cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (03/12/88)
In article <2508@tekig5.TEK.COM> wayneck@tekig5.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: > I found out that I computed the movm timing incorrectly... I have been following this exposition quite closely, (way to go Wayne) partly because video is sort of a hobby of mine and partly because it reminds me of programming 8 bit machines where one had to go through such gyrations as touching every row address to keep the DRAMs refreshed or not using instructions with an odd number of clocks because it would throw off the video timing. So the stuff about changing color palletes on the fly are fun to watch. However, (and you knew this was coming didn't you?) you will notice that as Wayne's algorithims get ever more complex they use up more and more of the available CPU cycles! One goal is to have something that your program can call to display a picture, but your program won't be able to do anything while it is being displayed. :-(. A couple of solutions have come to mind, one would be to buy a second ST and have it display the images while the main one did the rendering. The other would be to add a different frame buffer logic to the motherboard and then work on poking GEM into using it correctly. Maybe the EGA chip set that Atari is using in the Atari-PC could be used here. Spectrum 512 is an impressive program, is there anything like Spectrum Paint? Something that would allow designing these multicolor images? On a less statisfactory note, consider the following tidbits of information. Atari pushes the ABAQ as the answer to small workstations and then figures its price will be very high because the cost of getting the Transputer chips. Inmos, manufacturer of the Transputer had been (and still was at the time) for sale at damn near firesale prices. The holding company was not sure they could survive as an independent semiconductor company. Atari *didn't* buy them, although they probably could have, I never even heard that they were even trying. Now for a company that could really use some in house semiconductor fab capability, this looked like an ideal match. Hell, Inmos could have made blitters as well! So, from the outside looking in (always a tough position) it looks like Atari threw the ABAQ up as a weather ballon to see how many people would send them $100 and thus check the feasibility of marketing it. And the results of that test were "not enough" so they didn't bother assuring their supply of Transputers. (Inmos could as easily go out of business and leave them high and dry). Ah well, I have now moved my expections for the ABAQ from late '88 to early '92. I wonder why they don't use the ARM chip if they don't mind going with a different architecture. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.