bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (02/12/90)
It seems that a lot of software authors, particularly those writing games, have run into problems selling their stuff to the GS market. The GS, having higher resolution, etc., needs larger programs to take advantage of it's capabilities. No, I don't have a GS but a friend of mine does and everytime he wants to show a new game to me it takes longer to boot it up and wait around during disk swaps than to play the game. Never mind that he has battery backed ram, a hard drive, etc. The copy-protection in the games won't allow him to fully use these things and cause compatibility problems between os's. Until the software authors get their heads out of their rear ends and quit ruining perfectly good programs with copy-protection they will lose sales. Look at the success of Appleworks and the Timeout/Beagle Bros software. Now imagine trying to use these if they were copy-protected. ******************************************************************** * * * bob church att!oucsace!bchurch * * * * If economics isn't an "exact" science why do computers crash * * so much more often than the stock market? * * bc * ********************************************************************
tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com (System Administrator) (02/20/90)
In-Reply-To: message from bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU
I'd have to disagree about the NEED for higher resolution in games. While
CAD and other high definition work would SINCERELY benifit from a 640x400 (or
480!) screen I feel that in the game department the one thing seriously
killing the //gs (besides speed) is the fact that we only have 16 colors on
the 320x200 game screen. This is the SAME as a frickin Commodore 64 folks!
The Amiga screens with 320x200 and 256 colors are not any more pixel
definitive than the //gs, BUT they do have the range of coloration that
allows for real depth in the graphics displayed. Comments?
Todd South
--
UUCP: {nosc, uunet!cacilj, sdcsvax, hplabs!hp-sdd, sun.COM, apple} /\
...!crash!pnet01!pro-sol!pro-pac!tsouth /\ /^^\
ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-sol!pro-pac!tsouth@nosc.MIL /^^\ Tigard
INET: tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com / \ Oregon
BITNET: pro-pac.UUCP!tsouth@PSUVAX1 / \ \toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/20/90)
tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com (System Administrator) writes: >The Amiga screens with 320x200 and 256 colors are not any more pixel Unless you're talking about an enhanced chip set or something, the Amiga can only get 32 colors raw depth, but more if various video hacks are used. What we really need is a VRAM based 320x200x256 mode and a blitter to support it. Sounds like the Turborez... I hope they license their technology to Apple. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
ruzun@pro-sol.cts.com (Roger Uzun) (02/21/90)
In-Reply-To: message from tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com I have developed several commercial microcomputer games, and I feel this is a good point. more resolution will not be used by most game developers, more colors will. The Amiga is a good example, even with high resolution options, and a lot of specialized graphics/animation hardware, 99% of the games are 320X200 for memory and performance reasons. More colors allows for a lot more anti-aliasing makeing the "apparent" resolution greater. -Roger
dseah@wpi.wpi.edu (David I Seah) (02/21/90)
In article <1580@crash.cts.com> tsouth@pro-pac.cts.com (System Administrator) writes: >I'd have to disagree about the NEED for higher resolution in games. While >CAD and other high definition work would SINCERELY benifit from a 640x400 (or >480!) screen I feel that in the game department the one thing seriously >killing the //gs (besides speed) is the fact that we only have 16 colors on >the 320x200 game screen. This is the SAME as a frickin Commodore 64 folks! Then again, the Commodore 64 is STILL being developed for by the game people 'cause there are a gawdawful number of them (10+ million, they say). It still runs at 1Mhz and only has 16 colors, but it is still a relatively popular game platform. More relevant to the color issue, our choice of 16 from 4096 colors is a heap of a lot better than the C64's fixed palette. With this range of colors, artists have quite a bit more freedom in choosing harmonious and mind-affecting color schemes. But as a novice artist I'd have to tell ya that ONLY 16 colors really, really stinks! It certainly does train you in the wise choice of colors and judicious application of dithering techniques. >The Amiga screens with 320x200 and 256 colors are not any more pixel >definitive than the //gs, BUT they do have the range of coloration that >allows for real depth in the graphics displayed. Comments? The Amiga doesn't have a 256 color mode. The standard screen is 320x200 with 5 bit planes (32 colors). That's their low resolution mode. Most games I've seen have used this mode. The Amiga is capable of some truly inspiring modes...overscan video, for example, allows you to put graphics in the border for a TV-like, full screen effect. Interlaced mode doubles the vertical resolution with the tradeoff of flicker. HAM mode gives you 4096 colors (with a small restriction on color placement) on the screen at once. These modes don't seem to be used often in games as much as in static pictures... I believe there was one game that used HAM mode but I've never seen it. A 320x200 256 color mode on a future Apple CPU would help even the score between Us and Them, so long as the hardware could adequately shove this amount of data around. Two display pages would be even better. -- Dave Seah | O M N I D Y N E S Y S T E M S - M | Internet: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu | User Friendly Killing Machines | America Online: AFC DaveS
gt0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gregory Ross Thompson) (02/22/90)
dseah@wpi.wpi.edu (David I Seah) writes: > The Amiga is capable of some truly inspiring modes...overscan video, > for example, allows you to put graphics in the border for a TV-like, > full screen effect. Interlaced mode doubles the vertical resolution > with the tradeoff of flicker. HAM mode gives you 4096 colors (with a > small restriction on color placement) on the screen at once. These modes > don't seem to be used often in games as much as in static pictures... > I believe there was one game that used HAM mode but I've never seen it. [-stuff wiped-] What is this HAM mode? How does it work? How did ACS do it in one of their demos? > Dave Seah | O M N I D Y N E S Y S T E M S - M | Internet: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu > | User Friendly Killing Machines | America Online: AFC DaveS -Greg T.
ridges@blake.acs.washington.edu (ryan ridges) (02/22/90)
More colors would be swell for static pictures, but if they don't come with a "proportional" speed increase the GS'll come out just another fuel-starved economy machine that doesn't live up to its dangerous name. More colors means more bits/pixel, which means animation programs (read "games") will have to work harder to move the same on-screen square footage. The shocking truth: a single store instruction can put down 7 standard-hires pixels on an 8-bit apple 2. On the GS, with its 16 colors, the same instruction puts down only 4 pixels -- even though the GS has 16 bits under the hood. Since the GS runs about twice as fast as an 8-bit apple we're roughly breaking even in raw animation capability. That's a seriously simplified argument, but it hits the basic problem. If they add colors without enough speed I'm afraid they'll nuke GS games back to the stone age of tiny, featureless, cave-dwelling characters. All this assumes they're not cooking up other hardware help -- blitters and the like. I'm not holding my breath yet. Another problem is the lack of a second super hires display buffer on a "stock" GS. "Page flipping" let 8-bit apple programs run at variable frame rates and remain flicker-free without having to keep one eye on the monitor's vertical blanking status. The GS can be sorely strapped to keep up with it's own display in any but minimal animation situations. If I can't have both, you can put me down for speed. Ryan Ridges
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jawaid Bazyar) (02/22/90)
In article <kZskwnG00WB_A_UmJr@andrew.cmu.edu> gt0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gregory Ross Thompson) writes: >dseah@wpi.wpi.edu (David I Seah) writes: >> The Amiga is capable of some truly inspiring modes...overscan video, >> for example, allows you to put graphics in the border for a TV-like, >> full screen effect. Interlaced mode doubles the vertical resolution >> with the tradeoff of flicker. HAM mode gives you 4096 colors (with a >> small restriction on color placement) on the screen at once. These modes >> don't seem to be used often in games as much as in static pictures... >> I believe there was one game that used HAM mode but I've never seen it. >[-stuff wiped-] > > What is this HAM mode? How does it work? How did ACS do it in one >of their demos? > >> Dave Seah | O M N I D Y N E S Y S T E M S - M | Internet: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu >> | User Friendly Killing Machines | America Online: AFC DaveS > > -Greg T. The ACS "HAM" mode demo is a major lie. There is no such thing as HAM mode. HAM is an acronym for Hold-And-Modify, where each pixel is represented as a change from the previous one (instead of each pixel having an absolute color value). This works fairly well to get a large number of colors on the screen, since most pictures that use HAM have only fine variations between colors (say a face, or a car, etc). On the boundary between major color differences, however, a "rainbowing" effect occurs that can be rather annoying. I think the GS is pretty well set with its FILL mode, although I would like to see some hardware support for graphics primitives (point, line, maybe circle) and definitely a blitter (blitters can be used for memory-to memory DMA, not just to the screen). I would also like a DMA SCSI interface so I can multitask my serial communcations without getting nuked by the disk driver. Anyone know if the new Apple SCSI card is a DMA interface? -- Jawaid Bazyar | This message was posted to thousands of machines Junior/Computer Engineering | throughout the entire civilized world. It cost jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | the net hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars.
dseah@wpi.wpi.edu (David I Seah) (02/23/90)
In article <kZskwnG00WB_A_UmJr@andrew.cmu.edu> gt0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gregory Ross Thompson) writes: [My stuff wiped] > What is this HAM mode? How does it work? How did ACS do it in one >of their demos? Feh...HAM stands for "Hold and Modify", and works by changing the previously drawn pixel value by the contents of the next pixel. When you are changing from one hue to a wildly different one, you'll get nasty color glitches. Carefully designed screens can get around this. Theoretically, you can display all 4096 colors, but it's my guess that you'll get the same or better results with a 640x400x256 color mode WITHOUT the color glitches. The "HAM" mode on the ACS demo is bogus...they only show 32 "grays" on the right side of the screen. I think they are doing it by switching between two palettes on every frame so that your eye averages out the difference into a "in between" gray. Nothing like HAM. Maybe they called it that because it flickers :) -- Dave Seah | O M N I D Y N E S Y S T E M S - M | Internet: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu | User Friendly Killing Machines | America Online: AFC DaveS
cs122dc@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (02/27/90)
bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU writes: >The copy-protection in the games won't allow him to >fully use these things and cause compatibility problems between os's. Until >the software authors get their heads out of their rear ends and quit >ruining perfectly good programs with copy-protection they will lose sales. >Look at the success of Appleworks and the Timeout/Beagle Bros software. Now >imagine trying to use these if they were copy-protected. I have to agree with you, to some extent not allowing people to place programs on hard drives is a pain, but you have to look at it from a marketing standpoint. If you don't protect the program, SOMEONE is going to copy it (and not just for the sake of having a back-up either). For every copy of AppleWorks out there that was sold legitimately, how many illegal copies do you think there are? (and at around $200 a crack, that's a lot of profit loss). Aside from that, I don't see where copy protection truly affects a program's overall performance, except during disk activity. As for better games and such... the more the machine has to deal with, the slower it's going to go. I don't own a GS, but I've seen them in action enough to know that it's way underpowered in terms of speed. Of course, we all know that. I have a lot of really great games for my //e that are exceptionally impressive graphically and run just as well. Games are as good as the people who write them-- look at Prince of Persia from Broderbund for example: standard hires, supeior animation, and relatively quick. If there's a way to write good games on the GS, even with the speed factor, someone will find a way around it... Sorry, I haven't developed a fancy .sig yet...oh well... Randy Vose cs122dc@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu "Remember: Where ever you go, there you are..."
toddpw@tybalt.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/28/90)
cs122dc@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >every copy of AppleWorks out there that was sold legitimately, how many >illegal copies do you think there are? (and at around $200 a crack, that's >a lot of profit loss). Well, If they didn't want so much money for it, a lot more people would buy legitimate copies! (like me!) >As for better games and such... the more the machine has to deal with, the >slower it's going to go. I don't own a GS, but I've seen them in action >enough to know that it's way underpowered in terms of speed. Of course, What's really funny is that most of the time you can get 'acceptable' speed out of a GS -- IF you use all the tricks. Most people (read compilers and big name game developers) are too damn lazy to do that. Heck, the O/S only started doing it with 5.0, and rumors of 6.0 have been impressive. >we all know that. I have a lot of really great games for my //e that >are exceptionally impressive graphically and run just as well. Games are Precisely. You can get really good graphics on a TV from hires (and especially double hi res) now that people have bothered to figure out how the color encoding works. It's the same question of whether you put in some extra effort and make a more efficient program, or whether you insist on the hardware doing all your work for you. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Bob Church) (03/01/90)
In article <15800090@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, cs122dc@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU writes: [ stuff about copy protection being bad business, especially for the GS] > >Look at the success of Appleworks and the Timeout/Beagle Bros software. Now > >imagine trying to use these if they were copy-protected. > > I have to agree with you, to some extent not allowing people to place > programs on hard drives is a pain, but you have to look at it from a > marketing standpoint. If you don't protect the program, SOMEONE is going > to copy it (and not just for the sake of having a back-up either). If you protect the program people who steal software will use a utility to copy it. If they can't copy it they won't use it. I really do not believe that enough people have bought software because they were unable to copy it to justify copy protection. If they can't copy it they skip it. From a marketing view point then, marginal gain ( the people who couldn't copy the program so they bought it) is far exceeded by marginal loss ( those who buy software but won't buy a copy-protected game). >For > every copy of AppleWorks out there that was sold legitimately, how many > illegal copies do you think there are? (and at around $200 a crack, that's > a lot of profit loss). Appleworks is probably the most stolen program in existence. Despite this, the value of this program is so great that it was the highest selling package of *any* software for a few years. Much of this value would have been lost if it had been copy-protected. Aside from that, I don't see where copy protection > truly affects a program's overall performance, except during disk activity. I'm afraid I can't think of any non-incendiary replies to that. > Randy Vose ******************************************************************** * * * bob church bchurch@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu * * * * If economics isn't an "exact" science why do computers crash * * so much more often than the stock market? * * bc * ********************************************************************
mmunz@pro-beagle.cts.com (Mark Munz) (03/02/90)
In-Reply-To: message from cs122dc@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu >I have to agree with you, to some extent not allowing people >to place programs on hard drives is a pain, but you have to look >at it from a marketing standpoint. If you don't protect the >program, SOMEONE is going to copy it (and not just for the sake >of having a back-up either). For every copy of AppleWorks out >there that was sold legitimately, how many illegal copies do >you think there are? (and at around $200 a crack, that's a lot >a lot of profit loss). Aside from that, I don't see where copy >protection truly affects a program's overall performance, except >during disk activity. First.. do you actually think that copy-protecting a piece of software will keep it from getting copied? Almost every single type of Copy Protection scheme that's been used has been broken. Second.. what about the customer. I'd been really p'd if, after buying a $200 program (AppleWorks), I found it was copy protected. This is especially the case for productivity software. Beagle Bros puts trust in the customer. We won't waste (and I do consider copy protection a waste of efforts) our time trying to keep you from copying and all h1UMQ=5IBM"="=JMr=Q:%Y]e6kA%M9j| Third.. Copy protection does affect overall performance -- because it causes the user so much hassle that he ends up using something else, or because he can't put software on a larger medium to increase performance. For those interested -- I have made it my own personal policy that I will never buy (or use -- since I'm not a pirate) copy protected software. Mark Munz
prl3546@tahoma.UUCP (Philip R. Lindberg) (03/06/90)
> In-Reply-To: message from Mark Munz > > In-Reply-To: message from cs122dc@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu > >I have to agree with you, to some extent not allowing people > >to place programs on hard drives is a pain, but you have to look > [...] > [...] > Second.. what about the customer. I'd been really p'd if, after buying > a $200 program (AppleWorks), I found it was copy protected. This is > especially the case for productivity software. Beagle Bros puts > trust in the customer. We won't waste (and I do consider copy protection > a waste of efforts) our time trying to keep you from copying and all > h1UMQ=5IBM"="=JMr=Q:%Y]e6kA%M9j| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What happened here? > Third.. Copy protection does affect overall performance -- because it > causes the user so much hassle that he ends up using something else, or > because he can't put software on a larger medium to increase performance. I am one who appreciates good s/w, and I want to support s/w developers, but I have found that when I purchase a program with copy protection (especially that prevents it from running with the latest GSOS), I just don't use it much. > For those interested -- I have made it my own personal policy that I > will never buy (or use -- since I'm not a pirate) copy protected software. > Mark Munz I use to buy a lot of s/w that was protected, and I didn't care since I was booting their disk anyway. But now that I have a hard drive I have second thoughts when it's protected. I still want to buy the s/w, but it's got to be really good to put up with the hassle. +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ |If my IIgs 'll just hold out for a few more months 'til ROM 04 | | Phil Lindberg snail mail: 13845 S.E. 131 ST| | UUCP: ..!uunet!bcstec!tahoma!prl3546 Renton, WA 98056| | Disclaimer: I don't speak for my employer. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
cs122dc@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (03/06/90)
> bchurch@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU writes: >If you protect the program people who steal software will use a utility >to copy it. No argument there! >From a >marketing view point then, marginal gain ( the people who couldn't copy the >program so they bought it) is far exceeded by marginal loss ( those who buy >software but won't buy a copy-protected game). This, of course, is assuming the person has already used the program and knows that it is worth what is being charged, and that enough people will buy it to make up the loss for those who DIDN'T buy it. ccw@nvuxr.UUCP writes: >Are you playing devil's advocate, or what? Appleworks is not copy >protected. I started with a pirated version. After a month of doing >useful, productive work with it (with no manual! Ease of use!) I was so >impressed that I bought the program. Ans shelled out the $50 for an >upgrade (to 2.0, I think). I think the point of my response was missed. I don't like protected programs any more than the next person, but I can where the software publishers are coming from. This is America. The idea is to make money. If someone is stealing some of your profit then you aren't making as much as you could. At any rate-- I'm not siding with the publishers at all, I'm just saying that they have their reasons for doing what they're doing. >Copy protection forces hardships on your legitimate customers to prevent >unscrupulous people from using a program without paying for it. >Unscrupulous people probably have copy ][+, so copy protection doesn't >do any good, and pisses off your paying customers. I know, I'm a legitimate customer. >Program performance is many things. Even "kley disk" programs are >enough of a hassle that many users feel that they don't perform. >Chris Wood Bellcore ...!bellcore!nvuxr!ccw > or nvuxr!ccw@bellcore.bellcore.com True again. Performance has too broad of a definition. Sooner or later protected programs will cease to exist, hopefully! :-) That would make life a lot easier for a lot of people. 'Til next time... /////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\ // Randy Vose \\ // cs122dc@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu \\ \\ University of Illinois // \\ Champaign/Urbana // \\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////