🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jul6.164522.15489@ugle.unit.no>, robert@alkymi.unit.no (Robert Schmidt) writes:
> In article <1993Jul6.160710.9695@infonode.ingr.com>, ross@kaos.b11.ingr.com (Ross Erickson) writes:
> |> 
> |> Uhhhhh, sanity check time.  Hi-Color support does NOT mean higher
> |> resolution.  In fact, it means lower resolution with more colors.
> |> Something like 160x200.  No speed problems at all.
> 
> Huh?  I thought the Hi-color stuff was about 320x200x32K and higher
> resolutions.  Can anyone correct Ross or me?  Who'll want a game, or
> *any* software in 160x200 nowadays?

I think Ross means that to enable the screen refresh rate to be the same as
320x200x256, you have to halve the resolution.  Also, remember 320x200x256 looks
much more realistic than 640x400x16 - the increased number of colours hides the
graininess of the picture when viewed from far away.  Just like the television
has infinite colours but can't display high resolution images.  You're right, 
I don't think I'll want a game at 160x200x2^24  :-)

> Anyway, noone mentioned higher resolution.  I was just thinking of the
> fact that a 320x200x32K bitmap takes twice (15/8, 16/8 in practice) as 
> much storage space as a 320x200x256 bitmap.

And it would take twice as long to update the screen....

.David.