On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Glenn Saunders wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Dan Boris wrote:
> 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.
> ---
>
> A 2600 game kernel in ROM kinda IS the video memory. It is the algorithms
> and supporting data which generate the display on a scanline by scanline
> basis. PMG data for animations, color data for register changes, all that
> takes memory, sometimes much more than the video memory in rival 1st gen
> consoles.
>
> Solaris, for instance, banks in and out all the time during the mainline
> kernel code.
Um, somebody *please* correct me if my interpretation is correct, but
these comments seem to me to say that the ram+rom of a 2600 game is larger
than the screen buffer/display ram of a modern console.
A typical mode of a nextgen console can be 640x480x16bit. That would
require 600K of display ram for non-tiled bitmapped graphics, far more
than the 2600 game's code+data.
***Mike St. Clair***mstclair@xxxxxxxxx***irc:SaintMick***
--
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
