mnc@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Michael N. Chapman) (06/12/91)
I'm getting a bit tired of all these ATTEMPT to crush the Amiga, to make it cower before the "superior" Mac OS and the "incredible" IBM graphics. A few points:
1) Most people who bash Amigas just plain don't know what they're talking about
They've maybe seen an Amiga, but just arne't familiar with how powerful they
are.
2) Amigas make IBMs look like toys and Macs look like 1mhz machines. No other
microcomputer operating system multitasks as well as AmigaDOS. NONE. Other
system just don't have the hardware support for it - they spend 3/4s the
machine time processing graphics and i/o. Amigas can handle HUGE amounts of
using VERY little system time.
3) The Amiga starting out as a video (game) machine, yes it did. Fine. It still
has much better integration of graphics and MUCH better animation abilities
than any other micro. Amigas are beaten not by these joke Mac and IBM single
processor non-multitasking throwbacks, but rather by much more expensive woe
processor SLOW monsters, but rather by much more expensive minicomputer
workstations. Why are many universities chosing the Amiga 3000 as their
primary UNIX system for students? Because it's a video game machine with
low quality video? Because it's slow compared to IBMs and Macs running UNIX?
I DON'T THINK SO.
I could go on and on and on. So, in summary, Amiga bashers just aren't familiar
--
// | Email: mnc@turing.acs.virginia.edu
// |
\\ // Where the REAL power is. | From the desk of Michael Chapman
\X/ IBM, Mac, get REAL! |cma5_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chin) (06/12/91)
>1) Most people who bash Amigas just plain don't know what they're talking about > They've maybe seen an Amiga, but just arne't familiar with how powerful they > are. >2) Amigas make IBMs look like toys and Macs look like 1mhz machines. No other > microcomputer operating system multitasks as well as AmigaDOS. NONE. Other > system just don't have the hardware support for it - they spend 3/4s the > machine time processing graphics and i/o. Amigas can handle HUGE amounts of > using VERY little system time. >3) The Amiga starting out as a video (game) machine, yes it did. Fine. It still > has much better integration of graphics and MUCH better animation abilities > than any other micro. Amigas are beaten not by these joke Mac and IBM single > processor non-multitasking throwbacks, but rather by much more expensive woe > processor SLOW monsters, but rather by much more expensive minicomputer > workstations. Why are many universities chosing the Amiga 3000 as their ^^^^ provide data please! > primary UNIX system for students? Because it's a video game machine with > low quality video? Because it's slow compared to IBMs and Macs running UNIX? > I DON'T THINK SO. How about the majority of universities? I guess they are just stupid and shortsighted. Too bad that every company's survival depends on the market demand and even worse the market demand is driven by those dumb majority. Don't get me wrong. I think Amiga is a nice computer and I am planning to get one in the (hopefully not so distant) future. But it's not THE computer, becausethere is not such thing. Oh yeah, I've used Amiga before. Take care. chin A A
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (06/12/91)
In article <14441@ur-cc.UUCP> cma5_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Chin) writes: >How about the majority of universities? >I guess they are just stupid and shortsighted. Too bad that every company's >survival depends on the market demand and even worse the market demand is >driven by those dumb majority. Stupid and shortsighted... close. Actually, I've read that the more technically oriented a person is, the more likely he is to be manipulated by subliminal advertising. Amiga does pretty well with artist, even though Mac and IBM also directs subliminal advertising at them. It seems contradictory, I know, that the technically superior machine does better amoung artists. NCW
drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) (06/21/91)
A few days ago I noticed this newsgroup and thought I'd have a look. To be honest I don't know much about the Amiga but the near-religous attitude its users seem to have has caught my interest. I was particularly interested by the comments which praise the machine's hardware support for multitasking and wonderful graphics. It was also suggested that VGA-based IBMs were 'toys' by comparison. Could someone expand on these statements? A $2000 386/33Mhz actually multitasks quite well under OS2/UNIX/WIN3. The CPU provides virtual memory support, memory protection, and pre-emptive multitasking. Also, a $100 SuperVGA card provides resolutions up to 1024x768 (non-interlaced up to 800x600) and a quarter-million colour palette. Which Amiga configurations are available that offer superior capabilities and how expensive is such a system? -------------------------------------- Any opinions expressed are mine alone. --------------------------------------
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun20.200326.16487@bmerh409.bnr.ca> drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes: >Could someone expand on these statements? A $2000 386/33Mhz actually >multitasks quite well under OS2/UNIX/WIN3. The CPU provides Uh, UNIX costs at least $1000 for the 386, last time I checked. That means your 386/33 costs $1000?!?!? I don't think so... -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2126 Skate UNIX! (curb fault: skater dumped) PowerGlove mailing list: glove-list-request@karazm.math.uh.edu
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun20.200326.16487@bmerh409.bnr.ca> drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes: >A few days ago I noticed this newsgroup and thought I'd have a look. >To be honest I don't know much about the Amiga but the near-religous >attitude its users seem to have has caught my interest. I was >particularly interested by the comments which praise the machine's >hardware support for multitasking and wonderful graphics. It was >also suggested that VGA-based IBMs were 'toys' by comparison. > >Could someone expand on these statements? A $2000 386/33Mhz actually >multitasks quite well under OS2/UNIX/WIN3. The CPU provides >virtual memory support, memory protection, and pre-emptive multitasking. First of all, UNIX is not free. Secondly, Windows multitasking of DOS applications is not the same as UNIX multitasking. OS2, well does the phrase, slow and bloated pig with no outstanding support ring a bell? A $2000 386 system probably doesn't have decicated DMA-I/O (most likely it is using polled I/O which incurs a major performance hit on a multitasking multithreaded file system). >Also, a $100 SuperVGA card provides resolutions up to 1024x768 >(non-interlaced up to 800x600) and a quarter-million colour palette. How come everytime someone mentions this card they quote a lower price? First it was quoted as $300, then $200, then $150, and now $100? Since this board obviously doesn't have a co-processor can you imagine the refresh rate of something like X on a 1024x768x8 bit display? Some of these cheap 386 systems being sold are actually 386's with a braindamaged re-packaging that makes the chip 16 bit. >Which Amiga configurations are available that offer superior capabilities >and how expensive is such a system? Since people like comparing edu prices to list prices and street prices to list prices. You can purchase a 16mhz A3000 for $1850. The A3000 comes with 2mb memory, great expansion bus, 8 custom I/O chips (let's see if I can name them all: Agnus, Denise, Paula, Gary, Amber, BUSter, RAMsey, and Super?DMAC), programmable display (up to 768x480 non-interlaced, or 1280x200/400, PAL resolutions give you more, and there are oodles of more display modes), multitasking operating system, 4 channel stereo sound and fast animation capabilities. The hardware architecture of the Amiga just plain kills your standard IBM. While the A3000 is loading 2mb/sec from the harddrive it's only using 5% of the total CPU time. While the A3000 is playing sound, it's using no CPU time. Things like this just give the Amiga superior performance. I've noticed DOS people rely on clock speed as the sole gauge of performance which has little indicator of the overall system design (like the memory system). I'll let Dave Haynie step in and tell you why the Amiga's Zorro III bus is so great since I don't know the entire specs on it. For $2250 you get a 25mhz A3000. For $3200 you get a 25mhz A3000 with 5 megs of ram and a 100meg HD. For $4000 you get the same as the $3200 model plus SYSVR4 Unix, Xwindows and OpenLook. For $5000 you get a 25mhz A3000+Ethernet+9megs ram+SYSVR4 Unix+Xwindows+OpenLook. The A2410 card which will be released shortly sports a 34010 processor, up to 1024x1024 reslution (I know, I know, it's 1024x768 right? Welp, from what I read, switch the crystal that's on the card and you get 1024x1024 non-interlaced) the card supports 8 bit color with a palette of 16.7 million colors. List price is $1500, street price (and edu) will be much cheaper as usual (probably about $900, add in a monitor good enough to display this and it's a pretty expensive display, but nice for running Xwindows). Remember, the deeper the display gets, the better it is to have a fast coprocessor onboard. For 8 bit you can use the cheaper risc processors, but for something like >24bit, you need something like an i860. Those "miracle" $100 Super-VGA interlaced display cards are probably 1024x768x8 bits with a practical update rate (how fast the CPU can move the data) of about 10hz. Also, consider that VGA is only an 18-bit palette, not 24bits. [Devil's Advocate mode] 18 bit palette is not adequate for displaying fleshtones or grey-scale data! You only have 64 grey levels (6 bits) compared to the miracle of CD-I which has 256! VGA is not adequate, it's a hack! Fix the problem at the source, trash MS-DOS computers! [Devil's Advocate mode off] >-------------------------------------- >Any opinions expressed are mine alone. >-------------------------------------- -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun20.200326.16487@bmerh409.bnr.ca> drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes: > Could someone expand on these statements? A $2000 386/33Mhz actually > multitasks quite well under OS2/UNIX/WIN3. Yes, a $2000 386/33 feels pretty good. It's got some rough edges, but so does the Amiga. But remember that the Amiga we're comparing it with costs $500, or $1000 with a hard disk. Also, all the Amiga software runs under Intuition, whereas most software for windows has to run in a compatibility box. You also get a lot of stuff that requires a lot of tweaking to work reasonably well. > Also, a $100 SuperVGA card provides resolutions up to 1024x768 > (non-interlaced up to 800x600) and a quarter-million colour palette. Yes, but the AT bus puts enough wait-states on I/O to the card that it's barely adequate for animation. > Which Amiga configurations are available that offer superior capabilities > and how expensive is such a system? Well, the Amiga 500 provides nearly as good images, better animation, and better system software... for $500. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/21/91)
peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Jun20.200326.16487@bmerh409.bnr.ca> drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes: >> Also, a $100 SuperVGA card provides resolutions up to 1024x768 >> (non-interlaced up to 800x600) and a quarter-million colour palette. > >Yes, but the AT bus puts enough wait-states on I/O to the card that it's >barely adequate for animation. Funny, I don't recall him asking about animation :-). Jest kidding, Pete. Comparing animation on resolutions like those, to animating much smaller resolutions (read: far fewer bytes) on the Amiga, isn't quite fair tho. Drop back to 320x200x8-bit color on a decent VGA card with even a lesser Intel cpu, and it can play back animations just as well as the Amiga can. I've seen it, and so have other Amigans here in town. However, the Intel wasn't multitasking at the time, either :-). Still, I thought we already covered the number of waitstates in higher (read: decent) AMiga gfx modes? It's not real impressive either. Friends, it's getting about time that you should start opening your eyes. In other words, repeating old chants won't work forever, y'know :). Apologies: this was a kneejerk reaction to a too common kneejerk comment. - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun20.200326.16487@bmerh409.bnr.ca>, drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes: >A few days ago I noticed this newsgroup and thought I'd have a look. >To be honest I don't know much about the Amiga but the near-religous >attitude its users seem to have has caught my interest. I was >particularly interested by the comments which praise the machine's >hardware support for multitasking and wonderful graphics. It was >also suggested that VGA-based IBMs were 'toys' by comparison. > >Could someone expand on these statements? A $2000 386/33Mhz actually >multitasks quite well under OS2/UNIX/WIN3. The CPU provides >virtual memory support, memory protection, and pre-emptive multitasking. >Also, a $100 SuperVGA card provides resolutions up to 1024x768 >(non-interlaced up to 800x600) and a quarter-million colour palette. > >Which Amiga configurations are available that offer superior capabilities >and how expensive is such a system? Right now, there are no Amigas available that have resolutions greater than 640x960 or 1280x512 (both interlaced, 2 colors out of a palette of 64). With Commodore's A2024, you can get resolutions up to 1024x1024 mono with 4 gray levels, but this is only with this particular monitor, and you cannot use any other monitor to get this resolution. The best graphics you can currently get on an Amiga is 704x560 with 16 colors out of 4096 or 340x560 with 4096 colors out of 4096, both non-interlaced on an Amiga 3000. There are third-party cards which can give you better color capabilities but they are all interlaced and none of them are compatible with the Amiga's operating system (which means you can display pictures on them, but cannot run programs on them). BTW, supposedly Commodore is going to come out with a video card with resolutions up to 1024x1024 non-interlaced with 256 colors out of 16 million. However, this card has yet to reach the market more than four years after it was first shown, will probably carry a hefty price tag when it does reach the market, and is also incompatible with the Amiga's native OS (the card will be usable only with Amiga UNIX). > >-------------------------------------- >Any opinions expressed are mine alone. >-------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun21.002542.19989@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > How come everytime someone mentions this card they quote a lower >price? First it was quoted as $300, then $200, then $150, and now >$100? Because prices on these video boards keep falling. I have actually seen Super VGA video cards (800x600 with 16 colors out of 256K) for $75. >[Devil's Advocate mode] >18 bit palette is not adequate for displaying fleshtones or >grey-scale data! You only have 64 grey levels (6 bits) compared to the >miracle of CD-I which has 256! VGA is not adequate, it's a hack! >Fix the problem at the source, trash MS-DOS computers! >[Devil's Advocate mode off] You are obviously trying to get at me with sarcastic comments such as this, so I am going to do something that will really get you irritiated: I am going to agree with you. I do not like IBM systems. I hate them with a passion, in fact. This is why I always push MAC systems in my arguements. I find the resolutions of VGA to be interesting (and useful as flame-fuel), but I find VGA palettes to be too limited compared to the 24-bit palettes of MAC and CD-I systems. > >>-------------------------------------- >>Any opinions expressed are mine alone. >>-------------------------------------- > > >-- >/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ >| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| >\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * / > ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun21.091520.18849@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > You are obviously trying to get at me with sarcastic comments such as >this, so I am going to do something that will really get you irritiated: >I am going to agree with you. Arggggh! Noo! Touche' Marc. > I do not like IBM systems. I hate them with a passion, in fact. This >is why I always push MAC systems in my arguements. I find the resolutions >of VGA to be interesting (and useful as flame-fuel), but I find VGA >palettes to be too limited compared to the 24-bit palettes of MAC and >CD-I systems. When I think of 1024x768x8 VGA, I think of the A2024. The A2024 has an update rate of 15hz, however ,I'm willing to bet that moving a window in Super-VGA mode is very expensive and the refresh will be quite slow. If the Mac LC has problems updating in 8bit 640x480, surely the IBM will. >> >>>-------------------------------------- >>>Any opinions expressed are mine alone. >>>-------------------------------------- >> >> >>-- >>/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ >>| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| >>\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * / >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / >/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / >------------------------------------------------------------ >\ The great thing about standards is that / > \ there are so many of them to choose from. / > ------------------------------------------------------- -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun21.073046.8276@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>In article <1991Jun20.200326.16487@bmerh409.bnr.ca> drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes: >>> Also, a $100 SuperVGA card provides resolutions up to 1024x768 >>> (non-interlaced up to 800x600) and a quarter-million colour palette. >> >>Yes, but the AT bus puts enough wait-states on I/O to the card that it's >>barely adequate for animation. > >Funny, I don't recall him asking about animation :-). Jest kidding, Pete. > >Comparing animation on resolutions like those, to animating much smaller >resolutions (read: far fewer bytes) on the Amiga, isn't quite fair tho. >Drop back to 320x200x8-bit color on a decent VGA card with even a lesser >Intel cpu, and it can play back animations just as well as the Amiga can. >I've seen it, and so have other Amigans here in town. However, the Intel >wasn't multitasking at the time, either :-). Well, animation capabilities go hand in hand with fast screen refresh. Let's imagine I have a 1024x768x8 Shell window and I send it to back on this VGA card ....wait....wait....wait... ahhh it finally finished refreshing the screen. Common, a $100 VGA card? You can tell this thing doesn't have any co-processors on board nor will it have any mechanisms for moving huge chunks of graphics, in short the 1024x768 (interlaced?) mode is fairly unusable unless you are used to Xwindows. Now that I look at it, HAM-E, DCTV and Colorburst kick VGA's butt as far as displaying nice graphics. >Still, I thought we already covered the number of waitstates in higher >(read: decent) AMiga gfx modes? It's not real impressive either. In HAM mode you only have 50% wait states, and we've already seen HAM animations with 15-20 fps on a 68000. The point is, 1024x768 and no coprocessor are just too many pixels to move around. So Super-VGA gives you a nice static display, but I bet dragging icons around in it and changing windows will be ugly. >Friends, it's getting about time that you should start opening your eyes. >In other words, repeating old chants won't work forever, y'know :). >Apologies: this was a kneejerk reaction to a too common kneejerk comment. It's also time to realize this VGA card is no miracle, it's a cheap slow static display. You get what you pay for. > - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
galetti@uservx.afwl.af.mil (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun21.073046.8276@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >>Friends, it's getting about time that you should start opening your eyes. >>In other words, repeating old chants won't work forever, y'know :). >>Apologies: this was a kneejerk reaction to a too common kneejerk comment. In article <1991Jun21.113939.14446@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) replies: > It's also time to realize this VGA card is no miracle, it's a cheap > slow static display. You get what you pay for. > I heartily concur. I've never seen ANY animated VGA display that impressed me. All it's good for is showing pretty pictures that don't move. >> - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> > > > -- > / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ > | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| > \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * / -- ___________________________________________________________________________ / Ralph Galetti Internet: galetti@uservx.afwl.af.mil \ | PL/LITT Interests: computers, music, computers | | Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-6008 and music, golf, sleep. | \__"No, they couldn't actually prove that it was HIS vomit" - Nigel Tufnel__/
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/22/91)
Responding to the following: "Could someone expand on these statements? A $2000 386/33Mhz actually multitasks quite well under OS2/UNIX/WIN3." Actually, Win3 won't pre-emptive multitask Windows applications. It only pre-emptive multitasks DOS applications in 386 Enhanced mode because it uses the 386's V86 mode, which limits it to 8086 functionality. OS/2 won't multitask DOS apps at all until 2.0 arrives. Unix has nice abilities only on 386's and up since 286's and lower can't really support the full range of Unix functionality. "virtual memory support" OS/2 uses the 286's much less efficient segmented virtual memory, instead of the 386's paged virtual memory. In most cases, it is the 80x86 chip that limits the functionality of its OS's. Windows will use paged-VM in 386 Enhanced mode. Win3's 386 Enhanced mode is its main advantage over OS/2 until version 2.0 comes. "memory protection" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the 286+ protected mode provides memory protection based on its segmented design. It will only detect if an application accesses memory outside of its segment. If an OS were using a flat memory model (like OS/2 2.0) it can't provide CPU-level memory protection. (?)
peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) (06/22/91)
In article <1991Jun21.073046.8276@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: > Drop back to 320x200x8-bit color on a decent VGA card with even a lesser > Intel cpu, and it can play back animations just as well as the Amiga can. Possibly... "just as well". A $2000 33 MHz 32/32 CPU doing "just as well" as a $500 7 MHz 16/32 CPU. I'm supposed to be disappointed? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/22/91)
>> Drop back to 320x200x8-bit color on a decent VGA card with even a lesser >> Intel cpu, and it can play back animations just as well as the Amiga can. > > Possibly... "just as well". A $2000 33 MHz 32/32 CPU doing "just as well" > as a $500 7 MHz 16/32 CPU. I'm supposed to be disappointed? Gee, you're not "supposed" to be anything, Pete. Except perhaps the sensible guy whom I was glad to see come back from his trip to Oz :-). Methinks the .advocacy "bash-it" atmosphere is getting to us all <sigh>. But no, it doesn't have to be a 386/33... even an 8086 can pretty well, if combined with a no-wait VGA card in double-buffering mode. Question: why are we comparing a $2000 machine (which probably comes with an 80meg HD, 1-4M RAM, lotsa slots, SVGA and a monitor) with a barebones $500 A500? regards - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (06/23/91)
In article <1991Jun21.113939.14446@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <1991Jun21.073046.8276@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >>peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>>In article <1991Jun20.200326.16487@bmerh409.bnr.ca> drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes: >>>> Also, a $100 SuperVGA card provides resolutions up to 1024x768 >>>> (non-interlaced up to 800x600) and a quarter-million colour palette. >>> >>>Yes, but the AT bus puts enough wait-states on I/O to the card that it's >>>barely adequate for animation. >> >>Funny, I don't recall him asking about animation :-). Jest kidding, Pete. >> >>Comparing animation on resolutions like those, to animating much smaller >>resolutions (read: far fewer bytes) on the Amiga, isn't quite fair tho. >>Drop back to 320x200x8-bit color on a decent VGA card with even a lesser >>Intel cpu, and it can play back animations just as well as the Amiga can. >>I've seen it, and so have other Amigans here in town. However, the Intel >>wasn't multitasking at the time, either :-). > > Well, animation capabilities go hand in hand with fast screen refresh. >Let's imagine I have a 1024x768x8 Shell window and I send it to back on >this VGA card >....wait....wait....wait... ahhh it finally finished refreshing the screen. >Common, a $100 VGA card? You can tell this thing doesn't have any co-processors >on board nor will it have any mechanisms for moving huge chunks of >graphics, in short the 1024x768 (interlaced?) mode is fairly unusable >unless you are used to Xwindows. > Now that I look at it, HAM-E, DCTV and Colorburst kick VGA's butt as far >as displaying nice graphics. > > >>Still, I thought we already covered the number of waitstates in higher >>(read: decent) AMiga gfx modes? It's not real impressive either. > > In HAM mode you only have 50% wait states, and we've already seen >HAM animations with 15-20 fps on a 68000. The point is, 1024x768 >and no coprocessor are just too many pixels to move around. So Super-VGA >gives you a nice static display, but I bet dragging icons around in it >and changing windows will be ugly. > >>Friends, it's getting about time that you should start opening your eyes. >>In other words, repeating old chants won't work forever, y'know :). >>Apologies: this was a kneejerk reaction to a too common kneejerk comment. > > It's also time to realize this VGA card is no miracle, it's a cheap >slow static display. You get what you pay for. Of course, you can buy a high end SVGA board that does 1280x1024 with 256 gray scales and mucho colors. It will have a TI34xxx processor, and 16 megs of ram, and Z-buffers, etc. You to can get great animation from your 386 or 486 pc for just $2000-$4000 for the graphics card. Since you have spent all this money for the card, then you should get a .25mm dot pitch monitor. At about $1000-$2000. So that's good animation for $3000-$6000 plus the price of the 386 or 486 box. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (06/24/91)
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >OS/2, well, >does the phrase, slow and bloated pig with no outstanding support >ring a bell? > Does the phrase, "ignorant goon with no clue as to what he's talking about" ring a bell, Ray? OS/2 today (version 1.3) is small (much smaller than UNIX), fast, and solid. It doesn't have as much support as DOS/Windows, or even UNIX, but that doesn't mean that it's not a superior OS. Why don't you quote some benchmarks or memory usage estimates, Ray, and then maybe your post will mean something? > >A $2000 386 system probably doesn't have decicated DMA-I/O >(most likely it is using polled I/O which incurs a major performance >hit on a multitasking multithreaded file system). > Wrong. Every PC has DMA I/O. I run UNIX on the cheapest 386 possible, and intense disk I/O going on in the background does not slow down the machine significantly at all. It's not the most efficient system in the world, but it sure isn't polled I/O. > >How come everytime someone mentions this card they quote a lower >price? First it was quoted as $300, then $200, then $150, and now >$100? > Maybe that's because there have been so many improvements in VGA cards recently, that prices have been going down? Today (6/24/91) a $200 VGA card can display 1Kx768x8. A $300 VGA card can do all that and display 15-bit direct color graphics (32,768 colors) at 640x480 and 800x600. > >Since this board obviously doesn't have a co-processor can you >imagine the refresh rate of something like X on a 1024x768x8 bit >display? Some of these cheap 386 systems being sold are actually >386's with a braindamaged re-packaging that makes the chip 16 bit. > Ray, instead of imagining refresh rates, why don't you give it a try? It's obvious you never have, so all your bashing is completely off base. I run exactly the system you suggest, and I've never had to wait for the screen to redraw; again, it's not the fastest system, but it's perfectly usable. > >[Lots of hype about the A3000 and upcoming Amiga products] > The 3000 is really a fantastic machine with superfast I/O and terrific animation capabilities; I'd love to have one. However, it all depends on what you want. If you're like me, and you don't care about sound or video output, but you want a cheap UNIX system with lots of color at a reasonable GUI resolution, then 386 systems with SuperVGA really make a lot of sense. > >[Devil's Advocate mode] >18 bit palette is not adequate for displaying fleshtones or >grey-scale data! You only have 64 grey levels (6 bits) compared to the >miracle of CD-I which has 256! VGA is not adequate, it's a hack! >Fix the problem at the source, trash MS-DOS computers! >[Devil's Advocate mode off] > Well, well, I was waiting for the Real Ray to burst out. VGA is not adequate for displaying fleshtones? Oh, and I bet you think the Amiga's 4096-color video is? Why don't you fix the REAL problem at the REAL source -- switch to DECAF! >-- >/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ >| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| >\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * / -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (06/24/91)
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >When I think of 1024x768x8 VGA, I think of the A2024. The A2024 has >an update rate of 15hz, however, I'm willing to bet that moving a window >in Super-VGA mode is very expensive and the refresh will be quite slow. >If the Mac LC has problems updating in 8bit 640x480, surely the IBM will. > Well, I wouldn't bet the mortgage money on it, Ray. How can a person have opinions about things he's never seen? The obvious answer -- you've succumbed to the ramblings of the ignorant; in other words, you're beginning to believe your own BS. > >/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ >| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| >\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * / -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (06/25/91)
In article <9106221550.03@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: > >Of course, you can buy a high end SVGA board that does 1280x1024 with 256 >gray scales and mucho colors. It will have a TI34xxx processor, and 16 megs >of ram, and Z-buffers, etc. You to can get great animation from your 386 or >486 pc for just $2000-$4000 for the graphics card. Since you have spent all >this money for the card, then you should get a .25mm dot pitch monitor. At >about $1000-$2000. > >So that's good animation for $3000-$6000 plus the price of the 386 or 486 >box. > Really? And how much would it cost to equip an Amiga with similar capabilities? Well, it would have to go beyond payment, since such products don't happen to exist for the Amiga. The real truth is that a standard VGA card does low-res animation just as well as the Amiga, but with more colors (256 at 320x200). Don't kid yourself by implying that the Amiga video chipset rivals that of a $2K graphics adapter for a PC. By the way, I picked up my .25mm dot pitch Seiko CM-1440 for $459. >Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
area88 (Erick Tadefa) (06/25/91)
Yes, there are 1024 x 768 noninterlace VGA cards that cost $100. That's how much I paid for mine and its surprisingly quick, considering its running only on a 286 system. Perhaps if CBM would make a "VGAish" Zorro card and some sort of software interfacing then the critics of the amigas graphics would be silenced. It doesn't have to have a super graphics coprocessor ($$$$$$ for that) either. Everything else on the Amiga is great except for its dated graphics abilities. I used to own an Amiga, and wouldn't mind getting another one as long as I don't have to spend $700 just for a video card. The SVGA monitor by itself nearly broke my wallet...
rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/25/91)
In article <1151@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> >>OS/2, well, >>does the phrase, slow and bloated pig with no outstanding support >>ring a bell? >> > >Does the phrase, "ignorant goon with no clue as to what he's talking about" >ring a bell, Ray? OS/2 today (version 1.3) is small (much smaller than UNIX), >fast, and solid. It doesn't have as much support as DOS/Windows, or even UNIX, >but that doesn't mean that it's not a superior OS. Why don't you quote some >benchmarks or memory usage estimates, Ray, and then maybe your post will mean >something? Well, quoting from BYTE, it takes a 33mhz 386 with 4mb of ram to make the system usuable. Conclusion: OS/2 is bloated. (Im not saying Unix isn't, Unix is very bloated). I've read benchmarks on OS/2 1.0 and it was slow. OS/2 has no support, Unix already has the market. >> >>A $2000 386 system probably doesn't have decicated DMA-I/O >>(most likely it is using polled I/O which incurs a major performance >>hit on a multitasking multithreaded file system). >> > >Wrong. Every PC has DMA I/O. I run UNIX on the cheapest 386 possible, >and intense disk I/O going on in the background does not slow down the >machine significantly at all. It's not the most efficient system in the >world, but it sure isn't polled I/O. Every PC may have "general purpose DMA I/O" lines on the motherboard, but not every controller actually uses them. >> >>How come everytime someone mentions this card they quote a lower >>price? First it was quoted as $300, then $200, then $150, and now >>$100? >> > >Maybe that's because there have been so many improvements in VGA cards >recently, that prices have been going down? Today (6/24/91) a $200 VGA >card can display 1Kx768x8. A $300 VGA card can do all that and display >15-bit direct color graphics (32,768 colors) at 640x480 and 800x600. No, maybe it's because this is a very low performance card. I wouldn't want Xwindows running in 1024x768 with no co-processor. Especially X11R3. >> >>Since this board obviously doesn't have a co-processor can you >>imagine the refresh rate of something like X on a 1024x768x8 bit >>display? Some of these cheap 386 systems being sold are actually >>386's with a braindamaged re-packaging that makes the chip 16 bit. >> > >Ray, instead of imagining refresh rates, why don't you give it a try? >It's obvious you never have, so all your bashing is completely off base. >I run exactly the system you suggest, and I've never had to wait for the >screen to redraw; again, it's not the fastest system, but it's perfectly >usable. I don't have to imagine refresh rates. All I have to do is look at the amount of data being transfered and how fast the processor is. >> >>[Lots of hype about the A3000 and upcoming Amiga products] >> > >The 3000 is really a fantastic machine with superfast I/O and terrific >animation capabilities; I'd love to have one. However, it all depends >on what you want. If you're like me, and you don't care about sound or >video output, but you want a cheap UNIX system with lots of color at a >reasonable GUI resolution, then 386 systems with SuperVGA really make a >lot of sense. SuperVGA without , say a 34010, on UNIX does not make sense. I guess I am just spoiled by the Amiga's screen update rate. >> >>[Devil's Advocate mode] >>18 bit palette is not adequate for displaying fleshtones or >>grey-scale data! You only have 64 grey levels (6 bits) compared to the >>miracle of CD-I which has 256! VGA is not adequate, it's a hack! >>Fix the problem at the source, trash MS-DOS computers! >>[Devil's Advocate mode off] >> > >Well, well, I was waiting for the Real Ray to burst out. VGA is not adequate >for displaying fleshtones? Oh, and I bet you think the Amiga's 4096-color >video is? Why don't you fix the REAL problem at the REAL source -- switch >to DECAF! Why don't you READ the past threads in this group. I was parroting Marc Barrett and his "HAM is not adequate for fleshtones!" and Kevin's "You need atleast 256 grey levels!" Some people have no humor. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) (06/25/91)
>on what you want. If you're like me, and you don't care about sound or >video output, but you want a cheap UNIX system with lots of color at a >reasonable GUI resolution, then 386 systems with SuperVGA really make a >lot of sense. >+-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ >| JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | >| Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | >| ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | >+-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ >| ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | >| jerry@polygen.com | >+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ And if you DO care about sound for your PC get a Roland LAPC. It's well supported and makes the Amiga sound like a kazoo. OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MINE ALONE
rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun25.153320.26371@bmerh409.bnr.ca> drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes: >>on what you want. If you're like me, and you don't care about sound or >>video output, but you want a cheap UNIX system with lots of color at a >>reasonable GUI resolution, then 386 systems with SuperVGA really make a >>lot of sense. > >And if you DO care about sound for your PC get a Roland LAPC. It's well >supported and makes the Amiga sound like a kazoo. Ok then, how much does it cost and what are it's specs? The Amiga has cheap, 4 channel DMA 8bit stereo sound. Using DMA you get from about 4khz to 28khz sampling rates. (Using the processor to write to the DMA data registers directly might provide a faster rate, but i've never attempted it.) Audio channels can be attached to have one modulate the frequency or amplitude (or both) of another channel. So you can have up to 14bits of information per sample (6 bit volume/amplitude modulation on another channel) The Roland LAPC is well supported how? Can you load up your favorite copy of blazemonger and have 16 bit sound? Does the Roland have a DSP on board? Everyone I have ever met with an IBM usually has a soundblaster card or something simular, and it sounds awful compared to Amiga MED/Tracker music. >OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MINE ALONE (NeXT users stay away, this has nothing to do with you! :) -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/26/91)
In article <1156@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >In article <9106221550.03@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >> >>Of course, you can buy a high end SVGA board that does 1280x1024 with 256 >>gray scales and mucho colors. It will have a TI34xxx processor, and 16 megs >>of ram, and Z-buffers, etc. You to can get great animation from your 386 or >>486 pc for just $2000-$4000 for the graphics card. Since you have spent all >>this money for the card, then you should get a .25mm dot pitch monitor. At >>about $1000-$2000. >> >>So that's good animation for $3000-$6000 plus the price of the 386 or 486 >>box. >> > >Really? And how much would it cost to equip an Amiga with similar >capabilities? Well, it would have to go beyond payment, since such products >don't happen to exist for the Amiga. The real truth is that a standard VGA Wrong, the A2410 Card has a 34010 onboard and supports up to 1024x124 with 8bits per pixel, and a palette of 16.7 million colors. >card does low-res animation just as well as the Amiga, but with more colors >(256 at 320x200). And HAM-E(~$250) provides 256 colors simult. with a palette of 16.7 million, or in it' HAM mode, it provides 262,144 colors simultaneously. DCTV(~$450, comes with digitizer) provides ~4 million colors simultaneously. Colorburst( ~$500) provides 16.7 million colors at once at around ~12 fps. >Don't kid yourself by implying that the Amiga video chipset rivals that of >a $2K graphics adapter for a PC. He wasn't. He was showing that a megapixel display with lots of colors needs either a co-processor (i860 or 34010) or a fast processor (68040 like a NeXT). It would be stupid to compare a $2k card to the Amiga's chipset. but if you want high performance, you pay for it. A $100 SuperVGA card doesn't make your PC isn't a Silicon Graphics Workstation. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (06/26/91)
In article <1151@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> >>OS/2, well, >>does the phrase, slow and bloated pig with no outstanding support >>ring a bell? >> > >Does the phrase, "ignorant goon with no clue as to what he's talking about" >ring a bell, Ray? OS/2 today (version 1.3) is small (much smaller than UNIX), >fast, and solid. It doesn't have as much support as DOS/Windows, or even UNIX, >but that doesn't mean that it's not a superior OS. Why don't you quote some >benchmarks or memory usage estimates, Ray, and then maybe your post will mean >something? Well, I dunno about Ray, but I can do something about that. :) My girlfriend works for California Edison in the department that is trying to port their software to OS/2. When she got there in May, seems that two of her six megs were wacked, so for a couple of days she was stuck in four megs. Apparently, from all of her screaming and complaining over the phone, four megs wasn't quite sufficient to do a blasted thing on it. [Yes, it's a current version] Oh, and she also has a 60% full 300meg drive. I'll let you draw whatever conclusions you'd like, but I think Ray's phrase "slow and bloated" isn't that far off base. In addition, I've heard complaints about the DOS "compatibility mode", which also does not do simple things like 'CD'ing into existing directories, etc. Of course, these are directories with 400-500 files instead of the usual 20 or 30, but that shouldn't make a diff., right? This doesn't mean it isn't a good OS. Just that it wouldn't suit most Amigaphiles. David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu 2.0 :: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus
chuj@horton.Colorado.EDU (CHU JEFFREY) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.153320.26371@bmerh409.bnr.ca> drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes: >>on what you want. If you're like me, and you don't care about sound or >>video output, but you want a cheap UNIX system with lots of color at a >>reasonable GUI resolution, then 386 systems with SuperVGA really make a >>lot of sense. > >>+-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ >>| JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | >>| Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | >>| ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | >>+-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ >>| ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | >>| jerry@polygen.com | >>+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > >And if you DO care about sound for your PC get a Roland LAPC. It's well >supported and makes the Amiga sound like a kazoo. > >OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MINE ALONE Or the SOUNDBLASTER which is cheaper. And also get the new SVGA card which can display 2048x1536 on any SVGA monitor with 700,000+ colors at once!!! Price for the card is now $400.00.
drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.164859.12553@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <1991Jun25.153320.26371@bmerh409.bnr.ca> drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes: >>>on what you want. If you're like me, and you don't care about sound or >>>video output, but you want a cheap UNIX system with lots of color at a >>>reasonable GUI resolution, then 386 systems with SuperVGA really make a >>>lot of sense. >> >>And if you DO care about sound for your PC get a Roland LAPC. It's well >>supported and makes the Amiga sound like a kazoo. > > Ok then, how much does it cost and what are it's specs? > >-- >/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ >| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| >\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * / I don't have the specs on me but the LAPC board provides 32 voice multi-timbral sound (LA synthesis), digital reverb, MPU401 MIDI interface etc. It has standard RCA outputs and most new games support it. Sierra and Dynamix games sound particularly incredible. It is programmable (listen to the engines, machine guns, explosions etc. on Red Baron!) but it doesn't do sampling a la Soundblaster/Amiga (their sound quality cannot even be be compared to the Roland though). The LAPC costs $350 (CAN$) here in Ottawa. OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN.
rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.195113.1381@colorado.edu> chuj@horton.Colorado.EDU (CHU JEFFREY) writes: >In article <1991Jun25.153320.26371@bmerh409.bnr.ca> drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) writes: >Or the SOUNDBLASTER which is cheaper. And also get the new SVGA card which >can display 2048x1536 on any SVGA monitor with 700,000+ colors at once!!! >Price for the card is now $400.00. I heard both the Sountblaster and Adlib card and neither of them are better than the Amiga sound. And that new SVGA card does not display 2048x1536, it fakes it by "anti-aliasing" pixels together. HAM-E professional does the same kind of thing. It displays 262,000 colors at once out of 16.7 million. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) (06/26/91)
In article <1151@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >ring a bell, Ray? OS/2 today (version 1.3) is small (much smaller than UNIX), >fast, and solid. It doesn't have as much support as DOS/Windows, or even UNIX, Um, how big's the kernel? My old UNIX kernel was ~300K (on a 68010 based machine) and did loadable device drivers. The vendor actually sold 512K RAM unix systems that *worked*. (Don't try to build nethack and read news at the same time, tho, or you'll page like crazy :-) -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2126 Skate UNIX! (curb fault: skater dumped) PowerGlove mailing list: glove-list-request@karazm.math.uh.edu
david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.164859.12553@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > Ok then, how much does it cost and what are it's specs? Too damn expensive and not good enough. In that order. For me to answer that better, first a little history. Roland came out with the MT-32, a MIDI sound module based on their LA Synth algorithm. This is the same method that is used (abit modified) in their D-5, D-10, D20, D50, D70, and other synths. For those not familar with MIDI and synthesizers, a 'sound module' (a.k.a. tone mudule, expander module, etc) is a synthesizer without the piano like keyboard. The MT-32, now dicontinued, was a good synth in it's day. It was used in a large number of professional albums. Now it can be found used for about $200, or new (in short supply) for about $350. Roland realized that there was another market for it-- the home computer user. It took the MT-32 and combined it with a MPU-401 compatable MIDI interface and put it on a PC Card. I don't remember the price, but it was high-- somewhere in the $600-800 range. This card is the LAPC. At the same time the LAPC came out, Roland released three "Sound Modules'. One is a clone of the MT-32, another is like a sampler (but it cannot sample, and you cannot 'upload' samples to it), and the third is the other two in the same box. All of these boast 32 voices (more on that later). Sorry but I forgot the model numbers of these boxes. The problem with these devices is that they are MIDI, true enough, but they lack the MIDI-implamentation-robustness, and the front panel LCD based 'user interface' that are very common on other MIDI Tone Modules. That being said... >The Amiga has cheap, 4 channel DMA 8bit stereo sound. Using DMA >you get from about 4khz to 28khz sampling rates. (Using >the processor to write to the DMA data registers directly might provide >a faster rate, but i've never attempted it.) Roland does not publish the 'number of bits' in their devices, but it is commonly accepted that the MT-32 uses 12 bit audio (that's what all the pro's say it sounds like). However, I must mention that the 'number of bits' and the sample rate of these types of devices matters little, after all, you cannot send it a digital sample and have it play it so what is the point? What does matter is the frequency range and the amount of noise (which is not always the same as # of bits and sample rate). With this, I can say that the MT-32/LAPC sounds ho-hum, but sparkles when compared to the Amiga. From a professional musican standpoint, the MT-32/LAPC sounds noisy, and the Amiga is unbareable. >Audio channels can be >attached to have one modulate the frequency or amplitude (or both) of >another channel. The MT-32/LAPC has 32 voices, as already stated. But this is not a 'voice' in the traditional sense. Here, a voice can either resemble a subtractive synth (read: analog synth), or play a small 'sampled sound' (either once, or repeat it over and over). A 'PATCH' (what is played when a note is struck), is made up of several 'voices'. The real power of this not obvious at first (that's why Roland Patented it). Basically, to make a piano sound, you play a sample of the hammer hitting the strings while another voice 'synthesizes' the sustaining note. This provides an efficent way to reproduce those hard to synthesize parts, while not needing the power/memory for those killer samples. This is the basis for Rolands LA Synthysis. Now, I never programmed an MT-32, no this part I may be wrong about (I am basing this on my D-10, which is very similar). Each 'patch' can be made up of up to four voices. These voices are split into two groups of two. Each group is combined using one of several 'algorithms' ranging from mixing them into a mono sound, send one left and the other right, and various combinations of the two with a ring modulator. (Ok, back to what I know...) That is what makes up a 'patch'. Now, each patch can be panned into one of 16 positions (from left to right). Now, the number of notes that can be played at once depends on the number of voices that make up the patch. If you use only one voice, then you get 32 notes. Two will allow 16 notes, etc. As a general rule, most sounds use two. The patches that use four are quite 'fat' and _usually_ sound muddy when lots of notes are sounding. Eight of these patches can be active at once-- each assigned to a different MIDI channel. The output of all of this goes though an effects unit (just a reverb in the MT-32/LAPC, a reverb/chorus in the D-50 and D-70) and then you the speakers... Other than the ring-mudulator, there is no voice to voice modulation-- but it has not been needed. Each voice has several envelopes that control pitch, low-pass filter, and amplitude while other voice paramaters can be altered by things like note-velocity, pitch bend, note value, and a low-frequency occolator (sp?). Much more control than the simple voice-to-voice modulation that the Amiga offers, and it doesnt take up a voice. >So you can have up to 14bits of information per >sample (6 bit volume/amplitude modulation on another channel) Well, no. It really does not work that way. Our ears tell us otherwise. > The Roland LAPC is well supported how? Can you load up your favorite >copy of blazemonger and have 16 bit sound? Does the Roland have a >DSP on board? Most IBM games support the MT-32 though an MPU-401 compatable MIDI interface. Since this is the same as an LAPC, it is supported my a lot of games. Since it is really MIDI, all sound software worth mentioning support it. Yes, it has a DSP, but you might as well ignore it since you cannot program it. The entire sound generating section is actually an embedded DSP within a custom ASIC. The Roland LAPC board is a great idea, and it is much more musically useful than the Amiga's sound. It even sounds better. But I believe that it costs too much for a 'home' device, and it doesn't compare well with other 'pro' sound modules (even at the same price). In short, it is great idea but did not hit the mark. Now, I have never actually heard the LAPC (I have used the MT-32 in a concert), but many, including Roland, say it sounds just like the MT-32 (same patches and all). What I really wonder about is the crosstalk. For instance, if I placed it into my computer the guts of it would be sandwitched between a disk controller and a RAM board stocked with eight meg of 80ns, 32-bit RAM. This has GOT to create some noise! (Comments?) Hope that helps... -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | Reunite PANGEA! Compuserve? Isn't that some sort of FIDO BBS? |
chuj@horton.Colorado.EDU (CHU JEFFREY) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.222138.26638@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>Or the SOUNDBLASTER which is cheaper. And also get the new SVGA card which >>can display 2048x1536 on any SVGA monitor with 700,000+ colors at once!!! >>Price for the card is now $400.00. > > I heard both the Sountblaster and Adlib card and neither of them are >better than the Amiga sound. And that new SVGA card does not display >2048x1536, it fakes it by "anti-aliasing" pixels together. HAM-E >professional does the same kind of thing. It displays 262,000 >colors at once out of 16.7 million. I beleive it is the matter of opinon on which sounds better, to me soundblaster sounds great and better than my amiga. I of course heard alot of samples on both machines, but the capabilities on the soundblaster is great! OF COURSE IT IS MINE OPINON. The SVGA card can be read up in Aprils issue of COMPUTER SHOPPER page 295. It is out of 16.7 Million colors, I can get one cheaper $179 also in that issue with 1024x768 with 32,000 colors at that rez at once NI. As far as AMIGA displaying 262,000 rez at once, it is not actually doing it and also at a lower rez. If you look at the HARDWARE SPECS, specifically the AMIGA rez and colors would be less then this SVGA card. IBM can also display HAM pictures right off AMIGAs files. Jeff
area88 (Erick Tadefa) (06/27/91)
I don't exactly know what an LAPC is but a Roland MT-32 costs $400+ (when I last checked, could be less now). Kind of expensive just to make Indy 500 sound good. If Amiga developers are so concerned about the increasing capabilities of IBM clone sound add-ons, perhaps they should support MIDI as well for their games.You can do wondrous things with 4 channel 8-bit sound but its always nice to have the option of more.
area88 (Erick Tadefa) (06/27/91)
But is there software support for HAM-E or DCTV? Are there applications that have options for HAM-E usage or games that have HAM-E drivers? The DCTV is not really a video 'card' since its such a special use item and not a replacement for the standard Amiga video modes. VGA cards come with drivers for many popular commercial programs and many Shareware programs support SVGA modes. One thing the Amiga needs is more software support of the hardware that's already there and available.
area88 (Erick Tadefa) (06/27/91)
That's too bad, since the capability of the Amiga sound chip to use samples is what makes it so flexible and versatile. If you are stuck with a limited amount of 'canned' instruments like the adlib then it's really not that great. The ability to make and use your own samples is just another way to expand the creative capability of Amiga sound. If only it was true 8 or 16 channel...4 is great but it hasn't been improved since 85'.
drews@bmerh796.bnr.ca (Drew Stevens) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.040339.4568@kessner.denver.co.us> david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) writes: >In article <1991Jun25.164859.12553@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> Ok then, how much does it cost and what are it's specs? > >Too damn expensive and not good enough. In that order. I paid $350 Canadian for my LAPC. Soundblasters cost about $200 here. Add the pseudo-midi adapter to the SB and their prices are not too far off. What would YOU consider to be a reasonable price for the Roland board? >the model numbers of these boxes. The problem with these devices is that they >are MIDI, true enough, but they lack the MIDI-implamentation-robustness, and This is news to me. Please elaborate. >the MT-32/LAPC sounds ho-hum, but sparkles when compared to the Amiga. >From a professional musican standpoint, the MT-32/LAPC sounds noisy, and the Noisy compared to what? It sounds better than a Yamaha DX7. >Yes, it has a DSP, but you might as well ignore it since you cannot program >it. The entire sound generating section is actually an embedded DSP within >a custom ASIC. The boards' sounds are programmable, could you elaborate? >The Roland LAPC board is a great idea, and it is much more musically useful >than the Amiga's sound. It even sounds better. But I believe that it costs >too much for a 'home' device, and it doesn't compare well with other 'pro' The Roland boards are directly supported by many programs and provide by far the best sound I've heard from a computer. 'even better than Amiga' doesn't begin to describe it. >What I really wonder about is the crosstalk. For instance, if I placed >it into my computer the guts of it would be sandwitched between a disk >controller and a RAM board stocked with eight meg of 80ns, 32-bit RAM. This >has GOT to create some noise! (Comments?) My LAPC generates no noticable noise on my stereo (it is negligable compared to that generated by my amplifier anyway). >David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | >1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | Reunite PANGEA! >Compuserve? Isn't that some sort of FIDO BBS? | OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE MY OWN.
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/27/91)
In article <1156@stewart.UUCP> jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >In article <9106221550.03@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >> >>Of course, you can buy a high end SVGA board that does 1280x1024 with 256 >>gray scales and mucho colors. It will have a TI34xxx processor, and 16 megs >>of ram, and Z-buffers, etc. You to can get great animation from your 386 or >>486 pc for just $2000-$4000 for the graphics card. Since you have spent all >>this money for the card, then you should get a .25mm dot pitch monitor. At >>about $1000-$2000. >> >>So that's good animation for $3000-$6000 plus the price of the 386 or 486 >>box. >> > >Really? And how much would it cost to equip an Amiga with similar >capabilities? Well, it would have to go beyond payment, since such products >don't happen to exist for the Amiga. The real truth is that a standard VGA >card does low-res animation just as well as the Amiga, but with more colors >(256 at 320x200). > >Don't kid yourself by implying that the Amiga video chipset rivals that of >a $2K graphics adapter for a PC. > >By the way, I picked up my .25mm dot pitch Seiko CM-1440 for $459. Coming for the Amiga in August: Rembrandt from Progressive Peripherals. Rembrandt consists of: - 34020 with sockets for 4 graphics coprocessors (comes with one installed). - 16 Megs of video RAM - 2 Megs of CPU program RAM - delivers 1Kx1K 32-bit color graphics - 24-bit RGB plus 4-bit overlay and 4-bit key - Supports various resolutions - RGB and Composite output Cost: $3000 I bet this compares with a $3K PC board (and you get the benefit of an Amiga running at 100% speed on top if the graphics capabilities). I am not affiliated in any way with Progressive Peripherals. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (06/28/91)
rjc@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <1151@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: > >Well, quoting from BYTE, it takes a 33mhz 386 with 4mb of ram to make >the system usuable. Conclusion: OS/2 is bloated. (Im not saying >Unix isn't, Unix is very bloated). I've read benchmarks on OS/2 1.0 >and it was slow. OS/2 has no support, Unix already has the market. > OS/2 1.0 was indeed slow. However, today's OS/2 (1.3) is much, much faster. It requires only 2MB, but of course, 4MB is better. It definitely does NOT require a 33MHz 386 to be usable. It ran quite well on my old 8MHz 286. Trust me -- the people at Byte are spoiled by the free hardware they get. As far as the OS itself is concerned, it's IMHO much better than UNIX, even if it lacks some of UNIX's standard utility programs. > >Every PC may have "general purpose DMA I/O" lines on the motherboard, but >not every controller actually uses them. > I'm not sure about this, but I ran SCO UNIX with a 7-year-old MFM disk controller from an original AT, and there were no significant slowdowns associated with background I/O. > >No, maybe it's because this is a very low performance card. I >wouldn't want Xwindows running in 1024x768 with no co-processor. >Especially X11R3. > Well, I still say you should take a look at it before you make up your mind. If you still say you need a coprocessor, you should take a look at the 8514 clones now available for not much more than VGA. These utilize a coprocessor and deliver smoking performance. > >SuperVGA without, say a 34010, on UNIX does not make sense. I guess >I am just spoiled by the Amiga's screen update rate. > Too bad the Amiga does not have adequate resolution for GUI's. Believe me, at the lower resolutions, VGA does quite well as far as screen updates go. >-- >/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ > -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun26.190348.4454@att!mwood!attcc!area88> erick@att!mwood!attcc!area88 (Erick Tadefa) writes: >But is there software support for HAM-E or DCTV? Are there applications that have options for HAM-E usage or games that have HAM-E drivers? The DCTV is not really a video 'card' since its such a special use item and not a replacement for the standard Am >iga video modes. >VGA cards come with drivers for many popular commercial programs and many Shareware programs support SVGA modes. One thing the Amiga needs is more software support of the hardware that's already there and available. I've found that not many programs use these drivers, a lot of them prefer to hit the VGA registers directly for some reason. The better solution is like Mac QuickDraw, but something better, more suited to animation and moving hunks of images around (designed with blitters in mind). We also need standards to deal with co-processors, beam syncing, and sprites, all of which are important for Video applications. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun26.190348.4454@att!mwood!attcc!area88> erick@att!mwood!attcc!area88 (Erick Tadefa) writes: >But is there software support for HAM-E or DCTV? Are there applications that have options for HAM-E usage or games that have HAM-E drivers? The DCTV is not really a video 'card' since its such a special use item and not a replacement for the standard Amiga video modes. >VGA cards come with drivers for many popular commercial programs and many Shareware programs support SVGA modes. One thing the Amiga needs is more software support of the hardware that's already there and available. According to a flier I got from Black Belt, HAM-E will be getting support, not only from the included programs, but from SpectraColor (I believe) from MicroIllusions this July. They claim to be getting support from many companies, including NewTek. -- Ethan FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. Take one down, Short it to ground, FE buckets of bits on the bus.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/28/91)
In article <1151@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>A $2000 386 system probably doesn't have decicated DMA-I/O >>(most likely it is using polled I/O which incurs a major performance >>hit on a multitasking multithreaded file system). >Wrong. Every PC has DMA I/O. Actually, you're both wrong. Or right. PCs have do have a DMA controller, but that's nothing similar to Amiga DMA. Bascially, when the PC first came on the scene, IBM noticed what a bad job the 8088 did at block copies of memory. So they put in this DMA controller thing, which also does their DRAM refresh (they got a patent on that part of it). Anyway, you can use this for memory copies or for memory to/from I/O. That's the good new. The bad news is, any decent processor will do the job better anyway. Any Motorola processor from the '010 on can do block memory copies without the need to fetch instructions. So this kind of DMA controller is pretty much useless in a modern system. Amiga hard disk DMA, on the other hand, is a big win. Since the Amiga DMA controller sits between the memory and the I/O device, it only takes one bus crossing per word transferred. IBM style DMA controllers, and CPUs in block move mode, take two bus crossings per word transferred. So the Amiga's DMA is, without even considering it's fancy features like the FIFOs we use in A209x and A3000, twice the speed of any IBM style DMA controller. In the PC world, though, the news gets worse. The speed of the DMA controller in these systems hasn't increased with CPU speed. So, if you're on a basic AT on up to a butt-kicking '486 system, you lose big if you use the DMA controller. So most of these guys use programmed I/O. Not polled, they do have interrupts, though with disk transfers from unbuffered media, interrupts are inefficient. So there's really no decent disk solution on the basic PC Clone. You need an add-on buffered bus-mastering SCSI subsystem on MCA or EISA bus, or something similar, to start looking like an Amiga rather than a Mac in the disk department. >I run UNIX on the cheapest 386 possible, and intense disk I/O going on in the >background does not slow down the machine significantly at all. Of course it does. Fast motherboard EDSI on any PClone can take more than 50% of your CPU time away from you, if you have constant disk activity. That same disk activity on the A3000 will amount to a loss of around 5% of your CPU time. But we're working on it, we'll probably see 2.5-3% in the next generation :-)... >Maybe that's because there have been so many improvements in VGA cards >recently, that prices have been going down? Also, these new Taiwanese 15 bit CLUTS have reduced the price significantly at the low end. RAMDAC prices go up pretty steeply as you add increase the palette. -- 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.
billc@cryo.rain.com (William J. Coldwell) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun26.190348.4454@att!mwood!attcc!area88> erick@att!mwood!attcc!area88 (Erick Tadefa) writes: >But is there software support for HAM-E or DCTV? Yes, and yes. >Are there applications that have options for HAM-E usage or games that >have HAM-E drivers? I know of a couple of applications that have HAM-E modes. Don't know of any games yet though. >The DCTV is not really a video 'card' since its such a special use item >and not a replacement for the standard Amiga video modes. Hmm. I don't see DCTV as a special use item any more than HAM-E is. >VGA cards come with drivers for many popular commercial programs and many >Shareware programs support SVGA modes. Both HAM-E and DCTV have developer kits available free of charge (you can usually find them on a pay network service also). They may have also started shipping them on the disks for the package. >One thing the Amiga needs is more software support of the hardware >that's already there and available. Until recently, there wasn't really any display hardware for the Amiga, other than the VD-1 and Mimetics Framebuffer. So if hardware can't reach developer's hands, then there is very little chance of supporting it with existing programs (obviously). I'm sure that you will see more software supporting this new hardware in a short period of time. -- William J. Coldwell Internet: billc@cryo.rain.com I ZROCK! Amiga Attitude Adjuster UUCP: tektronix!percy!cryo!billc 3-D Pro 2.0! Cryogenic Software BBX: CRYO @ 503/257-4823 [ORPOR] CSA 40/4 Magnum! This message was brought to you by the Number '3' and the Letter 'D'.
billc@cryo.rain.com (William J. Coldwell) (06/28/91)
In article <mykes.3840@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: [stuff about video cards deleted] >Coming for the Amiga in August: Rembrandt from Progressive Peripherals. >Rembrandt consists of: -er, that's "RAMbrandt". Apparently there's some organization for the preservation of him that trademarked his name to protect it from "un- authorized" use. Before that, it was the VideoMaster 32, until that genlock came out with the same name (- the 32). So it may remain this name unless there's some _other_ organization that trademarks the word "RAM" or something ;-). > - 34020 with sockets for 4 graphics coprocessors (comes with one installed). > - 16 Megs of video RAM > - 2 Megs of CPU program RAM > - delivers 1Kx1K 32-bit color graphics > - 24-bit RGB plus 4-bit overlay and 4-bit key > - Supports various resolutions > - RGB and Composite output >Cost: $3000 There's lots that you didn't post about it. >I bet this compares with a $3K PC board (and you get the benefit of >an Amiga running at 100% speed on top if the graphics capabilities). Not to mention that it will run those 340x0 programs on the board, like XWindows, etc. >I am not affiliated in any way with Progressive Peripherals. Neither am I, we just market through them ;-). >**************************************************** >* I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * >* but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * >**************************************************** So, you're supposed to walk into a bar to pick up a babe, but manage to kill everyone in the place with your Blast-o-matic... that kind of game? ;-) -- William J. Coldwell Internet: billc@cryo.rain.com I ZROCK! Amiga Attitude Adjuster UUCP: tektronix!percy!cryo!billc 3-D Pro 2.0! Cryogenic Software BBX: CRYO @ 503/257-4823 [ORPOR] CSA 40/4 Magnum! This message was brought to you by the Number '3' and the Letter 'D'.
<LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (06/28/91)
In article <22762@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) says: >on the scene, IBM noticed what a bad job the 8088 did at block copies of >memory. So they put in this DMA controller thing, which also does their >DRAM refresh (they got a patent on that part of it). Anyway, you can use this > Yeap. They could have much better DMA transfer rate by spending $10 on a real DRAM controller. Using one of the DMA channels for DRAM refresh means that they have to restrict DMA transfer to either single byte transfer or block transfers of something like 15 microseconds (see below) at a time so that it would not interfere with normal memory refresh. Note: 15 microseconds is what I think I remembered. It is only a rough figure. With better DRAMs these days, one can get away with longer refresh period. The PC chip-set people might have put in a DRAM controller so this problem might not happen on newer implementations. >-- >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. K. C. Lee "Don't quote me on that..."
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (06/29/91)
In article <1156@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >In article <9106221550.03@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >> >>Of course, you can buy a high end SVGA board that does 1280x1024 with 256 >>gray scales and mucho colors. It will have a TI34xxx processor, and 16 megs >>of ram, and Z-buffers, etc. You to can get great animation from your 386 or >>486 pc for just $2000-$4000 for the graphics card. Since you have spent all >>this money for the card, then you should get a .25mm dot pitch monitor. At >>about $1000-$2000. >> >>So that's good animation for $3000-$6000 plus the price of the 386 or 486 >>box. >> > >Really? And how much would it cost to equip an Amiga with similar >capabilities? Well, it would have to go beyond payment, since such products >don't happen to exist for the Amiga. The real truth is that a standard VGA >card does low-res animation just as well as the Amiga, but with more colors >(256 at 320x200). > >Don't kid yourself by implying that the Amiga video chipset rivals that of >a $2K graphics adapter for a PC. No, I am saying that it takes a $2000 graphic card to do real video animation on a PC at 320x200 or 640x400. I have been using PCs with all kinds of video cards and all levels of processors for far longer than I have owned an Amiga. I don't imply that the Amiga's chipset will do what a $2000 PC graphics card will do, what I do imply is that I haven't seen any great changes in PC graphics except in resolution and colors. Amiga has fast animation. If you want fast animation on a pc, you have to pay the money. >By the way, I picked up my .25mm dot pitch Seiko CM-1440 for $459. And what is the diagonal measurement? 14 inches? Is it multisync? And what is it's maximum resolution? By the way, rmkhome, where this article is coming from, is a 286 clone running Coherent and Cnews. I avoid MSDOS for home use. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (06/29/91)
In article <1991Jun25.070242.27943@att!mwood!attcc!area88> erick@att!mwood!attcc!area88 (Erick Tadefa) writes: >Yes, there are 1024 x 768 noninterlace VGA cards that cost $100. That's how much I paid for mine and its surprisingly quick, considering its running only on a 286 system. Perhaps if CBM would make a "VGAish" Zorro card and some sort of software interfa cing then the critics of the amigas graphics would be silenced. It doesn't have to have a super graphics coprocessor ($$$$$$ for that) either. Everything else on the Amiga is great except for its dated graphics abilities. >I used to own an Amiga, and wouldn't mind getting another one as long as I don't have to spend $700 just for a video card. The SVGA monitor by itself nearly broke my wallet... I am not impressed with $300 VGA cards, I can't imagine what a $100 VGA card would be like. By the way, you ought to do a carriage return every 70 or 80 characters. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/29/91)
In article <1162@redford.UUCP> jerry@redford.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: > >Too bad the Amiga does not have adequate resolution for GUI's. Believe >me, at the lower resolutions, VGA does quite well as far as screen updates >go. > Hmm. I guess NeXT also has a real problem, since both machines work at 1024x1024 with 4 grey-scales. -- Ethan FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. Take one down, Short it to ground, FE buckets of bits on the bus.
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (06/30/91)
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > I've found that not many programs use these drivers, a lot of them prefer >to hit the VGA registers directly for some reason. Because if you don't, you can't get decent speed out of the %(*&^% things. VGA and SVGA are slower than you can believe, unless you've gotten one of the super-fast, super-expensive variants. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (07/01/91)
In article <9106281435.51@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: > >No, I am saying that it takes a $2000 graphic card to do real video animation >on a PC at 320x200 or 640x400. > Oh come on. Any decent VGA inside a 12-16MHz PC can animate 320x200 just fine, in 256 out 256K colors. Yes, I know that it's not fair to compare 16MHz to the Amiga's 8MHz, but then again it's not fair to compare 256 colors to 16. > >>By the way, I picked up my .25mm dot pitch Seiko CM-1440 for $459. > >And what is the diagonal measurement? 14 inches? Is it multisync? >And what is it's maximum resolution? > Yep, it's 14 inches, multisync, and its maximum resolution is 1024x768 interlaced. It uses a Trinitron tube (.25mm dot pitch), which is cylindrical, not spherical, and contains a single gun (perfect convergence). If you can use it with the Amiga, I suggest you take a look at it. By the way, the CM-1450 is non-interlaced at 1024x768 and can be had for about $550. > >By the way, rmkhome, where this article is coming from, is a 286 clone running >Coherent and Cnews. I avoid MSDOS for home use. > Me too. >Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (07/01/91)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >> >>Too bad the Amiga does not have adequate resolution for GUI's. Believe >>me, at the lower resolutions, VGA does quite well as far as screen updates >>go. >> > Hmm. I guess NeXT also has a real problem, since both >machines work at 1024x1024 with 4 grey-scales. > Read my article again, Ethan. I said that the Amiga does not have adequate RESOLUTION for GUI's. To me, it doesn't matter how many colors you have -- monochrome is great on my Sun at work. The NeXT and SuperVGA have the resolution, while the Amiga doesn't. At the lower resolutions, where you might want lots of colors, VGA comes through, with 256 of 256K. > -- Ethan -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+