Re: What Apple II comp is best?

[dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson)]

Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:

> In article "Tom Zuchowski" <tjz@mindspring.com> writes...
> 
> >Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote in article
> ><23OCT199610102215@vax2.concordia.ca>...
> >>     I'd quicker compare IIgs graphics with standard PC VGA.  It does,
> >> afterall, have limited 8-bit color capabilities in the 320x200 mode.
> >> It makes up for this limitation with small, round pixels, while on the
> >> PC pixels in this mode are large and square (blocky). :)
> >
> >Just my opinion, but I think you're reaching a bit to compare 320x200x8 to
> >640x480x16.
> 
>     No, I'm comparing 320x200x256 to 320x200x(limited)256. The limited
> bit is that you cannot place those 256 colors anywhere on screen,  you
> have to use multiple scanlines and palettes. Essentially, it is sixteen
> 16-color pictures, split vertically down the screen. Of course the other
> limited aspect when comparing, is the total palette size. Perhaps I'm
> thinking of the video mode called MCGA (wasn't that 320x200x256?).

Yes.  MCGA is one of the modes supported by VGA, and it is commonly used
by games, because it has 8 bits per pixel and doesn't use bit-planing.
It is rarely used by other software.  640x480x16 is the most common VGA
mode (SVGA adds more colours and higher resolutions).

The IIgs graphics are a superset of CGA, an intersection with EGA (more
colours, less vertical resolution for some modes) and a subset of VGA or
MCGA (less colours, less resolution).

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
Snail Mail: P.O. Box 27-103, Wellington, New Zealand