2fmlhiccup@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (05/02/91)
Here is a quick question... Why is it so difficult to make display chips for the Amiga that will allow it to do resolutions/colors that i see on VGA? What are the hardware and software limitations? Jason Wilson
markv@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (05/02/91)
In article <91122.115817DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>, DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > In article <1991May2.030706.30302@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, > 2fmlhiccup@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu says: > >> Why is it so difficult to make display chips for the Amiga that will >>allow it to do resolutions/colors that i see on VGA? What are the hardware >>and software limitations? The hardware isnt' hard these days with all the off the shelf componants. Witness the plethora of graphics hardware for the Amiga. The 2610, Firecracker, Colorburst, DCTV, HAM-E, etc. > The operating system doesn't have significant support for add-in display > cards, and as a result there are only a few niche video boards. The custom > chips haven't been upgraded either, but that's an old flame war. :-) > I'm sure companies like GVP would love to do awesome video boards for > the Amiga, but without software support it's hard. (Certainly not > impossible or improbable though). Yeah. Commodore even had to make a specially hacked version of the OS 1.3 to support *their* monitor (Moniterm Viking/20??), Kickstart 35, and that monitor still uses the custom chips. Graphics library, intuition library, even Exec somewhat is still pretty tied to the custom chips structure, particularly the "bitplane" model of a raster in memory. Most new graphics boards (including the 2610) use "chunky pixel" model. So the system software doesn't know much about them, so they are limited to a frame buffer capacity right now. Commodore is supposedly working on a device independant graphics sub-system, in fact it even was on the early features lists for "1.4", but is one of the things (like Outline fonts) that didn't make it into 2.0. > -- Dan Babcock -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark Gooderum Only... \ Good Cheer !!! Academic Computing Services /// \___________________________ University of Kansas /// /| __ _ Bix: mgooderum \\\ /// /__| |\/| | | _ /_\ makes it Bitnet: MARKV@UKANVAX \/\/ / | | | | |__| / \ possible... Internet: markv@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu (05/02/91)
In article <1991May2.030706.30302@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, 2fmlhiccup@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu says: > Why is it so difficult to make display chips for the Amiga that will >allow it to do resolutions/colors that i see on VGA? What are the hardware >and software limitations? The operating system doesn't have significant support for add-in display cards, and as a result there are only a few niche video boards. The custom chips haven't been upgraded either, but that's an old flame war. :-) I'm sure companies like GVP would love to do awesome video boards for the Amiga, but without software support it's hard. (Certainly not impossible or improbable though). -- Dan Babcock
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May2.030706.30302@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 2fmlhiccup@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >Here is a quick question... > Why is it so difficult to make display chips for the Amiga that will >allow it to do resolutions/colors that i see on VGA? What are the hardware >and software limitations? VGA chips are very simple chips. They were originally simple enough for IBM to build as a gate array (VGA == Video Gate Array). Amiga chips, on the other hand, are considerably more flexible, but also much more complex, and could only be built as full custom devices. I would guess that an implementation of the Amiga chips that does, more or less, the same resolutions as the basic VGA, 640x480x8 with 24 bit CLUT, would wind up more complex than IBM's latest XGA chips. You're certainly getting something for all that extra complexity, but it's not as easy to crank out. And of course, those several hundred Amiga chip registers should stay as compatible as possible in any such new design, or all those idiots bypassing the software interfaces will see their software break. To give you an idea of the relative timing of gate arrays vs. full custom, consider the A3000. I got seven revisions of the Buster chip between December '89 and May '90 (the last few revs were relatively minor compatibility tweaks). The last time I was waiting on a full custom part, the Chip Guys gave me two revisions in about the same time frame. The difference between 5,000-10,000 transistors and 100,000 transistors can be a significant one. >Jason Wilson -- 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) (05/03/91)
In article <91122.115817DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu> DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >In article <1991May2.030706.30302@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, >2fmlhiccup@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu says: >> Why is it so difficult to make display chips for the Amiga that will >>allow it to do resolutions/colors that i see on VGA? What are the hardware >>and software limitations? >The operating system doesn't have significant support for add-in display >cards, and as a result there are only a few niche video boards. That's not an operating system limit when compared to MS-DOS machines, since MS-DOS has no significant support for any add-on video board. In the MS-DOS world, every program comes with a pile of drivers if it needs to use alternate video cards, otherwise it has support for CGA, EGA, and VGA usually, hard-wired into it. On other systems, such as the Macintosh or X based UNIX, graphics is really retargetable at the OS/graphics subsystem level. Only one device driver is necessary for one video card. While the ideal Amiga solution would be a graphics.library replacement that works more like the Mac's QuickDraw or X, currently solutions must work more like the PC, except for dealing with the built-in graphics chips, which graphics.library knows about, of course. And I imagine GfxBase's implementation of X would could be retargeted to just about any Amiga add-in board relatively easy. And of course, you get X under Amiga UNIX. -- 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.
xgr39@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (05/05/91)
In article <21173@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1991May2.030706.30302@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 2fmlhiccup@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >>Here is a quick question... > >> Why is it so difficult to make display chips for the Amiga that will >>allow it to do resolutions/colors that i see on VGA? What are the hardware >>and software limitations? > >VGA chips are very simple chips. They were originally simple enough for IBM >to build as a gate array (VGA == Video Gate Array). Amiga chips, on the >other hand, are considerably more flexible, but also much more complex, >and could only be built as full custom devices. I would guess that an >implementation of the Amiga chips that does, more or less, the same resolutions >as the basic VGA, 640x480x8 with 24 bit CLUT, would wind up more complex than >IBM's latest XGA chips. You're certainly getting something for all that extra >complexity, but it's not as easy to crank out. And of course, those several >hundred Amiga chip registers should stay as compatible as possible in any >such new design, or all those idiots bypassing the software interfaces will see >their software break. > >To give you an idea of the relative timing of gate arrays vs. full custom, >consider the A3000. I got seven revisions of the Buster chip between December >'89 and May '90 (the last few revs were relatively minor compatibility tweaks). >The last time I was waiting on a full custom part, the Chip Guys gave me two >revisions in about the same time frame. The difference between 5,000-10,000 >transistors and 100,000 transistors can be a significant one. I agree that a project like the updating of the custom chipset is not an easy one. This is only made worse by the inadequate funding of research and development by Commodore's management. I have never said that, by spending more on R&D, Commodore's semiconductor group could get the chipset out tomorrow. In all things there is a point of diminishing return, beyond which you get fewer and fewer results for the money that you spend. However, I do not think Commodore has reached the point of diminishing return with the amount that they are currently investing in R&D. In short, I believe that better R&D funding could help. Again, I do not think the chipset could be out tomorrow if Commodore spent their entire net worth on R&D this year. But I do think that better funding could shave as much as 20% off of the development time of the chipset. With a long-term project like this one, adequate funding from the beginning could have saved as much as a full year in the devlopment time. It is likely too late for the chipset that is in devlopment now, but more R&D funding could help in future chipsets. There will be a day when the 32-bit chipset will be as out-of-date and inadequate as the current one. If Commodore would increase their R&D investing today, this will save years in the devlopment time of that chipset, in the distant future. Unfortunately, I doubt their is anybody in Commodore's management who is as capable of thinking in the long-term as I am. Commodore's managers do almost everything in the short-term, and cannot maintain long-term projects. This is expecially apparent in Commodore's marketing practices. Commodore attempted a short spurt of image advertizing at many universities last year. However, when the advertizing did not show absolutely immediate results, the head of Commodore's educational-institution efforts was forced out. As a result, I really doubt that there will be another Commodore advertizement at many of these institutions ever again. > >>Jason Wilson > > >-- >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.
easton@zds-oem.UUCP (Jeff Easton) (05/06/91)
In article <21173@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1991May2.030706.30302@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 2fmlhiccup@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >>Here is a quick question... > >> Why is it so difficult to make display chips for the Amiga that will >>allow it to do resolutions/colors that i see on VGA? What are the hardware >>and software limitations? > >VGA chips are very simple chips. They were originally simple enough for IBM >to build as a gate array (VGA == Video Gate Array). Amiga chips, on the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Er, I think that stands for video GRAPHICS array. It has nothing to do with the fact that the chip may implemented in a Gate Array or Standard Cell, or anything else for that matter. In the same vein; XGA = Extended Gate Array (stretched gates) EGA = Enhanced Gate Array (gates on steriods) CGA = Color Gate Array (we mold our chips in colored plastic) MDA = hmm, Monochrome Diode Array? yea, thats the ticket... ;^) Insert multiple smileys here ;^) >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" Jeff Easton Zenith Data Systems // Systems Engineer \X/ easton%zds-oem@caspian.cs.andrews.edu easton@andrews.edu What? Preemptive Multitasking in only 256K of RAM? :^) :^)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/06/91)
In article <1087@zds-oem.UUCP> easton@zds-oem.UUCP (Jeff Easton) writes: >In article <21173@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >> >>VGA chips are very simple chips. They were originally simple enough for IBM >>to build as a gate array (VGA == Video Gate Array). Amiga chips, on the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Er, I think that stands for video GRAPHICS array. It has nothing to >do with the fact that the chip may implemented in a Gate Array or Standard >Cell, or anything else for that matter. > Originally it did stand for gate array. What people call it now may be totally different, but IBM dubbed it Video Gate Array. -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (05/06/91)
xgr39@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >In article <1991May2.030706.30302@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 2fmlhiccup@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >> Why is it so difficult to make display chips for the Amiga that will >>allow it to do resolutions/colors that i see on VGA? What are the hardware >>and software limitations? > [and Dave Haynie replies partly about the time to make chips] > >In short, I believe that better R&D funding could help. Nah. What they really need is an escape route from the current hardware setup. In other words, a way to take advantage of all the cheap chips available off the shelf these days. Much R&D funding would then be unnecessary. But that requires: device independent gfx software, as someone else said. Unfortunately, so much current software diddles video memory, that a complete break would be impossible right now. One solution might be to leave the current chips as they are, and instead add new internal video cards whose output can be selected over the normal output, under software control. May or may not be cheaper, but it would definitely be _much_ more quickly upgradeable as time passes. Old programs would use the old chips, new would use the DIG cards. Just an odd thought. cheers - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May4.183924.8432@news.iastate.edu>, xgr39@isuvax.iastate.edu wrote: > I agree that a project like the updating of the custom chipset is not >an easy one. This is only made worse by the inadequate funding of research >and development by Commodore's management. There was an interview with Gould in one of the English Amiga mags. Format I think it was. One of the first questions asked was 'new chips?' He said Fall 91, and when prodded mentioned 'more colours'. I'd snarf it only the OCR is on the blink. -- Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,## We're dying from the moment we're conceived, TCD,EIRE. <mike@maths.tcd.ie>## Time wins, always. ###############################DON'T MISS TRINCON400 7th, 8th, 9th FEBRUARY 1992 what is pure, who is pure, is it european, I ain't sure.......................PE