> -----Original Message-----
> From: danboris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [SMTP:danboris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 1997 12:45 PM
> To: stella@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [stella] O2 vs 2600 hardware
>
> >
> > Now it seems stranger to me why the 2600 has no video memory at all.
> I
> > thought it was because at the time it was too expensive...
> >
>
> I think the fact that the 2600 does not have video memory is what
> makes it so flexible. Look at the O2, it had 256 bytes of video
> memory, but it's graphics where very inflexible. The 2600 would
> require far more the 256 bytes to be able to control the entire
> display with is as much detail as it can without it.
>
> Dan,
> I don't think you two are using the same definition of "video
> memory" (unless you've determined something new since last time we
> talked). Both machines have a region of address space used by the CPU
> to interface with a video display chip.
>
> -Matt P
>
> In the Howard Warshaw video one of the original Atari 2600 programmers
> said that it was the things that were left out of the 2600 hardware
> that made it as good a machine as it was. If they had tried to
> incorporate more it probably would not have turned out as good.
>
>
> Dan B.
> PS. Thought it was about time for a more acurate subject line for this
> thread :)
>
> --
> Archives updated once/day at
> http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
> Unsubscribing and other info at
> http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/stella.html
--
Archives updated once/day at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsubscribing and other info at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/stella.html
