upvote
Yeah, even in Linux we were doing these things with X Windows bit depths.

8 bit psuedo color, so the color palette switched with every focus-follows-mouse window boundary crossing. 16 bit direct color with banding but no more palette psychedlia.

This was equal parts to make it faster and to allow for higher framebuffer resolutions with limited VRAM.

reply
I got the extra vram in my LC to allow for 24-bit color but it was dog slow. The 16 bit data path didn't help. If I wanted it, I'd get things done in 8 bit or mono until it was ready, then switch to 24 bit for the final look.
reply
I swear if Sun Microsystems was still around, their machines would still ship with 8-bit pseudocolor and you'd have to pay an extra $3k for 24-bit.
reply
16 bits? Luxury. I had 6 colors when I was a kid and was happy to have them.
reply
My first computer was a TRS-80 Color Computer which had a tiny set of badly chosen colors!

Back then you did what you could with graphics and it wasn't a lot. After I got a PC I had indexed color for a long time and working with indexed color was pretty rough because anything physics-based like rendering or raytracing was going to be difficult. You could render a photo pretty well with 256 carefully chosen colors and dithering but if you wanted to, say, composite two photos and do general sorts of things you'd need to convert to "true color", do the math there, then re-quantize for display.

reply
6?!? We had only 4 colors in low res mode and 2 in high res
reply
Well my Hercules graphics card was only monochrome, but it was relatively high resolution.
reply
I had a herc clone on the 286 machine I bought around 1987 and later added a Super VGA card. One cool thing about the IBM PC was that the monochrome and color graphic systems were sufficiently different in terms of memory map and ports so you could plug in two graphics cards and two monitors and that's what I had.
reply