🚀 go-pugleaf

ken@isgtec.com (Ken Newman) writes:
>warwick@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>> Actually, the term "Super-VGA" is even less defined than "True Colour".
>> All a graphics system needs to claim "Super-VGA" is better than 640*480
>> resolution.

>As far as I'm aware, this is wrong. SuperVGA is anything better than
>VGA. It does NOT mean just resolution.

Yes, my statement was logically incorrect.  I meant "any graphics system
with better than 640*480 resolution can claim "Super-VGA".

>Original VGA maxed out at 
>640x480x16 colours, and could not do 640x480x256 colours, while
>SuperVGA can.

>Therefore 640x480x256 colours is indeed in the range
>of SuperVGA by virtue of the number of simultaneous colours. There
>are however also higher resolutions in SuperVGA as well...

SOME Super-VGA.  And SOME monitors.

From my limited experience, PC games don't use Super-VGA anyway.
Some "Applications" programs do however.

But hey, we've been forgetting that the Falcon has another graphics
mode - the 32768 colour mode, with overlay bit - allowing video
titling.  Can't do that with your average Super-VGA.

--
Warwick
--
  _-_|\      warwick@cs.uq.oz.au            /Disclaimer:
 /     * <-- Computer Science Department,  /  
 \_.-._/     University of Queensland,    /   C references are NULL && void*
      v      Brisbane, Australia.        /