"PETER C. FREY" <PFREY%drew.bitnet@pucc.princeton.edu> (03/29/91)
As an ardent A2000 owner, I have vocalized my position on the matter to
all willing to endure the knowledge that it is superior to all other
computers, notably the mac.
I was on relay the other day, and I was quite slighted by what I heard.
A mac consultant (also ardent about his 'computer'), who didn't know
the expression 'BTW' or what a video toaster was, stated that his mac,
which cost him $2000, was better than my A2000, which I got used (only
1 year old) for $850 and monitor for $100 (both are in excellent condition
and with many add-ons). I was able to prove him wrong in that comparison.
HOWEVER,
This ignorant fellow, ruffled as he was, insisted many times that a
certain, top of the line, newly released mac had over 1,000,000 colors,
cd sound, and several other unbelievable things. He said that mac can
emulate amiga software these days.
I discussed this with other Amiga users on relay, and they doubted the
possibility of the above right off. If such was possible, they state,
you'd have to mortgage your house to do so.
Even if the mac does it with a truckful of money, they CAN do it. At least,
this what that consultant said. He said that he received this information
from the macworld (or whatever its name is) and hands-on.
My universe will crumble if the above is true.
Tell me it's not so!!!
- Peter C. Frey
PFREY@DREW.BITNET
**************************************************************************
* // *
* //| // *
* // | ||\ // *
* //__| ||\ //| -------- -------_ ||\\ \\ // *
* //---| ||\\ // | || || __ _ ||_\\ \\ // *
* // | || \\/ | ___||___ |_____|| || \\ \\/ *
* *
* "WHERE MACINTOSH IS JUST ANOTHER NAME FOR A ROTTEN APPLE" *
**************************************************************************metahawk@itsgw.rpi.edu (Wayne G Rigby) (03/29/91)
In article <49174@nigel.ee.udel.edu> "PETER C. FREY" <PFREY%drew.bitnet@pucc.princeton.edu> writes: <stuff deleted> > >A mac consultant (also ardent about his 'computer'), who didn't know >the expression 'BTW' or what a video toaster was, stated that his mac, >which cost him $2000, was better than my A2000, which I got used (only >1 year old) for $850 and monitor for $100 (both are in excellent condition >and with many add-ons). I was able to prove him wrong in that comparison. > >HOWEVER, > This ignorant fellow, ruffled as he was, insisted many times that a >certain, top of the line, newly released mac had over 1,000,000 colors, >cd sound, and several other unbelievable things. He said that mac can >emulate amiga software these days. The present rumors in the Mac world these days is that the next new Mac coming out will be a tower 68040 machine. The top of the line right now is the Mac IIfx, which comes with no display card. You can buy a 1 bit card for use with a 12 inch monochrome monitor, or an 8 bit card for 256 out of 16 million colors max, or a 24 bit card for up to 16 million colors out of 16 millions colors on screen. The 1 bit card costs $135 (ed. pricing), 8 bit - $425, and 24 bit - $595. A graphics coprocessor can also be bought with a graphics coproccessor (for an extra $725) and has room for RAM for enhanced graphics use (can someone say chip RAM, does anyone think this sounds familiar?). So the top of the line Mac can have > 1,000,00 colors if you wnat to pay for it. As to emulating an Amiga, possible, but not probable. A legal Amiga emulator would need a hardware board in which all the custom chips could be placed. This would probably run slower than a normal Amiga. A software Amiga emulator would be extremely slow, even on an fx. Look at the C64 emulators and how slow they run with only a few custom chips being emulated. I'm sure Commodore would also raise a legal eyebrow at such a device. I also browse through my roomate's MacWorld's and don't remember seeing such a device mentioned. > >I discussed this with other Amiga users on relay, and they doubted the >possibility of the above right off. If such was possible, they state, >you'd have to mortgage your house to do so. > >Even if the mac does it with a truckful of money, they CAN do it. At least, >this what that consultant said. He said that he received this information >from the macworld (or whatever its name is) and hands-on. > > My universe will crumble if the above is true. > Tell me it's not so!!! > > - Peter C. Frey > PFREY@DREW.BITNET > >************************************************************************** >* // * >* //| // * >* // | ||\ // * >* //__| ||\ //| -------- -------_ ||\\ \\ // * >* //---| ||\\ // | || || __ _ ||_\\ \\ // * >* // | || \\/ | ___||___ |_____|| || \\ \\/ * >* * >* "WHERE MACINTOSH IS JUST ANOTHER NAME FOR A ROTTEN APPLE" * >************************************************************************** > > Metahawk metahawk@rpi.edu
Greg_Goss@mindlink.UUCP (Greg Goss) (04/01/91)
> umstobb1@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes: > Person: Colin Stobbe > > From what I remember from "Computer Graphics World" magazine, Mac users > can buy 32 bit graphics cards (don't ask me how many colours that is, but > it's a lot 2^32). These, obviously, cost just tons of money, and are > strictly for graphics professionals. > In the Mac world, those 32 bits are really 24 bits of colour. The other 8 are for other effects. (transparency?). The human eye can only perceive 25 bits of colour according to what I've read. (8 bits of red, 8 bits of blue, 9 bits of green) The formula is thus more complex than a simple 2^32 .../greg
GKZ117@uriacc.uri.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (04/01/91)
On 29 Mar 91 04:26:08 GMT Wayne G Rigby said: >In article <49174@nigel.ee.udel.edu> "PETER C. FREY" > <PFREY%drew.bitnet@pucc.princeton.edu> writes: [Muncha, muncha] > >As to emulating an Amiga, possible, but not probable. A legal Amiga emulator >would need a hardware board in which all the custom chips could be placed. >This would probably run slower than a normal Amiga. You would not need to use Amiga chips, if a complete ROM emulation was achieved. It would be, in all probability, a much harder task than AMAX was, but it is possible, and the legal issue can be addressed. > A software Amiga >emulator would be extremely slow, even on an fx. Look at the C64 >emulators and how slow they run with only a few custom chips being >emulated. I'm sure Commodore would also raise a legal eyebrow at such >a device. I also browse through my roomate's MacWorld's and don't >remember seeing such a device mentioned. > People have reverse-engineered Sparc chips, Intel chips, IBM's BIOS and Mac's ROMs, there's nothing stopping them from doing it to Commodore. Some of those examples haven't proven to be totally legal, but even if they aren't, there likely will be more sucessful attempts in the future. If such an emulator does apear, it would probably be a serious feather in Commodore's hat, as the speed comparision would be rediculous. I would wager that the fastest Mac wouldn't touch even a stock Amiga when it comes to anything that uses the custom chips. Then compare AMAX. Nobody smart enough to do such a project would do it. > > Metahawk > metahawk@rpi.edu To clarify, I wasn't insinuating someone building compatible custom chips, but that they re-write the exec and intuition routines that utilize them, doing everything "longhand". Also, a mac running this theoretical emulator would run reasonably fast until they hit the emulated custom chip part of the show. Then it would drag. -------- F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet GKZ117 at URIACC.URI.edu Though you'd like to know.
umstobb1@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Colin Stobbe) (04/02/91)
In article <49174@nigel.ee.udel.edu> "PETER C. FREY" <PFREY%drew.bitnet@pucc.princeton.edu> writes: >HOWEVER, > This ignorant fellow, ruffled as he was, insisted many times that a >certain, top of the line, newly released mac had over 1,000,000 colors, Hello, From what I remember from "Computer Graphics World" magazine, Mac users can buy 32 bit graphics cards (don't ask me how many colours that is, but it's a lot 2^32). These, obviously, cost just tons of money, and are strictly for graphics professionals. Colin Stobbe
rcj2@cbnewsd.att.com (ray.c.jender) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Apr1.185501.6295@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umstobb1@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Colin Stobbe) writes: >In article <49174@nigel.ee.udel.edu> "PETER C. FREY" <PFREY%drew.bitnet@pucc.princeton.edu> writes: >>HOWEVER, >> This ignorant fellow, ruffled as he was, insisted many times that a >>certain, top of the line, newly released mac had over 1,000,000 colors, > >Hello, > From what I remember from "Computer Graphics World" magazine, Mac users >can buy 32 bit graphics cards (don't ask me how many colours that is, but >it's a lot 2^32). These, obviously, cost just tons of money, and are strictly >for graphics professionals. > > Colin Stobbe I don't believe there is any graphic color standard greater then 2^24...the rest of the bits are used for other things like overlay or underlay...
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (04/02/91)
In article <49450@nigel.ee.udel.edu> "F. Michael Theilig" <GKZ117@uriacc.uri.edu> writes: > People have reverse-engineered Sparc chips, Intel chips, IBM's BIOS > and Mac's ROMs, there's nothing stopping them from doing it to Commodore. No one has ever reverse-engineered a Sparc processor. It's not necessary, you can get a complete architecture definition from Sun and build your own as you see fit. Cypress and Fujitsu have done this (maybe others I don't recall). Sun encourages it. I'm also not sure if you pay a license fee to Sun... > To clarify, I wasn't insinuating someone building compatible > custom chips, but that they re-write the exec and intuition routines > that utilize them, doing everything "longhand". Also, a mac running > this theoretical emulator would run reasonably fast until they hit > the emulated custom chip part of the show. Then it would drag. Maybe you don't recall the long discussions about how to get third party graphics card designs integrated into the Amiga. This is exceedingly difficult, and it is likely that the only hope for any new graphics modes for the Amiga will come from new custom graphics chips from Commodore which are made to be compatible. The things that make this exceedingly difficult also makes compatible reverse-engineered rewrites of graphics.library, intended to run on a Mac frame buffer, exceedingly difficult. Oh, and don't expect anyone to clone the custom chips. This is not to say it's impossible, in fact it's easy to find out the full functionality of the chips because it's well documented. But Commodore has a patent on the technology. This means that even if you do a full clean room reverse engineer, you *still* owe Commodore tribute for thinking of it in the first place. Given what that would cost and what kind of revenue this Amiga market generates, no one would be that stupid... -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / ckp@grebyn.com \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
metahawk@itsgw.rpi.edu (Wayne G Rigby) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Apr1.185501.6295@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umstobb1@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Colin Stobbe) writes: >In article <49174@nigel.ee.udel.edu> "PETER C. FREY" <PFREY%drew.bitnet@pucc.princeton.edu> writes: >>HOWEVER, >> This ignorant fellow, ruffled as he was, insisted many times that a >>certain, top of the line, newly released mac had over 1,000,000 colors, > >Hello, > From what I remember from "Computer Graphics World" magazine, Mac users >can buy 32 bit graphics cards (don't ask me how many colours that is, but >it's a lot 2^32). These, obviously, cost just tons of money, and are strictly >for graphics professionals. > > Colin Stobbe > for # of colors ^ 32 bit color graphics is effectively the same as 24 bit graphics. There are only 2^24 (16,777,216) colors on screen. The extra 8 bits (alpha control) are (from what I've heard) used for transparent objects and perhaps color cyling, among other things that I have no idea about. Metahawk metahawk@rpi.edu
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (04/03/91)
In article <49450@nigel.ee.udel.edu> GKZ117@uriacc.uri.edu (F. Michael Theilig) writes: >On 29 Mar 91 04:26:08 GMT Wayne G Rigby said: >> >>As to emulating an Amiga, possible, but not probable. A legal Amiga emulator >>would need a hardware board in which all the custom chips could be placed. >>This would probably run slower than a normal Amiga. > > You would not need to use Amiga chips, if a complete ROM emulation > was achieved. It would be, in all probability, a much harder task than > AMAX was, but it is possible, and the legal issue can be addressed. Ever heard of Blitter and Copper? The ROM is the smaller problem IMHO, because you can legally buy Kickstart disks. But to emulate these chips in software, sounds nearly impossible, at least for the copper. >> A software Amiga >>emulator would be extremely slow, even on an fx. Look at the C64 >>emulators and how slow they run with only a few custom chips being >>emulated. I'm sure Commodore would also raise a legal eyebrow at such >>a device. I also browse through my roomate's MacWorld's and don't >>remember seeing such a device mentioned. >> > People have reverse-engineered Sparc chips, Intel chips, IBM's BIOS > and Mac's ROMs, there's nothing stopping them from doing it to Commodore. > Some of those examples haven't proven to be totally legal, but even if they > aren't, there likely will be more sucessful attempts in the future. You only talk about ROMs, and these are really not the point in question. It's that real-time power which is only provided by these Amiga chips. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
erk@americ.UUCP (Erick Parsons) (04/03/91)
>In article <1991Apr1.185501.6295@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umstobb1@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Colin Stobbe) writes: >In article <49174@nigel.ee.udel.edu> "PETER C. FREY" <PFREY%drew.bitnet@pucc.princeton.edu> writes: >>HOWEVER, >> This ignorant fellow, ruffled as he was, insisted many times that a >>certain, top of the line, newly released mac had over 1,000,000 colors, > >Hello, > From what I remember from "Computer Graphics World" magazine, Mac users >can buy 32 bit graphics cards (don't ask me how many colours that is, but >it's a lot 2^32). These, obviously, cost just tons of money, and are strictly >for graphics professionals. > > Colin Stobbe That's 4.3 Billion colors. If you ask me it's a waste of money. Consider that the Human eye can only percieve ~7 Million colors at the peak of health. That's a 613 X overkill. All hype. ;) -- Erick Parsons, Sacramento erick@sactoh0.sac.ca.us <-- Right off the freeway -- {ames att sun }!pacbell!sactoh0!pacengr!americ!erk <-- At the end of the road --
s902255@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Andrew Vanderstock) (04/09/91)
>>>HOWEVER, >>> This ignorant fellow, ruffled as he was, insisted many times that a >>>certain, top of the line, newly released mac had over 1,000,000 colors, I know of no macs that have *motherboard* 24 bit colour cards, not even the new Mac IIfx. You have to buy the extra colours for extra $$$ (and that's a lot in anyone's language!) All 256+ colour boards for the Mac which claim to have 24+ bits of colour resolution only have 24 bits of colour resolution. IE 16,000,000 (and a bit) colours to choose from. The extra bits are used for tag information or an alpha buffer. >Hello, > From what I remember from "Computer Graphics World" magazine, Mac users >can buy 32 bit graphics cards (don't ask me how many colours that is, but >it's a lot 2^32). These, obviously, cost just tons of money, and are strictly ^^^ No it isn't. See above reason. >for graphics professionals. It shouldn't be. The Video DACs are only slightly more expensive than the 6 bit ones present in many (cheap) VGA and SVGA clones. Mac accessory products are charged like a wounded bull, and have very little reason for being so expensive other than the Mac is expensive too. The only other reason that I can see for an expensive price is : cost of the video ram, for a 1024*768 image requires 768k of video ram. >> Colin Stobbe >That's 4.3 Billion colors. If you ask me it's a waste of money. Consider that >the Human eye can only percieve ~7 Million colors at the peak of health. That's >a 613 X overkill. All hype. ;) Yep. Even 16,000,000 million colours is overkill, but clearly it is better than the number of colours that VGA can display (256 out of 256,000). >-- >Erick Parsons, Sacramento erick@sactoh0.sac.ca.us <-- Right off the freeway -- >{ames att sun }!pacbell!sactoh0!pacengr!americ!erk <-- At the end of the road -- OzFuzzy (aka Andrew Vanderstock) s902255@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au The opinions expressed here are my own and (probably) not representative of RMIT's opinion, if it had one.
tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu (Todd Green) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr9.040415.27315@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> s902255@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Andrew Vanderstock) writes: >>>>HOWEVER, >>>> This ignorant fellow, ruffled as he was, insisted many times that a >>>>certain, top of the line, newly released mac had over 1,000,000 colors, > >I know of no macs that have *motherboard* 24 bit colour cards, not even the >new Mac IIfx. You have to buy the extra colours for extra $$$ (and that's a >lot in anyone's language!) > >All 256+ colour boards for the Mac which claim to have 24+ bits of colour >resolution only have 24 bits of colour resolution. IE 16,000,000 (and a >bit) colours to choose from. The extra bits are used for tag information or >an alpha buffer. > >>Hello, >> From what I remember from "Computer Graphics World" magazine, Mac users >>can buy 32 bit graphics cards (don't ask me how many colours that is, but >>it's a lot 2^32). These, obviously, cost just tons of money, and are strictly > ^^^ >No it isn't. See above reason. > >>for graphics professionals. > >It shouldn't be. The Video DACs are only slightly more expensive than the >6 bit ones present in many (cheap) VGA and SVGA clones. Mac accessory >products are charged like a wounded bull, and have very little reason for >being so expensive other than the Mac is expensive too. > The only other reason that I can see for an expensive price is : > cost of the video ram, for a 1024*768 image requires 768k of video ram. > >>> Colin Stobbe > >>That's 4.3 Billion colors. If you ask me it's a waste of money. Consider that >>the Human eye can only percieve ~7 Million colors at the peak of health. That's >>a 613 X overkill. All hype. ;) >Yep. Even 16,000,000 million colours is overkill, but clearly it is better >than the number of colours that VGA can display (256 out of 256,000). > >>-- >>Erick Parsons, Sacramento erick@sactoh0.sac.ca.us <-- Right off the freeway -- >>{ames att sun }!pacbell!sactoh0!pacengr!americ!erk <-- At the end of the road -- >OzFuzzy (aka Andrew Vanderstock) >s902255@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au >The opinions expressed here are my own and (probably) not representative of >RMIT's opinion, if it had one. -- Internet: tagreen@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu NeXTMail: tagreen@lothario.ucs.indiana.edu BitNet: tagreen@iubacs.bitnet