480 on a 14" screen, while of course not invisible,
are still far to tiny, IMO, to discern as 'Blocky'.

The *CGA* resilution is what gets 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?

That isn't Hercules resolution.  That is VGA resoltion.  I think Hercules
is 700-something by 300-somehting, right?

>>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!

:-) :-)

Yeah, I cannot wait until 640X480X256 PC -action_ games come out.  For 486s. :)

320X200 may be blocky, but is reasonablly fast on a 386.  Full VGA resolution
was slow things to a crawl, I suspect on anything less than a 486 variant.

>>>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.

Aye, there is a misunderstanding.  VGA capable machines can display VGA resolution and 320X 200 resolution.  The later is called 'VGA' by all the game companies
partly, I think, because they'd rather not say 'CGA in 256 colors' seeing
as EGA was the previous LCD.  To summerize in this sea of semantics, VGA
capability and VGA resolution are not the same thing.  VGA resolution
is in the SET of 'VGA capability', not the other way around.

And you know, a SQUARE is really a RECTANGLE, when you think about it.    

>>>Who incidentally had something of a point.
>>
>>Verily, much, MUCH more so than yourself, friend.
>
>Not really.  

Whatever.  THis is old.

>Ezra Story, a student at RIT, and
>eas3714@ultb.isc.rit.edu, his trusty(?) mailing address.
-- 
Dan Stephenson                                           das9674@usl.edu
" BERLIN WALL FALLS.  3 BORDER GUARDS LOSE JOBS.  CLINTON BLAMES BUSH! "
        -George Bush, '92 Republican nomination acceptance speech