chrise@hubcap.clemson.edu (Chris Everhart) (08/15/90)
In article <9714@scorn.sco.COM>, allanh@sco.COM (Boy Howdy) writes: > > "The Super Denise provides four new screen-display modes: > Productivity (640x480), Interlaced Productivity (640x960), > SuperHi-res (1280x200), and Interlaced SuperHi-res (1280x400). All > have severe color limitations, however, supporting a maximum of four > colors (two bitplanes)." I might be mistaken, but I believe the Interlaced SuperHi-res is 1280x800, and normal SuperHi-res is 1280x400. I do know that the Productivity mode is definitely not interlaced, thus giving roughly the SAME performance as a VGA display. I'm not too sure I buy that part about having only a pallette of 64 colors. Check around, and post anything else you hear. Chris Everhart chrise@hubcap.clemson.edu
allanh@sco.COM (Boy Howdy) (09/04/90)
...So I was pawing through the June 1990 issue of AmigaWorld, trying to find out what the A3000's built-in video capabilities are, when I happened upon this quote on page 22: "The Super Denise provides four new screen-display modes: Productivity (640x480), Interlaced Productivity (640x960), SuperHi-res (1280x200), and Interlaced SuperHi-res (1280x400). All have severe color limitations, however, supporting a maximum of four colors (two bitplanes)." And, later on page 32: "The new higher-resolution ECS modes actually have fewer colors than standard modes. Because only a limited amount of display information can be sent out the video port, a noninterlaced screen can be achieved only by dropping the maximum number of colors to four from a palette of 64. Even at four colors, these modes put such a large burden on system resources that they may cause problems for some programs. For everyday use, you will probably want to run the 640x480 noninterlaced mode on a black-and-white screen." So if I understand this correctly, this means that the A3000--which otherwise sounds like a wonderful machine, 16- or 25-Mhz 68030 and all--can't do something even the most basic PS/1 or PC with a cheap VGA card can do: decent, high-resolution noninterlaced video with a real selection of colors. (Since when does 640x480x16 colors constitute "a large burden on system resources" for a 68030?) No, I don't consider NTSC- or PAL-compatible video to be "decent video," nor is 1280x400 _interlaced_, non-square-pixel video "decent." Come on, folks--not everybody's a video or multimedia producer. I'm not saying that an Amiga should have workstation-quality video out of the box, nor am I saying that the Amiga should become "IBM- compatible," but something as expensive and as powerful as an A3000 _should_ come with video that's at least as good as what's standard in the IBM and Macintosh worlds. I believe that the weird video modes are what's really keeping the Amiga out of the mainstream. Interlaced NTSC (hell, interlaced _anything_) is fine for video games, but it won't cut the mustard when an engineer wants a cheap X-Windows machine or when a DTP person needs to do serious prepress work. In fact, I'd bet that if Commodore were to introduce a new A3000 that was identical to the original _except that Super Denise was replaced with VGA and Super-VGA-like capabilities_, the new one would easily outsell the original, simply because of the better standard video. Such a machine would appeal to the mainstream crowd, a crowd that doesn't have software that uses weird video and that wants a cheap '030 box. Hell, I'd buy one over a Mac any day. -- Allan J. Heim / ...!uunet!sco!allanh / allanh@sco.COM voice: +1 408 425 7222 x6343 / fax: +1 408 429 1887
leblanc@eecg.toronto.edu (Marcel LeBlanc) (09/05/90)
allanh@sco.COM (Boy Howdy) writes: >...So I was pawing through the June 1990 issue of AmigaWorld, trying to >find out what the A3000's built-in video capabilities are, when I ... >And, later on page 32: > "The new higher-resolution ECS modes actually have fewer colors than > standard modes. Because only a limited amount of display information > can be sent out the video port, a noninterlaced screen can be > achieved only by dropping the maximum number of colors to four from a > palette of 64. Even at four colors, these modes put such a large > burden on system resources that they may cause problems for some > programs. For everyday use, you will probably want to run the > 640x480 noninterlaced mode on a black-and-white screen." I think you've missed several important points. The most important one may be that the A3000 includes a built-in de-interlacer circuit. This means that video modes of 640x400+ and 640x512+ (or even 640x480) that were interlaced on the A500 and A2000 are now automatically de-interlaced at NO MEMORY BANDWIDTH COST. The output from the de-interlacer goes to a separate VGA-style port. The 640x480 productivity mode that the article discusses is a special mode that does not require the de-interlacer. This mode really isn't needed on the A3000. Productivity mode is mainly intended for the A2000 and A500, which will eventually use the same video chips (but won't have a de-interlacer). Also, you're making several assumptions about facts that aren't stated in the article. All IBM display cards include their own memory on-card for video displays, because the ISA bus couldn't possibly handle the bandwidth needed to display video. This means that on clones you pay for video memory that can't be used for anything other than video (e.g. it can't be used to run software). On all Amigas, the video memory CAN be used for other things. If you only have 512K of video RAM (and nothing else), then you can use video memory (CHIP RAM) to run software. On clones, YOU DON'T HAVE THIS OPTION! Most Amigas are equipped with Fast RAM. Fast RAM is always used if it is present! When you are using Fast RAM, the processor (68000 OR 68030) is not slowed down BY ANY VIDEO MODES!!! Not even by productivity mode! Don't let the clone dweebs confuse video issues with misleading facts. Amigas make use of the advantages of having the video system tightly coupled with the CPU. Clones make use of the advantages of *NOT* having the video system tightly coupled with the CPU. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. >Allan J. Heim / ...!uunet!sco!allanh / allanh@sco.COM >voice: +1 408 425 7222 x6343 / fax: +1 408 429 1887 Marcel A. LeBlanc -- Electrical Engg Computer Group, Univ. of Toronto ----------------------------------------------------------------------- leblanc@eecg.toronto.edu else: uunet!utcsri!eecg!leblanc
dg@sundog.caltech.edu (DALE GARY) (09/05/90)
In article <9714@scorn.sco.COM>, allanh@sco.COM (Boy Howdy) writes... > [Deleted description of A3000 display modes] >So if I understand this correctly, this means that the A3000--which >otherwise sounds like a wonderful machine, 16- or 25-Mhz 68030 and >all--can't do something even the most basic PS/1 or PC with a cheap VGA >card can do: decent, high-resolution noninterlaced video with a real >selection of colors. (Since when does 640x480x16 colors constitute >"a large burden on system resources" for a 68030?) Remember that the display is coordinated by the graphics coprocessor chips, running at 7.14 MHz. The custom chips are what limit the number of colors, etc. However, if you have ever tried a paint program on a '386 machine you will see what a real dog is. Try signing your name, and you get one or two straight lines, because it doesn't read the mouse location fast enough. That is because the '386 processor is busy drawing the little pointer arrow (no such thing as a hardware sprite). You make a choice...do you want a machine that is fast and comfortable to use, or one with infinite colors? I'm not saying that you can't get both, theoretically, but if Commodore changes the custom chips (which I suspect is in the works eventually) what you get is no longer an Amiga. Most of the programs in the established software base would not work unless Commodore goes to great lengths for compatibility. The A3000 is a step in the right direction, but Commodore can't burn too many bridges at once. >I'm not saying that an Amiga should have workstation-quality video out >of the box, nor am I saying that the Amiga should become "IBM- >compatible," but something as expensive and as powerful as an A3000 >_should_ come with video that's at least as good as what's standard in >the IBM and Macintosh worlds. When the A3000 is better established (6 months? A year?) we should see lots of amazing video boards and 68040 boards that can do everything you want, right guys? In the meantime, I am having a great time with my A3000. I've astounded the boss (who has a '386 PC) twice with stuff he _could_ do with his system, just not as easily--and I've only had my machine two days. >In fact, I'd bet that if Commodore were to introduce a new A3000 that >was identical to the original _except that Super Denise was replaced >with VGA and Super-VGA-like capabilities_, the new one would easily >outsell the original, simply because of the better standard video. Such >a machine would appeal to the mainstream crowd, a crowd that doesn't >have software that uses weird video and that wants a cheap '030 box. >Hell, I'd buy one over a Mac any day. I'd buy the present A3000 over a Mac any day. In fact, I already did. Buy two. [A3000s for the price of a Mac] >Allan J. Heim / ...!uunet!sco!allanh / allanh@sco.COM >voice: +1 408 425 7222 x6343 / fax: +1 408 429 1887 Dale E. Gary
BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (09/05/90)
In message <9714@scorn.sco.COM> Bob Howdy <allanh@sco.com> writes: >...So I was pawing through the June 1990 issue of AmigaWorld, trying to >find out what the A3000's built-in video capabilities are, when I >happened upon this quote on page 22: > > "The Super Denise provides four new screen-display modes: > Productivity (640x480), Interlaced Productivity (640x960), > SuperHi-res (1280x200), and Interlaced SuperHi-res (1280x400). All > have severe color limitations, however, supporting a maximum of four > colors (two bitplanes)." > >And, later on page 32: > > "The new higher-resolution ECS modes actually have fewer colors than > standard modes. Because only a limited amount of display information > can be sent out the video port, a noninterlaced screen can be > achieved only by dropping the maximum number of colors to four from a > palette of 64. Even at four colors, these modes put such a large > burden on system resources that they may cause problems for some > programs. For everyday use, you will probably want to run the > 640x480 noninterlaced mode on a black-and-white screen." > >So if I understand this correctly, this means that the A3000--which >otherwise sounds like a wonderful machine, 16- or 25-Mhz 68030 and >all--can't do something even the most basic PS/1 or PC with a cheap VGA >card can do: decent, high-resolution noninterlaced video with a real >selection of colors. (Since when does 640x480x16 colors constitute >"a large burden on system resources" for a 68030?) > >No, I don't consider NTSC- or PAL-compatible video to be "decent video," >nor is 1280x400 _interlaced_, non-square-pixel video "decent." Come >on, folks--not everybody's a video or multimedia producer. > >I'm not saying that an Amiga should have workstation-quality video out >of the box, nor am I saying that the Amiga should become "IBM- >compatible," but something as expensive and as powerful as an A3000 >_should_ come with video that's at least as good as what's standard in >the IBM and Macintosh worlds. I believe that the weird video modes are >what's really keeping the Amiga out of the mainstream. Interlaced NTSC >(hell, interlaced _anything_) is fine for video games, but it won't cut >the mustard when an engineer wants a cheap X-Windows machine or when a >DTP person needs to do serious prepress work. > >In fact, I'd bet that if Commodore were to introduce a new A3000 that >was identical to the original _except that Super Denise was replaced >with VGA and Super-VGA-like capabilities_, the new one would easily >outsell the original, simply because of the better standard video. Such >a machine would appeal to the mainstream crowd, a crowd that doesn't >have software that uses weird video and that wants a cheap '030 box. >Hell, I'd buy one over a Mac any day. >-- >Allan J. Heim / ...!uunet!sco!allanh / allanh@sco.COM >voice: +1 408 425 7222 x6343 / fax: +1 408 429 1887 I had to echo this message. I've been saying EXACTLY the same thing about the Amiga 3000, since before it was even available, and have been getting nothing but flames for it. The first time I pointed out that the Amiga 3000 had inferior color capability, people started saying "Color? Who needs color? Most applications don't need much color, anyway." I swear, I will never let the Amiga community forget this, as what people said to me then was exactly what IBM and Apple owners said about color capability when the Amiga 1000 first came out. My, how the tables have turned!! IMHO, Commodore will NEVER recover from this rut. It has been over four years since the ECS started being developed, and it isn't even fully available yet. If the 32-bit chip set takes half as long to develop (and I doubt it will) then it will be at least two years before we see anything. If so, then that chipset had better be incredibly powerful indeed! The state-of-the-art in computer video right now is 1024x768 with 8 bitplanes (256 colors). Apple is selling a video card RIGHT NOW for under $2000 that has the same resolution, with 24 bitplanes and a RISC graphics accelerator. In two years, the state-of-the-art will probably be TIGA boards with a resolution of 1280x1024, 24-bitplanes, and a TMS34030 graphics accelerator. So, even if Commodore comes up with a chipset with a resolution of 1024x768 and 24 bitplanes, they will be right back where they started, with inferior video. Recovering from this rut will take a lot of time and a lot more money. Unfortunately, Commodore has neither. -MB-
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (09/05/90)
In article <29435@nigel.ee.udel.edu> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > > I had to echo this message. I've been saying EXACTLY the same thing >about the Amiga 3000, since before it was even available, and have been >getting nothing but flames for it. Marc, I don't believe most people said that color was useless. I in fact believe that the Amiga graphics have in a good number of ways become inferior. However there are still advantages (such as high-quality animation and a low-memory HAM mode), but I am will to give the Copperman Dynasty the benefit of the doubt and I believe they will come up with a solution, eventually. > > The first time I pointed out that the Amiga 3000 had inferior color >capability, people started saying "Color? Who needs color? Most >applications don't need much color, anyway." I swear, I will never >let the Amiga community forget this, as what people said to me then >was exactly what IBM and Apple owners said about color capability when >the Amiga 1000 first came out. My, how the tables have turned!! > > IMHO, Commodore will NEVER recover from this rut. It has been >over four years since the ECS started being developed, and it isn't >even fully available yet. If the 32-bit chip set takes half as long >to develop (and I doubt it will) then it will be at least two years >before we see anything. > > If so, then that chipset had better be incredibly powerful indeed! >The state-of-the-art in computer video right now is 1024x768 with 8 >bitplanes (256 colors). Apple is selling a video card RIGHT NOW for >under $2000 that has the same resolution, with 24 bitplanes and a >RISC graphics accelerator. In two years, the state-of-the-art will >probably be TIGA boards with a resolution of 1280x1024, 24-bitplanes, >and a TMS34030 graphics accelerator. > > So, even if Commodore comes up with a chipset with a resolution >of 1024x768 and 24 bitplanes, they will be right back where they >started, with inferior video. > > Recovering from this rut will take a lot of time and a lot more >money. Unfortunately, Commodore has neither. > > > -MB- Marc, does this quote sound familiar? " I should blame this on Commodore. After all, if they didn't have their act together so well, I would have more to legitemately complain about, and I wouldn't be uselessly shooting myself so much. I have been REALLY scratching to find things to complain about at Commodore. What ever happened to the good old days when there was plenty to complain about at Commodore? I'm beginning to miss them... -MB- " Sometimes I wonder if you are two different people sharing the same account! -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu *Iraq += *Kuwait NumCountries--
huebner@aerospace.aero.org (Robert E. Huebner) (09/05/90)
In article <1990Sep4.224321.3797@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> leblanc@eecg.toronto.edu (Marcel LeBlanc) writes: >allanh@sco.COM (Boy Howdy) writes: >> "The new higher-resolution ECS modes actually have fewer colors than >> standard modes. Because only a limited amount of display information >> can be sent out the video port, a noninterlaced screen can be >> achieved only by dropping the maximum number of colors to four from a >> palette of 64. Even at four colors, these modes put such a large >> burden on system resources that they may cause problems for some >> programs. For everyday use, you will probably want to run the >> 640x480 noninterlaced mode on a black-and-white screen." >I think you've missed several important points. The most important one may (good information about the difference between Amiga and PC video deleted) > >Don't let the clone dweebs confuse video issues with misleading facts. >Amigas make use of the advantages of having the video system tightly coupled >with the CPU. Clones make use of the advantages of *NOT* having the video >system tightly coupled with the CPU. Both approaches have advantages and >disadvantages. > That's true. Although you are correct in your explanation of the differences between IBM and Amiga video systems, your reply doesn't address the root of the concern--that IBMs currently have a better method of displaying still images in VGA or SVGA. And I agree with Marcel in that this does limit the sale of Amigas to people who don't necessarily want to transfer everything they do to NTSC video. People look at the number when buying a graphic system, and SVGA simply has nicer-looking number (resolution/palette) then the Denise. This topic has come up before on the 'net, but no good solution has been found. People have talked about interfacing a VGA card to the Amiga, but it would probably work more like a frame buffer than a "live" video source (from what I gathered). Perhaps the best hope comes from Commodore. An article (about 2-3 months ago) stated, regarding the video resolution/palette issue: "Commodore is working on both short-term and long-term solutions." I know Commodore is extremely tight-lipped as of late, but perhaps someone in the ivory tower can throw us a bone? :) +----- Robert Huebner huebner@aerospace.aero.org The Aerospace Corporation huebner@en.ecn.purdue.edu Purdue University +-----
dailey@frith.uucp (Chris Dailey) (09/06/90)
Well, just wait until the advent of HDTV. Then you'll have the high resolution you want. I'm sure by then Commodore will have figured out a way to get more colors on the screen with that higher resolution all in real-time. -cmd -- Chris Dailey dailey@(cpsin1.cps|frith.egr).msu.edu "Rise again, rise again/Though your heart it be broken and life about to end/No matter what you've lost, be it a home, a love, a friend,/ Like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again!" -- a song by the late Stan Rogers
bmacintyre@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre) (09/06/90)
allanh@sco.COM (Boy Howdy) writes: > [ description of the new Denise modes ] > >So if I understand this correctly, this means that the A3000--which >otherwise sounds like a wonderful machine, 16- or 25-Mhz 68030 and >all--can't do something even the most basic PS/1 or PC with a cheap VGA >card can do: decent, high-resolution noninterlaced video with a real >selection of colors. (Since when does 640x480x16 colors constitute >"a large burden on system resources" for a 68030?) ^^^^^^ not the 030, the graphics system. Yes, and the basic PS/2 or PC with a cheap VGA card can't do some of the things that the Amiga video can do. Such as multiple screens with different resolutions. Such as HUGE bitmaps that the screen can be a window onto. Side note: the 3000 has what is equivalent to a flicker-fixer in it, so all the _old_ interlaced modes are de-interlaced if you want them. So, 640x480x(4 bitplanes) would not put a load on the system, any more than the interlaced workbench I run on my 1000 at home would. The reason that the Amiga video is limited is because of the basic operating constraints of the system. On the "cheap VGA cards" or even the more expensive ones, the video ram is dedicated to video. you don't have the enormous flexibility that having _1_MEG_ of screen memory gives you. How many times have you seen any computer (aside from an Amiga) slide down a screen to reveal one hidden below? A 640x480x2 Productivity Mode workbench screen will take ~80K of ram. A 1280x1280x2 Virtual Scren (that you could then scroll around on) would take ~410K. You get the idea. I would not give up multiple screens for higher res and more colour. Heck, I couldn't afford the _monitor_! >I'm not saying that an Amiga should have workstation-quality video out >of the box, nor am I saying that the Amiga should become "IBM- >compatible," but something as expensive and as powerful as an A3000 >_should_ come with video that's at least as good as what's standard in >the IBM and Macintosh worlds. I believe that the weird video modes are >what's really keeping the Amiga out of the mainstream. I believe concentrating on one aspect of the whole video system, and ignoring things that make it unique and powerful, are what's really keeping the Amiga out of the mainstream. :-) >In fact, I'd bet that if Commodore were to introduce a new A3000 that >was identical to the original _except that Super Denise was replaced >with VGA and Super-VGA-like capabilities_, the new one would easily >outsell the original, simply because of the better standard video. Of course, such a machine wouldn't fit in with the rest of the Amiga graphics family, and thus wouldn't run the software that's out there. But who cares about that, right? I agree that say 1280x960 non-interlaced with 8 bit colour would be nice. But only if it fits in with the current system. Eventually it will be possible to do it, I believe. But until then, I'll stick with the "cheesy Amiga graphics" Of course, until the above is possible, I won't bother getting a new computer. :-) Remember, real Amiga's have keyboard garages! -- -- Blair MacIntyre, Professional Leech on Society ( aka CS Graduate Student ) -- bmacintyre@{watcgl, violet}.{waterloo.edu, UWaterloo.ca}
kengo@pawl.rpi.edu (Kenneth Goldenberg) (09/06/90)
When this subject came up last spring I couldn't understand what everyone was
complaining about. I loved my Amiga, and I thought that the resolution and
color, if not the best was pretty good. Since then I have bought a digitizer,
and have gotten spoiled by a 1M pixel display in one of the labs here. I have
also played with some okay VGA boards, and I'd like to submit an opinion from
someone who can't afford a multisync. 4096 colors sounds really nice until you
try to get a decent pallette for a photo. Sometimes it comes out looking great,but I'd like to see improvements on AT LEAST the size of the pallette if not in
visible colors. Higher resolution also, would be godsend, as there's only so
much interlace and morerows can do. (Though I do look cool wearing my shades inthe room to reduce flicker). What I DON'T agree with is that these upgrades
should be "Standard" I don't like the fragmentation on the IBM front, but
that's mainly because in order to play a game you need to buy at least a lame
video board, and I know people who refuse to word process without VGA mono.
What I propose is that we let the Amiga evolve (excluding the OS for argument's
sake) into different machines for different purposes. My reasoning is that the
"base Amiga" is so far above the "base PC" that the things that really require
portability will still run on a 256k 1000 (well, maybe not). Essentially, I
feel that if someone is willing to pay $2k for a genlock they'll buy the Amiga
4000RCV (really cool video) for a bit more and get the 32 bit custom chips that
can still run the older video modes that us simpletons use. I think the only
long term solution is to start diversifying Amigas (or at least boards). Face
it, there's really not much you can put in your Video slot(s) right now...
That's what the Amiga needs most.
(but what do I know... I still think OS/2 is a failure)
-Mitch
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\| Software Error Task Held |/////////////////////
kengo@pawl.rpi.edu | "I see." said Arthur, who didn't |We're the same person
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (09/07/90)
In article <1990Sep5.045144.14330@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >Marc, does this quote sound familiar? [...] > -MB- " > Sometimes I wonder if you are two different people >sharing the same account! Actually, I heard a rumor the other day that MB* isn't a person at all, but actually a computer program. Part of on-going research project in the Department of Psychology at Carnegie-Mellon. The program is written in Common LISP, and runs on a 16MHz Mac II with 8 megabytes of RAM. The project is apparently overseen by Herbert Simon, but my source for the rumor had no idea what this project is trying to achieve. This is, of course, just a rumor. > -- Ethan *MB is a registered trademark of Milton-Bradley. That is, apparently, a little in-joke amoung the folks involved in this project. -- 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!
cpca@iceman.jcu.oz (C Adams) (09/07/90)
In article <29435@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > > IMHO, Commodore will NEVER recover from this rut. It has been > over four years since the ECS started being developed, and it isn't > even fully available yet. If the 32-bit chip set takes half as long > to develop (and I doubt it will) then it will be at least two years > before we see anything. > [ more stuff about Commodore needing good video deleted] > > -MB- I agree with Marc completely. I have just read an article about the new Amiga CD-TV and it too has the exact same video standard as the old Amiga 500 (if it's lucky it might have ECS which is a very slight improvement...) Not only are Commodore way behind on graphics standards (I have read the latest IBM i486 line will have a new standard better than VGA), but IBM now have multi-tasking, virtual memory and hardware memory protection with Windows 3.0. I have seen the a3000 and it's 4 colour workbench pales compared to Windows 256 colours, even though it is a huge improvement. With all this stuff about the Amiga being "the machine" for multimedia, I am wondering why? It's graphics are worse and IBM/Mac have/will have much more software available for them given the recent crush of multimedia hype. 2.0 was a chance to change that and put virtual memory/memory protection into the system. It wouldn't have mattered if some software was broken, at least developers like Lotus/Borland might have considered porting some of their excellent software to the 3000. As it is, I think the a3000 will probably be continued to be ignored in mainstream magazines etc. And when are we EVER going to see UNIX or the toaster??? (can anyone actually go into a store and buy them???) By the way, I program the Amiga because I like it, so I'm not biased towards IBM or Macs. (In fact I hate Macs) ************************************************************************** Colin Adams Life's funny but I don't laugh **************************************************************************
stelmack@screamer.csee.usf.edu (Gregory M. Stelmack) (09/07/90)
In article <939@iceman.jcu.oz> cpca@iceman.jcu.oz (C Adams) writes: >Not only are Commodore way behind on graphics standards (I have read the >latest IBM i486 line will have a new standard better than VGA), but IBM now >have multi-tasking, virtual memory and hardware memory protection with >Windows 3.0. I have seen the a3000 and it's 4 colour workbench pales >compared to Windows 256 colours, even though it is a huge improvement. > >With all this stuff about the Amiga being "the machine" for multimedia, I >am wondering why? It's graphics are worse and IBM/Mac have/will have much >more software available for them given the recent crush of multimedia hype. First, the graphics. The Amiga always has been, and hopefully always will be, tied to standard Video formats. As was pointed out in this news group a while ago, higher resolution should probably wait until S-VHS and HDTV settle on their standards. As for more colors, they would be nice, but going to a 24-bit format would kill Amiga animation, as it is simply too slow. Second, multimedia. The Amiga is "the machine" for multimedia precisely becaus it is tied so tightly to the video standard. The Amiga is very easy to hook up to VCRs, LaserDisks, etc. Because it's graphics are based on standard Video, it is very easy to manipulate video images. And then, no IBM or Mac can touch the Amiga's sound & music capabilities. Don't even get me started on comparing Windows 3.0 to Intuition and Amiga multi-tasking...Intel chips just don't compare to Motorola... -- Greg Stelmack -- Email: stelmack@sol.csee.usf.edu -- USmail: USF Box 1510, Tampa, FL 33620-1510 -- Amiga: the only way to compute!
hgm@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Hal G. Meeks) (09/07/90)
In article <939@iceman.jcu.oz> cpca@iceman.jcu.oz (C Adams) writes: > >With all this stuff about the Amiga being "the machine" for multimedia, I >am wondering why? It's graphics are worse and IBM/Mac have/will have much >more software available for them given the recent crush of multimedia hype. Perhaps a small anecdotal story may help: We recently (as of yesterday) had a "trade show" with vendors in the area participating. Keep in mind that this show is targeted at the University audience, where money is at times a secondary concern. At the last moment, our lone 2000 here has allowed to share a table with a MacII and PS2 Model 70. All were running demos of some sort. Now, the Amiga is not an officially supported machine on this campus, so we had to leave a little placard in front giving Commodore's number as a place to get more information. About an hour before I went to bed, I decided it would be neat to throw together a little demo, since the only thing running was NewTek's Demo Reel #1. I finished it in an hour, and although it was rough around the edges, people seemed to like it. Nothing more than a simple slide show with a couple of anim files thrown in, and a background soundtrack. Nothing fancy, since the target machine had 2 drives and 3 meg of memory (no HD). Reactions are what you would expect from people who have never seen an Amiga; a couple of people looked behind the monitor to see if the music was coming from a tape player. In the real world (I can guarantee you that it exists), time quite literally is money in the video business. The quicker you can get a finished product to a customer, the more money you can make. The amiga is a unique platform in this regard, since it's graphic tools are so well integrated. And none of the software that I used costs a lot of money, which means I can afford more tools to automate tedious processes. I saw a DecStation (believe it was a 5000) running a beautiful aquarium animation (flipping roughly 260 frames while acting as a file server). For roughly the same money, I could buy a VHS edit system, and a well stocked amiga to use as the edit controller and graphics engine. I could then hand out cheap 15 minute tapes to prospective customers. Yes, the Decstation looks a lot nicer, but I suspect I could make more money with the Amiga setup. People are not as critical of video as you might expect; at times 32 colors is adequate to get your point across. I'd certainly like to have more, but I don't want to pay for it (in terms of money and integration with the rest of my software). A well done 4bitplane animation is more memorable than a 24bitplane slideshow. It would be nice if we could all make something like "TinToy" on our home computers, but it would then cease being special. I recommend that you dig up a Siggraph tape from a few years back and look at "Dance of the Stumblers", done on an Amiga 1000 with Aegis Animator. I guess the best words to describe it would be "simple elegance". I've looked briefly at MacroMind's Director, which appears to be the most popular presentation/animation software available for the Mac. I thought about porting some animations over to it, just for fun and out of curiosity. I've dropped the project, for now, because it appears that the 68030 Macintosh doesn't have the horsepower to do what I'm accustomed to doing on my "cheesy" Amiga. Perhaps Apple's new graphics accelerator board will change this. Of course, I am speaking of the present time. Everything is subject to change on all platforms. And, of course, money changes everything (quoting a Brains song). The Military proves this daily ;-). >And when are we EVER going to see UNIX or the toaster??? Soon I hope. I can't express how revolutionary a product the Toaster is, from a video production perspective. --hal -- hgm@ccvr1.cc.ncsu.edu "He was a legendary hero, netoprhm@ncsuvm.bitnet his IQ was zero." Zoogz Rift
rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) (09/07/90)
In article <29435@nigel.ee.udel.edu> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > I had to echo this message. I've been saying EXACTLY the same thing >about the Amiga 3000, since before it was even available, and have been >getting nothing but flames for it. I suspect, having watched this group for awhile, that it isn't what you've been saying, but how and who has been saying it. You seem to have a reputation, dude. > So, even if Commodore comes up with a chipset with a resolution >of 1024x768 and 24 bitplanes, they will be right back where they >started, with inferior video. It could be argued that 24 bitplanes at that resolution is "good enough", and would please most people for most applications for a long, long time. Philosophically, the "cutting edge" is a cool place to be. Realistically, I doubt many of us can afford to be there. > Recovering from this rut will take a lot of time and a lot more >money. Unfortunately, Commodore has neither. Who says it can't be done? Are you privy to Commodore's development plans for the next 5 years? Does Dave Haynie report to you? How do you know they don't already have a graphics solution under development; I heard remarkably little about the CDTV before _it_ was announced... Speaking as a long-time Atari-owner, and I have to say that _some_ people in this group continue to amaze me. You ain't seen *NUTHIN'* in the way of "thumb-sitting", foot-dragging and blown opportunities from Commodore, compared to "That Other Computer Company". MB, perhaps we should swap machines... (Geez, and I even went to the same school as this guy...) -- >>"Aaiiyeeee! Death from above!"<< | (Steve) rehrauer@apollo.hp.com "Spontaneous human combustion - what luck!"| Apollo Computer (Hewlett-Packard)
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (09/08/90)
Cheesy Amiga video? Haaarrrmph. In article <29435@nigel.ee.udel.edu> BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: [ Marc bitches about amiga video... again. No new arguments this time either. Interesting Message-ID:, I wonder where he learned to hack NNTP servers like that. :-) ] > IMHO, Commodore will NEVER recover from this rut. It has been > over four years since the ECS started being developed, and it isn't > even fully available yet. If the 32-bit chip set takes half as long Don't you realize that the Amiga is the only system with BOTH bitplane graphics (good for real-time animation animation, user interfaces, etc. Bad for large number of colors and large screen size) as well as "chunky" bitmaps (ala Mac II et al) (bad for real-time animation, user interfaces, etc. Good for large number of colors and large screen size). Huh? When you buy an frame buffer you can have the high-end megapixel displays, etc. but you still have a separate bit-plane'ed screen for your user interface. Your control panel should be on a fast, 8-color screen. 16 if you want to be flamboyant. You are about to ask, "Who would buy a frame buffer? They're expensive." Well, any professional that is dumping to slides or videotape would. I have seen systems that are shipping that do this with the Amiga and a TARGA board using TGAlink. We will see this kind of system appearing in native mode very soon. "What about the people that can't afford a frame buffer?" Well, they're not doing professional work, are they? So, HAM or well-dithered high resolution is going to be good enough, isn't it? This summer I got to watch a lot of people use Mac II's to put together presentations (I was assigned to "real" work :). I felt sorry for them because their 8-bit video card slowed them down when doing any of the pseudo-programming involved. I would much rather have 2 graphics sub-systems (one fast and one slow) like an Amiga with a framebuffer. Conclusion? -MB- should buy a Mac II or get a framebuffer for his Amiga. I still want to know: "If the Amiga really has this many problems then why doesn't -MB- sell his and buy something else?" -Tom Limoncelli limonce@pilot.njin.net tlimonce@drew.edu Gripe: People who buy video systems by looking at the numbers. Disclaimer: -MB- is a trademark of Milton Bradley.
hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Col. Ames and Pixel) (09/08/90)
In article <939@iceman.jcu.oz> cpca@iceman.jcu.oz (C Adams) writes: >In article <29435@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, BARRETT@owl.ecil.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >> >> IMHO, Commodore will NEVER recover from this rut. It has been >> over four years since the ECS started being developed, and it isn't >> even fully available yet. If the 32-bit chip set takes half as long >> to develop (and I doubt it will) then it will be at least two years >> before we see anything. >> >[ more stuff about Commodore needing good video deleted] >> >> -MB- > >I agree with Marc completely. I have just read an article about the new >Amiga CD-TV and it too has the exact same video standard as the old Amiga 500 >(if it's lucky it might have ECS which is a very slight improvement...) > >Not only are Commodore way behind on graphics standards (I have read the >latest IBM i486 line will have a new standard better than VGA), but IBM now >have multi-tasking, virtual memory and hardware memory protection with >Windows 3.0. I have seen the a3000 and it's 4 colour workbench pales First off Win 3.0 doesn't do "efficient" MT. I can use a term prg at 9600 bd and have it drop characters. IBM's "true" multitasking solution is OS/2. Presentation Manager under 1.2 (and probably 2.0) will only have 1 PM screen. This is the ONLY screen you can get listboxes, gadgets, etc... But..... OS/2 1.2 IMHO is MUCH easier to program (Ducking for cover) You also need to note that VGA/XGA is STILL graphics. No Blitter No (Smooth) Motion. You can do resonable things with 33MHz i386/i486, but nothing appraoching Blood Money :-) And to get really nifty genlocking or full motion video in a window you will need an IBM Audio Visual Card @ ~2500. But... It is NICE and easy to program the AVC >compared to Windows 256 colours, even though it is a huge improvement. > >With all this stuff about the Amiga being "the machine" for multimedia, I >am wondering why? It's graphics are worse and IBM/Mac have/will have much >more software available for them given the recent crush of multimedia hype. > >2.0 was a chance to change that and put virtual memory/memory protection into >the system. It wouldn't have mattered if some software was broken, at least VM is probably coming along (Oh Valentin....) Memory protection (real time) is nice but a majority of the one I get in OS/2 (Win wont do it except in 386 Enhanced mode) are "16's" which are "pointers doing nasty things outside their space" and they are generally MY programs. More useful might be a version of CPR (now the SAS Debugger) that uses the MMU to do bounds checking, resource tracking etc.... So DEVELOPERS will have NO EXCUSE (or very little) for programs that wont free all resource or trash memory that is not their's. >developers like Lotus/Borland might have considered porting some of their >excellent software to the 3000. As it is, I think the a3000 will probably >be continued to be ignored in mainstream magazines etc. > >And when are we EVER going to see UNIX or the toaster??? If you are a professional you can get the Toaster. It still needs FCC (B??) Classification. As for UNIX go to VPI , I hear some freshman are very happy :-) >(can anyone actually go into a store and buy them???) > >By the way, I program the Amiga because I like it, so I'm not biased >towards IBM or Macs. (In fact I hate Macs) > >************************************************************************** >Colin Adams Life's funny but I don't laugh >************************************************************************** -- adam hill Everybody lies about sex. hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu BOING!4Ever Rub HER feet! It's better to copulate than never AmigaDos2.0 - A VW with $10,000 in options. --Robert A. Heinlein
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (09/08/90)
In article <939@iceman.jcu.oz> cpca@iceman.jcu.oz (C Adams) writes: >I agree with Marc completely. I have just read an article about the new >Amiga CD-TV and it too has the exact same video standard as the old Amiga 500 >(if it's lucky it might have ECS which is a very slight improvement...) ^^^^ This would be a waste for the area that the CDTV is targeted. In fact the guidelines for development for the CDTV clearly state that even hi-res should be avoided. The CDTV is intended to display on a standard TV. Have you seen hi-res on a standard TV???? The guide lines go further and state you should use large point fonts (I think it was 24 Pt or better) the crux is that the CDTV is NOT A COMPUTER! it is a home entertainment/multimedia center. All of us crying about this new system not having whiz bang graphics modes misses the point. >Not only are Commodore way behind on graphics standards (I have read the >latest IBM i486 line will have a new standard better than VGA), but IBM now >have multi-tasking, virtual memory and hardware memory protection with >Windows 3.0. I have seen the a3000 and it's 4 colour workbench pales ^^^^^^^^ I may be wrong on this one, but.. I thoughty 2.0 supported 8 color workbench screens. >compared to Windows 256 colours, even though it is a huge improvement. > >With all this stuff about the Amiga being "the machine" for multimedia, I >am wondering why? It's graphics are worse and IBM/Mac have/will have much >more software available for them given the recent crush of multimedia hype. > >2.0 was a chance to change that and put virtual memory/memory protection into >the system. It wouldn't have mattered if some software was broken, at least ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ To whom wouldn't it have mattered? What would happen to all the faithful developers that are still hanging on when they suddenly have products that have lost their market? Why would virtual memory make the Amiga suddenly attractive to Lotus/Borland. The last I saw the brain dead architecture that they currently write for does not have virtual memory. >developers like Lotus/Borland might have considered porting some of their >excellent software to the 3000. As it is, I think the a3000 will probably >be continued to be ignored in mainstream magazines etc. The best cure for this lack of coverage is for loyal Amiga writers to submit article to these publications that intelligently point out the pros and cons of the three leading systems in multimedia. Of course it would help for CBM to buy more/some ad's in these mainstream publications, at least it couldn't hurt. Monty Saine
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (09/08/90)
In-Reply-To: message from chrise@hubcap.clemson.edu Standard Super HiRes mode is 1280 x 200, and Super HiRes interlaced is 1280 x 400, or 1440 x 480 with overscan. Sure, the pixels aren't square, but this mode wasn't designed for CAD work...it's more of a high-resolution video titling mode. SuperHiRes Interlaced just about matches the resolution of a Chiron CG...it makes really nice, smooth characters for video using 35ns (is this correct) pixels. Sure, you only have four colors out of 64...but this is fine for titling. What I'm more interested in is the Productivity Interlaced mode, 640 x 960. This is ideal for page layout...only problem is, are there any full page moniters that you can plug in? 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^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
gutierre@NSIPO.NASA.GOV (09/08/90)
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: |> Standard Super HiRes mode is 1280 x 200, and Super HiRes interlaced is |> 1280 x 400, or 1440 x 480 with overscan. |> |> Sure, the pixels aren't square, but this mode wasn't designed for CAD |> work...it's more of a high-resolution video titling mode. SuperHiRes |> Interlaced just about matches the resolution of a Chiron CG...it makes really |> nice, smooth characters for video using 35ns (is this correct) pixels. ^^^^^^^ Close enough. The question is though, can you get SuperHiRes out of the standard RGB video port (i.e.: will it display thru a genlock)? I seem to remember that the timing signals are different for such resolution modes...not the same timing for the standard modes (HiRes, etc...) Am I missing something here??? Wasn't that the whole point of the standard DB-15 (VGA) connector and Multisync monitor for the 3000??? |> Sure, you only have four colors out of 64...but this is fine for titling. Damn right, especially since I do *extensive* titling on the order of 30 minutes of video *per week* right now, and I'd like it to be better than 70ns (640x480) that I got right now on my Amiga 2000. Robert Michael Gutierrez Office of Space Science and Applications, NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center. Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. "If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be shown on prime time." (The Simpsons [4/29/90])
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz (09/09/90)
> > *MB is a registered trademark of Milton-Bradley. That is, apparently, a little > in-joke amoung the folks involved in this project. > -- > 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! I'm sorry but -MB- was trademarked by me in 1987 when we commenced our AI project here in the Applied Processing Laboratory of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute. What began as my PhD project has become a net monster, ravaging the net-waves with abuse daily. An attempt to moderate its extraordinary one eyed approach to life by adding an interest in football turned it into a real head kicker. Any claims to the trademark by Milton-Bradley will be contested in the courts. Any claims against the institute by individuals who have suffered by the "hand" of this creature should be forwarded to our legal department by 12/15/90 when the Commisioner for Technology Abuse will commence hearing the case. Regards Alan
bn@okcusr.UUCP (09/10/90)
With all this talk about the various resolutions of the ECS, it brings up one question that I haven't been able to get a complete answer to. Which resolutions can be handled by the deinterlacer built into the A3000? I know that the 1280x400 is too much bandwidth for the deinterlacer to handle, but how about the other modes. (ex: productivity - interlaced) I am aware of the fact that when displaying the 1280x400 mode on the 3000, the horizontal res. is really reduced by half, but are the other modes affected this way also? (of course, I'm talking about the 31.5 KHz video port only, not about the regular RGB port.) Bo Najdrovsky ...att!attcc!ulab!bn attcc!ulab!bn@MWOOD.ATT.COM
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (09/10/90)
bmacintyre@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre) writes: >I agree that say 1280x960 non-interlaced with 8 bit colour would be >nice. But only if it fits in with the current system. Eventually it >will be possible to do it, I believe. But until then, I'll stick with >the "cheesy Amiga graphics" >Of course, until the above is possible, I won't bother getting a new >computer. :-) Remember, real Amiga's have keyboard garages! Yeah me either. But I figure that if I keep waiting for the new machine that will be realeased RSN, I will always be waiting. heheh. Did anyone else read the Roomers column in the latest Amazing Computing rag? The bandito says he heard that CBM is working on a 4000, that will fit in a 3000 style box, will have 24 bit video that can emulate the standard Amiga video modes (tho hopefully HAM will not have fringies) and will have a ****50Mhz 68040****!!!! SSSSCCCRRRRRRREEEEEEEAAAAAMMMMING!!!! Boy! I can see the software breaking on this baby! Most games will be over before you can press the fire button... (Startup Screen.. Press space bar to begin! [pressing space bar]...flicker, flicker...End Screen.. Too bad you lost, would you like to play Whiz Bang again?) But maybe having the 3000 out there will mean most software companies will start writing games that do the timing independent of the processor/clock. (yeah and maybe -MB- will go buy a Mac and start bugging them. ... rrrright.) Drool, drool. If only we can rely on the Bandito being correct. Well Blair, here's another machine to wait for. By the time the 4000 is released, we should be hearing rumors about the 100Mhz 68050 based Amiga 5000, and we will end up waiting for it. We will probably have our amiga 1000's clear into the 21st century. heheh. (I plan to hang on to mine even if I do eventually get a high end machine. How else will I be able to play all my old games?) -- 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) (09/11/90)
In article <928@sagpd1.UUCP>, monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) writes: > This would be a waste for the area that the CDTV is targeted. In > fact the guidelines for development for the CDTV clearly state > that even hi-res should be avoided. The CDTV is intended to display > on a standard TV. Have you seen hi-res on a standard TV???? The guide Yes, I realize the high resolution modes would be useless on a TV, but 8 bitplane video would be quite useful. According to the Hardware reference manaul there are even enough 'slots' to access the bitplanes, so the problem must be the NMOS chips.... (even though the processor would be locked out during the display time) What I would like to see is a byte-per-pixel screen mode, as the setup is much faster to manipulate, but the arch. is not setup for one. > ^^^^^^^^ > I may be wrong on this one, but.. I thoughty 2.0 supported 8 color > workbench screens. I have heard 2.0 workbench can support > 4 colours on screen, but at least on the a3000 I saw, it boots in 4.... and that is what I saw it demo'ed in.... (options are great but most people don't find out about them unless they buy an Amiga) > To whom wouldn't it have mattered? What would happen to all the faithful > developers that are still hanging on when they suddenly have products > that have lost their market? Why would virtual memory make the Amiga > suddenly attractive to Lotus/Borland. The last I saw the brain dead > architecture that they currently write for does not have virtual memory. Ideally you would have the option to boot the operating system in non- protected mode. I really want memory protection because I program the Amiga, if software worked the way it was supposed to, then there really wouldn't be much need for it. Just if IBM have it and Commodore don't then IBM will convince people that Amigas are unreliable. To get major software developers onto the Amiga, I believe it takes the existance of good software, as this is what sell machines, and developers write for the best market. (Catch 22 situation) Borland and Lotus are writing for windows now, with VM, although if windows had no VM they would still be writing for it.... > The best cure for this lack of coverage is for loyal Amiga writers > to submit article to these publications that intelligently point > out the pros and cons of the three leading systems in multimedia. Magazines seem to enjoy abusing the Amiga, they particularly enjoy printing Commodores losses for the xth quarter. (the only time Commodore get a mention in The Australian papers computer section is when they announce a loss!) I doubt Commodore have the money to put advertisements everywhere, for unless they create sales, it's dead money. ******************************************************************** Colin Adams Life's funny but I don't laugh ********************************************************************
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (09/11/90)
G'day,
{Sorry about the length of this article. I tried my best to shorten it. In fact
I have left out several details re real time video technology.}
GS> In article <25@screamer.csee.usf.edu>, stelmack@screamer.csee.usf.edu
GS> (Gregory M. Stelmack) writes:
CA> In article <939@iceman.jcu.oz> cpca@iceman.jcu.oz (C Adams) writes:
CA> [...a discussion of new improvements to `IBM'/MSDOS PCs ala multimedia...]
CA> With all this stuff about the Amiga being "the machine" for multimedia, I
CA> am wondering why? It's graphics are worse and IBM/Mac have/will have much
CA> more software available for them given the recent crush of multimedia hype.
GS> First, the graphics. The Amiga always has been, and hopefully always will
GS> be, tied to standard Video formats. As was pointed out in this news group
GS> a while ago, higher resolution should probably wait until S-VHS and HDTV
GS> settle on their standards. As for more colors, they would be nice, but
GS> going to a 24-bit format would kill Amiga animation, as it is simply too
GS> slow.
I remember a few such discussions one of which I was part of in fact. Oh yeah
I agree here by the way.
However I have a different question this time. What do the gurus think of the
idea of an 8bit or 10bit HAM mode? Would that mode be better suited for this
goal all Amigoids seem to seek {Grandi/Tanti Colore (great/plenty_of colours)
etc} so that animation would not be too expensive?
{It might be necessary to imagine high res screens eg 1K x 1K so that any HAM
mode edge smearing while in animations is less noticeable.}
GS> Second, multimedia. The Amiga is "the machine" for multimedia precisely
GS> because it is tied so tightly to the video standard. The Amiga is very easy
GS> to hook up to VCRs, LaserDisks, etc. Because it's graphics are based on
GS> standard Video, it is very easy to manipulate video images. And then, no
GS> IBM or Mac can touch the Amiga's sound & music capabilities.
Now the reason I've jumped into this discussion. I agree with your above points
it is just that I think you've overlooked an important technology.
Real Time Video. IBM/Intel have a lead in this area with the DVI technology no?
{I'm most interested here in the "real time" video compression hardware. Apple
have also announced their interest to pursue video compression technologies.}
I wonder how the Amiga CDTV technology will mesh in with the Amiga approach to
`multimedia'?
GS> Don't even get me started on comparing Windows 3.0 to Intuition and Amiga
GS> multi-tasking...Intel chips just don't compare to Motorola...
Do Motorola have a real time video chipset or similar technology?
And yes, I apologise for getting you (or anyone else started) started on an
AmigaOS vs Windos 3.0 comparison but I'd really like to know how they cross
compare. For example I here there will be `multimedia' extensions (by IBM)
to OS/2 (I think). I don't doubt Microsoft will be far behind.
{That is one case I really think should be taken to alt.computers.religion.}
{In case anyone wants to be sure no smileys here. Please lets avoid all the}
{usual flame festing etc in this group and move it elsewhere. Unless there}
{is the chance of some useful/unemotional discussion this time. }
GS> -- Greg Stelmack
yours truly,
Lou Cavallo.sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (09/12/90)
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: >I'm sorry but -MB- was trademarked by me in 1987 when we commenced our >AI project here in the Applied Processing Laboratory of the Walter >and Eliza Hall Institute. What began as my PhD project has become a net >monster, Yeah well, I am convinced that you ALL are just AI programs and ***I*** am the only real human on the net. Matter of fact, I think that somehow I am stuck in somekind of virtual reality program and I am the only real person anywhere, everything around me is computer generated. So why am I posting this imaginary article on an imaginary net to imaginary readers? Heck if I know. Maybe even ***I*** am computer generated. I think I will go home and play with my imaginary Amiga 6000 -- 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
greg@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (09/13/90)
In article <2959@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: > >>I'm sorry but -MB- was trademarked by me in 1987 when we commenced our >>AI project here in the Applied Processing Laboratory of the Walter >>and Eliza Hall Institute. What began as my PhD project has become a net >>monster, > >Yeah well, I am convinced that you ALL are just AI programs and ***I*** >am the only real human on the net. Matter of fact, I think that somehow >I am stuck in somekind of virtual reality program and I am the only real >person anywhere, everything around me is computer generated. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to terminate your process before you cause a general disorder on the net. >So why am I posting this imaginary article on an imaginary net to imaginary >readers? Heck if I know. Maybe even ***I*** am computer generated. Hmmm...program exibits self-realization....I must make a note of that. >I think I will go home and play with my imaginary Amiga 6000 "imaginary"? You mean you missed the A5000 + $50 upgrade plan? >-- >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 Sorry. I couldn't resist. :-) Greg... _ _ Disclaimer: "What I _really_ meant was..." AMIGA! //// //// "Don't look so frightened. This is just a passing phase -- one of _ _ //// my bad days." --Roger Waters, Pink Floyd's The Wall, One of My Turns \\\\//// \\XX// Greg Harp greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu