🚀 go-pugleaf

   Greg Alt was espousing about 'Re: update: open arch gam',
   on [10-02-92  15:02] to All!
 GA> Sounds like a great system.
 
 >        7: 320x200 x256 color (of a palette) resolution MINIMUM.

 GA> Why 320x200?  A TV can do better than that.  Why not do the maximum
 GA> vertical resolution and then pick a horizontal that makes square
 GA> pixels on a TV?

    1:  Read carefully 320x200x256 minimum.  This does not say
    higher resolutions will not be attainable or allowed.

    IE 1 of many other modes.

    2:  About TV's
        a.  TV: only theoretically has a higher resolution than
    this. However in reality TV's generally have a HIGH dot pitch
    or a low resolution.  Most are around 0.79 mm depending on
    diagonal measure.

        b.  NSTC: in general only allows 64 color changes per
    scan line this says nothing about intensity however so a full
    range of colors is possible.  In addition color smear will
    blend colors on the TV so a higher resolution will not REALLY
    be apparant.

        c.  Interlace: it can double the vertical resolution.
    Normal NSTC video allows 525 vertical lines in interlace.
    This comes at the sacrific of simplicity of timeing though.

        d. Horizontal resolution: the horizontal resolution of a
    TV is quite limited.  Though 640 pixels can be displayed
    horizontally you really can't tell the difference between 640
    and 320, so why waste extra memory?

 GA> Now, here's the real question:  Is this talk some kind of fantasizing
 GA> about what we would like, or does anyone have some ambitious goals?

    Not actually.  I've contacted several businesses including
    Ti, Motorolla, and Microware.  Basically the real "decisions"
    are what to "allow".  IE

 GA> Here's the other problem:  Adding a keyboard and disk-drive wouldn't
 GA> increase the price significantly (An extra $100 or so), so why not?

    Reasons:  a disk drive will be an option (as well as a
    CD-ROM).  A keyboard?  Let some 3rd party Co. do that!

 GA> They could be add-ons at least.  So now it becomes a home computer
 GA> instead of a video-game system--is that a bad thing?

    They are.  The problem is this will increase the complexity
    of the software needed to support said system.  It means a
    "real" OS (which was what I wanted in the first place) and
    then licensing fees :(  a REAL bummer.

    The idea is to make it easy to use and develope for.  Adding
    these features into the base system will:

    drive up costs from $150-250 range to $600-$1000 range and
    into the PC market (real BAD move).

    substantial increase in support.  A video game machine is
    easy to support compared to a computer!  (you don't have to
    deal with as many "programers", ALIEN applications written
    by neophyte programers, and competition from 1000's of
    manufacturers).  In other words this would make it HIGH RISK
    compared to a normal risk.

    Besides it will be expandable to a "personal" conputer level
    if you want.  But this is mainly for CD-I and video game
    entertainment.

        Stephen Cyberman@Toz.Buffalo.NY.US
        Scripted at Sat  10-03-1992  13:01:26

... I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere!
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10