From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett)
Subject: Re: Avoid the Amiga 4000
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:01:10 GMT

In article <n0bfet@ofa123.fidonet.org> Aric.Caley@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>> 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.  
>
>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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   ****YOU ARE WRONG****!!!!!

   ****YOU ARE WRONG****!!!!!

   ****YOU ARE WRONG****!!!!!


   The A3000 can deinterlace NTSC overscan, all the way to 724x480.  The
DblNTSC mode -- which is used as a substitute for the deinterlaced NTSC mode
(and which is the mode that you get when you "promote" an NTSC mode) can 
only handle 676x480.  The DblPAL mode is also constrained to 676 pixels in
the horizontal resolution.

   From the A3000 to the A4000, the non-interlaced resolution **WENT DOWN**
from 724x480 to 676x480.  You just cannot handle this point. 

   Besides, my actual point is expressed as follows:

>>The magnitude of the decrease in
>> 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).

   But you get resolutions higher than 1024x768 (I forget the exact resolution)
with 256 colors out of 16M, and resolutions higher than 800x600 with full
24-bit TrueColor.  How much would it costs to upgrade an A4000 to these kinds
of resolutions?  Quite a lot more than $1000.  Probably more like $2500.

>> 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.

   The A2024 monitor sucks anymore.  1008x800 is not all that high of a 
resolution, and it is strictly monochrome.  Besides, the A2024 still costs
the Earth.

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