In post #207, you misquoted me (PURPOSELY) and then in #214 you told me I should I stop misquoting.
Heh, you first said to quote you propperly, to which I said you first. Reason? I use the quote tag to produce a propperly formatted response. Hence the "you first". I thought it a nice (ok, possibly cute) retort.
And then you repeatedly told me I am confusing timing with cycles while I have clearly stated I am sticking to T=1/f.
To which I, and others specifically pointed out that a computer has no sense of time, rather that everything is dependant upon the clock, which as has previously been covered, isn't that accurate.
Then I tell you to stop this bullcrap, you say "You first".
Yup, I did. You still haven't though.
I have quoted you EXACTLY to the points I replied to. Only put "..." where it's irrelevant to the point.
Actually, you haven't. Some (not all) of your replies have bordered on quote mining.
>Not had to, could (although to be fair, some televisions I ran my Amiga through really did need it), what it proves is that the Amiga isn't all that accurate (now there's a shock!). It also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a certain amount of tollerance within the specification - if there wasn't, any minute alteration in frequency would result in no picture.
I already said even with the ppm rating, it's considered to be working per spec.
Ok, perhaps I wasn't clear here, I'm not arguing the spec, what I'm saying is that the spec (or at least the equipment built to the spec) has a certain tollerance, this is true of any piece of equipment. If there was zero tolerance, the ability to adjust the screen in the way currently available would not be possible (or necessary for that matter).
Tolerances for modern equipment and standards have become much much tighter since then. A prime example of how things have moved on was the example of the issues with some accelerator boards and some revisions of the Amiga.
