tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) (09/18/90)
Well, completely aside from this months round of MB postings and the knee
jerk flames they cause I have a few questions to ask ..
WHY IS IT THAT MOST OF THE FOLKS HERE ARE WORKING SO HARD TO KILL THE AMIGA
IN VIDEO ?
Seriously , jesus .. are the majority of folks on this net so short sighted
that they can't see past NTSC ??
Ok.. so the Amiga is GREAT for that .. I'm happy.. in fact I use it a lot
for that but why not move on now ??
24 Bit still frame video is a GREAT boon to most of us that do 3D world
realization programming (ray tracing and the like) ... we are ALREADY not
producing real time frames, so an additional few seconds gfor the frame
buffer attachment is not a problem.
So why is it that every time ANYONE says "we would like better Amiga video"
8000 people say "Why ???? What we have is enough". Right ... you know , i
remember wayyyyy back when the Mac folks said "but B&W is enough"....
The last thing I expected from most of the poeple that had the IQ to buy an
Amiga was that lame "why bother -- it's good enough" trash.
MAKE IT BETTER.
Maybe it won't be supported by every program , thats too bad but lets not
all just sit here and say "welp, we all will just wait for C= to make it
just right!" .... we need a good, 800x600x256 at MINIMUM , 24BIt as a goal
still frame board that can control a single frame video recorder.
To heck with NTSC .. thats already been taken care of .. so lets move on
instead of stagnate.
INTELLIGENT FLAMES ONLY PLEASE !!!!
========[ Xanadu Enterprises Inc. Amiga & Unix Software Development]========
= "And in the darkened offices, the terminals shine like stars." =
============= Ken Jamieson: uunet!tronsbox.xei.com!tron1 ==================
= NONE of the opinions represented here are endorsed by either =
= Xanadu Enterpises or its clients, AT&T Bell Labs or others. =
==== The Romantic Encounters BBS 201-759-8450(PEP) / 201-759-8568(2400) ==== mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (09/18/90)
In article <26f592d2-2c05comp.sys.amiga@tronsbox.xei.com> tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) writes:
Well, completely aside from this months round of MB postings and the knee
jerk flames they cause I have a few questions to ask ..
WHY IS IT THAT MOST OF THE FOLKS HERE ARE WORKING SO HARD TO KILL THE AMIGA
IN VIDEO ?
None of them are trying to kill the Amiga in video. They're just tired
of MB's whining. He admits that he's been doing it for years. First,
he's screaming for video that can't be done. It's explained that it
can't be done, and why, and how it's going to be fixed in the future.
He keeps screaming about it.
Now, the solutions are starting to appear (just as predicted), and
he's screaming that they aren't good enough, and that he wants it
*NOW*, not whenever it's going to be available. It's explained that
this can't be done, and why, and how it's going to be fixed in the
future. He keeps screaming about it.
Seriously , jesus .. are the majority of folks on this net so short sighted
that they can't see past NTSC ??
No, but most of us are far sighted enough to realize that NTSC is a
critical part of low-end Amigas, and that software compatability
across the line is critical to the Amiga. We also realize that giving
up either of those would be a _bad_ thing. Far worse than than not
having an 800x600x8 mode.
24 Bit still frame video is a GREAT boon to most of us that do 3D world
realization programming (ray tracing and the like) ... we are ALREADY not
producing real time frames, so an additional few seconds gfor the frame
buffer attachment is not a problem.
So why is it that every time ANYONE says "we would like better Amiga video"
8000 people say "Why ???? What we have is enough". Right ... you know , i
remember wayyyyy back when the Mac folks said "but B&W is enough"....
Because for the majority of people, what's there _is_ good enough. The
world will move to better standads, and it'll stop being good enough.
But jumping to it as a base to soon requires sacrificing either
software compatability, or raising the price on the "low-end" Amiga.
I can produce 24-bit deep images on the Amiga. I just can't display
them on it. You can't live with that - go buy one of the deep frame
buffers that are starting to appear. That's they best way it can be,
without seriously breaking something.
The last thing I expected from most of the poeple that had the IQ to buy an
Amiga was that lame "why bother -- it's good enough" trash.
You misquoted most of them. It's "why bother - it's good enough for
now, those who need better can buy it, and it'll be better later".
MAKE IT BETTER.
You really want better - go buy it. But don't force the rest of us
(for whom it's good enough) to pay for it at the same time. Worse yet,
don't kill sales at the low-end by raising the price.
Maybe it won't be supported by every program , thats too bad but lets not
all just sit here and say "welp, we all will just wait for C= to make it
just right!" .... we need a good, 800x600x256 at MINIMUM , 24BIt as a goal
still frame board that can control a single frame video recorder.
Go buy it. It's there. Of course, it's going to have the problems you
pointed out. That's why some of us are willing to wait for C= to make
it just right - because we'd rather have it right later than wrong now
and forever.
<mike
--
Tell me how d'you get to be Mike Meyer
As beautiful as that? mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
How did you get your mind decwrl!mwm
To tilt like your hat?seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (09/20/90)
In-Reply-To: message from tron1@tronsbox.xei.com I agree...I'd like to see a general purpose display card similar to Commodore's board that'll be used for color X (1024 x 768 x 256 color). This would make a nice looking hires workbench. Then you go to something like a framebuffer for your video work. The Firecracker looks really nice. I'd also like to see something that'd do 1280 x 1024 x 24bits (non interlaced) for illustration and the like. And how about an HDTV framebuffer...but for that, we'll have to wait until everyone settles on a standard. Sean //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | " Fanatics have their INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | dreams, wherewith they | weave a paradise for RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | a sect. " Voice: (512) 994-1602 PLINK: ce3k* | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) (09/20/90)
>Resp: 1 of 1 About: Re: 24 Bit Video .. ><> [Mike (My Watch Has Windows] (*Masked*@raven.pa.dec.com) > >In article <26f592d2-2c05comp.sys.amiga@tronsbox.xei.com> >tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) writes: (a lot of my stuff deleted) > >None of them are trying to kill the Amiga in video. They're just tired >of MB's whining. He admits that he's been doing it for years. First, >he's screaming for video that can't be done. It's explained that it That doesn't mean tha the ISSUE is not valid. >Now, the solutions are starting to appear (just as predicted), and >he's screaming that they aren't good enough, and that he wants it >*NOW*, not whenever it's going to be available. It's explained that Just my point , NOW that the world has moved on , we are just starting to get the stuff that will be sub-stanbdard by the time it is available in any real quantity. >No, but most of us are far sighted enough to realize that NTSC is a >critical part of low-end Amigas, and that software compatability >across the line is critical to the Amiga. We also realize that giving But we HAVE NTSC -- so saying "yeah , but 24 bit won't help for NTSC is a mott pont . But lets look at that , NTSC (as far as I know) can handle a MUCH broader color range than we can generate , so for all but title style application we have less "punch" then a 24 bit card would. Case in point is the IBM VGA standard , sure , it's only 256 colors as opposed to the 4096 we can put out , but it covers a wider RANGE of colors, the result is that most "human" gif's look better -- despite the lower resolution. >critical part of low-end Amigas, and that software compatability >across the line is critical to the Amiga. We also realize that giving >up either of those would be a _bad_ thing. Far worse than than not >having an 800x600x8 mode. Some other time I would debate that , you say that NTSC is needed for "video production" ... but how many stock A500's are used for that ??? I would rather see the low end have a 8x6x8 mode (price shouldnt be THAT much of a problem) so that the low end folks can compare favorably with the other folks they know. My point is I guess that low end and NTSC dont have to go together. >But jumping to it as a base to soon requires sacrificing either >software compatability, or raising the price on the "low-end" Amiga. >I can produce 24-bit deep images on the Amiga. I just can't display So then we should never push for a better entry mode ?? C'mon , this argument didn't work with other upgrades and it shouldn't here. When A1000 users complained about not getting 2.0 folks said "hey man , that's life, the world moves on and you won't be compatible 100% forever" ... >them on it. You can't live with that - go buy one of the deep frame >buffers that are starting to appear. That's they best way it can be, >without seriously breaking something. And that's fine for the most part -- but I still would like to see a push for a STANDARD 24 bit card .. I don't care if it is just an add on ... extra $$$'s and all ... C= doesnt even have to build the card , just define a prefered software interface. > >You misquoted most of them. It's "why bother - it's good enough for >now, those who need better can buy it, and it'll be better later". But for the most part , we can't yet , and when we can , it's 2 years late. I love my Amiga , and I am getting a A3000 , and my HAM-E order is in .. but it is a real let down to be off the cutting edge. We didn't let the MAC and IBM'ers off with that "It's good enough for what we do" stuff , tand I don't buy it now. ========[ Xanadu Enterprises Inc. Amiga & Unix Software Development]======== = "And in the darkened offices, the terminals shine like stars." = ============= Ken Jamieson: uunet!tronsbox.xei.com!tron1 ================== = NONE of the opinions represented here are endorsed by either = = Xanadu Enterpises or its clients, AT&T Bell Labs or others. = ==== The Romantic Encounters BBS 201-759-8450(PEP) / 201-759-8568(2400) ====
mark@calvin..westford.ccur.com (Mark Thompson) (09/20/90)
In article <4515@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >I agree...I'd like to see a general purpose display card similar to >Commodore's board that'll be used for color X (1024 x 768 x 256 color). This >would make a nice looking hires workbench. Commodore has been showing the 1024 x 1024 x 256 color board at recent shows running unix and color X. This is what used to be the U Lowell board and is supposed to be available soon. But you probably knew that already. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Mark Thompson | | mark@westford.ccur.com | | ...!{decvax,uunet}!masscomp!mark Designing high performance graphics | | (508)392-2480 engines today for a better tomorrow. | +------------------------------------------------------------------------- +
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (09/20/90)
G'day,
Ken> In article <26f592d2-2c05comp.sys.amiga@tronsbox.xei.com>,
Ken> tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) writes:
Ken>
Ken> [...deleted, the main points were our video is okay, we need 24 bit...]
Ken>
I agree on all points Ken.
Ken> MAKE IT BETTER.
Ken>
Ken> [...more deletions...]
Ken>
Ken> To heck with NTSC .. thats already been taken care of .. so lets move on
Ken> instead of stagnate.
Ken>
Ken> INTELLIGENT FLAMES ONLY PLEASE !!!!
No flames Ken. Who is to say CBM aren't moving on? They say they are ...
Sure it is hard waiting. It was hard waiting for the A3000 but we got it.
Ken> ========[ Xanadu Enterprises Inc. Amiga & Unix Software Development]=====
Ken> ============= Ken Jamieson: uunet!tronsbox.xei.com!tron1 ===============
Ken> = NONE of the opinions represented here are endorsed by either =
Ken> = Xanadu Enterpises or its clients, AT&T Bell Labs or others. =
yours truly,
Lou Cavallo.mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (09/21/90)
In article <26f831b6-2c05.2comp.sys.amiga-1@tronsbox.xei.com> tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) writes: >None of them are trying to kill the Amiga in video. They're just tired >of MB's whining. He admits that he's been doing it for years. First, >he's screaming for video that can't be done. It's explained that it That doesn't mean tha the ISSUE is not valid. True. But the 10th time around, the only way to not waste bandwidth is to not answer him. Flaming him is so much more fun :-). >critical part of low-end Amigas, and that software compatability >across the line is critical to the Amiga. We also realize that giving >up either of those would be a _bad_ thing. Far worse than than not >having an 800x600x8 mode. Some other time I would debate that , you say that NTSC is needed for "video production" ... but how many stock A500's are used for that ??? I would rather see the low end have a 8x6x8 mode (price shouldnt be THAT much of a problem) so that the low end folks can compare favorably with the other folks they know. My point is I guess that low end and NTSC dont have to go together. No, I didn't say "video production", though that's true. The reason NTSC is critical for the low end is that it means you can sell the 500 as a high-powered video game. Much as we may disparage people calling the Amiga a game machine, that's part of the reason there are more 500s than any other type of Amiga. Ask most developers how they feel about having to develop for the 500 as a "different" machine than the rest of the Amiga line. >But jumping to it as a base to soon requires sacrificing either >software compatability, or raising the price on the "low-end" Amiga. >I can produce 24-bit deep images on the Amiga. I just can't display So then we should never push for a better entry mode ?? Yes, we should push for a better entry model. But at the right time, which isn't now. What makes NTSC important at the low end is that it keeps monitor cost down; possibly to nothing. The right time to upgrade the low end is when higher-resolution monitors start being cheap. SuperNTSC (roughly double the resolution of stock NTSC) is supposed to start showing up in about two years. That will drive the price of high-resolution monitors down, and would be the right time to introduce a new low-end Amiga to take advantage of that resolution. C'mon , this argument didn't work with other upgrades and it shouldn't here. Yes, but other upgrades didn't raise the base cost of getting started with a low-end system. To get Lotus et. al. to produce Amiga software, you need as many Amigas sold as you can get. Raising the price of the low-end machine is counterproductive. When A1000 users complained about not getting 2.0 folks said "hey man , that's life, the world moves on and you won't be compatible 100% forever" ... Ah, but there were only a couple of hundred thousand A1000 owners; there are a million A500 owners. If you introduced a new Amiga on which the software at the low end won't run, you'll achieve two things. 1) Many developers will ignore the new machine; 2) those that don't will charge more for their software than otherwise. We didn't let the MAC and IBM'ers off with that "It's good enough for what we do" stuff , tand I don't buy it now. Yes, but that answer doesn't include "and it's going to be solved in the future". There's a difference between not admitting that a problem exists, and being satisified with the current solution that's admitted to be inadequate because you know that an adequate solution is in the works. MB is no more realistic than the person who asked for an R3000 based Amiga with an i860 graphics accelerator. They both want the impossible, and neither seems to care whether they kill the Amiga in the process of getting it. <mike -- The weather is here, I wish you were beautiful. Mike Meyer My thoughts aren't too clear, but don't run away. mwm@relay.pa.dec.com My girlfriend's a bore, my job is too dutiful. decwrl!mwm Hell nobody's perfect, would you like to play?
cwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips) (09/22/90)
In article <26f592d2-2c05comp.sys.amiga@tronsbox.xei.com>, tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) writes: > > WHY IS IT THAT MOST OF THE FOLKS HERE ARE WORKING SO HARD TO KILL THE AMIGA > IN VIDEO ? > > Seriously , jesus .. are the majority of folks on this net so short sighted > that they can't see past NTSC ?? > First what does 8000 people on the net saying "nah" have to do with CA producing the a "better" graphics Amiga? I mean would it *happen* if we all said YEAH! (8000*YEAH! ... nothing happened 8^) ). Second to produce 32bit Quickdraw took a total re-write of MAC Software. Third the Amiga was designed to be a NTSC/PAL machine , not a hi-ender. Fourth the third party board situation can hardly get better than the IBM/MAC scene, ie available but non-standard.\ And lastly I'm happy to wait for a PRO-AMIGA with *some* backward compatability but WITH what you want PLUS Virtual Protected Memory, CD sound, DSP coprocesor for the BLIT & sound generation, etc AND MOST IMPORTANT ( CBM ) a easy upgrade path ( Like the 1000 offer ) The non pro amiga doesn't need to go away, just get better and cheaper. Mainly cheaper. When as many peolpe who own C-64's own amigas and the PRO Amiga costs A3000 prices and the A3000 + models are at the commodity clone prices ( ie under 2k ) then we will have something, won't we? BTW CA folks feel free to comment, ok? Hope this passes the Intelligent Flame test... Crisp on the outside.... Clyde
tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) (09/22/90)
> >Resp: 3 of 4 About: Re: 24 Bit Video .. ><> [Lou Cavallo] (*Masked*@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au) > >G'day, > >Ken> In article <26f592d2-2c05comp.sys.amiga@tronsbox.xei.com>, >Ken> tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) writes: > >Ken> >Ken> [...deleted, the main points were our video is okay, we need 24 bit...] >Ken> > >I agree on all points Ken. > Thanks. >Ken> MAKE IT BETTER. >Ken> >Ken> [...more deletions...] >Ken> >Ken> To heck with NTSC .. thats already been taken care of .. so lets move o n >Ken> instead of stagnate. >Ken> >Ken> INTELLIGENT FLAMES ONLY PLEASE !!!! > >No flames Ken. Who is to say CBM aren't moving on? They say they are ... > >Sure it is hard waiting. It was hard waiting for the A3000 but we got it. Hmmm.. I understand , but for a long time we were told that the A3000 was the machine that would address some of this. The 1000 was an entry level , the 2000 little more than a minor evolutionary change (the video slot only really gave us the flicker-fixer) -- the slots and the bridgboard were nice but the sidcar did the same thing .. After the diss-appointment with the 2000 we waited pretty patiently for the A3000 to change the face of Amiga --- and it has , in every area except the graphics standard. I think we can all be sure that C= will not be mounting a major machine change anytime soon, I doubt they have the rescources to be honest. ========[ Xanadu Enterprises Inc. Amiga & Unix Software Development]======= =Also the mantra and spells, the obeah and the wanga; the work of the wand= =and the work of the sword: these shall he learn and teach. = = He must teach; but he may make severe the ordeals. = =========== Ken Jamieson: uunet!tronsbox.xei.com!tron1 =================== = NONE of the opinions represented here are endorsed by either = = Xanadu Enterpises or its clients, AT&T Bell Labs or others. = === The Romantic Encounters BBS 201-759-8450(PEP) / 201-759-8568(2400) ====
sysop@tlvx.UUCP (SysOp) (09/24/90)
In article <MWM.90Sep20152206@raven.pa.dec.com>, mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: > In article <26f831b6-2c05.2comp.sys.amiga-1@tronsbox.xei.com> tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) writes: > >None of them are trying to kill the Amiga in video. They're just tired > >of MB's whining. He admits that he's been doing it for years. First, > >he's screaming for video that can't be done. It's explained that it > > That doesn't mean tha the ISSUE is not valid. > > True. But the 10th time around, the only way to not waste bandwidth is > to not answer him. Flaming him is so much more fun :-). I would settle just for some ideas on what it would take to get this stuff done. :-) > > >critical part of low-end Amigas, and that software compatability > >across the line is critical to the Amiga. We also realize that giving > >up either of those would be a _bad_ thing. Far worse than than not > >having an 800x600x8 mode. > > Some other time I would debate that , you say that NTSC is > needed for "video production" ... but how many stock A500's are ... > My point is I guess that low end and NTSC dont have to go together. > > No, I didn't say "video production", though that's true. The reason > NTSC is critical for the low end is that it means you can sell the 500 > as a high-powered video game. Much as we may disparage people calling > the Amiga a game machine, that's part of the reason there are more > 500s than any other type of Amiga. Ask most developers how they feel .... > >But jumping to it as a base to soon requires sacrificing either > >software compatability, or raising the price on the "low-end" Amiga. > >I can produce 24-bit deep images on the Amiga. I just can't display > > So then we should never push for a better entry mode ?? > > Yes, we should push for a better entry model. But at the right time, > which isn't now. What makes NTSC important at the low end is that it When is the right time? I haven't seen a post explaining just what needs to be done to do things's "right." Yes, I want things done well, so we can move forward with our software base, but what is the real problem here? Take HAM-E for example. What's the worst thing you can say about it? "Oh, for the clones, you must program different code for each supported video mode." What happens with normal HAM, however? I view the built-in HAM mode as something a little bit special, since programs that use it have to run over and fix the fringies. :-) It seems to me that it's a bit different than using the other modes, and so plugging in other boxes like HAM-E or DCTV would be much the same way. Display programs would just put up a screen of data without interpreting it, like current HAM. Programs that draw into the HAM mode tend to be "special". Programs that use HAM tend to display images, not allow word processing, etc. Now after saying that, what would be nice is some simple way to create a program (say a raytracer) that will use HAM, but if available will use one of the other boxes. This sounds like a pain, but perhaps AREXX will save us here. (Like, the raytracer will output files, which, through AREXX, can call up programs for either HAM-E or DCTV [depending on which you own] to convert to their format and add to an ANIM file.) This assumes the 24 bit standard can be used as the transfer medium between the different formats. This however doesn't offer a solution to those who want 800 by 600, to put up a workbench screen and do word-processing on (or maybe CAD and DTP?). I think this is a separate issue. This is the one we should be looking at to see if there's a way to integrate things. How does the new 1200 by 400 mode fit into the scheme of things? How possible would it be to fit in boards supporting other resolutions, and have it work within the current system? Does it requires modes to be defined by Commodore? Drivers? > keeps monitor cost down; possibly to nothing. The right time to > upgrade the low end is when higher-resolution monitors start being > cheap. SuperNTSC (roughly double the resolution of stock NTSC) is > supposed to start showing up in about two years. That will drive the > price of high-resolution monitors down, and would be the right time to > introduce a new low-end Amiga to take advantage of that resolution. Shoot, I got a great multisync for about $500. I'm ready for high-res, now; I don't need to wait for it to get cheaper. It seems to me that as soon as a new standard is known (I haven't heard of the term SuperNTSC -- does this imply that someone is working on a new standard?), then you should go ahead and try to implement it. You could always sell the A500's without additional modes, if there was such a price difference. If the monitor was the only question, then you can do like what the productivity mode gives you: you can use the normal modes, but if you have a multisync, you get this non- interlaced higher res display. ... > Yes, but other upgrades didn't raise the base cost of getting started > with a low-end system. To get Lotus et. al. to produce Amiga software, > you need as many Amigas sold as you can get. Raising the price of the > low-end machine is counterproductive. You mean, Lotus to create for the same machine that, above, you said was supposed to be a game machine? ;-) ;-) > > When A1000 users complained about not getting 2.0 folks said .... > > We didn't let the MAC and IBM'ers off with that > "It's good enough for what we do" stuff , tand I don't buy > it now. > > Yes, but that answer doesn't include "and it's going to be solved in > the future". There's a difference between not admitting that a problem > exists, and being satisified with the current solution that's admitted > to be inadequate because you know that an adequate solution is in the > works. I agree, I don't think Amiga owners are saying "it's good enough" the way the clone people talked about multitasking, oh, just 2 or 3 years ago. :-) I think most people here are just trying not to have a hodge-podge of cards each with some different standard, and software which may work on one but not another. An 800 by 600 by 8 mode which no software will run on is sort of.. well useless, right? So, how do you interface the hardware to the programs? Via the OS. In comes Commodore and/or creative developers.... > > MB is no more realistic than the person who asked for an R3000 based > Amiga with an i860 graphics accelerator. They both want the > impossible, and neither seems to care whether they kill the Amiga in > the process of getting it. Heh, yeah, well, at some point, if you add enough hardware to a system, it becomes an entirely new system. I was thinking about that R3000 topic, well that's ok with me, so long as I can open a screen and run standard AmigaDOS programs. :-) Given the specs of the '040, I really won't be lusting for a RISC chip any time soon. > > <mike Disclaimer: I don't really know what "should" be done, but I hope this post will at least get some ideas kicking around, and it's likely that if nothing else, in the replies to this message, I'll get a better picture of the issues and what's going on. (Hopefully I'm not just adding to the noise. :-) -- Gary Wolfe, SYSOP of the Temporal Vortex BBS // Amiga! ..uflorida!unf7!tlvx!sysop, ..unf7!tlvx!sysop@bikini.cis.ufl.edu \X/ Yeah!
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (09/25/90)
In article <406@tlvx.UUCP> sysop@tlvx.UUCP (SysOp) writes: > Yes, we should push for a better entry model. But at the right time, > which isn't now. What makes NTSC important at the low end is that it When is the right time? I haven't seen a post explaining just what needs to be done to do things's "right." Yes, I want things done well, so we can move forward with our software base, but what is the real problem here? Time and money. I gave (one) answer to "when" further down. The first thing that has to happen is an OS that's been uncoupled from the graphics chips; or at least decouple to the extent that the vendor of the silver bullet hardware can provide an alternaitve library to use that hardware. Printer drivers are a good way to look at this. Take HAM-E for example. What's the worst thing you can say about it? "Oh, for the clones, you must program different code for each supported video mode." HAM-E by itself isn't to bad. Neither is DCTV, or the Firecracker, or so on. But they're each different. That means someone wanting to do software for one of the deep boards must decide which one to support, or spend time supporting other boards instead of adding features. The device independent grahics (DIG) implementation solves these problems. > keeps monitor cost down; possibly to nothing. The right time to > upgrade the low end is when higher-resolution monitors start being > cheap. SuperNTSC (roughly double the resolution of stock NTSC) is > supposed to start showing up in about two years. That will drive the > price of high-resolution monitors down, and would be the right time to > introduce a new low-end Amiga to take advantage of that resolution. Shoot, I got a great multisync for about $500. I'm ready for high-res, now; I don't need to wait for it to get cheaper. You don't need to wait. But how many of the people who paid $500 for their machine would have bought them if they'd had to spend $500 extra for the monitor? And if all those people vanished, how many Amiga software vendors would vanish? Would C/A still be around? It seems to me that as soon as a new standard is known (I haven't heard of the term SuperNTSC -- does this imply that someone is working on a new standard?), then you should go ahead and try to implement it. There are _lots_ of people working on new standards to replace NTSC, usually under the buzz-phrase high definition telivision (HDTV). In the US, it's hung up with the FCC trying to decide what the new format should be. The people doing SNTSC decided they could make it work inside the current standards. To get the full benefit, you'll have to by a monitor with roughly double the NTSC resolution. That's true for most HDTV formats (though some are using wide-screen movie formats as well). After these become popular, expect the price on your $500 monitor to drop to more like $100. Expect most people to already own suitable monitors. You could always sell the A500's without additional modes, if there was such a price difference. ... Yes, but you've either got to have the DIG already mentioned or fix the custom chips and software to support the new mode. For anything serious, the latter is probably as much or more work than the former. Once you've got the DIG, then people can do real magic (I've as yet to see anyone asking for a Z buffer). That's the route that's been discussed here, and that's what seems to be going on inside of CBM. You mean, Lotus to create for the same machine that, above, you said was supposed to be a game machine? ;-) ;-) Yup. If Lotus can produce software that runs on a 512K system, then all those boxes sold as game machines are potential customers, and can be used to convince Lotus to do a port. If they can't produce software that runs on a 512K system, do we want them in the market in the first place? :-) Given the specs of the '040, I really won't be lusting for a RISC chip any time soon. Given that the best that Moto quotes for the '040 is 24 MIPS - someday, when its available - and that you can buy R3000 based systems today that get those same numbers, you may wind up wishing for one. However, the '030 in a 3000 unencumbered by Unix makes me wish for something faster than a 15 MIPS R2000 at work. <mike -- But I'll survive, no you won't catch me, Mike Meyer I'll resist the urge that is tempting me, mwm@relay.pa.dec.com I'll avert my eyes, keep you off my knee, decwrl!mwm But it feels so good when you talk to me.
perley@galaxy (Donald P Perley) (09/25/90)
In article <MWM.90Sep24151633@raven.pa.dec.com>, mwm@raven (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: >In article <406@tlvx.UUCP> sysop@tlvx.UUCP (SysOp) writes: > > Shoot, I got a great multisync for about $500. I'm ready for high-res, now; > I don't need to wait for it to get cheaper. OK, so they come out with high-res, say 1500x1200 or so. Are you going to complain about how you have to junk your $500 monitor and shell out another grand or 2 for a new one? Oh, I forgot, that is if you wait for it to get cheaper, and you don't have to wait. Make that 3 to 5 thousand. Oh, you want color? > >You don't need to wait. But how many of the people who paid $500 for >their machine would have bought them if they'd had to spend $500 extra >for the monitor? And if all those people vanished, how many Amiga >software vendors would vanish? Would C/A still be around? Just MHO, but unless they are just trying to dump excess inventory, Commodore should allow their multiscan monitor as an extra-cost option on any bundle where they are now forcing the customer to take a 1084. Any money spent on the old monitor is wasted if the customer wants to upgrade either to ECS and productivity mode, or a flicker-fixer. > The people doing SNTSC decided they could make it work >inside the current standards. To get the full benefit, you'll have to >by a monitor with roughly double the NTSC resolution. That's true for >most HDTV formats (though some are using wide-screen movie formats as >well). After these become popular, expect the price on your $500 >monitor to drop to more like $100. Expect most people to already own >suitable monitors. It might if HDTV is incompatible (and exceeds) current multisincs resolution. Then the multisinc will be obsolete junk, or maybe have the same sort of market niche that 13 inch mono monitors do now. I wouldn't expect a monitor based on HDTV standards to be any cheaper than an equivalent (marketwise) NTSC tv or monitor is now. If they go with an NTSC compatible signal, then I don't know if there would be a market for 13 inch HDTV monitors, so figure the current price of 20 inch TV's as a starting point. -don perley perley@trub.crd.ge.com
db@cs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry) (09/26/90)
In article <12139@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> perley@galaxy (Donald P Perley) writes: >Any money spent on the old monitor is wasted if the customer wants to >upgrade either to ECS and productivity mode, or a flicker-fixer. Another alternative would be to make the productivity mode work with a hi-res mono monitor. Then low-end users could use a TV for colour (games etc.) and a cheap monitor for hi-res text work. This is how many people use the Atari ST. It's not as good as having a dedicated monitor, but if money is important than its useful to be able to do this. Indeed, someone claimed on comp.atari.st recently thst a mono monitor had a clearer screen than a "cheap" multi-sync. >Commodore should allow their multiscan monitor as an extra-cost option >on any bundle where they are now forcing the customer to take a 1084. I agree with this. -- Dave Berry, LFCS, Edinburgh Uni. db%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Snuffsaidbutgorblimeyguvstonemeifhedidn'tthrowawobblerchachachachachacha chachachachachayou'regoinghomeinacosmicambience.
tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) (09/28/90)
><> [clyde.w.jr.phillips] (*Masked*@cbnewse.att.com) >Second to produce 32bit Quickdraw took a total re-write of MAC Software. I think you will find that it is not important for EVERY peice of software to work with the new stuff. It just doenst matter as long as the new hardware will run old software or ALLOW it to run on the factory origional. A 800x600x256 workbench would be cute , but it not needed. All of the programs that would matter would need to be writtent to allow the resolution, REGARDLESS of hardware (a bitmap set up for 320x200 wont lokk much better on the new hardware , better to make a 800x600 bitmap) so the fact that it would need to have a new display method is not that big a deal. Where is the much vaunted Amiga Developers Ass. ? If the thrid party folks would decide on a standard then we dont have to wait for C= .. The new modes do NOT need to run intuition as for the most part they would be display only , with most GUI stuff on the other monitor. Monitor cost is not a big problem right now, a good M-Sync for a few hundred will handle 1024x768x256 and 800x600x256 and that is enough to catch up at least. >And lastly I'm happy to wait for a PRO-AMIGA with *some* backward >compatability but WITH what you want PLUS Virtual Protected Memory, >CD sound, DSP coprocesor for the BLIT & sound generation, etc >AND MOST IMPORTANT ( CBM ) a easy upgrade path ( Like the 1000 offer ) > Sounds nice -- but at the moment I am pretty dis-illusioned. I'll wait too , but with the Sun IPC down at a reasonable price now .. I hope it's not too long. ========[ Xanadu Enterprises Inc. Amiga & Unix Software Development]======= =Also the mantra and spells, the obeah and the wanga; the work of the wand= =and the work of the sword: these shall he learn and teach. = = He must teach; but he may make severe the ordeals. = =========== Ken Jamieson: uunet!tronsbox.xei.com!tron1 =================== = NONE of the opinions represented here are endorsed by either = = Xanadu Enterpises or its clients, AT&T Bell Labs or others. = === The Romantic Encounters BBS 201-759-8450(PEP) / 201-759-8568(2400) ====
gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) (09/28/90)
In article <27024b15-2c05.11comp.sys.amiga-1@tronsbox.xei.com> tron1@tronsbox.xei.com (HIM) writes: > I think you will find that it is not important for EVERY peice of >software to work with the new stuff. What a lot of people don't realize is that there are many hidden advantages of device independence. A good device independent graphics solution will allow you to do several things: - plug and play: plug in your favorite display card, and away you go. Correctly written (software written using device independent routines) will work on it. - display 32 bit (or deeper 8-) on a non-32 bit system: Device independence should map X bits of color into the colors that are available to your display device. Person Y has generated a 32 bit image on her/his system, and sends it to person X. Person X has only the ability to display HAM quality images and thus, the 32 bit color image is displayed as best as possible on a HAM screen. I could probably have finessed this point better, but I don't have time, I have homework 8-( > A 800x600x256 workbench would be cute , but it not needed. All of the >programs that would matter would need to be writtent to allow the >resolution, REGARDLESS of hardware (a bitmap set up for 320x200 wont lokk >much better on the new hardware , better to make a 800x600 bitmap) so the >fact that it would need to have a new display method is not that big a deal. Actually, I think that a large resolution Workbench would be delightful. I don't think that there is that much need for having multiple screens (except for double buffering maybe). It would be quite nice to have much higher resolution on the workbench, and have each application in its own window (as opposed to separate screens). > Monitor cost is not a big problem right now, a good M-Sync for a few >hundred will handle 1024x768x256 and 800x600x256 and that is enough to catch >up at least. How do you figure 1024x768x256? or 800x600x256? A good multisync would be analog and thus not restricted to a piddly 256 colors. It is the display card which limits the number of colors. I will be buying my next computer in about a year to a year and a half from now. I will look at the systems that suit my needs (high resolution, 24 bit, large hard disk, cheap (?), and FAST, FAST, FAST 8-). I would like to purchase an Amiga again since the OS is so nice, and it is even better with 2.0. I hope that they will have something that will suit my needs. I am open to intelligent discussion on any of these points. Please discuss via email, unless posting will benefit the net. See ya, Ralph gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu gilgalad@zip.eecs.umich.edu gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu Ralph_Seguin@ub.cc.umich.edu gilgalad@sparky.eecs.umich.edu USER6TUN@UMICHUB.BITNET Ralph Seguin | In order to get infinitely many monkeys to type 565 South Zeeb Rd. | something that actually makes sense, you need to Ann Arbor, MI 48103 | have infinitely many monkey editors as well. (313) 662-1506 Soon to change to: Ralph Seguin 536 South Forest Apartment 915 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (313) 662-4805
dksnsr@nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) (10/03/90)
I recently received information about Sun's new VX and MVX graphics ACCELERATOR. The VX has one i860 at 40mhz to handle full 32-bit graphics, the board is really incredible, then the MVX has 4 i860's to enhance the performance of the VX... I was just thinking how an i860 graphics board would be really good for the Amiga too... -- ========================= M.E.R.L. - Mosh Effects Research Laboratories Dr. Mosh | Look for us at all fine Mosh Pits dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu | "The best way to beat the system is to own it..." Computer Science | -Bob Broilo (Some drugger)
greg@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (10/04/90)
In article <1990Oct3.013842.11636@nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes: >I recently received information about Sun's new VX and MVX graphics >ACCELERATOR. The VX has one i860 at 40mhz to handle full 32-bit graphics, >the board is really incredible, then the MVX has 4 i860's to enhance the >performance of the VX... I was just thinking how an i860 graphics board >would be really good for the Amiga too... Know what happens when you put an Intel chip into a Motorola machine? BLOOIE!! It's not a pretty site... >-- >========================= M.E.R.L. - Mosh Effects Research Laboratories >Dr. Mosh | Look for us at all fine Mosh Pits >dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu | "The best way to beat the system is to own it..." >Computer Science | -Bob Broilo (Some drugger) But seriously, there are graphics accelerators based on other RISC chips like the SANG board which are supposed to be coming out... Greg "Keep those Intel chips out of my Amiga!" Harp Disclaimer: "Who me? Surely you must be mistaken!" _ _ "The lunatic is in the hall. The lunatics are in my hall. AMIGA! //// The paper holds their folded faces to the floor, //// And every day the paperboy brings more." -- Pink Floyd _ _ //// \\\\//// Greg Harp greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu \\XX//