hawk@pnet01.cts.com (John Anderson) (09/13/90)
>>(As of now, all ofthe Amiga's OS enchancements -- including 2.0 >> -- consist of large numbers of minor changes, with no really >> big changes) ( a bunch of paragraphs deleted of Marc Barrett whining and complaining about how 2.0 is only a minor upgrade, and that Intuition should be a device rather than how it is now) >> -MB- >I'm sorry you feel that 2.0 consists of "large numbers of minor changes". >Fortunately for the rest of us, you are in the minority. There is a lot >of excitement about 2.0, precisely because it represents a very >significant improvement over 1.3. ( a bunch of paragraphs deleted of informative, insightful, and detailed information about many new programming features of 2.0 and how and why they were added for the programmer so that the AMiga is easier to program.) >Peter Cherna, Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga, Inc. It is obvious that Marc Barrett knows little about computers. He may know the latest buzzwords like "24 bit graphics" and "32 bit custom chip set", but I don't think he knows how 24 bits achieve the number of colors it does, or why a 32 bit chipset isn't made to fit into the 2000 and 500 like the 1 meg agnus was. He comes up with ideas that he would like to see happen but does not know the theory behind them so he talk about them as if they can all be done *NOW*. He doesn't understand that with a machine that has been out a while, one can't simply add every feature one wants and expect all software and hardware to continue to work. For these reasons, Marc, certain limitations are put on and workarounds are sought after. For those reading, please ignore Marc. He does not understand computers in their technical sense. This has caused his postings to be flamed because people who are in-the-know technically, know why certain features can not be implemented. PLEASE IGNORE MARC BECAUSE HIS IGNORANCE OF COMPUTERS IS THE REASON HE POSTS IGNORANT MESSAGES.
BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (09/15/90)
In message <4380@crash.cts.com> John Anderson <hawk@pnet01.cts.com> writes: > It is obvious that Marc Barrett knows little about computers. He may know > the latest buzzwords like "24 bit graphics" and "32 bit custom chip set", > but I don't think he knows how 24 bits achieve the number of colors it > does, or why a 32 bit chipset isn't made to fit into the 2000 and 500 like > the 1 meg agnus was. He comes up with ideas that he would like to see > happen but does not know the theory behind them so he talk about them as > if they can all be done *NOW*. He doesn't understand that with a machine > that has been out a while, one can't simply add every feature one wants > and expect all software and hardware to continue to work. For these > reasons, Marc, certain limitations are put on and workarounds are sought > after. For those reading, please ignore Marc. He does not understand > computers in their technical sense. This has caused his postings to be > flamed because people who are in-the-know technically, know why certain > features can not be implemented. PLEASE IGNORE MARC BECAUSE HIS > IGNORANCE OF COMPUTERS IS THE REASON HE POSTS IGNORANT MESSAGES. Did you ever actually read any of my postings, or did you only read the insulting responses? I never at any time said nor implied that I thought a (hypothetical) 32-bit version of the Amiga's custom chipset could be incorporated into the A500 or A2000. Even being able to incorporate such a chipset into the A3000 is in serious doubt. Obviously, a totally new machine (Amiga 5000?) would be needed. I also never at any time said nor implied that the same 32-bit chipset could be developed "*NOW*". It obviously can't, and will take many years to develop. I have only said that it is NEEDED now, which is quite obvious if you (and other people) will only open your eyes and look around. There are video products available now for ISA- and EISA- IBM compatibles based on the Texas Instruments and Western Digital graphics coprocessor families. Many of these video boards have extremely high resolutions and have a price tag of less than $600. Some do have 24-bit video capabilities. There are also many comparitively inexpensive high-speed 24-bit video boards available for the MAC. Now, obviously, companies developing video hardware for MACs and IBM compatibles will continue to increase the resolutions, color capability, and performances of their products. By time Commodore is finally finished with their 32-bit Amiga chipset, these hardware developers will also be very far along in the designs of their video products. I happen to find it likely that they will be much further along than Commodore at that time. Now, you and other people can insult me all you want. If it makes you feel good, go ahead. I don't pay much attention to the insults anyway. But all the "Marc Barrett is ignorant and stupid" postings in the world won't change the situation with the Amiga's color video capabilities. -MB-
jdege@ (Jeff Dege) (09/15/90)
Just as an aside, how do you add a person to your kill file? I've figured out how to kill a thread, but handling individual "twits" would be much more convenient (not to mention the reduction in stress-related diseases ;)
S36666WB%ETSUACAD.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu (Brian Wright) (09/16/90)
On 15 Sep 90 03:51:31 GMT you said: > > Now, obviously, companies developing video hardware for MACs and >IBM compatibles will continue to increase the resolutions, color >capability, and performances of their products. By time Commodore >is finally finished with their 32-bit Amiga chipset, these hardware >developers will also be very far along in the designs of their video >products. I happen to find it likely that they will be much further >along than Commodore at that time. How is it that WE as Amiga users have to RELY on Commodore for GRAPHICS? There are products that will essentially give the Amiga NATIVE 24 bit color in Hi Res. Namely DCTV. Yes this will be an external device. But quite an in- genius one. It's cost will be fairly low too. Try $495 List. Much lower than that in the store and mail order I am sure. It is also a 24 bit digitzer/ framegrabber. It will also allow FULL NTSC (24 bit equivilent) animations with whatever limitations that standard Hi Res has. The Animations being REAL-TIME too. Even if Amiga does get a 32 bit graphics chipset, will the machine be fast enough for 24 bitplane 24 bit color REAL-TIME animations. Possibly not. Such a CHIPSET would most likely not work in the 500/1000/2000/2500s. But will most likely work on the 3000 on up. DCTV will work on ALL Amigas. It was stated at one time that the 3000's Zorro III slots would be fast enough for any new chipsets that come along. I wouldn't doubt it. The Zorro III bus's throughput is rated at some incredible rate. > Now, you and other people can insult me all you want. If it makes >you feel good, go ahead. I don't pay much attention to the insults >anyway. But all the "Marc Barrett is ignorant and stupid" postings in >the world won't change the situation with the Amiga's color video >capabilities. No it won't, but third party companies will. Look at Mimitecs, Firecracker/24, DCTV, Video Toaster, and Ham-e just to name the few that I know of.... > -MB- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ======================================================================= ||To steal from one is plagiarism. To steal from many is research. || ||___________________________________ ---UNKNOWN--- || || | / / || ||---Brian Wright | / / || ||---s36666wb@etsuacad.etsu.edu | \ \/ / Only Amiga || ||---Commercial Artist and Amigaphile| \/\/ Makes It Possible!! || =======================================================================
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (09/16/90)
In article <30574@nigel.ee.udel.edu> S36666WB%ETSUACAD.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu (Brian Wright) writes: >Marc Barrett writes: >> Now, you and other people can insult me all you want. If it makes >>you feel good, go ahead. I don't pay much attention to the insults >>anyway. But all the "Marc Barrett is ignorant and stupid" postings in >>the world won't change the situation with the Amiga's color video >>capabilities. > >No it won't, but third party companies will. Look at Mimitecs, >Firecracker/24, >DCTV, Video Toaster, and Ham-e just to name the >few that I know of.... The problem with all of the devices listed above (except possibly the video toaster, I don't know) is that none of them allow programs to interactively draw on the screen in a 640x??? mode and at a reasonable pace. In general, I am referring to using the workbench and standard screens. Programmers who are writing software for business apps, word proc., DTP, etc. (ie non-video) will not start writing windowing functions, etc. on their own. HAM-E is limited to 320x400 mode and no flicker-fixing. The Toaster, Firecracker and Mimetics are all framebuffers which would require programmers to work at the bitmap level. DCTV as I understand it doesn't support the workbench and screens. Therefore, the <$200 800x600 w/ 256 out of 16.7M color VGA board for the IBM, from the users perspective, is far better than DCTV or HAM-E because at least their CAD program will support it! Now, please don't remind me of all the benefits of the Amiga system over VGA, I haven't forgotten them. The blitter speeds up animation significantly, you have chip ram for easy access to multiple frames, etc. 768x480 w/4 out of 4096 is good for most uses, just not all! > >> -MB- > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ======================================================================= >||To steal from one is plagiarism. To steal from many is research. || >||___________________________________ ---UNKNOWN--- || >|| | / / || >||---Brian Wright | / / || >||---s36666wb@etsuacad.etsu.edu | \ \/ / Only Amiga || >||---Commercial Artist and Amigaphile| \/\/ Makes It Possible!! || > ======================================================================= -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu *Iraq += *Kuwait; NumCountries--; and by popular demand... free(Kuwait);
dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Francis Heffernan) (09/16/90)
RE "improved" graphics I just have one question: why do people keep saying that VGA gives 256 colors out of 16.7 million when it's really 256 colors out of 262,144? Did they change it when I wasn't looking? dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis GEnie: D.HEFFERNAN1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of everything...haven't you learned; if it's not happenning to me it's not important?" -Murphy Brown
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (09/18/90)
In article <1990Sep15.202651.8892@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <30574@nigel.ee.udel.edu> S36666WB%ETSUACAD.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu (Brian Wright) writes: >>Marc Barrett writes: >>No it won't, but third party companies will. Look at Mimitecs, >>Firecracker/24, >DCTV, Video Toaster, and Ham-e just to name the >>few that I know of.... > Programmers who are writing software for business apps, >word proc., DTP, etc. (ie non-video) will not start writing >windowing functions, etc. on their own. Yet for VGA under MS-DOS, that's exactly what they do. Well, there are some 3rd party windowing products a developer can buy, like the run-time MS Windows package and several others, but the bottom line is, support for graphics on the MS-DOS machines is done at the application level. You get it at the OS level on the Amiga, and what everyone who's used to that wants is the same thing, only extended to arbitrary graphics boards. Which would be wonderful, I agree, but it's not here just yet. >Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Get that coffee outta my face, put a Margarita in its place!
jerry@truevision.com (Jerry Thompson) (09/18/90)
Well, it looks to me like Mark has summed it up the better than anyone else so far. The Amiga is losing (if not lost) it's position in the video/computer graphics market. Creative suggestions are in order, not pointless flaming and complaing. Once again, I ask for any comments on the state of Amiga graphics and it's possible futures. E-Mail me directly please. Oh yeah, I still haven't received any *REALLY GOOD* flames. 8^) -- Jerry Thompson | // checks ___________ | "I'm into S&M, "What I want to know is, have | \\ // and | | | | Sarcasm and you ever seen Claude Rains?" | \X/ balances /_\ | /_\ | Mass Sarcasm."
jerry@truevision.com (Jerry Thompson) (09/18/90)
>How is it that WE as Amiga users have to RELY on Commodore for GRAPHICS? There >are products that will essentially give the Amiga NATIVE 24 bit color in >Hi Res. Namely DCTV. Yes this will be an external device. But quite an in- >genius one. It's cost will be fairly low too. Try $495 List. Much lower >than that in the store and mail order I am sure. It is also a 24 bit digitzer/ >framegrabber. It will also allow FULL NTSC (24 bit equivilent) animations with >whatever limitations that standard Hi Res has. The Animations being REAL-TIME >too. Even if Amiga does get a 32 bit graphics chipset, will the machine be >fast enough for 24 bitplane 24 bit color REAL-TIME animations. Possibly not. >Such a CHIPSET would most likely not work in the 500/1000/2000/2500s. But >will most likely work on the 3000 on up. DCTV will work on ALL Amigas. > DCTV is fine for what it does. Firecracker 24 will help. The Toaster will help a lot, but... Mac 32 bit Quickdraw provides a device independent interface for Mac programs. You can drag a window onto any 24 bit Mac framebuffer. Even have multiple framebuffers for a HUGE virtual desktop spread out over several monitors. Not the kind of solution I would want. I prefer one monitor - several screens. But the integration is fairly seamless. And the Mac community is beginning to figure out what video is. Windows 3.0 is threatening to do the same kind of thing for the PC world. The Amiga's slide in the market is real, but it doesn't have to continue. The interactive multimedia applications on the Amiga are knock-out type stuff. The Mac and PC worlds are going to have as good or better stuff available next year. Look at who Autodesk has hired (Dan Silva, of DPaint III fame for one). And this stuff works on 24 bit boards. The Amiga software will have to do the same *JUST TO KEEP UP*. I'm not saying the sky is falling, just don't bury your head in the sand. <- Cute, no? -- Jerry Thompson | // checks ___________ | "I'm into S&M, "What I want to know is, have | \\ // and | | | | Sarcasm and you ever seen Claude Rains?" | \X/ balances /_\ | /_\ | Mass Sarcasm."
krag@cup.portal.com (Kevin Ray Grotjohn) (09/19/90)
I have an application in mind for DCTV. Most failure analysis labs need to take color polaroids from microscopes of chip dies. Replace this setup with a color camera and DCTV, convert to IFF and print using a desktop publisher. I'm not sure what quality at what price color printing is though, this could be a problem. The lab at work spends $10,000/year on color poloraids, if I can say I can do this was a $5,000 dollar amiga, then they should give me the other $5,000 as a bonus. I would appreciate anyone framegrabbing video rather than taking polaroids to email with their solutions. krag@cup.portal.com
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (09/21/90)
BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >high-speed 24-bit video boards available for the MAC. > Now, obviously, companies developing video hardware for MACs and MAC, MAC, MAC!! That's all we hear. sheesh. But I do have an observation...: If you add an 'R' to MAC, right before the 'C'.... you get MARC!!! and Barrett is pretty close to 'berate' which means: "To scold or **condemn** vehemently and at **length**" [emphasis by me] So maybe there is truth that MB is an AI program sent over to bug us by the Mac group? C'mon MarcIntosh... admit it.. :-) [BTW: Marc, why oh why are you **sooo*** worried about the state of the art for Amiga when you only have an Amiga 500 anyway? (at least that's what you told us you have in an earlier posting). Even if the Amiga did have 24 bit HD TV quality video, surround sound, and a built in microwave oven, could you afford it? Well neither can most of the rest of us, so how is CBM going to make any money off of it if no one buys it?] -- 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
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (09/25/90)
krag@cup.portal.com (Kevin Ray Grotjohn) writes: >The lab at work spends $10,000/year on color poloraids, if I can say >I can do this was a $5,000 dollar amiga, then they should give me the >other $5,000 as a bonus. HAHAHA! Hoo-Boy that's a good one! You've got a lot to learn about how management thinks about such things. heheheheh. (I just had to take over for the other electrical engineer here who quit, there were two of us now only I am left. For some strange reason, they didn't give me his paycheck too, even tho I have to do his job. Wierd huh?) But on to your idea: The Amiga won't have as high a resolution as the photographs do. So you will lose a lot of detail by using the Amiga. and more when trying to print it out on a color printer. Most printers only have 4 colors and they have to dither the output to get the colors needed. This will lower the detail again. To overcome these limitations would cost more than it would save you. Plus add an additional layer of complexity that is not needed (why go thru the extra step of digitizing then printing when all you need is a picture?). The only reason to use an Amiga in such a situation would be if you need to manipulate the picture before printing it (such as false coloring to bring out flaws, etc) At least that's the way I see it from what you described. What you didn't say is by what method they are taking these poloroids. If they are using a camera mounted on a microscope, then you have the additional problem of getting a video camera mounted on the m-scope in place of the poloroid. [I can't see it costing $10000 a year for poloroids though. What did you leave out?] -- 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
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) (09/27/90)
In article <3190@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >The Amiga won't have as high a resolution as the photographs do. >. Most printers only have 4 colors and they have to dither >the output to get the colors needed. The new Seiko color PostScript printer is Pantone *certified* and it's only a four-color (or three-color, or one-color) printer. If you tell it to print Pantone #nnn, you get Pantone #nnn. >[I can't see it costing $10000 a year for poloroids though. What did you leave >out?] The people down the hall from me pay $8-12 for each color poloroid they make. (I think they have a Matrix QCM, but don't quote me.) You should realize there are a *lot* of different poloroid imaging compounds out. Everything from Mom-and-Dad's Poloroid, to instant+b/w negative to outrageously expensive 8x10 and larger color prints. -- J. Eric Townsend Internet: jet@uh.edu Bitnet: jet@UHOU Systems Manager - University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics - (713) 749-2120 "It's not the bullet that kills you, it's the hole." Skate UNIX(r) -- Laurie Anderson
krag@cup.portal.com (Kevin Ray Grotjohn) (09/28/90)
krag@cup.portal.com (Kevin Ray Grotjohn) writes: >The lab at work spends $10,000/year on color poloraids, if I can say >I can do this was a $5,000 dollar amiga, then they should give me the >other $5,000 as a bonus. HAHAHA! Hoo-Boy that's a good one! You've got a lot to learn about how management thinks about such things. heheheheh. (I just had to take over for the other electrical engineer here who quit, there were two of us now only I am left. For some strange reason, they didn't give me his paycheck too, even tho I have to do his job. Wierd huh?) But on to your idea: The Amiga won't have as high a resolution as the photographs do. So you will lose a lot of detail by using the Amiga. and more when trying to print it out on a color printer. Most printers only have 4 colors and they have to dither the output to get the colors needed. This will lower the detail again. To overcome these limitations would cost more than it would save you. Plus add an additional layer of complexity that is not needed (why go thru the extra step of digitizing then printing when all you need is a picture?). The only reason to use an Amiga in such a situation would be if you need to manipulate the picture before printing it (such as false coloring to bring out flaws, etc) At least that's the way I see it from what you described. What you didn't say is by what method they are taking these poloroids. If they are using a camera mounted on a microscope, then you have the additional problem of getting a video camera mounted on the m-scope in place of the poloroid. [I can't see it costing $10000 a year for poloroids though. What did you leave out?] -- John Sparks |D.I.S.K. Public Access Unix System| Multi-User Games, Emai l 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
krag@cup.portal.com (Kevin Ray Grotjohn) (09/28/90)
In response to john sparks message about using an amiga in place of color polaroids. Yeah, it would be nice if mmanagement thought that way, just wishful thinking on my part. We already have a four-point probe with a color camera, and a microscope with BW video out. I believe they make color video cameras with camera mounts. If I use DCTV I preserve the color space and video resolution. You hit the nail on the head about printers. Photographic quality requires the use of a color Postscript laser or thermal printer, maybe even reseperation software. A bit much to replace a polaroid. I suspect that a PaintJet does an acceptable job of dithering a HAM picture. The photos are to be included in reports in which the defects are circled and pin numbers shown, with a sidebar explanation. Since I start with still video which is acceptable, the question is whether the printout will be. I think so for our purposes as the photos are part of a routine documentation process (I work at a military contractor). 30% of the photos end up in the wastebasket by the time the final report is made. Management decision is being made based on a sample inkjet printout from the local dealer. I hope they like blondes. :-)