Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mintaka!wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu!rjc
From: rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell)
Subject: Re: The Amiga's Future
Message-ID: <1991Jun9.233356.12834@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Organization: The Internet
References: <50205@ut-emx.uucp> <_n1H0j?q@cs.psu.edu> <41@ryptyde.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 23:33:56 GMT
Lines: 50

In article <41@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes:
>increasing resolution on a Mac has no effect on bitmap fonts. It is this
>system that makes Macintosh graphics more flexible than Amiga graphics will
                                                                        ^^^^
  WHy is it that Macoids think they can see into the future when most of
them can barely operate a shell without a mouse and icons.

>ever be. It also makes it considerably faster (software-wise!), because it 
>uses integers to draw to screen, not reals. The above is also my answer to
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  BZZZT, the Amiga doesn't use reals for coordinates. Mac rendering is
SLOWER than the Amiga simply because it has to execute more code
and more checking before it renders pixels. DIG is always slower
than straight rendering of pixels.

>the following:
>
>"Other systems that have more display options than the Amiga?  Start
>naming names, Marc.  Last I counted there were around 20 graphics modes
>you can use with workbench."
>
>There are X number of Macintosh video modes, where X is equal to the number
>of .28-pitch pixels that would fit on a monitor twice the size of my room.
>(I think that was the figure. I forget exactly what the grid's limt was,
>but this was an analogy).

  These are not new video MODES, they are always the same scale/pixel
rate. I wonder how Quickdraw would react to a screen with a wierd 
resolution (like say 451 pixels by 399 pixels) methinkgs quickdraw
would not scale properly since scaling pictures and coordinates to
uneven resolution requires quantizing and dithering which would
reduce QuickDraw to a TurtleTrotDraw.

  A true WYSIWYG DIG display requires something like Display Postscript
which has total independence from color or pixel scale. For instance,
a DIG system should be able to take a 1024x1024 24bit picture and
display it on a 640x400 B&W screen by quantizing and dithering it.

So from what I can tell, Apple engineers made a trade off. Speed rather
than flexibility to use any "grid" size other just square grids which
are multiples of the standard 72 dpi grid.
(it is incredibily easy to scale 320x200 to 640x400, but much harder
when going from 320x200 to 386x410. Just so you know, weird screen sizes
are possible on the AMiga because of the ability to overscan and change
scan rates, something very much required for video work)
--
/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu     *   // The opinions expressed here do not      \
| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net  | \X/  in any way reflect the views of my self.|
\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023        *                                              /

