dbl@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu (David Lawson) (11/28/89)
Ok, heres an idea (and I hope no one has been posting this to death) how about a sliced Extra Halfbrite display? If sliced ham can be done so can this. Wouldn't this be helpful in cutting done on color aliasing since you'd have a pallete of 64 colors to display on every scanline? That's 4 times what DynaHiRes does (to the best of my knowledge) any thoughts on this? Dave Lawson dbl@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu GTA West Virginia University
colyer@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (11/28/89)
> Ok, heres an idea (and I hope no one has been posting this to death) >how about a sliced Extra Halfbrite display? If sliced ham can be done >so can this. Wouldn't this be helpful in cutting done on color aliasing >since you'd have a pallete of 64 colors to display on every scanline? >That's 4 times what DynaHiRes does (to the best of my knowledge) any thoughts >on this? There is another thing about this... You could display 320x200 screen and with the additional 64 colors per line that would take care of some aliasing problems and make for really cool game backgrounds... -- #include <std.disclaimers> #define JAMES_COLYER COLYER@silver.ucs.indiana.edu /* Amiga. One of the finer things in life. */
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (12/02/89)
In <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff Bevis) writes: >In article <568@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, dbl@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu writes: >> Ok, heres an idea (and I hope no one has been posting this to death) >>how about a sliced Extra Halfbrite display? If sliced ham can be done > >Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the >dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity, >just to bring up the image? Hear hear! It is especially irritating when I look at the pictures shown by these programs, and see that they are usually of lesser quality than those produced by ASDG's ScanLab, where the work is put into the picture at the time it is generated, to produce a HAM bitmap with absolutely minimal 'HAMMIES'. One only need look at 'CF', 'Owleye', or 'Cheryl' to see the truly gorgeous results of careful generation of an image. >We definitely need drastically improved graphics in the A3000. That's all I >can say. I'll go along with that. -larry -- " All I ask of my body is that it carry around my head." - Thomas Alva Edison - +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff Bevis) (12/03/89)
In article <568@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, dbl@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu writes: > Ok, heres an idea (and I hope no one has been posting this to death) >how about a sliced Extra Halfbrite display? If sliced ham can be done Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity, just to bring up the image? I mean, what are things migrating toward here? SHAM is not a friendly or very practical thing to be working with (in paint programs, or for that matter, for anything on this *multitasking* machine). The hardware should display the images, and the software should NOT have to worry about them. (you know what I mean) We definitely need drastically improved graphics in the A3000. That's all I can say. +--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Jeff Bevis | "But I don't like spam!" | | bevis@en.ecn.purdue.edu | Give me Amiga or nothing at all. | +--------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
unhd (Jason W Nyberg) (12/04/89)
In article <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu> bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff Bevis) writes: >In article <568@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, dbl@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu writes: >> Ok, heres an idea (and I hope no one has been posting this to death) >>how about a sliced Extra Halfbrite display? If sliced ham can be done > >Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the >dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity, >just to bring up the image? I mean, what are things migrating toward here? >SHAM is not a friendly or very practical thing to be working with (in paint >programs, or for that matter, for anything on this *multitasking* machine). >The hardware should display the images, and the software should NOT have to >worry about them. (you know what I mean) > You're right. OK, everyone delete your SHAM, and Ultra-hires viewing programs! ;^J >We definitely need drastically improved graphics in the A3000. That's all I >can say. Speaking of amy 3000, any new & improved info on it out there?
srp@modcomp.UUCP (Steve Pietrowicz) (12/05/89)
in article <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff Bevis) says: > > In article <568@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, dbl@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu writes: >> Ok, heres an idea (and I hope no one has been posting this to death) >>how about a sliced Extra Halfbrite display? If sliced ham can be done > > Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the > dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity, > just to bring up the image? [ Stuff deleted ] Well, it seems to have bothered Black Belt Systems too. They're coming out with a product called HAM-E. (Hold And Modify Expander). This thing will plug into the back of your Amiga (500/1000/2000) through the RGB port, and then you plug the cable for your monitor into it. With it, they'll have a 262144 color HAM mode with 63 color registers. Their target price is less than $350. For more info, contact Black Belt Systems in AmigaVendor on CompuServe. -- SR Pietrowicz UUCP: ...!uunet!modcomp!srp CIS: 73047,2313
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (12/05/89)
In article <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu> bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff Bevis) writes: >Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the >dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity, >just to bring up the image? I mean, what are things migrating toward here? >The hardware should display the images, and the software should NOT have to >worry about them. (you know what I mean) I think I know what you mean. You're not complaining about the new modes, but about all the software hassle we have to go through to *get* these new modes, right? I agree. It seems to me that this is a sign that the Amiga is lagging a bit in it's graphics technology. When the Amiga came out in '84 it's graphics was astounding, but geez that was almost 6 years ago. Now most everyone else is catching up and surpassing us. IBM has new extended VGA cards that do 640 x 480 with 256 colors (not interlaced either) and the Mac has the same resolution with what? 16 million colors? Sure they cost more, but they cost more back when Amy first came out too, and we had better graphics then they did too. Time marches on, and those who sleep get left in the dust. I really appreciate the new software that let's you have sliced ham and superhires ham, but to me these are interesting hacks. It reminds me of the latter days of my Atari 800 days (just before the Amiga came out). There were all sorts of hacks coming out to let you have more colors, etc. I take it all as a sign that we need to improve the graphics in the hardware. I think the new productivity modes in 1.4 are a step in the right direction, but how about giving us a super hi-res ham mode in hardware? It's time Amiga took the lead again. Heck, forget the hires ham and give us 24bit graphics like the Mac. 16 million colors in 640 x 400 would be great. Of course if you change the graphics technology you run into the problem of backwards compatibility. It's hard to change once something has been established, isn't it? so keep the old modes and add some new 16 or 24 bit modes. it would be a good thing to have for release 2.0 of workbench, eh? >We definitely need drastically improved graphics in the A3000. That's all I >can say. > We need it for the 2000 (and 500) also. That's where the largest group of customers is. I for one can't afford the 3000 when it comes out. (anybody ever notice how CBM conveniently names their Amiga's by approximate retail price? ;-) -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 Mixed Emotions: When you see your mother-in-law back over a cliff in your new Mercedes Benz.
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (12/06/89)
In <1247@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >In article <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu> bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff >Bevis) writes: > >> [ commennts about sliced and diced HAM deleted ] > >I think I know what you mean. You're not complaining about the new modes, but >about all the software hassle we have to go through to *get* these new modes, >right? I agree. It seems to me that this is a sign that the Amiga is lagging a >bit in it's graphics technology. When the Amiga came out in '84 it's graphics >was astounding, but geez that was almost 6 years ago. Now most everyone else is >catching up and surpassing us. Well, that wasn't 6 years ago. It came out in late '85, or about 4 years ago. You may think of the CPU intensive display modes as 'a sign that the Amiga is lagging in graphics technology, but I think of it as an attempt at displaying HAM properly by those who can't see any other way to do it. I have yet to see as good a picture using SHAM as I have seen with an ordinary SHOW program (uShow, to be precise), when that picture has had some care put into its bitmap by an intelligent program at generation time. > IBM has new extended VGA cards that do 640 x 480 >with 256 colors (not interlaced either) and the Mac has the same resolution >with what? 16 million colors? Last I looked, 256 was considerably less than 4096, and lack of interlace is pretty poor for displaying pictures on standard TV. Worse? Better? Just different? Food for thought. Sure, I'd LIKE to have more video modes, who wouldn't? But the ones we have are still unsurpassed in their particular niche. Sort of like saying that a Ferarri is better than a pickup truck... they are different enough that you can't say that with authority unless you are willing to qualify the statements with discussions about the purpose of each. I'd like a Ferarri that could also be used to haul lumber. :-) >I really appreciate the new software that let's you have sliced ham and >superhires ham, but to me these are interesting hacks. It reminds me of the >latter days of my Atari 800 days (just before the Amiga came out). There were >all sorts of hacks coming out to let you have more colors, etc. Yes... interesting hacks.. and all done at the wrong end of the process. Others have managed to make GREAT HAM pictures without eating your cycles when you look at it. When we have exhausted all the techniques for enhancing HAM pics at generation time, I might agree that the viewing hacks are a last ditch attempt to squeeze the last drops out of the machine. >I take it all as a sign that we need to improve the graphics in the hardware. >I think the new productivity modes in 1.4 are a step in the right direction, >but how about giving us a super hi-res ham mode in hardware? It's time Amiga >took the lead again. Heck, forget the hires ham and give us 24bit graphics like >the Mac. 16 million colors in 640 x 400 would be great. Last I looked, Mac did not have that, except via addon cards. >Of course if you change the graphics technology you run into the problem of >backwards compatibility. It's hard to change once something has been >established, isn't it? so keep the old modes and add some new 16 or 24 bit >modes. it would be a good thing to have for release 2.0 of workbench, eh? Now yer talking pardner! Let's have additional modes, by all means. The ones we have are awesome in comparison to other low cost machines. How soon we get jaded. >(anybody ever notice how CBM conveniently names their Amiga's by approximate >retail price? ;-) Yeah.. good thing they don't do that with their peripherals. No way I could afford their disk controllers or external drives. :-) -larry -- " All I ask of my body is that it carry around my head." - Thomas Alva Edison - +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
piaw@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Na Choon Piaw) (12/07/89)
In article <1247@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >I think I know what you mean. You're not complaining about the new modes, but >about all the software hassle we have to go through to *get* these new modes, >right? I agree. It seems to me that this is a sign that the Amiga is lagging a >bit in it's graphics technology. When the Amiga came out in '84 it's graphics >was astounding, but geez that was almost 6 years ago. Now most everyone else is >catching up and surpassing us. IBM has new extended VGA cards that do 640 x 480 >with 256 colors (not interlaced either) and the Mac has the same resolution >with what? 16 million colors? Well, I was just talking to Jay Miner on his BBS (The Mission, I can't remember the number, you can mail me for it --- he's a really nice guy), and we got to talking about it --- he basically said that if he had it to do all over again, he would put in both the pixel graphics and bitplane model. I asked him how long it would take him to do 8 bitplanes and 24 bit color registers on the custom chips, (and a HAM mode with 16000 or so colors) and he said something like "Well, it'll take a number of engineers too, and technicians... something like 6 months or so." In fact, he said something like "C= has to be working on it. It's the next logical step." Of course, please do not quote either me or him as making statements for CBM. In fact, don't quote me as speaking for Jay, either, as I'm typing this from memory. >John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps Just read the AmigoTimes articles about the advertising campaign, and one thing disturbs me ... no one who's doing it seem to really know a lot about the Amiga, not that it'll have anything to do with the effectiveness of it, but I just find that disturbing. The other thing is that they're aiming for a younger audience, which might not really have the money to blow on a computer, but that's not necessarily true, I guess. Let's hope that C= doesn't blow it. I once talked to a Mac user about the Amiga and the Mac (not all MacMuffins are *that* stupid, though most are..), and unfortunately, we both came to the conclusion that Engineering doesn't necessarily sell machines. They help, but in the end, it's the marketing. I'm just praying the Amiga makes it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Na Choon Piaw piaw@cory.berkeley.edu I'm speaking only for myself! "Still on honeymoon with his Amiga...."
ern@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Ernest J Obusek) (12/07/89)
In article <1247@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >In article <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu> bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff >Bevis) writes: > >>Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the >>dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity, >>just to bring up the image? I mean, what are things migrating toward here? >>The hardware should display the images, and the software should NOT have to >>worry about them. (you know what I mean) > ...Some things deleted... > >I take it all as a sign that we need to improve the graphics in the hardware. >I think the new productivity modes in 1.4 are a step in the right direction, >but how about giving us a super hi-res ham mode in hardware? It's time Amiga >took the lead again. Heck, forget the hires ham and give us 24bit graphics like >the Mac. 16 million colors in 640 x 400 would be great. > >>We definitely need drastically improved graphics in the A3000. That's all I >>can say. >> > >We need it for the 2000 (and 500) also. That's where the largest group of >customers is. I for one can't afford the 3000 when it comes out. > I don't agree with what you are saying here. You say "We definitely need drastically improved graphics...". Well speak for yourself! I'm quite happy with the Amiga graphics as they are and don't think "we" need any change at all. Adding new super graphics modes to the Amiga will just raise its base cost, and I'd bet that most people don't need (or perhaps want) the new graphics modes. It's my totally worthless opinion that Commodore should release graphics cards with whatever super awesome graphics you want and let you buy it and add it to your machine. But I don't want to pay for graphics capability I'm not going to use. Ernest ern@unix.cis.pitt.edu ern@cisunx.UUCP >-- >John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps >||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 >Mixed Emotions: When you see your mother-in-law back over a cliff in your >new Mercedes Benz. Beware: inews fodder below... A m i g a A m i g a A m i g a
wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (12/08/89)
In article <1247@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > In article <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu> bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff > Bevis) writes: > >>Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the >>dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity, >>just to bring up the image? .... > >I think I know what you mean. You're not complaining about the new modes, but >about all the software hassle we have to go through to *get* these new modes, >right? I agree. It seems to me that this is a sign that the Amiga is lagging a >bit in it's graphics technology. When the Amiga came out in '84 it's graphics >was astounding, but geez that was almost 6 years ago. Now most everyone else is >catching up and surpassing us. IBM has new extended VGA cards that do 640 x 480 >with 256 colors (not interlaced either) and the Mac has the same resolution >with what? 16 million colors? > >Sure they cost more ... I don't that is the case anymore. I'm in the process of porting some animation software from the Amiga to IBM PC. I ordered a nice system from Tri-Star computers and added some from local stores and a couple used pieces. Now I have a system that my Amiga 1000 can not even begin to stand up too. I have about $3000 in 1985 dollars in my Amiga and about $4000 in 1989 dollars in the pc clone. The only place that the Amiga is ahead is in the amount of memory in it, 2.5 Megs as compared to 2 Megs+ (Including graphics cards memories) in the pc clone, however the clone has a very large (100Meg+) and FAST hard disk so I use it for a virtual memory device and don't miss the memory. After all 2.5 Megs isn't very much when it comes to Animation anyway, it is much better to have a spare 30 Megs on a very fast hard disk. Now I'm not trying to take a poke at the Amiga. After all what I'm doing with the pc clone today would not have been possible in 1985. The Amiga was way ahead at that time, but today isn't no longer a leader no matter how much money is dumped into it. The computer market place waits for no one. So I concure that a Amiga 3000 is needed today and it must be 32 bits, and have GREATLY improved graphics. Just look at what I was able to put together for less than $4000. 25 MHz 386 mini tower (8 expansion slots) 100 MByte IDE hard disk, 32k disk cache 1.2 Mbyte & 1.44 Mbyte floppies (5.5" and 3.25") VGA wonder 512k (can do 1024 x 768 x 256) Professional Image Borad (NTSC out 512x512x32000) Sony CDP-1303 multisync Turdo C Professional (15000 lines compiles/links in 1 minute!!!) 5000+ drystones 100K+ wetshones As you can see it is a lot of stuff and it is very fast. Multitasking is availiable with DeqView 386, Windows 386 and OS/2, plus you can use Unix if you want. Everything is easy to buy today, and it all works. The graphics speed is at least a good or better than my Amiga 1000, at least I can draw pattern filled polygons with it much faster than on the Amiga. All in all it is useable, fast and cheap. To top it all off if I don't mind spending money I can even get a much faster system, that will run my binaries. Now in all honesty, if I could only buy stuff from IBM I don't think the system would compare as well. The third party support is what is taking the pc clones to new heights! The problem Commodore has isn't to beat IBM or Apple but to beat them and all the third party vendors that support IBM and Apple. I think the real lead the Amiga still has is desktop video and animation. However to hold this lead better hardware is needed. Wayne Knapp
wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (12/08/89)
Ophs, minor error: > 100 MByte IDE hard disk, 32k disk cache > 1.2 Mbyte & 1.44 Mbyte floppies (5.5" and 3.25") > VGA wonder 512k (can do 1024 x 768 x 256) ^^^ It is only 16 color at that 1024x768, 256 color at 800x600. Sorry. > Professional Image Borad (NTSC out 512x512x32000) > Sony CDP-1303 multisync > Turdo C Professional (15000 lines compiles/links in 1 minute!!!) > > 5000+ drystones 100K+ wetshones > 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
bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob Lindabury) (12/10/89)
In-Reply-To: message from sparks@corpane.UUCP > In article <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu> bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff > Bevis) writes: > >> Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the >> dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity, >> just to bring up the image? I mean, what are things migrating toward here? >> The hardware should display the images, and the software should NOT have to >> worry about them. (you know what I mean) > > I think I know what you mean. You're not complaining about the new modes, but > about all the software hassle we have to go through to *get* these new modes, > right? I agree. It seems to me that this is a sign that the Amiga is lagging a > bit in it's graphics technology. When the Amiga came out in '84 it's graphics > was astounding, but geez that was almost 6 years ago. Now most everyone else is > catching up and surpassing us. IBM has new extended VGA cards that do 640 x 480 > with 256 colors (not interlaced either) and the Mac has the same resolution > with what? 16 million colors? Hi John, Actually, the super VGA cards now do 800x600x256. I have one here. It's a Willow VGA-TV with 512k onboard and it works like a champ. These modes are starting to give the Amiga a run for it's money. What we really need is either Commodore to come out with a special hi-res 8-16 bit video card for the video slot or some sort of deal with Truevision or one of the clone makers to produce a card of real value for the Amiga. If a few software developers would also get on the band wagon and either update or produce software for such a card, I think we would finally move into a world of better, easier to work with graphics. This new Hi-res HAM mode is nice, but from what I understand, it's all show and no go. Takes over the machine and you could never do any animations in that mode much less paint in that mode. And using Digipaint with a window isn't an option..it's just not feesable for a real application. Would love to see Nu-bus...just pop in a NuVista card...then all you have to worry about is software. -- Bob _________________________ Pro-Graphics 201/469-0049 __________________________ InterNet: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | ProLine: bobl@pro-graphics UUCP: ..crash!pro-graphics!bobl | CServe: 70347,2344 ARPA/DDN: ..crash!pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | Amer. Online: Graphics3D ___________ ____________ Raven Enterprises - 25 Raven Ave. Piscataway, NJ 08854
poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) (12/12/89)
In article <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu> bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff Bevis) writes: >In article <568@h.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu>, dbl@a.cs.wvu.wvnet.edu writes: >> Ok, heres an idea (and I hope no one has been posting this to death) >>how about a sliced Extra Halfbrite display? If sliced ham can be done > >Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the >dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity, >just to bring up the image? I mean, what are things migrating toward here? Actually, SHAM does not use the CPU any more than any other mode. The change of color registers at each line is accomplished automatically by the copper (one of Amiga's coprocessors), without cpu intervention. The copper list (set of instructions to the copper) is precomputed and doesn't need massaging during SHAM display. Because of the high number of bitplanes (usually 6), SHAM and HAM do steal memory cycles from the cpu, in effect slowing it, but that is a limitation of the memory bandwidth. What are things migrating toward? More complete utilization of the machine's abilities. I'm surprised it has taken this long for an enterprising hacker to bring up SHAM. There are other hardware abilities that are underused, too. Who has done anything with the audio channels' abilities to amplitude-and/or-frequency-modulate another audio channel? (Possibly the narrator device does, I don't know.) >SHAM is not a friendly or very practical thing to be working with (in paint >programs, SHAM is basically as practical as HAM, which some paint programs do just fine. >or for that matter, for anything on this *multitasking* machine). If SHAM and Intuition don't get along, it is a definite problem. But it is the current incarnation of Intuition wherein the problem lies, in my opinion. Intuition ought to support as completely as possible the Amiga's screen possibilities, including SHAM, overscan, dual-viewport, and double-buffering. And sliced-extra-half-bright if such a thing is feasible. (16 x 2 SEHB ought to be easy enough, 32 x 2 SEHB would drag in interactions between successive lines since only 15 color registers can be changed per horizontal retrace interval.) >We definitely need drastically improved graphics in the A3000. That's all I >can say. >| Jeff Bevis >| bevis@en.ecn.purdue.edu Probably true. Just one contrary point: up to now we have maintained total compatibility (memory aside) between all Amigas. If Commodore put out a nice premium graphics machine, it would be a shame to lose that total compatibility. On the other hand (plot, scheme), having incompatible classes of Amiga software might result in the allocation of more Amiga retail shelf space. (Remember when there was just one brand of Coke?) :-) Cheers, Charles Poirier Disclaimer: I own some Commodore stock, big deal, I still says what I thinks.
poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) (12/13/89)
In article <857@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >In <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff Bevis) writes: >>Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the >>dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity, >>just to bring up the image? > >Hear hear! It is especially irritating when I look at the pictures shown by >these programs, and see that they are usually of lesser quality than those >produced by ASDG's ScanLab, where the work is put into the picture at the time >it is generated, to produce a HAM bitmap with absolutely minimal 'HAMMIES'.... True, ASDG's HAMmed scans (the ones I've seen) look great. But to be fair about it, the only SHAMs I've seen were converted from 256-color GIF, giving at best 256-color SHAMs. Naturally they can't compete with 4096-color HAMs. What I want to see are A-B comparisons of HAM vs SHAM, both generated from the same RGB file. I like that word "Hammies", for HAM fringing artifacts. Cheers, Charles Poirier
mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP (Fred Mitchell - PA) (12/13/89)
In article <5154@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: >In article <1247@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >> In article <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu> bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff >> Bevis) writes: >> >>>Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the >>>dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity, >>>just to bring up the image? .... >> >>I think I know what you mean. You're not complaining about the new modes, but >>about all the software hassle we have to go through to *get* these new modes, >>right? I agree. It seems to me that this is a sign that the Amiga is lagging a >>bit in it's graphics technology. When the Amiga came out in '84 it's graphics >>was astounding, but geez that was almost 6 years ago. Now most everyone else is >>catching up and surpassing us. IBM has new extended VGA cards that do 640 x 480 >>with 256 colors (not interlaced either) and the Mac has the same resolution >>with what? 16 million colors? >> >>Sure they cost more ... > >I don't that is the case anymore. I'm in the process of porting some >animation software from the Amiga to IBM PC. I ordered a nice system >from Tri-Star computers and added some from local stores and a couple >used pieces. Now I have a system that my Amiga 1000 can not even begin >to stand up too. I have about $3000 in 1985 dollars in my Amiga and >about $4000 in 1989 dollars in the pc clone. What would an equivalent system in today's dollars cost you for the Amiga? Plus, you're ignoring all the new software/hardware that's available now. > The only place that the >Amiga is ahead is in the amount of memory in it, 2.5 Megs as compared >to 2 Megs+ (Including graphics cards memories) in the pc clone, however >the clone has a very large (100Meg+) and FAST hard disk so I use it >for a virtual memory device and don't miss the memory. After all 2.5 Megs >isn't very much when it comes to Animation anyway, it is much better to >have a spare 30 Megs on a very fast hard disk. And the Amiga dosen't have even faster SCSI Hard Disks????? >Now I'm not trying to take a poke at the Amiga. After all what I'm doing >with the pc clone today would not have been possible in 1985. The Amiga >was way ahead at that time, but today isn't no longer a leader no matter >how much money is dumped into it. I would think about that last statement carefully. >The computer market place waits for >no one. So I concure that a Amiga 3000 is needed today and it must be >32 bits, and have GREATLY improved graphics. Just look at what I was >able to put together for less than $4000. > > 25 MHz 386 mini tower (8 expansion slots) > 100 MByte IDE hard disk, 32k disk cache How fast is this Hard Disk? How does the controller dump data into memory? DMA? What data width? Byte, word, or longword? > 1.2 Mbyte & 1.44 Mbyte floppies (5.5" and 3.25") > VGA wonder 512k (can do 1024 x 768 x 256) > Professional Image Borad (NTSC out 512x512x32000) > Sony CDP-1303 multisync > Turdo C Professional (15000 lines compiles/links in 1 minute!!!) 15000 lines compiles AND links in ONE minute? I have a hard time believing that, considering all the includes and other factors, but I'll take your word on it. >As you can see it is a lot of stuff and it is very fast. Multitasking >is availiable with DeqView 386, Windows 386 and OS/2, plus you can use >Unix if you want. Everything is easy to buy today, and it all works. >The graphics speed is at least a good or better than my Amiga 1000, at >least I can draw pattern filled polygons with it much faster than on the >Amiga. Come on! You're comparing a base 68000 with the horsepower of a 80386! Now, if your Amiga has a 68030, then its a fair comparison. Not likely with a 1000. >All in all it is useable, fast and cheap. To top it all off if >I don't mind spending money I can even get a much faster system, that >will run my binaries. Huh? >Now in all honesty, if I could only buy stuff from IBM I don't think >the system would compare as well. The third party support is what is >taking the pc clones to new heights! The problem Commodore has isn't >to beat IBM or Apple but to beat them and all the third party vendors >that support IBM and Apple. I think the real lead the Amiga still has is >desktop video and animation. However to hold this lead better hardware >is needed. Don't worry. :-) > Wayne Knapp Fred Mitchell (NOTE: This is NOT intended as a flame, but something to clarify a few points.) -To Life, Immortal mitchell@cbmvax.UUCP
wayneck%tekig5.pen.tek.com@cunyvm.cuny.edu (12/16/89)
In article <1247@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > In article <8912030118.AA15320@en.ecn.purdue.edu> bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff > Bevis) writes: > >>Is it just me, or is anyone else out there getting disturbed by all of the >>dynamic/sliced/diced/minced display modes involving cpu-intesive activity, >>just to bring up the image? .... > >I think I know what you mean. You're not complaining about the new modes, but >about all the software hassle we have to go through to *get* these new modes, >right? I agree. It seems to me that this is a sign that the Amiga is lagging a >bit in it's graphics technology. When the Amiga came out in '84 it's graphics >was astounding, but geez that was almost 6 years ago. Now most everyone else is >catching up and surpassing us. IBM has new extended VGA cards that do 640 x 480 >with 256 colors (not interlaced either) and the Mac has the same resolution >with what? 16 million colors? > >Sure they cost more ... I don't that is the case anymore. I'm in the process of porting some animation software from the Amiga to IBM PC. I ordered a nice system from Tri-Star computers and added some from local stores and a couple used pieces. Now I have a system that my Amiga 1000 can not even begin to stand up too. I have about $3000 in 1985 dollars in my Amiga and about $4000 in 1989 dollars in the pc clone. The only place that the Amiga is ahead is in the amount of memory in it, 2.5 Megs as compared to 2 Megs+ (Including graphics cards memories) in the pc clone, however the clone has a very large (100Meg+) and FAST hard disk so I use it for a virtual memory device and don't miss the memory. After all 2.5 Megs isn't very much when it comes to Animation anyway, it is much better to have a spare 30 Megs on a very fast hard disk. Now I'm not trying to take a poke at the Amiga. After all what I'm doing with the pc clone today would not have been possible in 1985. The Amiga was way ahead at that time, but today isn't no longer a leader no matter how much money is dumped into it. The computer market place waits for no one. So I concure that a Amiga 3000 is needed today and it must be 32 bits, and have GREATLY improved graphics. Just look at what I was able to put together for less than $4000. 25 MHz 386 mini tower (8 expansion slots) 100 MByte IDE hard disk, 32k disk cache 1.2 Mbyte & 1.44 Mbyte floppies (5.5" and 3.25") VGA wonder 512k (can do 1024 x 768 x 256) Professional Image Borad (NTSC out 512x512x32000) Sony CDP-1303 multisync Turdo C Professional (15000 lines compiles/links in 1 minute!!!) 5000+ drystones 100K+ wetshones As you can see it is a lot of stuff and it is very fast. Multitasking is availiable with DeqView 386, Windows 386 and OS/2, plus you can use Unix if you want. Everything is easy to buy today, and it all works. The graphics speed is at least a good or better than my Amiga 1000, at least I can draw pattern filled polygons with it much faster than on the Amiga. All in all it is useable, fast and cheap. To top it all off if I don't mind spending money I can even get a much faster system, that will run my binaries. Now in all honesty, if I could only buy stuff from IBM I don't think the system would compare as well. The third party support is what is taking the pc clones to new heights! The problem Commodore has isn't to beat IBM or Apple but to beat them and all the third party vendors that support IBM and Apple. I think the real lead the Amiga still has is desktop video and animation. However to hold this lead better hardware is needed. Wayne Knapp