rudolpe@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Eric Hans Rudolph) (05/23/91)
I am programming the game BattleZone for the Amiga. I have the whole thing written in Lattice C and it is slow, even optimized. With 5 or so tanks on the screen and n missiles, and full 20 object rotations, it gets bogged down. Now if I go in and mess around with hardware registers and blitter stuff, I will be pretty much machine dependant on some things. I hear tell that the people who do this are idiots. I don't really see a way around it. For teh conversion, I am using system calls like AllocMem and AllocRaster, but as for the blitter line drawing routines, it's all machine register "poking" Can someone clarify me on what people hate about hardware register software hacking? I don't think I can get the speed... rudolpe@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
Paul Dickson <Dickson@system-m.az05.bull.com> (05/23/91)
There's nothing wrong with going direct to the hardware, just do it the correct way. Ask for it rather than just taking it. But are you really sure you can't speed it up any. Have you tried profiling your code to see where it spends its time. Is it were you expected it? Is it possible to to choose a different algorythm that comes close enough to what you want to get the job done? Just some ideas you can kick around...
buffa@flottante.inria.fr (Michel Buffa) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May22.193016.12202@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU>, rudolpe@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Eric Hans Rudolph) writes: > I am programming the game BattleZone for the Amiga. I have the whole thing > written in Lattice C and it is slow, even optimized. With 5 or so tanks on > the screen and n missiles, and full 20 object rotations, it gets bogged > down. Now if I go in and mess around with hardware registers and blitter stuff, > I will be pretty much machine dependant on some things. I hear tell that the > people who do this are idiots. I don't really see a way around it. For teh > conversion, I am using system calls like AllocMem and AllocRaster, but as > for the blitter line drawing routines, it's all machine register "poking" > Can someone clarify me on what people hate about hardware register software > hacking? I don't think I can get the speed... > > > rudolpe@jacobs.cs.orst.edu Well, all the great games that uses 3D filled vectors are written 100% in machine language and use directly the hardware of the machine. Starglider 2, Carrier Command are 100% machine language. Stellar7 by Dynamix is not 100% machine language, and has been ported from the IBM PC. It is HD installable, but is so slooooooooooow !!! The game screen is very small. I much prefer a game like Starglider 2, Simulcra, Carrier Command, Battle command that do not recognize all computer configurations, are not HD installable, but give me a lot of fun. Use the hardware at its best on your machine, then try to make it work on the other Amiga: 3000, 500, but please don't think about a game that could be easily ported on a PC for example. It will be slow... throw Lattice away and try a good assembler/debugger. -- ------------------------------------------ Michel Buffa: Projet Robotvis, INRIA, France Internet: buffa@sardaigne.inria.fr Surface Mail: Michel BUFFA, INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, 2004, route des Lucioles, 06565 Valbonne Cedex -- FRANCE Voice phone: (33) 93.65.78.39, Fax: (33) 93 65 77 65 ------------------------------------------
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli +1 201 408 5389) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May22.193016.12202@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> rudolpe@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Eric Hans Rudolph) writes: > I am programming the game BattleZone for the Amiga. I have the whole thing > written in Lattice C and it is slow, even optimized. With 5 or so tanks on > the screen and n missiles, and full 20 object rotations, it gets bogged > down. Now if I go in and mess around with hardware registers and blitter stuff, > I will be pretty much machine dependant on some things. I hear tell that the There is nothing wrong with going right to the HW, just do it the correct way. I think there is more to this issue than just going directly to the hardware. You have a lot of objects on the screen. You seem to be doing a lot of work for each one. I would imaging that the rotating, etc. is taking much more time than the drawing. Maybe you should re-write the rotation algorithm in assembler. But then again, a slow rotation algorithm rewritten in assembler is still a slow algorithm. Have you considered pre-calculating the rotations? Have you considered looking at the algorithm to see what doesn't need to be re-rotated or re-calculated across screen updates? > conversion, I am using system calls like AllocMem and AllocRaster, but as Ah, that may be another problem. Those routines aren't very fast. Why not call AllocMem once in the beginning of the program (one big chunk) and then use it? Same with AllocRaster. Allocate all your rasters in the beginning of the program, then re-use them. If you are using either of those calls in a loop, there are things you can do to improve the speed. I'm sure someone will post a message that says, "look at StarGlider, and this and that; they're all in assembler and really fast. Re-write your code in assembler and go directly to the hardware and it will solve all of your problems". If you really look at StarGlider you will see pre-rotated shapes and other tricks. In other words, they aren't comparing two similar problems. Portability seems to be a concern of yours. Going directly to the hardware may solve your problems now, but if you move to any other computer you won't be able to do those tricks and you'll be back where you started. Get the algorithms right the first time you write the program and porting will be even easier. Tom -- Tom Limoncelli tlimonce@drew.edu tlimonce@drew.bitnet 201-408-5389 Three witches making a potion. One asks, "A Liza Minnelli record, light beer, poppers, Frye boots; what's this spell for anyway?"
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May22.193016.12202@lynx.CS.ORST.EDU> rudolpe@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Eric Hans Rudolph) writes: >I am programming the game BattleZone for the Amiga. I have the whole thing >written in Lattice C and it is slow, even optimized. With 5 or so tanks on >the screen and n missiles, and full 20 object rotations, it gets bogged >down. Before blaming speed problems on the speed of system functions, check out your code. Would it be fast enough in assembler? Is it actually an algorithm problem -- you can make a bad algorithm go faster by working at it, but it's much better to start with a good one in the first place. >Now if I go in and mess around with hardware registers and blitter stuff, >I will be pretty much machine dependant on some things. I hear tell that the >people who do this are idiots. I don't really see a way around it. I'm probably the one who used the term "idiots", and it certainly doesn't apply to anyone who bangs the bits on these systems. I meant it specifically to apply to the people who go directly to the hardware for absolutely no good reason, other than the fact that they don't like the way the OS does a thing, or they think the Amiga is some big C64. Or they're just plain lazy. Or they worry about what happens when the user is running other tasks, which isn't even rightly their concern. >For the conversion, I am using system calls like AllocMem and AllocRaster, >but as for the blitter line drawing routines, it's all machine register >"poking". Can someone clarify me on what people hate about hardware register >software hacking? Your program won't work on systems without those registers. That's the problem. System software like graphics.library is here specifically to isolate the program from the underlying hardware. You can do blits and other hardware related functions via function calls. Those functions guarantee a couple of things. They assure that the blitter gets called properly, that unused bits don't get clobbered, and that, even if the blitter were to vanish (the A2410 board, for instance, doesn't have an Amiga blitter) your program might still work when retargetable graphics comes along. Or some future Amiga chipset that has a few minor but important differences you couldn't forsee when you wrote your code. You also have to realize that Commodore can't just say "they break" to programs that go to the hardware, if there are too many. The software base has to be supported as much as possible. If too many people break the rules, those rules sometimes have to change to accomodate these lawbreakers. That's the one reason 2.0 ROMs aren't out yet. If a significant percentage of the software base puts strong restrictions on the Amiga's hardware memory map, then that may have to be painfully preserved in the future. That may mean MONTHS of extra testing and possible redesigned to take into account things that are acting in a way Commodore has warned against. Sure, it's Commodore's right to break these things, but market realities limit the percentage of software you can get away with breaking. Bottom line is, if everyone goes to the hardware and does other nasty things, we have to ensure compatibility at the hardware level out of market pressures. That WILL delay future hardware, and may also cripple that hardware in some ways. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) (05/27/91)
In article <21889@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >I'm probably the one who used the term "idiots", and it certainly doesn't apply >to anyone who bangs the bits on these systems. I meant it specifically to >apply to the people who go directly to the hardware for absolutely no good >reason, other than the fact that they don't like the way the OS does a thing, >or they think the Amiga is some big C64. Or they're just plain lazy. Or they The Amiga IS a big C64 with lots of memory and nice custom chips. You only need an assembler to program those wonderfull games. A program like Shadow of the Beast can't be programmed using OS graphic calls. >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M. -Erwin-
cython@ais.org (Tim Devlin) (05/28/91)
I was under the impression that the Amiga was a BIG Atari 800, give that Jay Miner created the custom chip-set for both systems? Tim -- Internet: Cython@irie.ais.org Compuserve: 76217,1372 GEnie: T.devlin2 BIX: Cython
uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) (05/28/91)
[] >>Erwin van Breeman Writes: >>The Amiga IS a big C64 with lots of memory and nice custom chips. You only >>need an assembler to program those wonderfull games. A program like Shadow >>of the Beast can't be programmed using OS graphic calls. I am sorry, the Amiga CAN be programmed as a "big C64", but is not, and was never intended to be such a 'thing'. From day 1 on the market the Amiga was designed and engineered more like a SUN workstation than a C64. To program it as a big C64 only helps owners of 512k 500's play better games. Certainly Shadow of the Beast can be programmed using OS legal code on any 020 equipped Amiga with a couple of megs, I imagine some ingenious person could do so on a 68000 based 1M amiga. While you can think of the Amiga as a big C64, it was clearly never intended to be thought of as such, by C= or the original designers. -Roger UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!uzun ARPA: crash!pnet01!uzun@nosc.mil INET: uzun@pnet01.cts.com
cazabon@hercules (Charles Cazabon (186-003-526)) (05/28/91)
In article <-5PC_F#@irie.ais.org> cython@ais.org (Tim Devlin) writes: >I was under the impression that the Amiga was a BIG Atari 800, give that >Jay Miner created the custom chip-set for both systems? > Yes, you are absolutely correct. The Amiga 1000 was the next-generation Atari 400/800 machine. And the Atari ST was designed by some of the same people that designed the Commodore 64. Thus the irony. I hated Commodore Business Machines...until they bought Amiga Corporation. -Chuck cazabon@hercules.uregina.ca
raible@cbmvax.commodore.com (Bob Raible - LSI Design) (05/28/91)
In article <475@regina.uregina.ca> cazabon@hercules.uregina.ca (Charles Cazabon (186-003-526)) writes: >In article <-5PC_F#@irie.ais.org> cython@ais.org (Tim Devlin) writes: >>I was under the impression that the Amiga was a BIG Atari 800, give that >>Jay Miner created the custom chip-set for both systems? >> >Yes, you are absolutely correct. The Amiga 1000 was the next-generation >Atari 400/800 machine. And the Atari ST was designed by some of the same people >that designed the Commodore 64. Thus the irony. I hated Commodore Business >Machines...until they bought Amiga Corporation. > > -Chuck > cazabon@hercules.uregina.ca I was here in 1982 when the C64 was just starting to ramp up. The two designers identified most closely associated with this effort left a few months later(along with the director of engineering to form their own company. These two had nothing to do with the ST. On the other hand Shiraz Shivji(management type), John Hoenig, and perhaps a few others left in 1983 to join Jack Tramiel in Atari-land. Perhaps someone has confused the individuals involved ??? As far as the Amiga being a new and improved Atari 800, this is probably truer in the figurative sense than the literal sense. The original intent of the Amiga project team was to make a truly awesome game machine with hitherto unheard of graphics and sound(and make some money for the original investor group, Floridian dentists if I remember correctly).
brett@visix.com (Brett Bourbin) (05/28/91)
In article <1991May27.090523.8605@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl>, breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) writes: > In article <21889@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > > >I'm probably the one who used the term "idiots", and it certainly doesn't apply > >to anyone who bangs the bits on these systems. I meant it specifically to > >apply to the people who go directly to the hardware for absolutely no good > >reason, other than the fact that they don't like the way the OS does a thing, > >or they think the Amiga is some big C64. Or they're just plain lazy. Or they > > The Amiga IS a big C64 with lots of memory and nice custom chips. You only > need an assembler to program those wonderfull games. A program like Shadow > of the Beast can't be programmed using OS graphic calls. Oh, Please. A Game like Beast CAN be programmed using the OS. You can setup the display using graphic calls, create custom Copper list to do all our fancy tricks, install them into your own personal View (User Copper Lists), handle all mouse/joystick actions with the input.device (at a higher pri than Intuition), etc... This is not to say that you don't need to write high-performance code to superseed some of the OS calls (Blitting, for example), but you don't need, for the most part, to throw out the whole OS to do it. I have written a program that treats the Amiga like a "Big C-64" and does everything to the bare metal. Then I re-wrote it to use the OS, and guess what, not much was lost (in terms of speed and special effects). This program did Copper tricks for color shading, 3d real-time rendering (well, sort of) and full mouse control. It can be done. (IMHO) This is really off the subject of hardware now, so I will direct followups to the programming group. -- __ Brett Bourbin \ / /(_ /\/ 11440 Commerce Park Drive ..!uunet!visix!brett \/ / __)/ /\ Reston, Virginia 22091 brett@visix.com Software Inc (703) 758-2733
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May27.090523.8605@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl> breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) writes: >In article <21889@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>I'm probably the one who used the term "idiots", and it certainly doesn't apply >>to anyone who bangs the bits on these systems. I meant it specifically to >>apply to the people who go directly to the hardware for absolutely no good >>reason, other than the fact that they don't like the way the OS does a thing, >>or they think the Amiga is some big C64. Or they're just plain lazy. Or they >The Amiga IS a big C64 with lots of memory and nice custom chips. No it's not! You are absolutely wrong. That's the problem. The Amiga is something considerably more. Keep the C64 in mind when you think of treating the Amiga the same way. Ever notice how the C64 just kept improving over the years? How all the bugs in the Kernal were fixed, new functions added, new and improved VIC and SIDs created, faster 6510s built. Of course not. The C64 is pretty much locked in stone. Real stupid things, like the exact execution time of 6510 instructions, all the Kernal and BASIC code, bugs included, even the bloody font patterns, have become part of the hardware definition of the C64. You change one thing and 50 programs break. Believe me, I was the #2 hardware guy on the C128. Even though it was a virtual hardware clone of a C64, we still ran into problems. You don't want Amigas to become C64s. If the Amiga was now treated as a C64 by everyone, the A500 and 1.3 would be locked in stone, and no Amiga would ever improve upon that. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/30/91)
In article <-5PC_F#@irie.ais.org> cython@ais.org (Tim Devlin) writes: >I was under the impression that the Amiga was a BIG Atari 800, give that >Jay Miner created the custom chip-set for both systems? While the often stated excuse for the Amiga development, way back when, was "to build the ultimate game machine", that was simply a good way to attract money in the early 80s, when game machines were hot. If the Amiga were really intended as an 80's answer to the C64 and Atari 800, it would have come with an operating system similar to that of those machines; one step behind MS-DOS instead of two or more steps ahead. And C= would have two or three programmers working on the AmigaOS, rather than the many they have. And no one would be talking about A3000s, multitasking, 24 bit graphics, UNIX, GUIs, networking, expansion buses, etc. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) (05/30/91)
In article <22006@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>The Amiga IS a big C64 with lots of memory and nice custom chips. > >No it's not! You are absolutely wrong. That's the problem. The Amiga is If you look from a theoretical hardware view it is. It is still a Neumann machine. There are some extra features like a blitter,copper and DMA but the basic principle is still the same. The main difference is the OS. >something considerably more. Keep the C64 in mind when you think of treating >the Amiga the same way. Ever notice how the C64 just kept improving over the I bought one of the first A500 (no 14xxx). The OS hasn't improved for me. I bought 1.3 1 year ago. Apart from FFS nothing much has changed. For the normal user: Kickstart 2.0 is not released. So you can't speak of much improvements of the OS (for the A500/A2000 users). The next thing is the hardware. OK, you can have now 1MB chip (or even 2MB if you take the A3000). But the hardware for the A500 stayed the same. In 1986 having 32 colors was great. Nowadays not. Most computers can have 256 (real) colors on their screen. A palette of 256000 colors is becoming more and more a standard. I like to have those things changed on my A500. But I know, from hardware points of view it is almost impossible. The answer had to be the A3000, but isn't. Yes it is great to have 640*400 without flickering. But my plain IBM could do that a long time ago (and still have 16 colors). What I need is colors and resolution (both not just one of them). I work as an astronomy student in Leiden. People prefer the Sun workstation above the DEC 3100 even though the DEC is 3 times faster. Why? The Sun has the possiblity to have a larger screen (in pixels). To be able to make a machine which is attractive to the business market, one should look what is needed. That is 1024*800 screens with 256 colors out 16000000. You have to stay in front of the competition.(i.e. look at Screen machine , counterpart for Amiga Vision). If that is not done, I see , I really regret this, the Amiga just die a slow death like the C64. >You don't want Amigas to become C64s. If the Amiga was now treated as a C64 >by everyone, the A500 and 1.3 would be locked in stone, and no Amiga would >ever improve upon that. See above. As a possitive contribution: why not introduce a graphicscard standard. People can buy the graphiccards they want, plug them into their Amiga and go. This should be supported by a special library written by Commodore. Something like the IBM. Then you are not limited by the original hardware. If the OS of the Amiga is properly written, it should be easy to be able to redirect the graphics output (assuming the OS always uses graphics.library for output). If there is a standard for those cards then manufactures can build cards for them. >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M. Erwin
jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May30.095308.25743@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl> breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) writes: >In article <22006@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > >>>The Amiga IS a big C64 with lots of memory and nice custom chips. >> >>No it's not! You are absolutely wrong. That's the problem. The Amiga is > >If you look from a theoretical hardware view it is. It is still a Neumann >machine. There are some extra features like a blitter,copper and DMA but >the basic principle is still the same. The main difference is the OS. > >>something considerably more. Keep the C64 in mind when you think of treating >>the Amiga the same way. Ever notice how the C64 just kept improving over the > >I bought one of the first A500 (no 14xxx). The OS hasn't improved for me. You don't get it. Dave H. was being sarcastic. C= couldn't upgrade the C64, because too many developers took liberty to do things their way. I bought one of the first A1000's sold on the West coast (November '85 I think). Good'ol WorkBench 1.0! >I bought 1.3 1 year ago. Apart from FFS nothing much has changed. Relative to what? V1.3 is a hell of lot different than V1.0! >For the normal user: Kickstart 2.0 is not released. I appreciate that C= wants to make sure V2.0 is bug free when it comes out. It taking so long though, is about as un-nerving as the continual flunctuation of sales tax in California. [<wish list dribble deleted>] More, more, more. The Amiga packs the most punch for the price. When I went for the Amiga, I was looking for a micro that was something like the mucho expensive computers I used at work (Sun, VAX). The Amiga came the closest. In fact it was and still is way out in front of the competetion. You want more? Go out and buy it! You have the option. -jeff >>Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" >> {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy >> "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M. > >Erwin
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.095308.25743@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl> breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) writes: >In article <22006@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>>The Amiga IS a big C64 with lots of memory and nice custom chips. >>No it's not! You are absolutely wrong. That's the problem. The Amiga is >If you look from a theoretical hardware view it is. It is still a Neumann >machine. There are some extra features like a blitter,copper and DMA but >the basic principle is still the same. The main difference is the OS. Hey, get a clue. We're hardly talking about basic Von Neuman machines here. "A Big C64" is hardly identical to "any Von Neuman machine". Are you also claiming that VAXen, IBM mainframes, and for the most part, Cray, are also even bigger C64s. This point has far less to do with machine architecture than it does with machine philosophy. Really, our business is a creative one, don't y'all go getting too hardcore left-brained on me. I think what I was talking about was pretty clear. >>something considerably more. Keep the C64 in mind when you think of treating >>the Amiga the same way. Ever notice how the C64 just kept improving over the >I bought one of the first A500 (no 14xxx). The OS hasn't improved for me. Realtive to what? It's an earth shattering improvement over the C64 Kernal, a real big earthquake over MS-DOS, and at least in some ways, a dandy shake over UNIX. You will see "Microkernel Architecture" touted more and more in the UNIX press, even. >I bought 1.3 1 year ago. Apart from FFS nothing much has changed. For the >normal user: Kickstart 2.0 is not released. So you can't speak of much >improvements of the OS (for the A500/A2000 users). I was, in fact, speaking to the possibility of advancement. A C64 class machine comes as-is, and will forever be that way. Even under 1.3, you can do things that shake the foundations of MS-DOS, for example. You will, some day soon, be able to run 2.0. And 2.0 is much improved, but that has realatively little to do with the point. >The next thing is the hardware. OK, you can have now 1MB chip (or even 2MB >if you take the A3000). But the hardware for the A500 stayed the same. You aren't likely to see hardware metamorph before your eyes. But there will hopefully always be new hardware. In the case of the C64, we had to leave it behind, there was no alternative. Properly written Amiga software will work on A500s and future Amigas. If you treat the A500 as a C64, it too will eventually have to be left behind. If you treat it as an Amiga, it will be able to advance, at least in software. And software is the bottom line; it's what makes your computer worth something. >In 1986 having 32 colors was great. Nowadays not. Most computers can have >256 (real) colors on their screen. Actually, most computers have 16 onscreen colors, if they have colors at all. When you look at the hot new toys for sale today, don't forget about the everyman's computers that aren't sold to business, or the vast number of computers already out there (start with 12 million C64s if you need a guideline). >The answer had to be the A3000, but isn't. Since the A3000 accepts plug ins, it can support any kind of graphics. The only reason you don't like this is (a) you're too cheap|poor to buy an A3000, and (b) there are no graphics standards for add-in Amiga boards under AmigaOS. There really aren't under MS-DOS either, that's only made things harder for those people, not stopped development. Hasn't stopped hardware on the Amiga either. But don't expect $500 graphics adaptors in a $500 computer. Yet. >What I need is colors and resolution (both not just one of them). Then why did you by a $500 computer.... >I work as an astronomy student in Leiden. People prefer the Sun workstation >above the DEC 3100 even though the DEC is 3 times faster. Why? The Sun has >the possiblity to have a larger screen (in pixels). ... rather than a $10,000+ computer (eg, Sparcstation with bigtime color graphics). I think you and I both know the answer. >You have to stay in front of the competition.(i.e. look at Screen machine , >counterpart for Amiga Vision). If that is not done, I see , I really regret >this, the Amiga just die a slow death like the C64. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the A500 doesn't compete with color SparcStations. They are totally different animals, and each pretty well suited for their markets. As for the C64, last quarter there was a 48% or so percent increase in sales. Not bad, IMHO, so a machine that indured a "slow death". Realize, of course, that C64 sales are nothing but gravy at this point, any new C64 sales are pure profit and no real effort. >As a possitive contribution: why not introduce a graphicscard standard. This will certainly be done. You have no concept of how much work it will be to support arbitrary graphics boards in a compatible fashion without giving away many of the graphics advantages you expect from an Amiga. I really don't either. Fortunately, there are people with vision beyond that of either of us considering the problem at present. As for the desire for this, it's obvious, we've been talking about it for many years. >Something like the IBM. Um, er, you really don't understand IBM computers very well, do you. There is no graphics architecture on most IBM compatible computers. You can buy MS-Windows, but on a comparatively small number of programs support this. The vast majority of graphics programs on the PClones do it on a program by program basis. Each program must implement its own window, menu, etc. manager. It must provide its own custom driver for any graphic display card it wants to support. I have a PClone here with about four EE-CAD type programs on it, though I rarely use it. Along with those four programs, I have about 70 separate graphics drivers. Each program must be separately configured for the graphics card in the machine. They all support VGA, EGA, and CGA, which are extremely primitive graphics systems, even for the most part when compared with your A500. Anything slightly different might be supported, might not, based on the particular application. You have the right idea, but the wrong computer. IBM/MS-DOS system have NO graphics support. Overall, Apple's Macintosh does it right. It could be better, but the bottom line is that the graphics display is an operating system problem, as it should be. Not an application problem. That's the way the Amiga should head. >If the OS of the Amiga is properly written, it should be easy to be able to >redirect the graphics output (assuming the OS always uses graphics.library >for output). If there is a standard for those cards then manufactures can >build cards for them. A standard is of course the way to go. But you obviously have no idea how difficult it is to support an arbitrary graphics device. Do you know how the Amiga graphics system works? Reasonably straight forward bitplane architecture, with graphics coprocessors, all memory mapped. Now add a dumb packed pixel display, like VGA. It can't do 1/2 of what the Amiga chips can do, but you'd still like to have as many applications use it as possible if you have it in your system. Now add the A2410, which has its own TI 34010 graphics processor on it. You want to offload as much work to that processor as possible. Now stop to think. Your CPU has to do everything for the VGA card, and it won't be fast. Amiga's blitter and copper can offload a good portion of the work from the CPU. The TIGA board can understand commands as abstract as "draw a circle at 300, 578, of radius 102" if set up properly. How do you support all of these to the best of their ability, and still retain Amiga compatibility. After that, consider a graphics device, like EGA or the C128's 8563, which is completely port mapped, rather than memory mapped. As the Who said many years ago, "the simple things you see are all complicated"... >Erwin -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
ewilts@janus.mtroyal.ab.ca (Ed Wilts) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.095308.25743@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl>, breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) writes: > > I bought one of the first A500 (no 14xxx). The OS hasn't improved for me. I > bought 1.3 1 year ago. Apart from FFS nothing much has changed. For the > normal user: Kickstart 2.0 is not released. So you can't speak of much > improvements of the OS (for the A500/A2000 users). > The next thing is the hardware. OK, you can have now 1MB chip (or even 2MB > if you take the A3000). But the hardware for the A500 stayed the same. In 1986 > having 32 colors was great. Nowadays not. Most computers can have 256 (real) It sounds to me like you bought your hardware for the wrong reasons. The standard reason is to find the software first, then buy the hardware that it takes to run. If your application still runs today like it did when you purchased it, then you really have no problem. If it doesn't do the job, then it is because your needs have changed, not because the hardware suddenly became inadequate. I seem to detect a typical whine that just because your machine doesn't have all the state-of-the-art features, you can't brag as much as you could before. > need is colors and resolution (both not just one of them). I work as an > astronomy student in Leiden. People prefer the Sun workstation above the > DEC 3100 even though the DEC is 3 times faster. Why? The Sun has the > possiblity to have a larger screen (in pixels). To be able to make a machine > which is attractive to the business market, one should look what is needed. Have a serious look at your "need" versus the machine you bought. You bought an A500, a CPU definitely not targeted for the business market. You're asking for a lot of Rolls-Royce features retrofitted into a VW bug. That isn't going to happen... You also have to separate the scientific market from the business market. There is no such thing as a computer that will satisfy all markets, just like there isn't an automobile for all people; a pickup truck and a Ferrari are both nice vehicles, but they're not interchangeable... > That is 1024*800 screens with 256 colors out 16000000. You have to stay in > front of the competition.(i.e. look at Screen machine , counterpart for > Amiga Vision). If that is not done, I see , I really regret this, the Amiga > just die a slow death like the C64. At the price your features (that you demand today!) would cost me, I wouldn't buy an Amiga because I couldn't afford one. My application is different than yours, and your "need" is my "why the hell did I have to pay for this" feature. Many people have demanded a built-in Ethernet controller in the Amiga. I'm glad Commodore is offering one (for their sakes), but I'm especially glad that it isn't built-in. That would have been a waste of money for me. As for your "slow death like the C64", remember that over 7 MILLION C64s were sold, and they are still selling. Is that so bad? That's probably a lot more than all of the Unix workstations in the world combined. If Commodore sells over 7 M Amigas, then they need to be proud of their achievement, and not be considered a failure (in fact, they did a damn fine job producing what they have, and can be proud of that). > As a possitive contribution: why not introduce a graphicscard standard. People > can buy the graphiccards they want, plug them into their Amiga and go. This > should be supported by a special library written by Commodore. Something > like the IBM. Then you are not limited by the original hardware. If the OS Which moving graphics standard are you referring to? The "standard" MGA, CGA, EGA, VGA, XVGA, or the whole slew of third-party (Hercules, etc) standards. Even with IBM's own set standards, you are averaging a new standard every 2 years. That doesn't sound like a well-designed standard to me... > Erwin -- .../Ed Preferrred: Ed.Wilts@BSC.Galaxy.BCSystems.Gov.BC.CA Ed Wilts Alternate: EdWilts@BCSC02.BITNET (604) 389-3430 B.C. Systems Corp., 4000 Seymour Place, Victoria, B.C., Canada, V8X 4S8
pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted) (06/03/91)
ewilts@janus.mtroyal.ab.ca (Ed Wilts) writes: >As for your "slow death like the C64", remember that over 7 MILLION C64s were >sold, and they are still selling. Is that so bad? That's probably a lot more Sorry for nagging, but wasn't it also 10 million? Correct me if I'm correcting wrong. -- From the notorious Jakob Gaardsted, Computer Science Department Bed og arbejd ! University of Aarhus, Jylland (!) (Pray and work!) AMIGA! pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk | I'd rather play Moria.
breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) (06/03/91)
In article <1991May31.094111.8616@janus.mtroyal.ab.ca> ewilts@janus.mtroyal.ab.ca (Ed Wilts) writes: >In article <1991May30.095308.25743@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl>, breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) writes: > >I seem to detect a typical whine that just because your machine doesn't have all >the state-of-the-art features, you can't brag as much as you could before. > No, I don't brag about computers. I have just arrived at a point to buy a new computer. My A500 doesn't live up to my needs anymore. Five years ago, the Amiga was the best buy you could make for under the $10000. Now I have to make a choice. I can buy an Amiga 3000. But then I don't have the graphics I want and the price is still too high ($5000+ in Holland) for what you get. On the other hand I can buy an 486 machine with everything I want for less than $3500. But that means: no multitasking and start all over again (software etc). Money isn't the real issue here: I spent more than $4000 on my A500 system (that is not a VW). I think there are more people who have the same questions about buying the A3000 or not. > .../Ed Preferrred: Ed.Wilts@BSC.Galaxy.BCSystems.Gov.BC.CA >Ed Wilts Alternate: EdWilts@BCSC02.BITNET (604) 389-3430 >B.C. Systems Corp., 4000 Seymour Place, Victoria, B.C., Canada, V8X 4S8 Erwin
bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) (06/03/91)
In <22058@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1991May30.095308.25743@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl> breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) writes: >Since the A3000 accepts plug ins, it can support any kind of graphics. The >only reason you don't like this is (a) you're too cheap|poor to buy an A3000, >and (b) there are no graphics standards for add-in Amiga boards under AmigaOS. Regarding (b), what about the use of libraries? They are a far cry from the poke memory instructions rampant in other machines. Due to the object-oriented nature of the Amiga operating system, Extending libraries can transparently expand machine functionality. Right? There are probably few "hardware" standards which can guide designers to produce plug-in systems which transparently supplant the custom chips. Though it is within the realms of possibility, it is certainly non-trivial. I expect that the kernel/custom ship interface may be somewhat tighter than ideal of such graphics expansion, but heck, I could be wrong (again). >>As a possitive contribution: why not introduce a graphicscard standard. >This will certainly be done. You have no concept of how much work it will >be to support arbitrary graphics boards in a compatible fashion without >giving away many of the graphics advantages you expect from an Amiga. I >really don't either. Fortunately, there are people with vision beyond that >of either of us considering the problem at present. As for the desire >for this, it's obvious, we've been talking about it for many years. Good. How about a new newsgroup comp.sys.amiga.standards ? -- Bernd Felsche, _--_|\ #include <std/disclaimer.h> Metapro Systems, / sold \ Fax: +61 9 472 3337 328 Albany Highway, \_.--._/ Phone: +61 9 362 9355 Victoria Park, Western Australia v Email: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (06/03/91)
In article <1991Jun3.040000.26077@daimi.aau.dk> pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted) writes: >ewilts@janus.mtroyal.ab.ca (Ed Wilts) writes: >>As for your "slow death like the C64", remember that over 7 MILLION C64s were >>sold, and they are still selling. Is that so bad? That's probably a lot more >Sorry for nagging, but wasn't it also 10 million? Correct me if I'm correcting >wrong. Huh, the last number I heard was 16 million. I find this quite exciting, because it's about the same number as VW beetles ever built. This parallelism between these two products is sort of heartwarming for me. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
consp03@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Kriston J. Rehberg) (06/04/91)
About the number-of-colors problem, all of the "other computers" that support zillions of colors do so because they have, installed in them, specialized video cards such as Paradise, Hercules, NEC Graphics Engine, etc... Most of them have minimal or nonexistent display hardware built-in onto the motherboard, unlike the Amiga which has complete display hardware built-in. Now, the Amiga has a video card slot that lets it talk more directly with display card hardware. There are plenty of cards that plug into that slot that let you handle zillions of colors, for just about the same price as the "other computers'" cards. There you go! Regards, Kris +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Kriston J. Rehberg, Student Consultant, SUNY Binghamton Computer Services | |consp03@BINGSUNS.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU +---------------------------+ |consp03@BINGVAXU.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |Opinions expressed here are| |CONSP03@BINGVAXA.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |my own and do not represent| |CONSP03@BINGVMB.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |those of this organization | +-----> Only Amiga makes it possible! <-----------+--------------------- ;-b -+
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun3.142629.11499@metapro.DIALix.oz.au> bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes: >In <22058@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>In article <1991May30.095308.25743@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl> breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) writes: >>Since the A3000 accepts plug ins, it can support any kind of graphics. The >>only reason you don't like this is (a) you're too cheap|poor to buy an A3000, >>and (b) there are no graphics standards for add-in Amiga boards under AmigaOS. >Regarding (b), what about the use of libraries? They are a far cry >from the poke memory instructions rampant in other machines. Due to >the object-oriented nature of the Amiga operating system, Extending >libraries can transparently expand machine functionality. Right? Of course. It's trivial to define a new kind of graphics library that'll permit programs and graphics cards to meet on some common ground. At the very low level, you could define some kind of graphics device which accepts a few basic functions. Like serial devices now, there would be a common set of setup and inquiry commands, and all you would have to do is tell the program of choice which graphics device to use. At a higher level, you'd have a library with a reasonably large number of functions. This library would manage its own drivers, one supplied with each kind of card. Each driver, when registering with the device, would indicate the functions that it can perform, a certain basic subset being required. All remaining functions would be provided by the library in terms of the simpler functions. If your card could do higher level functions better, it would supply its own. The library would give the application a way to inquire about which devices are present and what kind of resolutions, features, etc. they support. At the highest level, the application writes to the library and doesn't care what resolution the particular display is working at; the display and interface language assure that the output looks reasonable, independently of pixel and colorspace resolution. >There are probably few "hardware" standards which can guide designers >to produce plug-in systems which transparently supplant the custom >chips. Not really, there's nothing you can add in that'll realistically emulate the custom chips in hardware, except a very similarly designed custom chip. And that's not what you want, or you'll be at the mercy of hardware standards, just like on the PClones where any card is supported, as long as it's a VGA, MDA, CGA, EGA, etc. All the high powered PClone graphics cards have to support ugly VGA emulation, generally in hardware, or they don't sell. We already have one hardware dependent graphics standard, "graphics.library". We don't need a new one. Bottom line: the real trick to this is not doing any of the software abstraction levels I mentioned. These are very well understood both by C= and 3rd parties alike. The trick is building a graphics standard that works on most imaginable types of graphics hardware and still works with current software. Anyone can invent a new graphics standard that'll do the trick. You don't even have to invent it; why not just use Dale Luck's X Window System if you want a "new" standard. Most of the display cards on the market could support X. So can the Amiga chips. To get Workbench running on an alternate display card is a heck of a lot more work, and something C=, if anyone, will have to do. That's what everyone really wants when they complain about the state of graphics on the Amiga. They want the Mac solution, not the IBM PC solution. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
colas@celeste.inria.fr (Colas Nahaboo) (06/04/91)
In article <22058@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > As for the C64, last quarter there was a 48% or so percent increase in sales. Yes, seems that C64 future is great, the (ex-?)communist countries are now buying computers, and their lack of money make them buy low-cost machines. I have heard that C64 are doing great there... But this is something I read in a newspaper, so it might be a rumor.
berger@clio.sts.uiuc.edu (Mike Berger) (06/07/91)
breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) writes: >what you get. On the other hand I can buy an 486 machine with everything >I want for less than $3500. But that means: no multitasking and start all >over again (software etc). Money isn't the real issue here: I spent more *---- You have an "orphan" machine now (meaning it's a niche market, not mainstream like PC or Mac). You do not have to live without multitasking. You can run several Unix variants, or even (gasp) OS/2. Of course, you give up the mainstream MS-DOS option, but that doesn't seem to bother you now. -- Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu