lachac@topaz.UUCP (04/05/87)
Has anyone seen the specs on the $1700 2 drive Model 30 PC2 graphics card?
This thing whips the Amy vid chip. The VGA ("something" graphics adapter)
has 256 on screen colors from a palette of 22k. All from an IBM that retails
for less then $2000. What gives? I don't understand. I know it can't
be as good as it seems (after all its IBM :-)
One good note: It's 8086 based running at 8 Mgtz. Old technology, typical
IBM.
--
"Truth is false and logic lost..."
- Neil Peart
(who at the time didn't realize he was talking about RU)
lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu <--------OR--------> {seismo|ames}!rutgers!topaz!lachachadeishi@husc7.UUCP (04/05/87)
Re: VGA with 256 simultaneous out of 22K palette The VGA is incredible, and it indicates that the Amiga is now behind as a technology leader, especially since the new IBM PC/2 low-end system is so cheap. Still, though, the Amiga is a much faster machine, and graphics operations are still much quicker; someone in comp.sys.ibm-pc saw a PC/2 Model 20 (is that what it's called) drawing ellipses at about 2 per second, much slower than the A1000. We cannot say we have the top-of-the-line video technology anymore, however; we still have the better overall design, but emphasis on the word "overall." -Mitsu
hadeishi@husc7.UUCP (04/05/87)
Something kinda strange I just realized. Microsoft's new OS/2 is designed to be compatible with ALL 80286/386 based PC systems. IBM has also announced a video adapter upgrade for older XT/AT system owners to allow an upgrade to the VGA. This means that Amiga 2000 owners can stick a 286 card and a VGA card, and run OS/2 in 8 bit planes (OS/2 is a fully multitasking 16Mbyte windowing operating system for the PC.) Thus, even if Amiga has been outdone in the video/OS wars, one can "bridge" the gap so to speak in a stock A2000 with just two cards (and a hard disk, of course, as well.) If OS/2 is a real operating system, it should be real fun to play with, especially in 8 bit planes, and especially with a linear-addressed '286 (instead of a segmented 8086 emulator.) OS/2 is apparently 500K of executable. Of course, what I really hope is that C-A will come out with an MMU-based '020 version of Intuition/Exec/DOS, and even better a new video card to allow the A2000 to have workstation-quality graphics, with at least 7 or 8 bit planes. I'd be satisfied with just the 4-bit DACs, but if they can do better (beat IBM! beat IBM!) all the better. Ah, competition. -Mitsu
farren@hoptoad.UUCP (04/06/87)
In article <10726@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu (Gerard Lachac) writes: >Has anyone seen the specs on the $1700 2 drive Model 30 PC2 graphics card? > >This thing whips the Amy vid chip. The VGA ("something" graphics adapter) >has 256 on screen colors from a palette of 22k. All from an IBM that retails >for less then $2000. What gives? I don't understand. I know it can't >be as good as it seems (after all its IBM :-) > >One good note: It's 8086 based running at 8 Mgtz. Old technology, typical > IBM. VGA = Video Gate Array. Not an adapter, it lives on the motherboard. Also, it's 256 colors out of 262,000. Also has 640 X 480 (nice!). Doesn't "whip the Amy vid chip". No blitter. No copper. No HAM. Also, don't forget that the $1700 does NOT include a monitor ($500 extra). An 8086 at 8MHz (by the way, is that Megateasers you've got up there?) is something like 3X faster than the stock PC. Old technology has some real advantages, too. The rumored margin on the $1700 PC is $1000, so it's conceivable that you could see 'em for $1000. Old tech is reliable, and C*H*E*A*P! I'm still an Amiga fanatic, but the new IBM stuff looks o.k., for IBM stuff. -- ---------------- "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
beilke@puff.UUCP (04/06/87)
#define FLAME ON References: <10726@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> In article <10726@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, lachac@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Gerard Lachac) writes: > Has anyone seen the specs on the $1700 2 drive Model 30 PC2 graphics card? > > This thing whips the Amy vid chip. The VGA ("something" graphics adapter) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Your kidding right? I really don't think something from IBM could 'whip' anything. > has 256 on screen colors from a palette of 22k. All from an IBM that retails > for less then $2000. What gives? I don't understand. I know it can't > be as good as it seems (after all its IBM :-) > > One good note: It's 8086 based running at 8 Mgtz. Old technology, typical > IBM. Yes, it is a good note, IBM is keeping to it archaic technology, leaving the market open for other machines with newer architecture (anything made after 1980). In case you haven't noticed, yes, I am bias. I hate the IBM-PC (Intel Bowel Movement-Piece of Crap), and love the Amiga. BTW, yes people will buy the new PC's (See above), but not because of they want to, but rather because of IBM's large software base, and narrow-minded business exec's that refuse to but anything else. #define FLAME OFF - - - ---> Matt Beilke <--- - - - ============================================================================== | | | // ARPA: beilke@puff.wisc.edu | | // CSNET: beilke%puff.wisc.edu@csnet-relay | | \\ // AMIGA UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,topaz,etc.}!uwvax!puff!beilke | | \// RULES!! SNAIL: 451 Witte B, Madison, WI, 53706, USA | | | ==============================================================================
lachac@topaz.UUCP (04/07/87)
In article <610@puff.WISC.EDU> beilke@puff.WISC.EDU (Matthew Beilke) writes: >#define FLAME ON >References: <10726@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> > >In article <10726@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, lachac@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Gerard Lachac) writes: >> Has anyone seen the specs on the $1700 2 drive Model 30 PC2 graphics card? >> >> This thing whips the Amy vid chip. The VGA ("something" graphics adapter) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Your kidding right? I really don't think something from IBM could > 'whip' anything. Actually when I wrote the original posting, I was sure of the IBM specs (I don't think anyone is) I was sort of hoping to get a reaction from the crowd and find out if Amy was really threatened. To day I know two more things about VGA: * the 256 colors out of 256k colors are only available on the 320 X 200 resolution screen. * the 640 X 480 screen has 16 colors available. (no idea about interlace) There are NO MODES in between. We can all breath easy now... -- "Truth is false and logic lost..." - Neil Peart (who at the time didn't realize he was talking about RU) lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu <--------OR--------> {seismo|ames}!rutgers!topaz!lachac
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (04/07/87)
In article <10726@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu (Gerard Lachac) writes: >Has anyone seen the specs on the $1700 2 drive Model 30 PC2 graphics card? > >This thing whips the Amy vid chip. The VGA ("something" graphics adapter) >has 256 on screen colors from a palette of 22k. All from an IBM that retails >for less then $2000. What gives? I don't understand. I know it can't >be as good as it seems (after all its IBM :-) > >One good note: It's 8086 based running at 8 Mgtz. Old technology, typical > IBM. I've been looking at too much of this IBM release stuff for my own good, but as far as I can tell the PS/30 (unlike the others) has only the "MGGA" adapter included in the price. This has a 320x200x8 display mode. The spec sheet I have doesn't mention a pallete, but I seem to recall something else said it did have one. Still nothing to laugh at, except when you consider the poor little 8086 trying to bash all those bit planes... The technology in the high-end products is much more impressive than this, but like the MAC-II, they're priced for the Fortune 500/Workstation market, not the personal computer market. There's nothing to keep Commodore from offering similar capabilities on an A2000 expansion card although it will take plenty of work to provide applications level display transparency. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (04/07/87)
The Video Gate Array (VGA) lives on the motherboard of the PC/II, and emulates MDA, CGA, EGA, and sort of PGA video modes. It also has several indigenous video modes. IBM switched to a peculiar connector for the new monitors to ensure incompatibility with older non-IBM monitors. The 256 color mode is a bit of a joke in that it only gets you 320x200 pixels (or PELs as IBM likes to call pixels). Also, there taint no copper or blitter a'la Amiga. I think I'll stick with the Amiga HAM mode et. al. Hey IBM, by the way, where is that multitasking O/S? Hey Microsoft, how soon are you going to get Windows 2.0 out-- you know the version that lets you stack windows (like Intuition, Mac and GEM) rather than that dumb tiling? The model 30 PC/II, the low end machine really doesn't look like terribly serious competetion to the clone market in that the model 30 doesn't offer anything terribly new. It finally has video that rivals a Hercules card. In terms of the processor the AT&T/Olivetti machine that came out three years ago already had the idea of a machine with an 8 MHz 8086, multimode video, printer port and serial port and hi-res graphics. It even has a small footprint. OK guys, lets that Ami 2000 off the boat and on the shelves. And this time, lets see a real ad campaign. --Bill (wtm@neoucom.UUCP)
lsr@apple.UUCP (04/07/87)
In article <10726@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu (Gerard Lachac) writes: >Has anyone seen the specs on the $1700 2 drive Model 30 PC2 graphics card? > The information I have seen is that one display mode will do 320x200 with 256 colors out of 256K; another mode will do 640x480 but with only 16 colors out of 256K. -- Larry Rosenstein Object Specialist Apple Computer AppleLink: Rosenstein1 UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNET
kurt@fluke.UUCP (04/08/87)
Wait a minute. The VGA is supposed to do 256 colors at once. Is that perhaps done in sort of the same way the Amiga does 4096 colors at once? If all 256 colors may be assigned to any pixel, in any order, and in a way that allows access to the screen in an ordinary way, then they have something. But think about it, 256 colors. They obviously aren't doing 256 bit planes. Nobody can do that; you would need gigabits/second of bus bandwidth. Maybe one byte per pixel? A 640x480 window in this mode would use 370Kbytes. I also don't see how a gate array of 12,000 gates complexity could compete with a full-custom video chip. (What is the complexity of the Amiga video chip? Anyone know?) Does the PCII have a blitter? Copper? Is the VGA even organized in a way that makes these things possible? Anyone who has been around for 5+ years will have to be familiar with the funny compromises made in microcomputer video systems. The Apple II, with 8 colors, but they can't all appear at once, or in adjacent pixels, the Commodore 64, where 8x8 blocks of pixels shared the same foreground/background color nybble. The list goes on and on. I wouldn't sell my Amiga just yet. Lets see the SPECS first. By the way, the Amiga 2000 is still CHEAPER than the PCII/30, their bottom- of-the-line product. Phthththhpt! It is also faster in every performance parameter.
beilke@puff.UUCP (04/08/87)
In article <713@dragon.tc.fluke.COM>, kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: > Wait a minute. The VGA is supposed to do 256 colors at once. Is that > perhaps done in sort of the same way the Amiga does 4096 colors at once? If No. The Amiga uses Hold-And-Modify, where you can can the palette on the raster line, giving you all colors possible on screen at on time, with only 6 bit planes. The IBM on the other hand does not have this capability, and therefore have to use the same approach as the Mac II. (i.e., 1 bit plane for 2 colors, 2 bps=4 colors, ..., 8 bps=256 colors. > all 256 colors may be assigned to any pixel, in any order, and in a way that > allows access to the screen in an ordinary way, then they have something. > But think about it, 256 colors. They obviously aren't doing 256 bit planes. Look above. > Nobody can do that; you would need gigabits/second of bus bandwidth. Maybe > one byte per pixel? A 640x480 window in this mode would use 370Kbytes. I Now you're talking. 2^8=256 colors in 320 by 480, and 2^4=16 colors in 640 by 480. A 'set' amount of display memory means that for twice the resolution, with same number of bits available, you have to split the 8 bits up, to 4 for each new pixel. And go back to only 16 colors. > also don't see how a gate array of 12,000 gates complexity could compete > with a full-custom video chip. (What is the complexity of the Amiga video > chip? Anyone know?) Does the PCII have a blitter? Copper? Is the VGA > even organized in a way that makes these things possible? 1) Can't say right off hand. 2) No. 3) No. 4) I doubt it very much. > > By the way, the Amiga 2000 is still CHEAPER than the PCII/30, their bottom- > of-the-line product. Phthththhpt! It is also faster in every performance > parameter. Well, hope this helped... - - - ---> Matt Beilke <--- - - - ============================================================================== | | | // ARPA: beilke@puff.wisc.edu | | // CSNET: beilke%puff.wisc.edu@csnet-relay | | \\ // AMIGA UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,topaz,etc.}!uwvax!puff!beilke | | \// RULES!! SNAIL: 451 Witte B, Madison, WI, 53706, USA | | | ==============================================================================
sean@ukma.UUCP (04/09/87)
>In article <10726@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> lachac@topaz.rutgers.edu (Gerard Lachac) writes: >Has anyone seen the specs on the $1700 2 drive Model 30 PC2 graphics card? > >This thing whips the Amy vid chip. The VGA ("something" graphics adapter) Hey, isn't the "Amy" chip the super fantastic whiz SOUND chip the Atari ST line was supposed to be getting "someday"? Eh, it never would have beaten the Amiga's quad D/A converters anyway. Just wait till I get my synthesizer program written. Sean -- =========================================================================== Sean Casey UUCP: cbosgd!ukma!sean CSNET: sean@ms.uky.csnet ARPA: ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa BITNET: sean@UKMA.BITNET
kinner@wsucshp.UUCP (04/09/87)
saw a PC/2 Model 20 (is that what it's called) drawing ellipses at
about 2 per second, much slower than the A1000. We cannot say we
Gee, my NEC APCIII (3-year old MSDOS machine) puts out about 400 ellipses
per sec. How fast is the ellipse routine in the Amiga?tim@ism780c.UUCP (04/09/87)
In article <621@puff.WISC.EDU> beilke@puff.WISC.EDU (Matthew Beilke) writes:
< The IBM on the other hand does not have this capability, and therefore
< have to use the same approach as the Mac II. (i.e., 1 bit plane
< for 2 colors, 2 bps=4 colors, ..., 8 bps=256 colors.
The Mac II will also let you do 256 colors as 1 byte plane. This
can make bitblt very easy to write ( look Ma, no shifting! ).
I don't know if the IBM allows this mode.
--
Tim Smith "Hojotoho! Hojotoho!
uucp: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim Heiaha! Heiaha!
Delph or GEnie: Mnementh Hojotoho! Heiaha!"
Compuserve: 72257,3706marki@tahoe.UUCP (04/11/87)
[ ...here the one about the line eater that got away? ] In article <1583@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc7.UUCP (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes: > > Something kinda strange I just realized. Microsoft's new OS/2 >is designed to be compatible with ALL 80286/386 based PC systems. IBM > ... > ... If OS/2 is a real operating system, ... ^^^^ should have been... 'If OS/2 is real...' > ... OS/2 >is apparently 500K of executable. ... ^^^^^^^^^^ getting warmer! :-) > > -Mitsu ( AVID reader, FIRST posting... have MERCY!) A prof told me today that OS/2 is NOT finished yet (i.e. VAPORWARE ) and that the ads for these (new) computers are simply PREVIEWS. I haven't seen the commercials yet, but I understand that there is NO windowing; the various screens are quickly scrolled. Is this true? Enough of that... I would really like to THANK all the contributors to this newsgroup. The amount and quality of PUBLIC DOMAIN S/W for the Amiga is amazing. The Information gained by simply reading the articles is VERY helpful. The Math dept. here has an A1000 but not too much support for it. Two friends and I are currently working on a project (H/W and S/W) for the Amiga and we have learned plenty from this newsgroup. This is a very unique machine, both H/W-wise and S/W-wise. Nothing out there today comes even close for the price. The project is progressing slowly (most of my time is devoted to class and thesis) however, it wouldn't even be this far without the INFO obtained from this newsgroup. Just want to reiterate my THANKS, sincerely, mark iverson marki@tahoe.UUCP ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Secret Sits We dance 'round in a ring and suppose, but the SECRET sits in the middle and knows. R. Frost ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
farren@hoptoad.UUCP (04/12/87)
In article <441@tahoe.UUCP> marki@tahoe.UUCP writes: >A prof told me today that OS/2 is NOT finished yet (i.e. VAPORWARE ) and >that the ads for these (new) computers are simply PREVIEWS. I haven't seen >the commercials yet, but I understand that there is NO windowing; the >various screens are quickly scrolled. Is this true? Prof was talking through his academic hat. A version of OS/2 is finished now, and is being revised to provide greater speed. The basics of the OS are done, though, including the windowing system (called Presentation Manager). The machines, except for the '386 machines, are available now, and have been in most stores since the day of the announcement. After looking at the data for the new products announced, I don't think the Amiga is in a lot of trouble, though. The new graphics standard provides 256 colors, all right, but only on the 320 X 200 screen. 640 X 480 is 16 colors only. You can get up to 1024 X 768, 256 colors, but to do this requires a $1500 monitor and a $1000 (I think, may be more) card for the graphics controller and a $600 graphics memory add-on card. Hot stuff for the CAD and high-level graphics set, but not Amiga competition. It begins to look more and more like the Amiga 2000 with the 68020 processor card and UNIX plus the long-persistance monitor (when all of this becomes available) may well end up being THE cheap UNIX box many of us want to see. When you add in the '286 bridge card, you'll have a real fine all-round useful system for a lot less than the equivalent Mac II or IBM box. I'm looking forward to it! -- ---------------- "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
kagle@batcomputer.UUCP (04/12/87)
In article <739@sputnik.tc.fluke.COM> kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: >OK, OK, so I know already. 256 colors is 8 bit planes, not 256. You can do >8 bit planes. It would need better memory bandwidth than the amiga, but I >suspect the high-end machine in the PCII series has higher memory bandwidth >than the amiga. If IBM did the video as bit planes, and there is currently >no direct evidence either way, then they have done something right for a change. Why would 256 colors require much greater bandwidth? Remember that the 256 color mode is only available in low-res (320 horiz) mode. Hmmm. Isn't that the same amount of data as a 640 horiz. 16 color screen? Sure, 8 bitplanes could cause problems, but two 4-bit high-res. pixels could be combined to yield an 8-bit result. Of course, this would create ugly bitmaps, but it's better than being put down by PC owners (choke!). This hypothetical chip wouldn't require more address lines than the current one, so it could be retrofitted on existing A1000, A2000, and A500 :-) models. Although a similar chip has probably already been pondered by Commodore, perhaps the PS/2 might get it into production. -Jonathan C. Kagle
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (04/13/87)
In article <662@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> kagle@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu.UUCP (Jonathan C. Kagle) writes: > > Why would 256 colors require much greater bandwidth? Remember that the >256 color mode is only available in low-res (320 horiz) mode. Hmmm. Isn't >that the same amount of data as a 640 horiz. 16 color screen? Sure, 8 bitplanes >could cause problems, but two 4-bit high-res. pixels could be combined to yield >an 8-bit result. Of course, this would create ugly bitmaps, but it's better >than being put down by PC owners (choke). This hypothetical chip wouldn't >require more address lines than the current one, so it could be retrofitted on >existing A1000, A2000, and A500 :-) models. True, it would require the same bandwidth as 640/4 bitplane hi-res. At this point though, you've traded off many of your available CPU cycles for display refresh. The big problem is that it would require 8 times the size of the color lookup table. In addition to chewing up a lot of high-speed silicon area on the chip, this would required some kind of paging kludge to address the color table in the current register addressing scheme. > Although a similar chip has probably already been pondered by Commodore, >perhaps the PS/2 might get it into production. We're thinking about a lot of things. Understand that when it comes to custom IC's it takes many months to get from thought to working chips. Anybody who has some neat ideas should suggest them now, but please be sure to consider all the system implications, including memory bandwidth, hardware compatibility, software compatibility and incremental cost. At least that's what we have to do at this end... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
jesup@steinmetz.UUCP (04/15/87)
[This is in response to GRR's request for ideas concerning improvements to the graphics chips] Well, how about this: Have a monochrome mode to the chips: low res monochrome and high-res monochrome. Low res would be the same bandwidth as 640x200x2planes: 640x400 monochrome. This would eat NO processor cycles. High res would be the equivalent of 640x200x4planes, arranged either as 1280x400 (kind of bizzarre), or maybe 1024x500, or 800x640. The monochrome would be fairly easy to generate. The main difference would be the change in the output signals (should it be colors 0/1, or just real monochrome?) Up the number of bits in the color registers (8 bits? pretty please?) Of course HAM would affect the upper four bits of the color values, not the lower four. (Functionally the same.) Randell Jesup jesup@steinmetz.uucp jesup@ge-crd.arpa
kurt@fluke.UUCP (04/15/87)
256 colors doesn't require 8 bit planes. But if it is not implemented that way, it is much harder to add blitter hardware. I think this is the problem with Atari ST videe, right? If it had 8 bit planes, that would be impressive. Otherwise, it is just more evidence that the PCII is not that big a deal (doesn't "blow AMY away" as a previous poster suggested).
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (04/15/87)
In article <739@sputnik.tc.fluke.COM> kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: >I stand by the rest of my analysis. I don't think the PCII has anything on >the amiga in the area of graphics. I am waiting until I can see some >technical documentation. What may be interesting is to find out how the PS/2 series and the Mac II compare to the Amiga when running DPaint II. I would assume that EA is motivated to port it to both machines, since that is the hottest selling package on the Amiga and can really put multi-plane graphics to good use. I would expect that we might notice the greatest differences when moving a large cut-out brush around, and when doing the compute intensive perspective and scaling operations. I would also expect that Dave Wecker's ray tracer would perform much better on the Mac II and a 386 PS/2 due to 32-bit computing power. Aegis Animator, if ported would probably still perform better on the Amiga. And, Amiga will still probably have the price/performance ratio beat, though it seems that it may be getting a little harder to measure. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa
ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (04/18/87)
In article <1673@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: >Anybody who has some neat ideas should suggest them now, but please be sure >to consider all the system implications, including memory bandwidth, hardware >compatibility, software compatibility and incremental cost. At least that's >what we have to do at this end... Since memory is getting cheaper all the time, how about a 12 bit plane mode that uses three groups of 4 bits as the RGB values themselves (no color registers used)? With extra address pins on the chips, this could handle 640x400 mode without eating serious percentages of chip ram. A mode like this would require double the memory bandwidth of halfbrite mode, but not being a hardware type, I can't assess the viability of this. If a mode like this wouldn't work, I would like to hear an explanation of why in the hopes that it would raise my knowledge of amiga hardware. -- Pat White -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP: { ihnp4, seismo, ucbvax, decvax } ee.ecn.purdue.edu!s.cc.purdue.edu!ain BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM U.S.Mail: 271 E. Sunset Ln. West Lafayette, In 47906
grr@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (George Robbins) (04/26/87)
In article <178@s.cc.purdue.edu> ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Patrick White) writes: > Since memory is getting cheaper all the time, how about a 12 bit plane >mode that uses three groups of 4 bits as the RGB values themselves (no color >registers used)? With extra address pins on the chips, this could handle >640x400 mode without eating serious percentages of chip ram. Well, 8 bit planes would chew up all the available memory bandwidth except during screen retrace, so I think 12 would require major architectural changes. Note that the HAM mode gives you an approximation of 12 bitplanes in that you can get all 4096 colors up one the same screen. Of course your horizontal color changes are subject to some restrictions, but map fairly well to real-world, continuous tone images. The other direction is, of course, to combine bitplanes to get a hi(er)-res monochrome or n-color image. This is needed for windowing and computer oriented stuff, but the sales trend on the ST monochrome vs. color screen shows that most people buy color over higher resolution monochrome, so you don't want to give up anything to acheive this... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)