JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (10/12/90)
(alternate title might be "Damn am I glad I own an Amiga!!" :-)
The story goes as follows:
I've had an Amiga for a while. Lately, though, folks have been claiming
that the Amiga isn't such a hot value anymore and that its video edge is
slipping drastically. "A VGA 386 clone with 256 colors at once out of
a 16 million palette makes the Amiga look bad!" Well, I sort of came to
believe them, but stuck with Amiga because I knew it had many other
advantages which more than made up for this deficiency. We will call
my believing them Mistake #1.
Well, the company where I work uses PC's and Macs exclusively. (I'm
trying to remedy this situation, but that is another story.) The
CAD package we develop (MicroStation) has the capacity to render to
many styles of display. The machine in my office has VGA and I finally
got around to doing some rendering today. When I chose the highest
quality rendering, I noticed that I still got very poor color selection.
"This is strange - it's only using 16 colors and is dithering like mad
to get the shading." So I went to the programmers and asked how to
get the full 256 colors out of my VGA. This was Mistake #2.
What I got was a lecture about how VGA only does 16 colors in 640x480
and you have to drop to 320x200 (or whatever) to get 256 colors. This
is something I told them I thought was a cheap shot by all the folks
hyping VGA and its wonderful palette. They let me know pretty
quickly that I had been duped, just like a lot of other consumers.
So that's the story. Sorry if it was anticlimactic for those of you
who knew VGA has this limitation. But it sure was enlightening (and
rather gratifying as an Amiga owner) to learn this. In a world full
of hype, it is nice to know at least ONE machine stands up to its
claims. // forever!!! :-)
\X/
Kurt
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|| Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || Amigas, Macs, IBM's, C-64's, NeXTs, ||
|| 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. || Apple ]['s.... I use 'em all. ||
|| Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || (and in that order too! ;-) ||
|| jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------||
|| jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------etxtomp@eos.ericsson.se (Tommy Petersson) (10/12/90)
In article <90284.232257JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes:
...
-(alternate title might be "Damn am I glad I own an Amiga!!" :-)
-What I got was a lecture about how VGA only does 16 colors in 640x480
-and you have to drop to 320x200 (or whatever) to get 256 colors. This
-is something I told them I thought was a cheap shot by all the folks
-hyping VGA and its wonderful palette. They let me know pretty
-quickly that I had been duped, just like a lot of other consumers.
Not to spoil anything, but I think that most Super VGA controllers with more
than 256 kb memory can have 256 colours in higher resolution than 320x200.
They either get rather slow or rather expensive (graphics processor), though.
BTW, Super VGA is not a standard (more like 367 standards). They seem to
agree on 800x600 resolution, but You need different drivers for combinations
of board and program You want to run. (No device-independent graphics lib
a'la Mac!)
Tommy Peterssonddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug) (10/12/90)
Actually, many cards now support 800-600/256 and 640-480/256. These are not "IBM endorced" and software will not use this (unless the software allows you to use your own drivers). The cards will come with drivers for windows3.0 or LOTUS (stuff like this). But I have seen windows3.0 in the "superVGA"mode that had garbage and flicker - not that there are'nt quality cards out there - but this is buyer beware. Also, note that different cards have decided what "superVGA" is (ie: 800-600/16 reguardless of card memory). Some will offer higher. It CAN be an advantage, but developers get headaches. I suppose one interesting difference is that the frame buffer is isolated from CPU addressible memory. YOu try latching registers all day for a primitive on some GOD-forsaken card that less than half the IBM owners HAVE. Here's a funny story for you: When searching for documentation on the EGA, I called up IBM technical reference center and asked about video cards. The person on the phone responded "Sir, we aren't a book store" Bye, Doug.
a143@mindlink.UUCP (Ed Meyer) (10/13/90)
> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > [ ... ] > (alternate title might be "Damn am I glad I own an Amiga!!" :-) > > The story goes as follows: > [ ... ] > Well, the company where I work uses PC's and Macs exclusively. (I'm > trying to remedy this situation, but that is another story.) The > [ ... ] > What I got was a lecture about how VGA only does 16 colors in 640x480 > and you have to drop to 320x200 (or whatever) to get 256 colors. This > is something I told them I thought was a cheap shot by all the folks > hyping VGA and its wonderful palette. They let me know pretty > quickly that I had been duped, just like a lot of other consumers. > [ ... ] > > Kurt Kurt, there's nothing quite like showing people. I had the same kind of techno-bigotry at a place where I was called in to rejuvenate the R&D department. I very quickly got tired of the one-sided techno-bigotry: IBMs are the best; I mean, I can work on about a half-dozen different machines ... chose the best for the job, right? Anyway, instead of arguing with these guys, I brought in a 2000 with Bridgeboard, etc. A most interesting reaction! The management bought an Amiga-2000 with hard-drive, etc. I'm not suggesting that this will work for everyone, but it does quickly contrast the strengths and weaknesses ... and who says that multitasking and having fun is not good corporate policy? <grin> Cheers
alex@bilver.UUCP (Alex Matulich) (10/14/90)
In article <1990Oct12.143602.8771@ericsson.se> etxtomp@eos.ericsson.se writes: >-What I got was a lecture about how VGA only does 16 colors in 640x480 >-and you have to drop to 320x200 (or whatever) to get 256 colors. This >Not to spoil anything, but I think that most Super VGA controllers with more >than 256 kb memory can have 256 colours in higher resolution than 320x200. That's correct. If you have a 512K super-VGA card, you get the following modes: 1024x768 2, 4, and 16 color 800x600 16 color 640x400 256 color 640x480 256 color These in addition to the standard VGA modes, plus the lesser EGA and CGA modes. (I just bought and IBM-compatible with super-VGA for some consulting work. MS-DOS is terrible. I still prefer writing software on my Amiga.) -- _ |__ Alex Matulich (alex@bilver.UUCP) /(+__> Unicorn Research Corp, 4621 N Landmark Dr, Orlando, FL 32817 //| \ UUCP: ...uunet!tarpit!bilver!alex ///__) bitnet: IN%"bilver!alex@uunet.uu.net"
cpca@iceman.jcu.oz (C Adams) (10/14/90)
In article <90284.232257JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu>, JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: > (alternate title might be "Damn am I glad I own an Amiga!!" :-) [ lots deleted ] > > What I got was a lecture about how VGA only does 16 colors in 640x480 > and you have to drop to 320x200 (or whatever) to get 256 colors. This > is something I told them I thought was a cheap shot by all the folks > hyping VGA and its wonderful palette. They let me know pretty > quickly that I had been duped, just like a lot of other consumers. And if you think the Mac IIfx is good stuff, then take a look at the Byte review of it. The MacIIfx does not have SCSI with System 6.xx and will not have it with System 7.0 either. According to the review to get true SCSI you need a true multi-tasking operating system and System 7.0 will still rely on MultiFinder for multi-tasking. The only way to get SCSI DMA with your $11995 MacIIfx (list price in Byte review) is with AUX. Of course you can just buy an Amiga 500 for well under $1000 if you want real DMA.... ******************************************************************** Colin Adams Life's funny but I don't laugh Email Address - cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au ********************************************************************
cs472119@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs472119) (10/15/90)
Yes, yes, yes. I discovered this too. If you want anything above 640x480 /16 colors, (or 320x200 w/256 colors), you have to get a special driver from the BOARD MANUFACTURER for each software package you plan to run!!! If they go out of business, you're SOL when the next version comes out, or next great program comes out. I don't know how similar the drivers might be across board makers, but I wouldn't stake much in doing things that way! -Larry
lupe@alanya.Germany.Sun.COM (Lupe Christoph - Sun Germany Consulting - Munich) (10/17/90)
To add my two Pfennigs to this: *Standard* VGA is indeed limited like that. *Non*standard VGA can do anything it wants. There is an attempt called VESA (forgot what it stands for) to help remedy this situation. I believe the highest you can get with 256 colors these days is 768x1024. (I believe. I'm not sure.) If you look at this, you will see a familiar sight: interlace ! The highest non-interlace resolution popular among VGA board makers is 600x800. This runs up to 35.5 kHz horizontal frequency, which is about the maximum the cheaper monitors with VGA (i.e. analog) input and variable synch can handle. The organisation of the PC memory forces the resulting 480.000 bytes to be addressed in "pages". The PC can only address 1024 kByte, and of this 384 kByte are set aside for PROMs and memory mapped I/O. This makes VGA slower than it would need to be. The driver has to be quite clever about switching pages. Talk about 16 MByte address space ! The good thing is that seemingly most VGA boards do not use the plane organisation the earlier boards had and the Amiga still has. I.e. the pixels are not split into single bits with all bit in the same position of all pixels lumped together, but a chunky organisation, i.e. all bits of a pixel stored in a single byte. Have you ever seen plane flicker ? That's when the Amiga moves big chunks of pixels. It has to move them bit plane by bit plane. Sometimes this becomes visible. The good thing about VGA is that there are only a few manufacturers of the VLSI chips needed to build such a board economically. But still these chips allow a big variation in video modes. -- | lchristoph@Sun.COM (Internet) | Disclaimer: | | ...!unido!sunmuc!lupe (German EUNet, "bang") | My employer has a | | lupe@sunmuc.UUCP (German EUNet, domain) | non-exclusive license | | ...!suninfo!lchristoph (Sun Germany customers) | to my opinion. |
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (10/17/90)
In article <lupe.656097800@alanya> lupe@alanya.Germany.Sun.COM (Lupe Christoph - Sun Germany Consulting - Munich) writes: >To add my two Pfennigs to this: >The good thing is that seemingly most VGA boards do not use the plane >organisation the earlier boards had and the Amiga still has. I.e. the >pixels are not split into single bits with all bit in the same position >of all pixels lumped together, but a chunky organisation, i.e. all bits >of a pixel stored in a single byte. All IBM boards to date, along with Apple, Atari ST, and many other systems use packed pixels rather than bitplanes. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. In general, packed pixels, at least one you have large enough (8 to 32 bit) pixels, is better for on-screen image processing, since you can easily read a pixel value. Bitplane architectures, which, until the Amiga, were mainly found on workstations, have the advantage of being able to draw many graphic objects faster in a CAD or similar environment, since it's not necessary to draw into every plane. They also have the advantage of being more general -- the same routine that scrolls a 4 bitplane display can easily scroll an 8, 24, or 5 bitplane display. Packed pixel displays only make sense in numbers that fit into a machine byte or word easily. Also, bitplane displays are more easily parallelized -- the National Semiconductor RGP85xx chip family, for instance, permits you to build a display with a blitter per bitplane. In such a system, the display speed for many operations is independent of the display depth. >Have you ever seen plane flicker ? That's when the Amiga moves big chunks >of pixels. It has to move them bit plane by bit plane. Sometimes this becomes >visible. And any packed pixel display controller has to scroll pixel by pixel, which can also become annoyingly visible. >| lchristoph@Sun.COM (Internet) | Disclaimer: | -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold -REM
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (10/19/90)
cs472119@umbc5.umbc.edu (cs472119) writes: >Yes, yes, yes. I discovered this too. If you want anything above 640x480 >/16 colors, (or 320x200 w/256 colors), you have to get a special driver >from the BOARD MANUFACTURER for each software package you plan to run!!! >If they go out of business, you're SOL when the next version comes out, >or next great program comes out. >I don't know how similar the drivers might be across board makers, but >I wouldn't stake much in doing things that way! >-Larry Half of the time you don't even get drivers with the board, the application program itself has to support the board on MSDOS. For example at work we had an Orchid Super VGA board (Prodesigner VGA). It did up to 800 x 600 with 256 colors, and 1024 x 768 in 16 colors. Nice huh? It came with drivers for windows and ventura publisher, but that was all. Luckily I found deluxe paint II enhanced that supported that board in all it's resolutions. Man it was slick! Then I upgraded the board to an Orchid Prodesigner II (it does 1024 x 768 with 256 colors!). But it's not 100% compatible with the Prodesigner I board. And deluxe paint II enhanced doesn't support the Prodesigner II board. So now I can only do normal VGA modes and I have gotten it to work with 800 x 600 x 16 colors. But the rest of the modes are useless to me now in Dpaint. I called electronic arts and they said they don't have any plans to release a new version that supports the prodesigner II any time soon. So I am SOL. Not to mention the hassle of setting up boards on IBMs and clones. Sheesh! A billion jumpers to set the interrupts, controller addresses, and register addresses! Give me autoconfiguring any day! (we can't convince management to get amigas yet) -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Email sparks@corpane.UUCP |PH: (502) 968-DISK 24Hrs/2400BPS | Usenet, Chatting, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|7 line Multi-User system. | Downloads & more. A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of----Ogden Nash
p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) (10/20/90)
In article <1102@bilver.UUCP> alex@bilver.UUCP (Alex Matulich) writes: >That's correct. If you have a 512K super-VGA card, you get the following >modes: > >1024x768 2, 4, and 16 color >800x600 16 color >640x400 256 color >640x480 256 color Nevertheless, there's little software support for Super-VGA modes. Most programs can use 16 color (at 640x480) only. You won't even get drivers for these modes (like for Turbo-C or other development packages) since the cards use different methods for entering the "Super"-modes. Regards, -- Michael van Elst UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."