In article <lgibb.0fui@burner.com> lgibb@burner.com (Lance Gibb) writes:
> 640x480 mode in 256 colors using DBLNTSC is CONSIDERABLY slower than a MacII series computer running a similar display and even a clone running a 256color VGA screen. Applications in 256 colors are painfully slow (most notibly workbench). I have trie
d Final Copy II in 256 colors and it is not bad, but does slow down considerably. (If you want specs, I can't give them to you, but as a user of all 3 platforms I can only make observations)
>
> You CANNOT expand past 2 megs of chip ram. There is a jumper on the motherboard that says 2 meg chip/4 meg chip/etc.. But it is NON functional, and my dealer tells me it was at one time under consideration, but that the final production models were s
hipped with a 2 meg maximum capacity.
>
> As far as exact figures on drawing speed etc... I don't have them, but I can tell you that the 4000 updates the display MUCH quicker than a 3000. Ie. A picture that took 14 seconds to fully render under ADPro on a 3000, took less than 3 seconds on my
4000 (I know the 040 is to be given credit for part of the speed up, but the screen refresh rate is NOTICABLY faster)
>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but on a PC and a Mac II aren't they both 256
colour mapped systems? Whereas the Amiga AGA modes are 8 bitplanes from a
24 bit palette???? I've used a couple of PC's with Windows 3.1 in 256
colours and it was real yawn material, and have found the AGA quite fast. I
did find it interesting that the 1200 and 4000 256 colour modes are about
the same speed! I expected a big difference between the two machines,
elsewhere there is, is this something to do with the chipram bandwidth?
