From: Aric.Caley@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Avoid the Amiga 4000
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Oct  1 1992
Date: 13 Oct 92  10:13:00

> Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
> From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett)
> Message-ID: BvzsnG.G00@news.iastate.edu
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
>
> In article <35767@cbmvax.commodore.com>
> mks@cbmvax.commodore.com (Michael Sinz) writes:
> >Yes, please remember what all of you (net-people) have asked for.  Also
> >remember what the Amiga market needs and asks for.  The biggest need was
> >for more colour in *video* modes.  More resolution with more colour too.
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Non-video modes (non-interlaced 640x480) with more colour.  Well, we have
> >given you this.  You get more colour, more colours, and more resolution
> >in the A4000 and AGA chipset.  You can now do photo-realistic displays
> >with the 24-bit colour resolution of the chips and the HAM-8 mode which
> >can mathematically give you all 16,777,216 colours if you had the pixels.
> >(Realisticly, you don't have that many pixels and good pictures display
> >just fine in the simpler to render 262,144 colour mapping type which is
> >what marketing calls 256,000 colours since we told them 256K colours.)
>
>   Yes, straight from the Commodore Line.  The problem is that the increase
> in resolution is a lie.  From the A3000 to the A4000 (actually, from any

Notice that he didnt say "more resolution".  He said "more resolution with
MORE COLOUR".  You can't just chop off the end of his sentances to try and
prove your point.  The A4000 gives you more resolution with more colour.

I notice how you totaly dismiss everything else he said.  The A4000 gives
us almost everything that people have been wanting, with exception to
improved sound (which is being worked on).

> Amiga
> with a display enhancer to the A4000) the non-interlaced resolution did
> not
> increase at all, but actually decreased.  The magnitude of the decrease in

How many times do we need to correct you on this?  IT DID NOT DECREASE.
THERE ISNT A SINGLE GRAPHICS MODE THAT THE A3000 CAN DO THAT THE A4000 CAN'T.

> non-interlaced resolution is not the point; the point is that the
> resolution
> did not increase at all, when it badly needed to.  In a market with
> Macintosh
> Quadras with resolutions beyond 1024x768 non-interlaced in standard
> hardware,

Do you know how much a Quadra costs?  Over one thousand dollars more than
an A4000 (and thats only the Quadra 700).

> and $2000 486 systems from IBM (of all companies) also with resolutions of
> 1024x768 non-interlaced in standard hardware, 676x480 is no longer
> adequate.

676 x 480 with 262144 colours would suit me just fine.  I think that would
fairly well blow away all of my IBM freinds.  800 x 600 x 262144 colours
would definately make their jaws drop.  Even with the interlace.

And if I want real high resolution, I would get an A2024 monitor; which
incidentaly works on any Amiga.  I'd like to see a Mac system with a 1008
x 800 greyscale monitor for the price of an A600HD with A2024.

>
> -!-
> | Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
> -!------------------------------------------------
>      Slick Willie Clinton: JUST SAY NO!!!

Well at least you got the right idea about one thing.  :)


--- Maximus 2.00