sutherla@qtp.ufl.edu (scott sutherland) (12/17/89)
This letter was originally sent to Wayne Knapp in response to his article which describes a powerful IBM-clone-based graphics system which out-performs the Amiga and costs ~$4000. This article is also aimed at giving my feelings concerning the large number of articles dealing with the "NEED" to improve Amiga graphics, and specifically motivated by the articles on the Transputer/Graphics boards and add-on boards by Commodore and 3rd-party vendors. The following statements are my own. > > >However it is possible to get 340x0 based cards that give 1024x768x256 >for around $1000. The point is that the abilities of the pc clones are >improving very fast. Let's hope that the Amiga will start picking up >some speed! > > Wayne Knapp Yes, you can buy add-on boards for IBM's and clones that surpass the amiga in terms of resolution, color, speed, etc. And, as you have pointed out, the cost of such systems is now becoming comparable to the cost of an Amiga. Fine. I have no problem with this. But, my FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM with the whole concept of this type of comparison is actually the whole reason I bought an Amiga in the first place. That problem stems from the phrase "ADD-ON". Case in point: when I was looking into purchasing the Amiga, I already owned a PC clone. I looked into options for enhancing the graphics of this computer instead of getting a whole new computer. The best option for me at the time (cost vs performance) was the highly touted PGC or PGA card, with 640x480 and 256 colors out of a pallette of 16 million (I think this is correct. It HAS been 2 years, so my numbers may be off, at least in the 16 million color part). I opted for the Amiga for one fundamental reason. The graphics on the Amiga, which were close, but not quite up to the PGC, were STANDARD MODES. Thus, any Amiga program could use them. All Amigas have them. Not true for the PGC. NONE of the plethora of software out, including paint programs, supported it. I would have to write ALL applications which would take advantage of this power by MYSELF. Now, for some people, this is fine. These are probably the same people who would consider getting a TARGA board or this new TRANSPUTER board that is being mentioned on the net. To me, this TRANSPUTER board for the Amy is NO BETTER than the PGC was for the IBM (in principle, I mean, NOT in capabilities). It will be owned by a select few, and they will have to program it. The gang at IMPULSE also feel this way, as they stated in their latest news letter that this was their FUNDAMENTAL reason for NOT porting Turbo Silver to this board. So, I am not alone. At least with the stock Amiga, even though the HAM mode is somewhat exotic, several paint programs USE it, and all Amiga owners can access it, even program it. I am NOT fundamentally opposed to the Sliced HAM or Sliced EHB modes being referred to lately in comp.sys.amiga, because, even though they are considered "HACKS", they are available to ALL Amiga owners (exception: S-EHB for some A1000 owners). I am NOT fundamentally opposed to the NEW CHIP SET, with NEW modes. Although this is somewhat of a GREY area, since NOT ALL Amiga owners will be able to afford them, they ARE downwardly compatible with all existing Amiga modes, and, thus, it is somewhat of a compromise. In order for the Amiga to become competitive with these '386 machines or 34020 (is this correct?) boards, a completely NEW CUSTOM CHIP SET and MOTHERBOARD architecture (32 bit, faster than 7.16 MHz) will probably have to be built. (The A4000? ;^)) This machine would probably NOT be able to be downwardly compatible with current machines and would be much more expensive. I applaud Commodore for building the Amiga with video and processor enhancements in mind (since they put in special slots JUST FOR this purpose), but, the NEW graphics board they are putting out is not any better, IN PRINCIPLE, than the PGC, Targa, or any other high quality graphics ADD-ON. How many software vendors, including games, paint programs, ray- tracers, etc., will believe that enough standard Amiga owners will pay the $$ for this board to make it economically feasible to port their programs over to this board??? My guess: probably no more than 5-10. Well, I realize that this is somewhat muddled, but I trust that I have made my point with my "NOVEL" above. I am glad you like your system. I do not think that it is "valid" to compare it to the Amiga and its "standard" graphics modes. If you think that this is a valid argument and would be of interest to the readers of comp.sys.amiga, you are welcome to post excerpts of this to that group. Or, let me know and I will post an article. Scott Sutherland sutherla@qtp.ufl.edu
akcs.dfrancis@tronsbox.UUCP (Dennis Francis Heffernan) (12/23/89)
I can't agree with the "standard graphic modes only" approach. Every
graphic mode existing on the IBM was a "non-standard add-on" in the
beginning. Now, everyone uses EGA as a minimum, and VGA/Extended VGA is
catching on fast. From what I've heard, the 32-bit QuickDraw option on the
Mac II is an add-on, too. Ultimately, if we have to swap our machines to
improve the graphics, we'll never be able to keep up with everyone else.
They'll just slot in a new card that outdoes whatever the next Amiga has.
--dfh ...uunet!galaxy!dsoft!dfrancis
"Think of something clever, and assume I said it."farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) (12/26/89)
akcs.dfrancis@tronsbox.UUCP (Dennis Francis Heffernan) writes: > > I can't agree with the "standard graphic modes only" approach. > [...] Ultimately, if we have to swap our machines to >improve the graphics, we'll never be able to keep up with everyone else. >They'll just slot in a new card that outdoes whatever the next Amiga has. But this wasn't the point of the discussion, I believe. Of _course_ there have to be provisions for more capable graphics hardware - and the Amiga OS, as it stands, has many of those provisions. Pop in a new card, add a new graphics.library, and there you are... (Not as simple as that, I know, but _possible_: look at the Hedley monitor) There are really two questions being posed at the same time here. The first one is simply one of maximizing your market (or audience) share. If you use the graphics modes which are available to every Amiga, regardless of hardware configuration, then you are going to have the largest number of possible users. Any dependence on special hardware _will_ reduce your base - as was the case with EGA graphics on the IBM. Still is, too, although the differential is smaller. This isn't to say that you should _never_ use non-standard stuff, simply that you'd better think carefully about the tradeoff between what your application needs in order to perform correctly versus what capabilities are readily available to the average Amiga user. The second question is whether or not "software-driven" graphics modes, such as "Dynamic HAM", are appropriate for general use. This one can go either way, but my personal feeling is that, except for very specific uses, they are not. The major thing which distinguishes the Amiga from the rest of the computer pack is its ability, via the custom chips, to to quite sophisticated graphic and sound manipulation without requiring processor intervention beyond a minimum. The ultimate end, if you switch to software-driven graphics, is a system no better in concept than the Macintosh, where all graphics operations require the CPU. The effects of this on the Amiga would be rather disastrous. Personally, I'm quite pleased with the fact that the game I ported to the Amy (Crystal Quest) runs nearly as fast on a stock Amiga with 68000 as it does on the Mac II with 68020. If I had had to do the graphics "Mac-style", drawing each figure with the processor, that game would have crawled. In short - do what you will to make the Amiga more capable. But be very thoughtful about it. Don't do things which increase one set of capabilities at the expense of others; remember what it is that makes the Amiga great. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.usa