Linked by Kroc Camen on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 12:46 UTC
Permalink for comment 431490
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-09-04
>So did Amiga. I had Amiga graphic adapter card and it costed barely the same as my father PC Vesa graphic Card with 2 megabyte of graphic RAM and mounted on his 486 DX2 66MHz...
You don't get it: graphics boards *were standard* and every application were running and taking advantage of it. by that time, CGX/Picasso didn't exist, and Amiga barely had *ten* apps using proprietary solutions (EGS),... like Photogenics,... And most other applications didn't work with these boards. Most didn't even have a passthrough for displaying Amiga resolution on a VGA monitor.
No, Amiga was already outdated: live with it
Why I did use 640x480x8bit instead of 640x200x2bit ?
Because it was more confortable ? Because a window or two was enough to fill the whole screen in 640x200 ? Come on... It was available but this mode was so slow it was unusable.
Having a chipset on some development boards is different than having a fully working one... And at an affordable price.