BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (09/17/90)
In message <30574@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Brian Wright <S36666%ETSUACAD.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu> writes: >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. When a company has to resort to hacks to stay alive, that company is in dire straits. Most of the products you mentioned (DCTV and HAM-E, among others) are video hacks, and totally incompatible with most Amiga software. All of these products require their own software, and software written for one of these products will NOT run on one of the other products. They are all totally useless for anything other than video applications. Not all of us are use our computers for video applications. Actually, very very few of us use our systems for video applications. So, how do any of these products help applications like CAD, DTP, scientific, or multimedia applications that require a high-resolution non-interlaced display with lots of colors? They answer is that they don't. Absolutely none of these products offer a non-interlaced display (which is important for most real-world applications), absolutely none of them will work with standard Amiga applications, like the few DTP and CAD programs that are available for the Amiga. To make matters much worse, none of them will so much as even work with the Amiga's O.S. at all. Commodore is responsible for this rut they've gotten themselves into. I started calling for standards in the market for third-party video products over two years ago, when such products first started coming out for the Amiga, but nobody listened. I forsaw the mess of incompatible video products coming, and I wanted Commodore to set some standards that third-parties could follow to make sure their products would be at least somewhat compatible. Unfortunately, Commodore has done absolutely nothing in this area. They have just let third parties design whatever hardware they want, however they wanted to, with no regard to compatibility with existing software or other video products. The current mess of numerous, incompatible video products with no standards in sight is the result. To solve this situation, Commodore absolutely must do one of two thing. They have to either produce an improved chipset with competitive color capabilities, or they have to improve the O.S. so that it incorporates device-independent video similar to the MAC. Unfortunately, I don't see either of these two solutions materializing for a long, long, long time. -MB-
greg@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (09/17/90)
In article <30633@nigel.ee.udel.edu> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > When a company has to resort to hacks to stay alive, that company is >in dire straits. Most of the products you mentioned (DCTV and HAM-E, >among others) are video hacks, and totally incompatible with most Amiga >software. Hacks?! Where do you get off calling an expansion device a hack? The reason these are not integral parts of the Amiga is that they would drive the price up to that of the Macs... > All of these products require their own software, and software >written for one of these products will NOT run on one of the other products. Hmmm....sounds like a trend that has existed for some time in the PC/Mac market to me, Marc. > They are all totally useless for anything other than video applications. >Not all of us are use our computers for video applications. Actually, very >very few of us use our systems for video applications. So, how do any of >these products help applications like CAD, DTP, scientific, or multimedia >applications that require a high-resolution non-interlaced display with >lots of colors? They answer is that they don't. Marc, you fool, a person interested in high resolution, many colored graphics buys these products. I'm not and I don't. You can't go around saying that they are only good for one purpose when _that's_ the purpose they're designed for. For example, you claim that the boards are useless since only a few packages of software exist for them..... Well, may I remind you that people didn't buy Macs before there was software for them either. > Absolutely none of these products offer a non-interlaced display (which >is important for most real-world applications), absolutely none of them >will work with standard Amiga applications, like the few DTP and CAD >programs that are available for the Amiga. To make matters much worse, >none of them will so much as even work with the Amiga's O.S. at all. Howw much do you actually know about video? Are you aware that the NTSC standard uses interlace for more vertical resolution? A de-interlaced display would have to be converted _back_ to NTSC before it could be used for video. (Seen the prices on the PC and Mac products that do this? The cheapest I've seen, and I've been watching, was $1000) > Commodore is responsible for this rut they've gotten themselves >into. I started calling for standards in the market for third-party >video products over two years ago, when such products first started >coming out for the Amiga, but nobody listened. I forsaw the mess >of incompatible video products coming, and I wanted Commodore to >set some standards that third-parties could follow to make sure their >products would be at least somewhat compatible. Unfortunately, >Commodore has done absolutely nothing in this area. They have just >let third parties design whatever hardware they want, however they >wanted to, with no regard to compatibility with existing software >or other video products. The current mess of numerous, incompatible >video products with no standards in sight is the result. I can tell you why they don't listen to you, Marc. :-) I'd like to see two PC or Mac 24-bit boards from different manufacturers that work with the same software (unless that software was written to work with both -- i.e. different code for different boards). > To solve this situation, Commodore absolutely must do one of two thing. >They have to either produce an improved chipset with competitive color >capabilities, or they have to improve the O.S. so that it incorporates >device-independent video similar to the MAC. Unfortunately, I don't see >either of these two solutions materializing for a long, long, long time. Hmmm....you mean like monitor drivers? Seen 2.0? No I figure you've spent too much time flaming Amigas to know anything about them... > -MB- Milton Bradley strikes again... Greg [NET: Excuse the public flame, but I didn't want those not "in the know" to actually believe this fool.] Claimer: "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// Stolen from an idea by es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu [Ethan Solomita]: execute (Saddam_Hussein); oil_prices++;
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) (09/17/90)
Um...Marc...I think you messed up! (again) The DCTV and HAM-E, as well as
the FireCracker 24 are 100% compatible withe existing modes. I don't have
the time to explain now, so could someone do it for me?
Personally, I think Marc is a spy from comp.sys.mac....
-Joseph Hillenburg
UUCP: ...iuvax!valnet!joseph
INET: joseph@valnet.UUCP
ARPA: valnet!joseph@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (09/17/90)
In article <37262@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Greg Hrap <greg@walt.cc.utexas.edu> writes: >In article <30633@nigel.ee.udel.edu> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > >> To solve this situation, Commodore absolutely must do one of two thing. >>They have to either produce an improved chipset with competitive color >>capabilities, or they have to improve the O.S. so that it incorporates >>device-independent video similar to the MAC. Unfortunately, I don't see >>either of these two solutions materializing for a long, long, long time. > >Hmmm....you mean like monitor drivers? Seen 2.0? No I figure you've spent >too much time flaming Amigas to know anything about them... I know about the monitor drivers. But my impression of them was that they only allowed video cards to work that weren't too radically different from the standard Amiga video. Otherwise, why don't the HAM-E, DCTV, or U-Lowell video products work with Amiga programs simply by using a monitor driver? The answer is that there is more to getting a video product to work with Amiga programs than using a monitor driver. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, though, as I would like to be able to use products like the DCTV, HAM-E, or others with standard Amiga programs. But I don't think I am wrong. Otherwise, why would Commodore only develop the U-Lowell board as for Amiga UNIX, and say that it is not useable as an AmigaOS product? If all you had to do to get such products to work with existing programs was include a monitor driver, than Commodore would just throw in such a driver and sell it to people who want a high- resolution video card with lots of colors for CAD and DTP programs. But that isn't what is happening. I would like to see more video products like the U-Lowell card, which offer increased resolution and color capability along with a non-interlaced display, for those applications that don't require NTSC-compatible video. -MB-
S36666WB%ETSUACAD.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu (Brian Wright) (09/17/90)
On 16 Sep 90 22:56:22 GMT you said: > > When a company has to resort to hacks to stay alive, that company is >in dire straits. Most of the products you mentioned (DCTV and HAM-E, >among others) are video hacks, and totally incompatible with most Amiga >software. All of these products require their own software, and software >written for one of these products will NOT run on one of the other products. I agree that the systems will be incompatible. That's why you choose the one you need. Each system is meant for different applications... You look at both the MAC and the IBM. The programmers there have to decide whether or not to support color (on the MAC and IBM) and whether or not to support CGA, EGA, VGA, EVGA, TARGA, VISTA, etc... (on IBM). So what's the difference here? Each system requires different programming techniques at the cost of BIG programs as on the MAC or multi programs included as on the IBM. One for each version of the card that you have. Incompatibility isn't really an issue here. The Amiga has never had the problem of B/W programs because it has ALWAYS been color. There are still lots of programs coming out on the Mac for b/w. Most ppl who own Macs don't own a color Mac. NeXT is going to have have the same problem as the Mac. It has no color now. When it finally gets color it will still have lots of programs that are running in that B/W with two shades of grey mode. From all the programs that I have seen on the Mac very few use color. When they do use color, it seems that is almost an afterthought. It doesn't feel as though it has been integrated into it. > They are all totally useless for anything other than video applications. Wrong. Try illustration. Try Painting. Try Ray-tracing. >Not all of us are use our computers for video applications. Actually, very >very few of us use our systems for video applications. So, how do any of >these products help applications like CAD, DTP, scientific, or multimedia >applications that require a high-resolution non-interlaced display with >lots of colors? They answer is that they don't. Most CAD and DTP packages I have seen only use 8 to 16 colors at once. Any more colors than that significatly slow the package down. For a CAD package drawing it in more than 16 colors is useless. CAD is basically wireframe. Why would you want millions of colors on the screen slowing the machine down when drawing in wireframe? Draw in 16 or 8 (or even 4) colors and ask it to render in 16 million after you are done. > Absolutely none of these products offer a non-interlaced display (which >is important for most real-world applications), absolutely none of them >will work with standard Amiga applications, like the few DTP and CAD >programs that are available for the Amiga. To make matters much worse, >none of them will so much as even work with the Amiga's O.S. at all. As usual, you are wrong again. DCTV _DOES_ make use of Amiga's OS. Do I have to explain DCTV yet again? DCTV makes use of an Amiga Hi Res screen to display the information that DCTV uses. DCTV then displays the information from that screen. There will be an adapter that will allow for use of DCTV on your present RGB monitor. So your screens will look like they always do. Then when pull down a screen with a DCTV image behind it, it will look proper also. The screens in front will look like they always do too. Whether the AMBER will deinterlace this or not I didn't ask Digital Creations. I will ask though. As far as DTP, CAD and scientific, there is no way to, in real-time, to move 24 bitplanes on ANY system other than a RISC or a transputer. Multimedia, in case you hadn't realized, relies heavily on NTSC. What's the point of a non-inter- laced multimedia production? Let's face it, NTSC television IS interlaced. Isn't multimedia for video purposes? Or am I wrong? I thought you created a production which you then tape. What's the point of having to carry your computer system with you to display your production? You don't, you tape it. > Commodore is responsible for this rut they've gotten themselves >into. I started calling for standards in the market for third-party >video products over two years ago, when such products first started >coming out for the Amiga, but nobody listened. I forsaw the mess >of incompatible video products coming, and I wanted Commodore to >set some standards that third-parties could follow to make sure their >products would be at least somewhat compatible. Unfortunately, >Commodore has done absolutely nothing in this area. They have just >let third parties design whatever hardware they want, however they >wanted to, with no regard to compatibility with existing software >or other video products. The current mess of numerous, incompatible >video products with no standards in sight is the result. > > To solve this situation, Commodore absolutely must do one of two thing. >They have to either produce an improved chipset with competitive color >capabilities, or they have to improve the O.S. so that it incorporates ^^^^^^^ >device-independent video similar to the MAC. Unfortunately, I don't see >either of these two solutions materializing for a long, long, long time. Improve? Hmmm. One reason for the current video system was for ease of real-time animation and ease of access to it. There are always going to be limitations in ANY hardware configuration, no matter how far sighted the developer. The Mac has troubles with real-time anything on their video system. Remember, that it also costs a MINT to output NTSC video output from the Mac system as well. Apple has had to include a processor on their display cards to improve performance to a DECENT level. Amiga does it with ease. I wouldn't consider the Amiga moving to the system that Mac uses as an improvement. It would just impose limitations on an already equiped multimedia machine. No pageflipping with that system. The bus contention would be kill that. Zorro II bus that is. Zorro III equiped systems might not. Of course, the Amiga already has the video slot for future upgrades into another video system. As far as the future enhanced graphics and sound chips, Commodore has already responded to that. They said that are developing systems for both the short term and long term demands. As far as what that means we'll have to wait and see. I also doubt that we'll have to wait as long as MB says. There is one thing I haven't figured out yet. If you like the Mac so much WHY did you purchase an Amiga? Or are you actually a MAC owner tormenting comp.sys.amiga? Hmmm I wonder.... > -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!! || =======================================================================
jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) (09/17/90)
I think a few people in this group need to turn their Marc Barrett flamethrowers from "full auto" to "semi auto." He makes some valid points, perhaps a bit abrasively, but the responses basically ignore what he said and flame him personally. In a limited sense, devices like the DCTV and HAM-E are compatible with existing video modes, since they both basically decode a normal hi-res screen in different ways in order to trade spatial resolution for more colors. However, primitive Amiga graphics operations like line drawing, area filling, text, color selection, etc. won't produce the expected result, so in this sense they're incompatible with the standard Amiga modes. Further, these two devices are incompatible with each other, so even if a program did jump through hoops to use the features of one, it would be useless on the other. What the Amiga needs is a way to have multiple instances of graphics.library open, one for each possible display device. You could buy a high-res gee-whiz graphics board, plug it into a Zorro slot, and as it autoconfigures it would add its own version of graphics.library to the system. The problem is that this requires leadership from Commodore, namely reworking intuition/layers/etc. to work with more than one graphics.library as well as defining the standards for third-party graphics libraries. I hope that something like this can be done with little impact on existing programs, but one big architectural change is that there would be more than one possible kind of chip memory (each board would have its own), so requests for CHIP memory would have to be more specific. With the proper standards and leadership from Commodore, we could run Intuition screens on all of the current "hacks" and there would be no excuse to call them hacks any more. In a completely unrelated message, someone noted yet another hard disk controller was announced at an Amiga show, complete with the requisite claims that it's faster than all others. In my opinion, there are far too many hard disk controllers for the Amiga already, but they're relatively easy to design and get working because there's support for them in the OS and a benchmark (the A2091) to shoot for. In the early A1000 days, it was the same with 256K RAM expansions. Everybody and his brother made them, but almost nobody made larger SOTS expansions until Commodore added real support for them in 1.2. If support existed for plug-in graphics boards, and especially if Commodore produced their own board, then everybody would be selling their own boards, each with the requisite claims that theirs is faster, higher resolution and more colorful than the others. Ed Hanway uunet!sisd!jeh standard disclaimer applies
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (09/17/90)
G'day,
BW> In article <30684@nigel.ee.udel.edu>,
BW> S36666WB%ETSUACAD.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu (Brian Wright) writes:
BW> As far as the future enhanced graphics and sound chips, Commodore has
BW> already responded to that. They said that are developing systems for both
BW> the short term and long term demands. As far as what that means we'll
BW> have to wait and see. I also doubt that we'll have to wait as long as MB
BW> says.
Mark, I'd like to emphasize Brian's point here. Commodore will not announce
what they are developing beyond the small statements they've made. This may
be a point of religious conviction with you that they must tell us what they
will develop. Is this so? Personally I am happy for them not to announce the
products/standards they are working on. {There was a time when we flamed the
announcements Commodore made as vapourware I think. Anyone remember this?}
However there have been informal discussions with various Commodore personnel
that have alluded to CBM's difficulties with doing the type of things you are
asking about. Here I am thinking of net talk in c.s.a.t regarding the device
independent graphics mods approach to the OS, chipset enhancements etc.
I can recall,
o a statement of an IFF standard for 24 bit graphics (yeah, I know, a small
thing but it was a needed standard). For that matter this standard arose
from a development by Amiga developers that Commodore ratified no? ASDG I
think.
o they do have VLSI employees that have posted to this group. I'm sure they
would be finding it hard to resist the temptation to post to the group to
dispel all the rumours regarding the future of Amiga graphics hardware.
o with respect to graphics based OS developments I believe that this problem
is being dealt with in tandem with other resource management problems.
Commodore has to move _very_ carefully to be able to provide a _stable_
development path for its faithful group of developers.
Finally for those others that may be disquieted by the type of doom saying in
progress in this thread I'd like to make an observation... standards for Hard
Disk systems for the Amiga are way beyond the pitiful state they began at.
This took a few years but the standards for compatibility for hard disks are,
I believe, among the best in the PC industry.
I have faith this could happen again for Amiga graphics.
And those will be advanced upon by the "enemy" (the pervading perspective in
this group at times (of the other PC types), not mine) once again.
This is called the "Leap Frogging Principle" ...
BW> ||---Brian Wright | / / ||
BW> ||---s36666wb@etsuacad.etsu.edu | \ \/ / Only Amiga ||
BW> ||---Commercial Artist and Amigaphile| \/\/ Makes It Possible!! ||
yours truly,
Lou Cavallo.
PS: I think that someone else in this thread remarked that graphics s/w for
the Macintosh systems has some sort of problem because of the different Mac
graphic h/w capabilities (specifically b/w vs colour).
How so? Doesn't QuickDraw make the graphics s/w device independent? {I am
not knowledgeable about these Mac facts ... and I am not worried here about
the speed of QuickDraw which I also don't know about.}
A gentle reminder:
I may disagree with what a writer may write but not their right to write it.sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (09/24/90)
BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: | They are all totally useless for anything other than video applications. |Not all of us are use our computers for video applications. Actually, very |very few of us use our systems for video applications. So, how do any of |these products help applications like CAD, DTP, scientific, or multimedia |applications that require a high-resolution non-interlaced display with |lots of colors? They answer is that they don't. Not speaking for DTP, or multi-media, but I haven't seen any 24 bit CAD programs MArC. Most cad programs only have around 16 colors or so. Maybe more if you port the drawing into some raytracer type program like AutoShade. But 16 is plenty for the CAD portion. And the Amiga can handle that pretty well. The real problem for the Amiga is not the video standard for doing CAD, its a lack of [good] CAD softaware. 640 x 400 16 Colors (de interlaced with flicker fixer) is plenty for most peoples needs as far as CAD goes. Higher resolution is nice, but I worked in 640 x 400 EGA on AutoCAD for about 3 years on a PC clone and it was not too bad. I now have 1024 x 768 on a 486 machine and still only have 16 colors in AutoCAD. About the only thing the higher resolution does for me is to save me from zooming in as much. -- 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) (09/24/90)
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) writes: >Um...Marc...I think you messed up! (again) The DCTV and HAM-E, as well as >the FireCracker 24 are 100% compatible withe existing modes. I don't have ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the time to explain now, so could someone do it for me? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Gee, looks like a dead giveaway that might have just as well said "I have no idea what I am talking about, but I want to look like I do" :-) -- 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
cpca@iceman.jcu.oz (C Adams) (09/25/90)
In article <1046@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) writes: > [ Various intelligent discussion of Amiga graphics deleted ] > A gentle reminder: > I may disagree with what a writer may write but not their right to write it. Perhaps if a few more people thought the same way the useless flaming of Marc Barrett that goes on might end. Some of the people who flame him show they know less about computers and graphics than he does.
cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland) (09/27/90)
To those who lament the lack of some types of professional software for Amiga, see the review of X-CAD in the October Amazing Computing. A sceptical reviewer describes it as having nearly all of the features of AutoCAD, plus a few, and running at a speed several times faster than AutoCAD. Interlaced display problems are a non-issue; there are cheap (for a professional) ways to fix that flicker. Oh, and X-CAD writes AutoCAD .DXF files, of course. Has anyone actually worked on a file both on an Amiga and a DOS machine with AutoCAD? What's the bottom line? -Thom cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu