| From: | Gordon Moss |
| Date: | 3 Jun 2001 at 02:31:29 |
| Subject: | Re: Digital Almanac 3 Review |
<skip stuff>
> The most obvious difference is that DA is MUI-based and works on a
> graphics card, while DS is AGA-only. The images of galaxies etc
> provided with DA are of higher quality, especially the texture maps of
> planets.
>
> DA is still being developed, so if you need any special feature you
> could ask for it. DS has no telescope control.
>
> But of course the stars are in the same place on both.
>
> As for a PPC, if you are using these programs to identify what you can
> see in an affordable telescope, you will not need to display millions of
> stars, so a PPC is unnecessary. It would be useful if you want to
> generate impressive animations. I used a 68060 for the review and it
> was slow only with everything turned up to maximum.
>
Hi Don,
Thanks for your reply, no I don`t use DS with a telescope, just trying to
find out what I`m looking at, but I never could get either DA or DA2 demos
to work on my machines. I`ll have to wait for an AOne or Shark PPC as it
seems to require a beefier system than my 030.
Yours,
[Flash]
gomoss@lineone.net
Gomoss1@btinternet.com
gomoss@btinternet.com
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/