The AAA and AGA
The Amazing Crawling Worm - Kerry Hotopp
anything about it (other than its a new graphics chip). Plus, does anyone
know what resolutions the AGA can handle and how many bit planes they have?
--
Kerry Hotopp
kyh...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
People keep on braking in to my room and replacing everything with exact
duplicates.
Jonas S Green
>I have heard a lot about this new graphics chip (AAA), but does anyone know
>anything about it (other than its a new graphics chip). Plus, does anyone
>know what resolutions the AGA can handle and how many bit planes they have?
AAA is the still under development new chip set beyond the current top AGA.
(And of course, as soon as it comes out it will be what MNB calls what AGA
should have been.)
Scott Ashdown
Awhile back, Ben Hardy posted the following:
- Four VLSI integrated circuits.
- DRAM or VRAM support
- Up to 40 DMA channels with dynamic allocation
- 32 Blitter, 640x200 4 color screens scroll 6 time faster
or 640x400 16 color screens scroll 9 times faster than ECS.
It also supports "chunky pixel" modes of 2,4,8 or 16 bits as well
as hybrid combinations,such as 3 "8 bit chunky" (R,G,B) planes.
- 32 bit Copper
- Single system with DRAM can support 800x560 w/9 bitplanes, or
with 24 bit hybrid chunky with VRAM. A dual system (like having two
denise chips) will support 1280x1024 x 5 planes, or 1280x1024 x 8
planes and 1280x1024 24 bit (thats 16.8 million colors on screen)
with VRAM. (1280x1024 VRAM systems running 24 bit screens are as fast
as the current ECS is with 640x200 16 color screens as far as the
blitter is concerned!) There is host of other modes available
such as 640x400 w/16 planes.
- Supports video pixel bus reversal for a cheap frame grabber.
- 16 bit sound, with 8 voices. Samping rates over 50 KHz and
8 bit sampling.
- Standard 1,2 or 4 meg floppy support (such as IBM 720K,1.44M or 2.88M)
- Two hi-speed FIFO UARTS. (Two buffered serial ports)
Happy dreaming :)
--Scott
--
+---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Scott Ashdown | Carleton University Transputer Lab |
| Computer Systems | (I got a summer job! (Impressive, eh?) |
| Engineering Year IV | Still my opinions only!) |
Psigon Matrix....do you DOUBT us??
Yea, right....gimme a break...it will be (according to MNB) the biggest flop
yet from Commodore.
Jim Martin
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screeeemmmmmin fast 4000/040..YEEEEEEHA!! X-ASOCC (CBM Blew that one)
Jim Martin MATRIX -- If it's made, we sell it. Almost.
-----(612) 656-9693-- MAR...@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU
We're almost done with the Cray module for the EmPlanT. :) heh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephan_De...@cup.portal.com
I will just say that AAA should have been with the A3000...
The A1000 reputation is faded, AGA didn't do it, the A4000
didn't do it? Will AAA be really advance...
Sory but I cant stand blinded die hard amiga loyalist, you
only keep CBM thinking everything is "OK", and just denied
the move over of real user to other systems.
Anyway, CBM should do like Next and drop the amiga and
port amigados to other CPU...
S.Schaem
Tim Ciceran
> Anyway, CBM should do like Next and drop the amiga and
>port amigados to other CPU...
How to make friends and influence people.
--
Benjamin S. Yu
AGA Stephan_Derek_Schaem@cup (433)
And since when is Amigados "the most respected piece of software on
earth" (from Byte)?
ben
Justin Richards
--
NOT! no other CPU can do what the Amiga can do. The Amiga is more than
AmigaDos, you stupid piece of sh*t.
-----
---==*Justin Richards*==---
AUUCP1.16 Amiga500 3/120 9600baud UUCP: justin%hybris%mme...@tssi.com
misc modified hardware (what warranty???) (Use above for large mail/files)
INET: br...@cleveland.freenet.edu jus...@hybris.uucp
jwri...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Use above for small (8k) mail)
[NOTE: mail sent to INET addresses will be forwarded to my UUCP system]
LARS MARTINSEN
>From: Stephan_De...@cup.portal.com
>Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
>Subject: Re: The AAA and AGA
>Message-ID: <80...@cup.portal.com>
>Date: Sat, 24 Apr 93 18:29:38 PDT
>Organization: The Portal System (TM)
>Distribution: world
>References: <1993Apr21....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
> <1993Apr22.1...@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>
>Lines: 11
AGA didn't do it????
The 256col-mode is about 5 times faster than the same on a 50MHz 486. And
the stills in HAM8 is truly great. (VERY close to 24bit) and takes up 25-35%
HDD-space. It isn't for nothing Digital Illusions couldn't get Pinball
Fantasies fast enough on a Clone (and it's too fast to play on my 4000/
040). EISA, VESA, VISA is fast graphs, bleach....
LM
Kurt Lichtner
References: <1993Apr21....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <80...@cup.portal.com>
<larsm.78....@dhhalden.no>
In <larsm.78....@dhhalden.no> LARS MARTINSEN writes:
>
>AGA didn't do it????
>
>The 256col-mode is about 5 times faster than the same on a 50MHz 486. And
>the stills in HAM8 is truly great. (VERY close to 24bit) and takes up 25-35%
>HDD-space. It isn't for nothing Digital Illusions couldn't get Pinball
>Fantasies fast enough on a Clone (and it's too fast to play on my 4000/
>040). EISA, VESA, VISA is fast graphs, bleach....
>
>LM
>
While this is a very subjective topic, I have trouble believing the
previous comments. I work on a 50Mhz 486 all day long. I use
OS/2 2.0, and a 1024 X 768 X 256 XGA screen. The Amiga 4000 that
I saw running a 256 color mode was in no way near OS/2 in terms
of GUI response time, let alone 5 times faster. Take another look ...
Kurt
Henri Tamminen
>AGA didn't do it????
>The 256col-mode is about 5 times faster than the same on a 50MHz 486. And
>the stills in HAM8 is truly great. (VERY close to 24bit) and takes up 25-35%
Please stay in facts. I've seen 50 MHz 486 with UNACCELERATED SVGA in 640x480
and its FAST! It's even ok at 800x600 and tolerable with 1024x768 mode.
Next time you could also say your A4000 RESOLUTION with that 256 color mode,
so you can compare them. I think you've seen some old Trident 8900c SHIT
with 1024x768/256 colors driving Win 3.1 and no wonder then, that it looks
slow even on a 50 MHz 486.
Put A4000 into 800x600 256 color mode and go then compare it to 800x600 256
color mode on 50 MHz 486 driving OS/2 2.0 with new updated graphic driver
and I rather doubt you, if you still claim that A4000 is 5!!! times faster
or even 2 times. I think they maybe even ...
And all this using standard NON ACCELERATED Diamond SpeedStar SVGA 1MB.
You can also try this on Win 3.1 results shouldn't change too much. Put
in Accelerated SVGA card and see the difference. Better yet, put Local
Bus or EISA card and then... well I think Amiga is then 4 times slower.
-
A3000 owner, AGA anti advocate
James McCoull
>> Anyway, CBM should do like Next and drop the amiga and
>>port amigados to other CPU...
>> S.Schaem
>--
>NOT! no other CPU can do what the Amiga can do. The Amiga is more than
>AmigaDos, you stupid piece of sh*t.
Really? CBM are doing there best to kill the amiga... first AGA comes out
... a shit chipset about 3 years off the pace, and then they have the gaul
not to allow hardware hitting - soon the amiga will only be AmigaDos at this
rate.
BTW. Before you go around calling people a piece of shit, work out what they
do. Schaem probably has more brain power in his little finger than youu
do in the whole of your head. Unless you want to prove otherwise with
the great ChunkyToPlanar competition going on at the moment :)
e_s...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
been ahead of the game. Hell, even if AGA never came out, any old
A3000 still kicks the cans out of your best mac or IBM. Learn your
facts.
KENNEDY JAMES SCOT
> In article <larsm.78....@dhhalden.no> la...@dhhalden.no (LARS MARTINSEN) writes:
>
>>AGA didn't do it????
>
>>The 256col-mode is about 5 times faster than the same on a 50MHz 486. And
>>the stills in HAM8 is truly great. (VERY close to 24bit) and takes up 25-35%
>
> Please stay in facts. I've seen 50 MHz 486 with UNACCELERATED SVGA in 640x480
> and its FAST! It's even ok at 800x600 and tolerable with 1024x768 mode.
>
> Next time you could also say your A4000 RESOLUTION with that 256 color mode,
> so you can compare them. I think you've seen some old Trident 8900c SHIT
> with 1024x768/256 colors driving Win 3.1 and no wonder then, that it looks
> slow even on a 50 MHz 486.
>
> Put A4000 into 800x600 256 color mode and go then compare it to 800x600 256
> color mode on 50 MHz 486 driving OS/2 2.0 with new updated graphic driver
> and I rather doubt you, if you still claim that A4000 is 5!!! times faster
> or even 2 times. I think they maybe even ...
No, I think the A4000's video would still be faster. I don't know how much
faster it would be though. Benchmarks anyone?
> And all this using standard NON ACCELERATED Diamond SpeedStar SVGA 1MB.
> You can also try this on Win 3.1 results shouldn't change too much. Put
> in Accelerated SVGA card and see the difference. Better yet, put Local
> Bus or EISA card and then... well I think Amiga is then 4 times slower.
Here's my two cents... Video on my 33 MHz 486DX with Diamond Speedstar
SVGA 1MB card is a *lot* slower than the video on my unexpanded A1200.
If I added some fast RAM and/or an accelerator board to my system, video
would be even faster. The total cost of this system, including hard drive
and monitor, would still be less than your typical 486 system. BTW, I
was using 800x600 with 256 colors on the A1200 and the 486. So, I was
making a valid comparison. If I upgraded to an accelerated video card,
say a S3-based board, the video speed on my 486 would probably be right
up there with my A1200. Of course it isn't exactly fair to compare an
A1200 with a 486 system that has a lot faster CPU and costs a lot more.
Lets bear in mind that a 33 MHz 486 is a lot faster CPU than a 14.3 MHz
68020. Imagine an A1200 with a 40 Mhz 68030 and four megs of fast RAM.
I bet a system like that could hold its own with about any 486 system---
even PeeCees with accelerated video boards.
On the other hand, a local bus 486 with a local bus video card with a
graphics coprocessor such as a S3, Mach8, or 8514A would definitely
blow away an A500, A1000, A2000, A3000, or an A1200. An A4000 would be
the only thing that C= makes that would come even close to the video speed
that a 486 system like this would have. A PeeCee with the hardware I
described above, but with a Pentium under the hood, would totally
destroy any Amiga system.
Here's what Commodore could do to make am Amiga with *really* fast video:
1) Double the clock speed of the AGA chips from 14.3 MHz to 28.6 MHz.
2) Instead of having the custom chips do something on every other clock
cycle of the CPU, have them execute instructions on *every* clock
cycle. The custom chips could then operate concurrently *all* the
time. Plus, the serial port, parallel port, floppy drive, and hard
drive could also operate *completely* concurrently with the CPU.
3) By doing these two things, video would be four times as fast as it is
now! You'd have an Amiga that would really burn then!
> e...@mits.mdata.fi
>
> -
> A3000 owner, AGA anti advocate
---Scott
Jerry Shekhel
:
: Sorry, you're wrong. AGA now *IS* the pace. Commodore has always
: A3000 still kicks the cans out of your best mac or IBM. Learn your
: facts.
This is laughable. An ancient 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics
than the A3000.
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | in my book of memories. |
| ... In rhythm! | je...@msi.com | -- Guns N' Roses |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
Glenn W. Wickman
The AGA chipset will simply give the Mac and IBM peopl a goal to
catch up to and surpass, just as the original Amiga chipset was back
in the 80's.
PS: That word up there is people not peopl.
C.P. Brown
But the A3000 has no 8 bit graphics mode. By the same logic, a 256K A1000 has
faster 4096 colour (Note, I did not say 12 bit) graphics than the vast majority
of PC's, since most PC's in use can't display more than 256 colours!
Chris Brown.
Jerry Shekhel
: |>
: |> This is laughable. An ancient 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics
: |> than the A3000.
: |>
:
: But the A3000 has no 8 bit graphics mode. By the same logic, a 256K A1000 has
: faster 4096 colour (Note, I did not say 12 bit) graphics than the vast
: majority of PC's, since most PC's in use can't display more than 256 colours!
Oops, I meant to say that a 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics than the
A3000's 4-bit graphics (and higher resolution, too).
: Chris Brown.
Jerry Shekhel
:
: The AGA chipset will simply give the Mac and IBM peopl a goal to
: catch up to and surpass, just as the original Amiga chipset was back
: in the 80's.
What a joke. The AGA chipset had been surpassed long before it was released.
Lars Hamre
Hahaha! My A4000/040 has slow AGA graphics in the 8 bitplane modes, and lots
of ugly interlace flickering in the high resolution modes.
Not much to catch up or surpass, except maybe for simple video work :(
---
Lars Hamre
lar...@lise.unit.no
C.P. Brown
|> : |> This is laughable. An ancient 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics
|> : |> than the A3000.
|> : |>
|> :
|> : But the A3000 has no 8 bit graphics mode. By the same logic, a 256K A1000 has
|> : faster 4096 colour (Note, I did not say 12 bit) graphics than the vast
|> : majority of PC's, since most PC's in use can't display more than 256 colours!
|> :
|>
|> Oops, I meant to say that a 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics than the
|> A3000's 4-bit graphics (and higher resolution, too).
Probably true. Because of PC's using chunky pixels, the 8 bit mode tends to be a
special case, If you drop the number of colours, then the Amiga has the
advantage. There have been a lot of posts about Workbench being slow in 256
colours on AGA Amigas. If you drop to 128 or 64 colours however, the processor
gets more access to the CHIP RAM bus and this tends to result in a dramatic
speedup. For example, DPaint 4.5 is slow in 1280*512*8 bpl on my 1200, but if you
drop down to 7 bpl (or even HAM-6) it speeds up considerably. Also, because of
the Amigas screens system, there is very little point to running Workbench in
lots of colours anyway, it just wastes memory. I run mine in 64 colours, which
allows a decent backdrop picture, and a few colours for multiview to play with.
It also provides very fast windowing performance.
Chris Brown
Raw Shark
>This is laughable. An ancient 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics
>than the A3000.
Given that the A3000 never had 8 bit graphics, that isn't very
surprising :-)
Raw Shark
--
! Raw Shark of the Net.Trenchcoat.Brigade !
!"This is a work of fiction. Any resemblence to any real people (living,!
! dead or stolen by fairies) or to any real animals, gods, witches, !
! countries and events (magical or otherwise) is just blind luck, or so !
! we hope." Disclaimer courtesy of The Books of Magic !
Glenn C. Lyons
: Glenn W. Wickman (isy...@cabell.vcu.edu) wrote:
: :
: : The AGA chipset will simply give the Mac and IBM peopl a goal to
: : catch up to and surpass, just as the original Amiga chipset was back
: : in the 80's.
: :
: What a joke. The AGA chipset had been surpassed long before it was released.
Oh please. Thats why Quadra owners I know are amazed at what can be done on my 68020 "keyboard". Their lucky if they can do a 256 color realtime animation let alone 262,000+ in realtime.
: +-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
: | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
: | Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | in my book of memories. |
: | ... In rhythm! | je...@msi.com | -- Guns N' Roses |
: +-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Glenn Lyons % It's understanding that makes it possible %% McDonnell Douglas Aerospace % for people like us to tolerate people %% Houston, TX % like yourself. %% ly...@us17501.mdc.com % -Ferris Bueller %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Robert M Cosby
"It is!"
"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!
...etc, etc, etc...
Most educational.
Coz
Gregory G Greene
'>Here's my two cents... Video on my 33 MHz 486DX with Diamond Speedstar
'>SVGA 1MB card is a *lot* slower than the video on my unexpanded A1200.
'>If I added some fast RAM and/or an accelerator board to my system, video
'>would be even faster. The total cost of this system, including hard drive
'>and monitor, would still be less than your typical 486 system. BTW, I
'>was using 800x600 with 256 colors on the A1200 and the 486. So, I was
'>making a valid comparison.
Depends on what you mean by video. If you mean doing full motion video
type work, then you're probably right. If you're talking about GUI performance
though, I think you're nuts. I have a 33/486DX with Diamond Speedstar Plus
graphics board running OS2's WPS, and there's no way an unexpanded A1200 is
faster at running a 256 color WB. Hell, I have used an A1200 with 2meg of
fastram and WB is still slower. Plus, at 800x600 on the Amiga you have to put
up with flicker.
Greg Greene
g...@kepler.unh.edu
Gerald G. Washington
>:
>: Sorry, you're wrong. AGA now *IS* the pace. Commodore has always
>: been ahead of the game. Hell, even if AGA never came out, any old
>: A3000 still kicks the cans out of your best mac or IBM. Learn your
>: facts.
>
>than the A3000.
Hah, that is laughable. "An ancient 386 (with blah blah...)" is faster
than an ancient A3000 with nothing. My A500 with monitor can display
better graphics than any 486.
-- Gerald
Michael Cianflone
But the 3000 isn't even sold anymore. You've got to compare machines that
are currently being sold. No?
Henri Tamminen
>Jerry Shekhel (je...@msi.com) wrote:
>: Glenn W. Wickman (isy...@cabell.vcu.edu) wrote:
( Stuff deleted about AGA being surpassed before even released )
I agree on that BTW
>Oh please. Thats why Quadra owners I know are amazed at what can be done on my 68020 "keyboard". Their lucky if they can do a 256 color realtime animation let alone 262,000+ in realtime.
Ahem... why don't you people EVER mention resolutions you're comparing. Get the
facts first:
1) Most (?) Amiga Users in europe use PalHiresInterlaced ( if they have flicker
fixer ) with 8 to 16 colors and max. 64 colors. That's around 640x480. I use
PalHiresInterlaced with maximum overscan and 8 colors in my A3000 and with
CpuBlit it's reasonably fast. Fast ChipMem in A3000 helps thought.Same for
new AGA machines because of bigger bandwight.
2) Most (?) PC users are using 800x600 or 1024x768 with 16 to 256 colors, so
when you compare speed in screen refresh, think, how many pixels and how
much more color info (bits) they're moving around. Sure PC is fast, if I
put it in VGA 640x480 mode with 16 colors. Let's see Windows fly! But
seriously, PC users don't want to look crappy 640x480 screens when doing
productivity things, like painting, drawing, DTP, CAD etc.
Also you ( Amiga Users ) always forget to mention screenrefresh and flicker
'cause most PC users have 60Hz refresh even on a 1024x768. Yes, lets drop
it into not so comfortable 30 to 15 Hz FLICKER or is it Khz? Don't now so
well.... :-) See, how much screen refresh becomes faster while eyes begin
to strain. No thanks...
3) Most (?) MAC users ... ??? Don't know for sure. I think, that the new 832x
6?? is gaining ground fast ? Anyway...
And now to the point.
You said Quadra freezes when showing animation with many colors?
Have you ever looked one ? I have seen many Quicktime movies in new Centris
610, Mac II fx with unaccelerated Apple 8/24 card and with Quadra 700.
If I keep window size reasonably small, let's say 100x100, then it's fast but
for 320x200 you need Quadra. BUT !!! It's actually FASTER in 24 BIT MODE than
if I drop it to 8 BIT MODE !!! That's because Quadra must convert 24 bit
to 8 bit on the fly.
Funny?
There is no machine without good and bad points.
Gerald G. Washington
>Oops, I meant to say that a 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics than the
>A3000's 4-bit graphics (and higher resolution, too).
Another meaningless statement. It seems that the 386 always has a 'with'
phrase, while the A3000 has none.
How about this:
An Amiga with Vidi24 has faster 8/24-bit graphics than a 486 (and higher
resolution, too).
An Amiga with Resolver has faster 8-bit graphics than a 486 (and ...).
An Amiga with OpalVision has faster 24-bit graphics than a 486 (and ...).
...
-- Gerald
Richard Krehbiel
> The AGA chipset will simply give the Mac and IBM peopl a goal to
> catch up to and surpass, just as the original Amiga chipset was back
> in the 80's.
Mac and IBM people are generally unaware of the Amiga. AGA doesn't
phase them; the new AAA chipsets won't be worth noticing ("Only 114MHz
pixel clock? How archaic! The new Matrox 64-bit SVGA chip does
200MHz.") They wouldn't care if the Amiga understood human speech,
had arms and legs, and looked like Christy Brinkley.
--
Richard Krehbiel ri...@grebyn.com
OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
Andrew Krenz
[deletia..]
>No, I think the A4000's video would still be faster. I don't know how much
>faster it would be though. Benchmarks anyone?
Not really, more to follow..
>Here's my two cents... Video on my 33 MHz 486DX with Diamond Speedstar
>SVGA 1MB card is a *lot* slower than the video on my unexpanded A1200.
>If I added some fast RAM and/or an accelerator board to my system, video
>would be even faster. The total cost of this system, including hard drive
>and monitor, would still be less than your typical 486 system. BTW, I
>was using 800x600 with 256 colors on the A1200 and the 486. So, I was
>making a valid comparison. If I upgraded to an accelerated video card,
>say a S3-based board, the video speed on my 486 would probably be right
>up there with my A1200. Of course it isn't exactly fair to compare an
>A1200 with a 486 system that has a lot faster CPU and costs a lot more.
I really don't know how you couls say that your A1200 has faster video. I've
spent about 1 hour playing on the A4000 at Creative Computers, and during that
time I changed the A4000's display to 800x600x256 under Workbench 3.0. I was
pretty shocked at how slow the window refreshing and bitmap painting was.
It was especially slow when you picked a wallpaper bitmap background. It would
take a couple of seconds for the whole screen to repaint and refresh when you
moved windows around. Needless to say, I had pretty high expectations of the
A4000 and I was dissapointed.
I'd best compare the A4000's video speed in 256 colors to that of my 386-DX40
with my old Trident 8900 SVGA card. Both had about the same response with
256 color graphics at 800x600. I find it hard to believe that your A1200 is
much faster than a 486-50 at graphics when I KNOW that an A4000 is NOT faster
than a 386-40 at graphics. Since that time I have replaced my Trident SVGA card
with a Paradise Graphics accelerator card (NOT local bus). The graphics of
Windoze in 800x600x256 with this new graphics card are MUCH faster than that
of an A4000 and there is no doubt about it. I have seen this with my own
eyes and this is undisputed as far as I'm concerned. My roomate here has a
486-33 with a VLB S3 accelerator, and the difference between my accelerator
and his accelerator is about the same as the difference between an A4000 and
mine. Therefore, it is impossible for an A1200 to have graphics speed
comparable to a local bus S3. Go ahead and flame me all you want, I know
this is the truth.
>On the other hand, a local bus 486 with a local bus video card with a
>graphics coprocessor such as a S3, Mach8, or 8514A would definitely
>blow away an A500, A1000, A2000, A3000, or an A1200. An A4000 would be
>the only thing that C= makes that would come even close to the video speed
>that a 486 system like this would have. A PeeCee with the hardware I
>described above, but with a Pentium under the hood, would totally
>destroy any Amiga system.
Whoops, I guess I was getting ahead of myself. Forget about the S3 to A1200
comparison; but the S3 is still much, much faster than the A4000.
>Here's what Commodore could do to make am Amiga with *really* fast video:
>1) Double the clock speed of the AGA chips from 14.3 MHz to 28.6 MHz.
>2) Instead of having the custom chips do something on every other clock
> cycle of the CPU, have them execute instructions on *every* clock
> cycle. The custom chips could then operate concurrently *all* the
> time. Plus, the serial port, parallel port, floppy drive, and hard
> drive could also operate *completely* concurrently with the CPU.
>3) By doing these two things, video would be four times as fast as it is
> now! You'd have an Amiga that would really burn then!
Sounds like a neat idea. I know that the only way an S3 falls short of an
A4000 (or A1200 for that matter) is in animation. If C= could combine the
two, they'd have a winner.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Krenz -- uzn...@mcl.ucsb.edu | kr...@engrhub.ucsb.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Just some weird dude
PC with a stock Amiga? How about the vivid 24 board for the 3000 which will
soon be out for the 4000? That can do up to 160Mflops!! Let's see a 486
or even the Pentium do that!! As far as the Pentium blowing all Amigas
away, that's not true. The 4000 will be able to use the DEC Alpha chip
which has been rated as 150% faster then the Pentium.
I ASKED MY BABY IF THERE'D BE SOME WAY |A wet dog swims in the rain
SHE SAID SHE'D SAVE HER LOVE FOR A RAINY DAY| But a dry martini laughs
I LOOK IN THE SKY BUT I LOOK IN VAIN | - Corey Gray
HEAVY CLOUD BUT NO RAIN - STING | IO0...@maine.maine.edu
Jonas S Green
>jus...@hybris.UUCP (Justin Richards) writes:
>
>>> Anyway, CBM should do like Next and drop the amiga and
>>>port amigados to other CPU...
>>NOT! no other CPU can do what the Amiga can do. The Amiga is more than
>>AmigaDos,
Yes, however that does not mean AmigaDOS can't be ported to other platforms.
The custom chips handle colors & hi-res graphics for instance, but some here
think that an off the shelf $30 SVGA card blows away the AGA graphics
chip, so LET IT.
>Really? CBM are doing there best to kill the amiga... first AGA comes out
>... a [bad] chipset about 3 years off the pace, and then they have the gaul
>not to allow hardware hitting - soon the amiga will only be AmigaDos at this
>rate.
"Not Allowing Hardware Hitting" is one of the Brighter things C= has done.
It's Stupid idiotic developers who write programs which violate Commodore's
rules, and thus end up with programs which crash on some Amiga Setups.
EX: KidPix (Demo Version ) from E.A.
Why do some programs not work on the A4000, unless the AGA Chipset is
emulating the ECS, or OCS Chip Set. (I think some version of Breakout
had this problem)
Anyway lack of sufficient colors/resolutions of the AGA chipset is not why
I haven't yet bought an AGA machine. Of course I happen to like removable
keyboards, while a whole bunch of people seem to be happy with there all
in one A500's and A1200's.
Jerry Shekhel
: >
: >This is laughable. An ancient 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics
: >than the A3000.
:
: Hah, that is laughable. "An ancient 386 (with blah blah...)" is faster
: than an ancient A3000 with nothing. My A500 with monitor can display
: better graphics than any 486.
What are you talking about "with nothing"? The A3000 has the built in
chipset, doesn't it? Well, any old 386 you can buy has built-in SVGA (at
least). Your A500 (and don't give me shit -- *you* brought it up) can't
compete even with a 386sx in terms of GUI performance at high-res.
: -- Gerald
Jerry Shekhel
:
: You both have interesting points, but is it fair to compare an accelerated
: PC with a stock Amiga? How about the vivid 24 board for the 3000 which will
: soon be out for the 4000? That can do up to 160Mflops!! Let's see a 486
: or even the Pentium do that!!
Windows software automatically takes advantage of the added colors, resulution,
and speed of accelerated PC graphics cards. Without RTG, what runs on that
Vivid 24 board? Not much, huh?
:
: As far as the Pentium blowing all Amigas
: away, that's not true. The 4000 will be able to use the DEC Alpha chip
: which has been rated as 150% faster then the Pentium.
:
More like 15%.
Josh Karabin
: Gerald G. Washington (ger...@seas.gwu.edu) wrote:
: : >
: : >This is laughable. An ancient 386 with SVGA has faster 8-bit graphics
: : >than the A3000.
: :
: : Hah, that is laughable. "An ancient 386 (with blah blah...)" is faster
: : than an ancient A3000 with nothing. My A500 with monitor can display
: : better graphics than any 486.
: :
: What are you talking about "with nothing"? The A3000 has the built in
: chipset, doesn't it? Well, any old 386 you can buy has built-in SVGA (at
: least). Your A500 (and don't give me shit -- *you* brought it up) can't
: compete even with a 386sx in terms of GUI performance at high-res.
In terms of GUI performance at high res, you're absolutely right. But in
terms of software which uses the modes, not necessarily so. There's way too
much emphasis being placed in this group on how fast the GUI flies. I'm not
saying that it's not an extremely important part of it all - but I don't sit
around and open and close windows all day...
--
"I don't know what the world may need, but I'm sure as hell that it starts
with me, and that's wisdom I've laughed at." - Cracker
Stephenson Daniel A
What IS it with you Amigans?! For once and for all, MOST PCs do NOT
have the video bolted into the motherboard, and therefore NEED a video
card in a slot! And there is great competition, great products,
great prices in PC video CARDS. DIG DIG DIG DIG DIG, too.
One can run all those Amiga video cards with WorkBench and all applications
work with them?
My point is that while you CAN add fabulous video cards to Amiga - it isn't
equivalent to PCs having video cards since what the PC has in the video card
is approximate to what the Amiga has bolted onto the motherboard.
Wanna talk about super-cards for PCs? The 'Lava' card does 24bit color
in 1024X768 with 3 8514/A processors and 3 megabytes of video ram for
a whopping $1000-$1200. But it has PM drivers for OS/2, and not
specific drivers for specific apps.
>-- Gerald
--
Dan Stephenson das...@usl.edu | "To conquer death, you only have to die" -JC
Stephenson Daniel A
>You both have interesting points, but is it fair to compare an accelerated
>PC with a stock Amiga? How about the vivid 24 board for the 3000 which will
>soon be out for the 4000? That can do up to 160Mflops!! Let's see a 486
>or even the Pentium do that!! As far as the Pentium blowing all Amigas
>away, that's not true. The 4000 will be able to use the DEC Alpha chip
>which has been rated as 150% faster then the Pentium.
Look, PCs have weird specialty video cards too, okay?
And I don't see how any Amiga can use the Alpha without running Windows NT
VMS or UNIX (Ultrix, I presume?)
>HEAVY CLOUD BUT NO RAIN - STING | IO0...@maine.maine.edu
cl23...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
> Mac and IBM people are generally unaware of the Amiga. AGA doesn't
> phase them; the new AAA chipsets won't be worth noticing ("Only 114MHz
> pixel clock? How archaic! The new Matrox 64-bit SVGA chip does
> 200MHz.")
And yet many of these same people say they don't condone bigotry...... ;)
>
They wouldn't care if the Amiga understood human speech,
> had arms and legs, and looked like Christy Brinkley.
Probably not, but I'm sure most of us Amiga owners would upgrade in a minute! ;)
> --
> Richard Krehbiel ri...@grebyn.com
> OS/2 2.0 will do for me until AmigaDOS for the 386 comes along...
MikeB
"I haven't made a decision on that yet...... No official decision has been
made..... We are still reviewing our options..... I haven't decided on that
yet...." - Bill Clinton at the last press conference
eric mejdrich
Come on people this is sad. The Vivid stuff may be true, but
interfacing the Alpha into an A4000. Not very likely.
Eric.
- Commit random acts of kindness and sincere beauty -
eric mejdrich
Perhaps 15% faster than the 100Mzh version of the Alpha, but certainly
not the 150, and 200Mzh versions.
Eric
- Commit random acts of kindness and beauty. -
Justin Richards
>In article <jmccoull.735950437@bruny>, jmcc...@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (James McCoull) writes:
>> jus...@hybris.UUCP (Justin Richards) writes:
>>
>>>> Anyway, CBM should do like Next and drop the amiga and
>>>>port amigados to other CPU...
>>
>>>--
>>>NOT! no other CPU can do what the Amiga can do. The Amiga is more than
>>
>> Really? CBM are doing there best to kill the amiga... first AGA comes out
>> not to allow hardware hitting - soon the amiga will only be AmigaDos at this
>> rate.
>>
>> do. Schaem probably has more brain power in his little finger than youu
>> do in the whole of your head. Unless you want to prove otherwise with
>> the great ChunkyToPlanar competition going on at the moment :)
>>
>Sorry, you're wrong. AGA now *IS* the pace. Commodore has always
>been ahead of the game. Hell, even if AGA never came out, any old
>A3000 still kicks the cans out of your best mac or IBM. Learn your
>facts.
>
>
--
(thanks for some support). My origional post was a bit out of line, the
point I was trying to make was that you can't port the Amiga to another
CPU. Amigados, probably. BUT, there is more to an Amiga than AmigaDos.
there is the multi-tasking that beats the snot out of any IBM or Mac's
attempt at multi-tasking....Its much easier, more efficient, (you don't
need 18 megs of ram like OS2 or System 7 to do anything worth a dink)...
A computer running AmigaDos is not an Amiga. An Amiga is AmigaDos,
workbench, Arexx, the ability
to download programs at 9600 baud while formatting a disk in one drive, and
unarching stuff off of another while playing music and viewing GIFs all
at the same time, and have processor left over......
-----
---==*Justin Richards*==---
AUUCP1.16 Amiga500 3/120 9600baud UUCP: justin%hybris%mme...@tssi.com
misc modified hardware (what warranty???) (Use above for large mail/files)
INET: br...@cleveland.freenet.edu jus...@hybris.uucp
jwri...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Use above for small (8k) mail)
[NOTE: mail sent to INET addresses will be forwarded to my UUCP system]
Henri Tamminen
>In article <1993Apr28....@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> e_s...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>>In article <jmccoull.735950437@bruny>, jmcc...@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (James McCoull) writes:
>>Sorry, you're wrong. AGA now *IS* the pace. Commodore has always
>>been ahead of the game. Hell, even if AGA never came out, any old
>>A3000 still kicks the cans out of your best mac or IBM. Learn your
>>facts.
Another typical Amiga Advocate NERD!!!
I happen to own A3000 and I see every day PC's and Mac's who can kick it's ass
in graphic, music and every aspect of computing I come to think of, except
maybe multimedia/ animation.
BETTER LEARN YOU FACTS BY YOURSELF FIRST!!!
Sheez... are these Amiga advocates for real, or are they just fanatics???
You would have been good nazi in WWII if Hitler had been Amiga.
I see no other I hear no other. Amiga is my true leader and there is no better
computer in earth. Hell yes, my A1200 without ANY RAM beats 20000000000exp2
dollar SGI with reality engine card any day. I swear !!! Really, hey... don't
take me... hey... where you white coat mans came for ???... hey... let me out.
James McCoull
>Sorry, you're wrong. AGA now *IS* the pace. Commodore has always
>been ahead of the game. Hell, even if AGA never came out, any old
>A3000 still kicks the cans out of your best mac or IBM. Learn your
>facts.
Really? I tend to get very iritated by "Amigaoids" with this attitude.
[I can only assume your posting was a joke.] I currently own a A1200 and A1000
and have used Macs, ibm pc clones, sun & solbourne workstations, ...
I find it very hard to beleive that AGA is any where near the cutting edge.
Frankly its better than ECS [obviously] but its pretty lame coming so late
after the original chipset.
James McCoull
>and monitor, would still be less than your typical 486 system. BTW, I
>was using 800x600 with 256 colors on the A1200 and the 486. So, I was
Interlaced vs non interlaced I assume... my what a fair competition.
e_s...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
> In article <justi...@hybris.UUCP> jus...@hybris.UUCP (Justin Richards) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr28....@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> e_s...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>>>In article <jmccoull.735950437@bruny>, jmcc...@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (James McCoull) writes:
>
>>>Sorry, you're wrong. AGA now *IS* the pace. Commodore has always
>>>been ahead of the game. Hell, even if AGA never came out, any old
>>>A3000 still kicks the cans out of your best mac or IBM. Learn your
>>>facts.
>
> Another typical Amiga Advocate NERD!!!
>
> I happen to own A3000 and I see every day PC's and Mac's who can kick it's ass
> in graphic, music and every aspect of computing I come to think of, except
> maybe multimedia/ animation.
How about multitasking? Desktop Video? emulation of other platforms?
Hey, if Amiga can run the Mac and IBM stuff, PLUS amiga stuff, then it
logically follows that the Amiga can do anything as well as or better
than the others can. Plus, it can do them simultaneously.
Peter Sj|str|m
>In article <justi...@hybris.UUCP> jus...@hybris.UUCP (Justin Richards) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr28....@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> e_s...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>>>In article <jmccoull.735950437@bruny>, jmcc...@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (James McCoull) writes:
>>>Sorry, you're wrong. AGA now *IS* the pace. Commodore has always
>>>been ahead of the game. Hell, even if AGA never came out, any old
>>>A3000 still kicks the cans out of your best mac or IBM. Learn your
>>>facts.
>Another typical Amiga Advocate NERD!!!
>I happen to own A3000 and I see every day PC's and Mac's who can kick it's ass
>in graphic, music and every aspect of computing I come to think of, except
>maybe multimedia/ animation.
>BETTER LEARN YOU FACTS BY YOURSELF FIRST!!!
Ok, lets just play with facts:
Colours Amiga lose. Resolution, they're equal unless you get a good
monitor, which I think is beyond these computer's prices anyway. Sound? Well,
a completetly supported, in every application, sound system is ONLY in
existance in the Amiga world. PCs and Macs both have addons that each app needs
to support, AND each user needs to get extra hardware to use.
Now, "every aspect of computing except maybe multimedia/animation":
Let's try efficency! Mac System 7.x and Windows both will lockup when
formatting a diskette, scanning a picture or writing to a PC diskette
(took 9 minutes for 1.44 MB!!!). They are simply not multitasking. Try
downloading, raytracing, word processing and some other application on any
Mac... Try starting multiple shells (erh, MSDOS windows?) under Windows...
I have used Macintosh since 1984. I have used PCs since 1987,
Windows 3.0+ since it was introduced in 1990. I have used Amiga since
1991, and I would never in my life buy a PC or a Mac for persnal use!
I use Sparc and other workstations for work and I would detest PCs for work.
They simply are horrible to configure (tried adding a OH board this weak)
etc.
Not a very good argument here, but Amigas are *NOT* worse than PC or
Mac in "every aspect of computing except maybe multimedia/animation". I
think it is the *opposite*. Working with the Amiga makes life much easier
and it is very efficient. I find myself doing work on Amiga more than
twice the speed than on a PC just by the multitasking capability alone.
/Peter
>Sheez... are these Amiga advocates for real, or are they just fanatics???
None ever tried to actually think that maybe the AMigans
actually *know* that they use a superior system?
>You would have been good nazi in WWII if Hitler had been Amiga.
Nazis weren't better than jews...
>I see no other I hear no other. Amiga is my true leader and there is no better
>computer in earth. Hell yes, my A1200 without ANY RAM beats 20000000000exp2
>dollar SGI with reality engine card any day. I swear !!! Really, hey... don't
>take me... hey... where you white coat mans came for ???... hey... let me out.
Not in pure power, but in price/performance it sure does! If you
want an SGI but can't afford it, I wouldn't advise you to get a PC with
Windows. I would advise you to get an Amiga. :)
/Peter
KENNEDY JAMES SCOT
> In <1993Apr28....@a.cs.okstate.edu> ken...@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
>
> [deletia..]
>
>>No, I think the A4000's video would still be faster. I don't know how much
>>faster it would be though. Benchmarks anyone?
>
> Not really, more to follow..
You may be right about this but it seems to me that the Amiga might come
out ahead under heavy system load. Remember, the Amiga's OS is
multitasking. Windoze is supposed to be multitasking (it's not preemptive
however) but my experience with multitasking under Windoze has been
rather unpleasant to say the least. You have to fool around with the
mouse and windows too damn much. Also, if you aren't careful an unruly
process can lock your PeeCee up real fast if it doesn't relinquish
control to the OS. I know this from personal experience. On one particular
occasion I was trying to display a 24bit JPEG image while running a couple
of dinky programs. The JPEG displayer locked my computer up and I was
barely able to move my mouse pointer around. I tried this same thing
again, with the priority of the JPEG viewer lowered, but this didn't seem
to help very much. As a matter of fact, I had to hit the reset button
on my PeeCee on one of these occasions because my machine was locked so
hard. Apparently, the JPEG viewer did something flakey that not only
crashed it, but the rest of Windoze as well. I didn't get a warning
message or anything. S**t like this is really annoying...I'm glad
there is something like the Amiga out there. Of course the Amiga has
its own brand of user-friendliness known as Gurus. :-)
One more thing... The things you have to do to run a program in the
background in Windoze is kind of stinky. You have to modify the
accompanying PIF files if you want to change the priority or make
it run in the background. I think is a rather clunky way to do
this. As far as I know there is no way to change the priority of
a Windoze program while it's *already* executing. Please correct
me if I'm wrong about this.
Note: I'm not bashing 486s...I'm just criticizing Windoze. I run
Linux (with X Windows) on my 486 frequently (I rarely use MSDOG and
Windoze) and I'm quite satisfied with its performance. I wonder
how Amiga Linux will stack up to the 386 version. Amiga Linux
should breath some new life into the Amiga...I'm looking forward to
trying it out. Again, there is nothing terribly wrong with the
PeeCee's architecture...it's the system software that I don't like.
>>Here's my two cents... Video on my 33 MHz 486DX with Diamond Speedstar
>>SVGA 1MB card is a *lot* slower than the video on my unexpanded A1200.
>>If I added some fast RAM and/or an accelerator board to my system, video
>>would be even faster. The total cost of this system, including hard drive
>>and monitor, would still be less than your typical 486 system. BTW, I
>>was using 800x600 with 256 colors on the A1200 and the 486. So, I was
>>making a valid comparison. If I upgraded to an accelerated video card,
>>say a S3-based board, the video speed on my 486 would probably be right
>>up there with my A1200. Of course it isn't exactly fair to compare an
>>A1200 with a 486 system that has a lot faster CPU and costs a lot more.
>
> I really don't know how you couls say that your A1200 has faster video. I've
> spent about 1 hour playing on the A4000 at Creative Computers, and during that
> time I changed the A4000's display to 800x600x256 under Workbench 3.0. I was
> pretty shocked at how slow the window refreshing and bitmap painting was.
> It was especially slow when you picked a wallpaper bitmap background. It would
Perhaps you misunderstood what I said or I didn't state my assertions clearly
enough. I said that video on my A1200 is faster than the video on my 33 MHz
486DX with one meg SVGA card. I didn't say (or meant to imply) that video
on *all* 486 systems is slower than my A1200. Certainly, if I put an
accelerated video card in my PeeCee or if upgraded to a 50 MHz 486DX or a
66 MHz DX2 then my A1200 would fall behind---probably by a large margin.
But why run Workbench in 256 colors anyhow? You don't need 256 colors---8 or
16 colors will do the job. If you do need more colors than this, then just
run each task with a separate screen with more bitplanes. This is one of
the really good things about the Amiga. You can run a fast Workbench with
fewer bitplanes and run all of your other software in different color
depths. Windoze, on the other hand, can only make use of *one* color
depth at a time. If a program *needs* a lot of colors then give it a lot
of colors---don't make all programs come up in the same number of bitplanes.
> take a couple of seconds for the whole screen to repaint and refresh when you
> moved windows around. Needless to say, I had pretty high expectations of the
> A4000 and I was dissapointed.
Hopefully, AAA will remedy this problem. Does anyone know what AAA is going
to be like? Will I be able to upgrade my A1200 to AAA?
> I'd best compare the A4000's video speed in 256 colors to that of my 386-DX40
> with my old Trident 8900 SVGA card. Both had about the same response with
> 256 color graphics at 800x600. I find it hard to believe that your A1200 is
> much faster than a 486-50 at graphics when I KNOW that an A4000 is NOT faster
> than a 386-40 at graphics. Since that time I have replaced my Trident SVGA card
I never said this to my knowledge. I think a 486-50 would probably have
video that is somewhat faster than my A1200. I think the video speed on
my A1200 is about dead even with my 486-33. I'll run some tests later on
today to confirm this. Perhaps the video on my A1200 isn't as fast as I
think it is. Eyeballing differences in performance, as you probably
know, is rather subjective.
> with a Paradise Graphics accelerator card (NOT local bus). The graphics of
> Windoze in 800x600x256 with this new graphics card are MUCH faster than that
> of an A4000 and there is no doubt about it. I have seen this with my own
> eyes and this is undisputed as far as I'm concerned. My roomate here has a
> 486-33 with a VLB S3 accelerator, and the difference between my accelerator
> and his accelerator is about the same as the difference between an A4000 and
> mine. Therefore, it is impossible for an A1200 to have graphics speed
> comparable to a local bus S3. Go ahead and flame me all you want, I know
> this is the truth.
Again, I think you *may* have misunderstood what I said. Local bus S3
*would* whip my Amiga. Please reread my post...I think I mentioned
this. If I didn't then I meant to say this. The bandwidth of local bus
*is* higher than the bandwidth of my Amiga's bus. However, there are
other things to take into consideration here than just bandwidth alone.
An upcoming post---I hope---will attempt to explain this. Stay tuned.
Please recall that the Amiga has graphics coprocessors as well. These
chips are probably comparable in performance to the S3. A local bus
S3 card would whip the Amiga because the bus is running at a higher
clock speed. But, would an ISA S3 card outperform an A4000? I don't
know about this.
>>On the other hand, a local bus 486 with a local bus video card with a
>>graphics coprocessor such as a S3, Mach8, or 8514A would definitely
>>blow away an A500, A1000, A2000, A3000, or an A1200. An A4000 would be
>>the only thing that C= makes that would come even close to the video speed
>>that a 486 system like this would have. A PeeCee with the hardware I
>>described above, but with a Pentium under the hood, would totally
>>destroy any Amiga system.
>
> Whoops, I guess I was getting ahead of myself. Forget about the S3 to A1200
> comparison; but the S3 is still much, much faster than the A4000.
Could be...I'd still like to see some benchmarks though.
>>Here's what Commodore could do to make am Amiga with *really* fast video:
>
>>1) Double the clock speed of the AGA chips from 14.3 MHz to 28.6 MHz.
>>2) Instead of having the custom chips do something on every other clock
>> cycle of the CPU, have them execute instructions on *every* clock
>> cycle. The custom chips could then operate concurrently *all* the
>> time. Plus, the serial port, parallel port, floppy drive, and hard
>> drive could also operate *completely* concurrently with the CPU.
>>3) By doing these two things, video would be four times as fast as it is
>> now! You'd have an Amiga that would really burn then!
>
> Sounds like a neat idea. I know that the only way an S3 falls short of an
> A4000 (or A1200 for that matter) is in animation. If C= could combine the
> two, they'd have a winner.
Hmmm... If C= evers gets it s**t together and comes out with DIG then maybe
the Amiga could use other graphics coprocessors like the S3 or whatever.
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andrew Krenz -- uzn...@mcl.ucsb.edu | kr...@engrhub.ucsb.edu
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---Scott
KENNEDY JAMES SCOT
> You both have interesting points, but is it fair to compare an accelerated
> PC with a stock Amiga? How about the vivid 24 board for the 3000 which will
> soon be out for the 4000? That can do up to 160Mflops!! Let's see a 486
> or even the Pentium do that!! As far as the Pentium blowing all Amigas
> away, that's not true. The 4000 will be able to use the DEC Alpha chip
> which has been rated as 150% faster then the Pentium.
You're right...it isn't fair to compare a stock Amiga with a PC that has a
lot faster CPU. To make a fair comparison you have to compare
*comparably* equipped systems.
BTW, how will the A4000 be able to use the Alpha chip? Will it be using
it as a graphics coprocessor or as its CPU (in which case the Amiga's OS
would have to be ported to a different architecture). Hopefully, C=
will hurry up and come out with DIG. This would help out the Amiga
tremendously. Why hasn't Commodore came out with this yet?
>
> I ASKED MY BABY IF THERE'D BE SOME WAY |A wet dog swims in the rain
> SHE SAID SHE'D SAVE HER LOVE FOR A RAINY DAY| But a dry martini laughs
> I LOOK IN THE SKY BUT I LOOK IN VAIN | - Corey Gray
> HEAVY CLOUD BUT NO RAIN - STING | IO0...@maine.maine.edu
---Scott
Gregory G Greene
'>Let's try efficency! Mac System 7.x and Windows both will lockup when
'>formatting a diskette, scanning a picture or writing to a PC diskette
'>(took 9 minutes for 1.44 MB!!!). They are simply not multitasking. Try
'>downloading, raytracing, word processing and some other application on any
'>Mac... Try starting multiple shells (erh, MSDOS windows?) under Windows...
Why are PC users always limited to just Windoze? Ever hear of OS2?
'> I have used Macintosh since 1984. I have used PCs since 1987,
'>Windows 3.0+ since it was introduced in 1990. I have used Amiga since
'>1991, and I would never in my life buy a PC or a Mac for persnal use!
'>I use Sparc and other workstations for work and I would detest PCs for work.
'>They simply are horrible to configure (tried adding a OH board this weak)
'>etc.
I have upgraded my PC with a SBPro, Gravis Ultrasound, new HD, new
graphics board, more memory and a scanner board. I never had any
problems. I just read the manual and it was easy. Hardly a horrible
situation.
'> Not in pure power, but in price/performance it sure does! If you
'>want an SGI but can't afford it, I wouldn't advise you to get a PC with
'>Windows. I would advise you to get an Amiga. :)
'> /Peter
At the very low end, your right. But mid-range and up, I say a 486
running OS2. Which is what I have.
Greg Greene
g...@kepler.unh.edu
Henri Tamminen
My OS/2 2.0 PC multitask just fine thank you. I have once tested it to it's
limits and it disn't crash, just slowed down ( I had about four or five games
running at the same time plus workshell, and dos window ) but runned just fine.
Lack of multitasking is Macs worst point, but there are not too many other bad
points in that system.
I use mac's mostly for wordprocessing and DTP and it doesn't need to be multi-
tasking, it's enough that I can switch fast to some other program to modify
some picture and import it on the text.
What comes to the emulations I always say. If I want to use macintosh software
I buy the real thing. It's pointless to buy machine to emulate some other. You
should use the apps your machine has and support people who makes it by
buying Amiga software for your Amiga, not PC or MAc apps.
Already said, that desktop video has 0 value for me. For the people who are
going to use much multimedia software and desktop video, AMIGA IS YOUR NO 1
CHOICE !!! but if your work mostly is wordprocessing DTP Solid Modelling etc.
there are many better platforms if you have bit more money to spare.
Macs rule worprocessing and DTP area is undisputed fact.
PC's rule games area at the moment is undisputed fact.
For Imageprocessing it's a fight between mac and Amiga if you don't have
mega bucks to spare.
SGI RULES OVER ALL !!! :-)
A3000 user who would buy an SGI Indigo in the moment he could afford one.
Henri Tamminen
>In <1993Apr29.2...@prime.mdata.fi> e...@mits.mdata.fi (Henri Tamminen) writes:
>
>>In article <justi...@hybris.UUCP> jus...@hybris.UUCP (Justin Richards) writes:
>>>In article <1993Apr28....@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> e_s...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>>>>In article <jmccoull.735950437@bruny>, jmcc...@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (James McCoull) writes:
>
>>BETTER LEARN YOU FACTS BY YOURSELF FIRST!!!
>
> Ok, lets just play with facts:
>
> Colours Amiga lose. Resolution, they're equal unless you get a good
>monitor, which I think is beyond these computer's prices anyway. Sound? Well,
>a completetly supported, in every application, sound system is ONLY in
>existance in the Amiga world. PCs and Macs both have addons that each app needs
>to support, AND each user needs to get extra hardware to use.
PC's need special hardware for anything, sooo.... and I don't need sound
for wordprocessing:-) Most games ( new ones ) support many different sound
hardware, specially Roland stuff which is VERY GOOD for games.
I Agree thought, that Amiga sound is ok, when people stop porting game sounds
and make new soundtrack instead. They seem to convert game sounds from crappy
SoundRapist that is awful. Amiga sound is good enough, ok. I just said, there
are better, thought not as well supported.
What comes to resolution I happen to own 20" monitor that can make 1280x1024
at 60 KHz without flicker and it pisses me off to use that in my A3000.
( It's the only monitor I have and it's not too unaffordable as you try to
make it sound. ) For my mind, you gave very lame reason for poor graphics.
> Now, "every aspect of computing except maybe multimedia/animation":
>Let's try efficency! Mac System 7.x and Windows both will lockup when
>formatting a diskette, scanning a picture or writing to a PC diskette
>(took 9 minutes for 1.44 MB!!!). They are simply not multitasking. Try
>downloading, raytracing, word processing and some other application on any
>Mac... Try starting multiple shells (erh, MSDOS windows?) under Windows...
Most macintosh users don't even know what to do with multitasking ( real
multitasking ). Application switcher is good enough for them. I agree, and
I know many Mac users who do, that it would be good to have true multitasking
in Macintosh, excpecially when printing long documents, formating disks, ray-
tracing etc. There is a choice thought, Apple AUX 3.0 which I used a while.
Problem is, that it only multitasks one (1) finder under it. But atleast I
could have X connection from AUX to the net while povray was rendering one
picture at the backround...
And what comes to efficiency... you can gain that buy using very good well done
software in macintosh. They are more consistent and easy to use, even state of
the art DTPprogram QuarkXpress 3.1 which I happen to like a lot.
> I have used Macintosh since 1984. I have used PCs since 1987,
>Windows 3.0+ since it was introduced in 1990. I have used Amiga since
>1991, and I would never in my life buy a PC or a Mac for persnal use!
It depends what you're doing with it. Amiga might be right choice for you, but
for many, it's not. And maybe you should use OS/2 2.0 in your pc, if you have
fast 486 with enough memory 16 MB plus. Many Amiga users who have to use PC's
at work are actually liking it a lot. It's a nearest thing you can get in PC
world to your beloved Amiga OS and is actually for many parts even better than
Amiga OS. Hardware reguirements are horrendous thought... :-)
>I use Sparc and other workstations for work and I would detest PCs for work.
>They simply are horrible to configure (tried adding a OH board this weak)
>etc.
Sometimes yes. But when you start having more experience with it, you develop
certain hunch, that you know down somewhere, what's wrong and are able to fix
it quite fast...
> Not a very good argument here, but Amigas are *NOT* worse than PC or
>Mac in "every aspect of computing except maybe multimedia/animation". I
>think it is the *opposite*. Working with the Amiga makes life much easier
>and it is very efficient. I find myself doing work on Amiga more than
>twice the speed than on a PC just by the multitasking capability alone.
Maybe I over reacted, but at least I try to argue my valid points and are
ready to admit when I am wrong. That can't be said on many Amiga Advocates.
And NO, Amiga is not worse than PC or MAC as it is, but there IS hardware and
apps that equals and often excels when compared to Amiga hardware and apps.
Of course, there are also areas, that Amiga truly shows it's strenght and they
are the areas I already mentioned.
>>Sheez... are these Amiga advocates for real, or are they just fanatics???
>
> None ever tried to actually think that maybe the AMigans
>actually *know* that they use a superior system?
When they actually have not ? Maybe ... :-) Ow, c'mon. You like the way Amiga
works and many like the way Mac works, so what ? If you think, that you would
take best amiga over best pc or mac platform, then you're obviously happy with
Amiga and for you, it's superior system.
>>You would have been good nazi in WWII if Hitler had been Amiga.
>>computer in earth. Hell yes, my A1200 without ANY RAM beats 20000000000exp2
>>dollar SGI with reality engine card any day. I swear !!! Really, hey... don't
>>take me... hey... where you white coat mans came for ???... hey... let me out.
> Not in pure power, but in price/performance it sure does! If you
>want an SGI but can't afford it, I wouldn't advise you to get a PC with
>Windows. I would advise you to get an Amiga. :)
Actually not even in price performance. Reality engine card is NOT THAT
expencive. Yes I wan't...!!!
But I already have Amiga ?
Timothy Purves
>there is the multi-tasking that beats the snot out of any IBM or Mac's
>attempt at multi-tasking....Its much easier, more efficient, (you don't
>need 18 megs of ram like OS2 or System 7 to do anything worth a dink)...
And don't forget the lack of memory protection, so a rampant program can
bring the whole house of cards falling down.
--
Timothy Purves linx!sygnus!tpu...@vela.acs.oakland.edu
Waterford, MI
USA
Jack Radigan
>What are you talking about "with nothing"? The A3000 has the built in
>chipset, doesn't it? Well, any old 386 you can buy has built-in SVGA (at
>least). Your A500 (and don't give me shit -- *you* brought it up) can't
>compete even with a 386sx in terms of GUI performance at high-res.
Do you actully mean "comes with" when you say "built in"?
Can a PC with integrated video on the motherboard even be upgraded to a
different video card?
-jack-
Jerry Shekhel
:
: >What are you talking about "with nothing"? The A3000 has the built in
: >chipset, doesn't it? Well, any old 386 you can buy has built-in SVGA (at
: >least). Your A500 (and don't give me shit -- *you* brought it up) can't
: >compete even with a 386sx in terms of GUI performance at high-res.
:
: Do you actully mean "comes with" when you say "built in"?
What difference does it make?
:
: Can a PC with integrated video on the motherboard even be upgraded to a
: different video card?
:
Of course. Every motherboard I've seen with integrated video has a jumper
or a switch for disabling it.
: -jack-
Jonathan Smith
>From article <93119.075...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, by Just some weird dude <IO0...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>:
>> You both have interesting points, but is it fair to compare an accelerated
>> PC with a stock Amiga? How about the vivid 24 board for the 3000 which will
>> soon be out for the 4000? That can do up to 160Mflops!! Let's see a 486
>> or even the Pentium do that!! As far as the Pentium blowing all Amigas
>> away, that's not true. The 4000 will be able to use the DEC Alpha chip
>> which has been rated as 150% faster then the Pentium.
nothing about the performance gfx wise. FIrst off your looking at something
that has a really NASTY bottleneck. That happens to be the bus bandwidth
of the 34020 chip. Even at 48Mhz (highest available clock) it only runs at
12Mhz internaly and bus cycles take TWO clocks that means you have at most
24Megbytes/sec bandwidth (aside from coupling it with special VRAMS which
will get you 48 in some cases on particular kinds of writes). Think about that
a little 24Megbytes/sec for all reads and writes.. then figure out what kind of
percentage of that bandwidth feeding those 4 math coprocessors doing 160Mflops
peak, would eat up.. then realize what little you got left for reading and
writing of video data. Peak Mflops do not make the system any fast if you
cannot utilize them. Nor do they help improve your bandwidth of the 34020 any.
Again, I'm not saying the card is a bad card just that you need to look at the
whole picture. I'd have gone into more details but I would need a few more
specifics on the vivid card itself before I could be accurate.
>
>You're right...it isn't fair to compare a stock Amiga with a PC that has a
>lot faster CPU. To make a fair comparison you have to compare
>*comparably* equipped systems.
>
>BTW, how will the A4000 be able to use the Alpha chip? Will it be using
>it as a graphics coprocessor or as its CPU (in which case the Amiga's OS
>would have to be ported to a different architecture). Hopefully, C=
>will hurry up and come out with DIG. This would help out the Amiga
>tremendously. Why hasn't Commodore came out with this yet?
>
Indeed how can a A4000 use an Alpha cpu?
>>
>> I ASKED MY BABY IF THERE'D BE SOME WAY |A wet dog swims in the rain
>> SHE SAID SHE'D SAVE HER LOVE FOR A RAINY DAY| But a dry martini laughs
>> I LOOK IN THE SKY BUT I LOOK IN VAIN | - Corey Gray
>> HEAVY CLOUD BUT NO RAIN - STING | IO0...@maine.maine.edu
>
>---Scott
>
Jonathan Smith
Aric....@ofa123.fidonet.org
> From: ken...@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
> Message-ID: <1993Apr28....@a.cs.okstate.edu>
> Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
> Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
>
> Here's what Commodore could do to make am Amiga with *really* fast video:
>
> 1) Double the clock speed of the AGA chips from 14.3 MHz to 28.6 MHz.
> 2) Instead of having the custom chips do something on every other clock
> cycle of the CPU, have them execute instructions on *every* clock
> cycle. The custom chips could then operate concurrently *all* the
> time. Plus, the serial port, parallel port, floppy drive, and hard
> drive could also operate *completely* concurrently with the CPU.
> 3) By doing these two things, video would be four times as fast as it is
> now! You'd have an Amiga that would really burn then!
I'm not sure how well you understand how the Amiga chips work. Here's what
I think they need to do, ASAP, with the chipset:
For the high-end:
Increase the video fetch bandwidth to 6-8 times that of AGA (and use dual
ported VRAM for god sake!). This would allow 800 x 600 at 24 bit, 72 hz;
1280 x 800 at 16 bits (how about a HAM10 mode?); 1600 x 1200 at 8 bits.
With the VRAM, there would be NO DMA contention with the blitter, copper or
the CPU.
Now, stick in a blitter that's actualy faster. AGA has a 16 bit slow
blitter! this new chipset should have a 32 bit blitter, running at least
double speed (this, IMHO, *should* have been in AGA!), for a total 4 times
speed improvement. It shouldn't be much harder to get it running at 8
times the speed of the AGA blitter.
Next, the CPU access to chip ram shouldn't be locked into the absolutely
rediculous 7.14Mhz 68000 memory cycles! It ought to be able to access chip
ram at near the full speed of the CPU (naturaly there would probably be
syncronization delays, and the blitter et'al get precedence over the CPU).
Give us chunky pixels. This will make lots of operations faster. Line
drawing should be faster now with the blitter, as well as CPU driven pixel
based operations like texture mapping etc.
Now, we have fast graphics.
Oddly enough, the next generation chipset should be close to these specs.
If only it was out *now*.
Finaly, something that would be extremely cool: Have the blitter able to
SCALE images! That would make it quite easy, and FAST, to show
animations/video within resizable windows.
> > e...@mits.mdata.fi
> >
> > -
> > A3000 owner, AGA anti advocate
-Dances With Coyotes--EMAIL: dan...@qedbbs.com-Of Shinead O'Connor: If she-
--AKA Dances V2.1/Coyote/Magnet/Major/Wile E.--sat on her head, would it-
-Former Net-Lurker - A-M-I-G-A! NOT AMEOBA%#$!-scratch her butt? heh heh he-
-World's slowest programer and moving to 2.1!!-The Beavus and Butthead show-
--- Maximus 2.01wb
Jack Radigan
>: Do you actully mean "comes with" when you say "built in"?
>What difference does it make?
Built-in means integrated on the motherboard, "comes with" would be for
a slotted video card.
>: Can a PC with integrated video on the motherboard even be upgraded to a
>: different video card?
>Of course. Every motherboard I've seen with integrated video has a jumper
>or a switch for disabling it.
Oh, it's essentially replaced then. Can't use dual monitors, one for the
control panel, one for high end video output. Too bad...
-jack-
Jason W. Nyberg
/Mac and IBM people are generally unaware of the Amiga. AGA doesn't
/phase them; the new AAA chipsets won't be worth noticing ("Only 114MHz
/pixel clock? How archaic! The new Matrox 64-bit SVGA chip does
/200MHz.") They wouldn't care if the Amiga understood human speech,
/had arms and legs, and looked like Christy Brinkley.
Ahhh, the ultimate game machine. :)
--
Jason Nyberg (nyb...@ctron.com) /\
\ \
In aerodynamics we trust! /--\
\ / \--/
____\___/O\___/____ / /
\_\\_//_/ \/
Jason W. Nyberg
/What IS it with you Amigans?! For once and for all, MOST PCs do NOT
/have the video bolted into the motherboard, and therefore NEED a video
/card in a slot! And there is great competition, great products,
/great prices in PC video CARDS. DIG DIG DIG DIG DIG, too.
It would be nice, when the Amiga gets RTG, to have a box with no graphics
on the motherboard, maybe an AGA (or AGAGA :) card in a video slot as an
option.
/One can run all those Amiga video cards with WorkBench and all applications
/work with them?
There are 3rd party RTG soloutions right now (at least one from GVP).
/My point is that while you CAN add fabulous video cards to Amiga - it isn't
/equivalent to PCs having video cards since what the PC has in the video card
/is approximate to what the Amiga has bolted onto the motherboard.
So if the Amiga has a card, then it is "above and beyond" what a PC with a
video card has? :)
/Wanna talk about super-cards for PCs? The 'Lava' card does 24bit color
/in 1024X768 with 3 8514/A processors and 3 megabytes of video ram for
/a whopping $1000-$1200. But it has PM drivers for OS/2, and not
/specific drivers for specific apps.
Just being picky, but 3/4 of that 3 megs goes into holding just one 24 bit
frame at 1024x768.
Jason W. Nyberg
/VMS or UNIX (Ultrix, I presume?)
Simply by porting AmigaDos to it.
David
>je...@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>>: Do you actully mean "comes with" when you say "built in"?
>
>>What difference does it make?
>
> Built-in means integrated on the motherboard, "comes with" would be for
>a slotted video card.
The amigo 4000 is the worst computer. It doesn't even 'come with' a
CPU. How can it be a good comouter when it doesn't come with a CPU.
They should have a CPU 'built in'.
<sarcasm>
/ Amiga /// | U.S.C. Trojans | O Bar | David Leslie \
| /// | Fight On! | E O | |
| \\\/// | -- | Meu | jpd...@netcom.com |
\ \XX/ A1000 | Go Kings! | Lar! | dle...@scf.usc.edu /
Mark Andrew Hawling
Multiple shells .. try one DOS window, do along list and then click
outside it. It will stop scrolling :-) It can only work if it's window
is activated :-)
George
David Navas
>Jack Radigan (jp...@faatcrl.faa.gov) wrote:
>: Do you actully mean "comes with" when you say "built in"?
>What difference does it make?
Weren't you the whiner when it came to definitions during the Windows-is(not)-
an-OS debate?
How curious.
As far as I'm concerned, "comes with" is better than "built in" because you
can usually get a choice of which machine "comes with" what.
It's a side issue as the main problem with PCs is something far more
insidious than what high-resolution "really" means....
>Of course. Every motherboard I've seen with integrated video has a jumper
>or a switch for disabling it.
Of course, any truly advanced OS would just start using "whichever" video
card you activated, and then it would be just a matter of which plug your
video cable went into....
David C. Navas dna...@us.oracle.com
Working for, but not speaking on behalf of, Oracle Corp.
KENNEDY JAMES SCOT
Good point...I should have mentioned that the Super72 mode flickers.
However, in my case I have a monitor that has long persistence phosphors
so flicker is not much of a problem for me. As a matter of fact, flicker
is barely discernable on my monitor. I realize, of course, that most
people don't have a monitor like I do so most people would have a
problem with interlace flicker. Fortunately, AGA is capable of doing
noninterlaced graphics in other modes such as productivity, DBLNTSC,
and DBLPAL. The problem is that all of these modes have resolution
that is considerably less than that of Super72. It's too bad that
C= didn't come out with 800x600 and 1024x768 modes that don't flicker.
1024x768 at 72 Hz refresh rate would have been real nice.
---Scott
Sam Yates
KJ> On the other hand, a local bus 486 with a local bus video card with a
KJ> graphics coprocessor such as a S3, Mach8, or 8514A would definitely
KJ> blow away an A500, A1000, A2000, A3000, or an A1200.
Yes, but an Amiga with a graphics coprocessor would destroy any? IBM system
(Can you say "Vivid 24"?) :-)
KJ> Here's what Commodore could do to make am Amiga with *really* fast
KJ> video:
KJ> 1) Double the clock speed of the AGA chips from 14.3 MHz to 28.6 MHz.
KJ> 2) Instead of having the custom chips do something on every other
KJ> clock
KJ> cycle of the CPU, have them execute instructions on *every* clock
KJ> cycle. The custom chips could then operate concurrently *all* the
KJ> time. Plus, the serial port, parallel port, floppy drive, and
KJ> hard
KJ> drive could also operate *completely* concurrently with the CPU.
KJ> 3) By doing these two things, video would be four times as fast as it
KJ> is
KJ> now! You'd have an Amiga that would really burn then!
Where do I sign? :-)
Just for the record, my fathers local bus 486DX33's video is slower than my
A1200's.
Sam
-- Via DLG Pro v0.995
Stephenson Daniel A
>das...@ucs.usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>/And I don't see how any Amiga can use the Alpha without running Windows NT
>/VMS or UNIX (Ultrix, I presume?)
>
>Simply by porting AmigaDos to it.
Is it really that simple, though?
NT and UNIX are made to be cross-platform. Is AmigaDOS?
>
>--
>Jason Nyberg (nyb...@ctron.com)
> /\
> In aerodynamics we trust! \ \
> /--\
> \ / \--/
> ____\___/O\___/____ / /
> \_\\_//_/ \/
--
Dan Stephenson das...@usl.edu | "To conquer death, you only have to die" -JC
Peter Sj|str|m
>( It's the only monitor I have and it's not too unaffordable as you try to
>make it sound. ) For my mind, you gave very lame reason for poor graphics.
In Sweden a 20" monitor is close to unaffordable.
>Sometimes yes. But when you start having more experience with it, you develop
>certain hunch, that you know down somewhere, what's wrong and are able to fix
>it quite fast...
Amiga has AutoConfig, just pop the board in... (almost)
>When they actually have not ? Maybe ... :-) Ow, c'mon. You like the way Amiga
>works and many like the way Mac works, so what ? If you think, that you would
>take best amiga over best pc or mac platform, then you're obviously happy with
>Amiga and for you, it's superior system.
Admit it, the *only* thing Amiga lacks is the software. Wouldn't you
also use the Amiga if QuarkExpress, PhotoShop etc were available for Amiga too?
>Actually not even in price performance. Reality engine card is NOT THAT
>expencive. Yes I wan't...!!!
I hear Real 3D 2.0 will run in 160 MFLOPS on the Vivid 24 soon. That's
9000 USD.
/Peter
Henri Tamminen
>In <1993Apr30.0...@prime.mdata.fi> e...@mits.mdata.fi (Henri Tamminen) writes:
>>Sometimes yes. But when you start having more experience with it, you develop
>>certain hunch, that you know down somewhere, what's wrong and are able to fix
>>it quite fast...
>
> Amiga has AutoConfig, just pop the board in... (almost)
So does MCA PC's and NuBus MACs. Still, some cards don't like the way you look
at them and then you have problems. It happens on any machine.
I wouldn't trust too much of these nice autoconfig systems, 'cause when some-
thing goes wrong, you better have this developed hunch or real good tech
service available.
> Admit it, the *only* thing Amiga lacks is the software. Wouldn't you
>also use the Amiga if QuarkExpress, PhotoShop etc were available for Amiga too?
I use Amiga 3000 every day 'cause it's the computer I happen to have at home
:-) Of course I would use them, at least QE 3.1, BUT they would be not so
good to use, because lack of good resolution.
And I think, that there a few VERY GOOD software on Amiga already, for example
Image FX and Imagemaster, not to forget ADPro, are on a par with PhotoShop and
for some features even better. Lack of software is not problem in Amiga,
atleast not for me.
I would like to see better wordprocessor and DTP software in Amiga thought.
Final Copy and Wordworth 2 and PPage 4.0 are not as good as WordPerfect 2.3
and QuarkExpress 3.1 in Macintosh. ( My opinion only of course ).
And before you flame WordPerfect (WordPervert) I must say, that I was quite
suprised to see, that it was the best I could get my hands on. ( Tried Word5,
Nisus, Write Now 3.0, MacWrite II... )
I NEVER liked WP 5.1 in PC's thought.
> I hear Real 3D 2.0 will run in 160 MFLOPS on the Vivid 24 soon. That's
>9000 USD.
That's quite a lot!!!
I think SGI's Reality Engine card costs only twice of that, and it's superb.
Maybe one could by Elan graphics card for 9000$ ? It has 4 Geometry Engine
special Graphic Chips and it really fly !
BTW All SGI machines are not so fabled, but also not so expensive as people
seem to think.
R. Brown
|> In article <justi...@hybris.UUCP> jus...@hybris.UUCP (Justin Richards) writes:
|> >CPU. Amigados, probably. BUT, there is more to an Amiga than AmigaDos.
|> >there is the multi-tasking that beats the snot out of any IBM or Mac's
|> >attempt at multi-tasking....Its much easier, more efficient, (you don't
|> >need 18 megs of ram like OS2 or System 7 to do anything worth a dink)...
|>
|> And don't forget the lack of memory protection, so a rampant program can
|> bring the whole house of cards falling down.
|>
When do you get a rampant program, usually? I would say that it's either the
first time you use something from the public domain, or when you're developing
your own programs. In my experience, most large commercial programs on the Amiga
are pretty much bug-free, possibly due to being smaller than PC/Mac programs.
When developing your own programs, you can use enforcer, if your machine supports
it, and when trying out PD programs for the first time, just make sure you're not
running anything important :-). Anyway, most crashes on the Amiga result in a
processor trap before they get out of hand, in which case the OS freezes the task
and informs the user (Osftware failure requester). The user is given the option
of carrying on with the task frozen, or re-booting. Usually, once he task is
frozen, everything else will carry on working fine, albeit without any system
resources allocated by the frozen program available. In my opinion the speed
increase offered by NOT having memory protection outweighs the benefits of having
it, especially on the lower-end Amigas. Having it as an option on the higher-end
(MMU equiped) machines would probably be a good idea, though).
|> --
|>
|> Timothy Purves linx!sygnus!tpu...@vela.acs.oakland.edu
|> Waterford, MI
|> USA
Robert Brown.
Leo Szumel
great. You got the idea.
-Leo
---------Please send all responses privately to:
Ala...@hotcity.com
Thanks.
Michael Grom
> In article <1993May1.1...@ludd.luth.se> pj...@ludd.luth.se (Peter Sj|str|m) writes:
> >In <1993Apr30.0...@prime.mdata.fi> e...@mits.mdata.fi (Henri Tamminen) writes:
[..]
> > Amiga has AutoConfig, just pop the board in... (almost)
>
> So does MCA PC's and NuBus MACs. Still, some cards don't like the way you look
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not! You still have to mess around with reference and driver disks.
Autoconfiguration with MCA is poor.
[..]
Michael
__
__ /// Michael Grom | FRG 6000 Frankfurt 60 |gro...@sputnik.rhein-main.de
\\\/// | Roederbergweg 136 |
\XX/ C:\DOS>del *.* | voice: +49 69 44 12 87| ** Gib DOS keine CHANCE **
Stuff the world, we're indestructable -- J. Watts --.
Marc N. Barrett
>And I think, that there a few VERY GOOD software on Amiga already, for example
>Image FX and Imagemaster, not to forget ADPro, are on a par with PhotoShop and
>for some features even better. Lack of software is not problem in Amiga,
>atleast not for me.
ADPro sucks. ImageFX and ImageMaster do NOT compare to PhotoShop, as much
as stupid Amigoids would like to delude themselves into believing that they
do. Do either ImageFX or ImageMaster include any support for EPSF structured
images, for instance? PhotoShop has a mini PostScript interpreter specifically
for handling of EPSF files. This is just an example, of course. PhotoShop
includes many other facilities that the Amiga programs don't have.
-----
Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
------------------------------------------------
Stephenson Daniel A
>In article <1993May1.1...@prime.mdata.fi>, Henri Tamminen writes:
>
>> In article <1993May1.1...@ludd.luth.se> pj...@ludd.luth.se (Peter Sj|str|m) writes:
>> >In <1993Apr30.0...@prime.mdata.fi> e...@mits.mdata.fi (Henri Tamminen) writes:
>[..]
>> > Amiga has AutoConfig, just pop the board in... (almost)
>>
>> So does MCA PC's and NuBus MACs. Still, some cards don't like the way you look
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Not! You still have to mess around with reference and driver disks.
>Autoconfiguration with MCA is poor.
I woulnd;t be surprised!
In any case, how does Autoconfig work, really? Let us say, you
plug something in, when you boot, it checks all the slots and
gets some information from them the computer needs, and runs through
smart program to sort out the conflicts?
If PCs ever get this in the future, would it be a part of the 'BIOS', and
plug in cards manufacturers have to include some ROM in the cards with
the info?
>__ /// Michael Grom | FRG 6000 Frankfurt 60 |gro...@sputnik.rhein-main.de
--
Eyvind Bernhardsen
> In article <1993May1.1...@prime.mdata.fi> e...@mits.mdata.fi (Henri Tamminen) writes:
> >And I think, that there a few VERY GOOD software on Amiga already, for example
> >Image FX and Imagemaster, not to forget ADPro, are on a par with PhotoShop and
> >for some features even better. Lack of software is not problem in Amiga,
> >atleast not for me.
>
> ADPro sucks. ImageFX and ImageMaster do NOT compare to PhotoShop, as much
Well, thank you for that... Statement Marc, I'm sure MANY people will now be
seeing things your way.
> as stupid Amigoids would like to delude themselves into believing that they
> do. Do either ImageFX or ImageMaster include any support for EPSF structured
> images, for instance? PhotoShop has a mini PostScript interpreter specifically
> for handling of EPSF files. This is just an example, of course. PhotoShop
> includes many other facilities that the Amiga programs don't have.
Really. In fact, the only thing wrong with PhotoShop is that you need to buy a
Mac (or, of course, a Mac EMULATOR for the Amiga) to run it. Oh, by the way,
PhotoShop sucks. The Mac sucks. In fact, every single piece of software for the
Mac, whether I've heard of it or not, is absolutely and completely useless.
Especially any piece of software you have ever mentioned, or are going to mention
at some point in the future. OK?
> Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
-Eyvind
--
//| A1200... There IS a God! | DISCLAIMER: My opinions belong to me.
// | | Anybody else who feels this way should
\\ //--|miga: There can be only one. | see a professional.
\X/ | eyv...@lise.unit.no | Quote me and EAT LAWYER, asshole!
Skip Sauls
>In article <1993May1.1...@prime.mdata.fi> e...@mits.mdata.fi (Henri Tamminen) writes:
>>And I think, that there a few VERY GOOD software on Amiga already, for example
>>Image FX and Imagemaster, not to forget ADPro, are on a par with PhotoShop and
>>for some features even better. Lack of software is not problem in Amiga,
>>atleast not for me.
>
> ADPro sucks. ImageFX and ImageMaster do NOT compare to PhotoShop, as much
>as stupid Amigoids would like to delude themselves into believing that they
>do. Do either ImageFX or ImageMaster include any support for EPSF structured
>images, for instance? PhotoShop has a mini PostScript interpreter specifically
>for handling of EPSF files. This is just an example, of course. PhotoShop
>includes many other facilities that the Amiga programs don't have.
Okay Marc, tell me what PhotoShop has which I need at work. We
use ADPro, ImageFX, ImageMaster, DPaint IV, OpalPaint, and a
Video Toaster for all of our graphics. We have yet to find
something that we need which cannot be done by one or more of
these programs, and in fact could probably get by for 90% of them
with ADPro alone.
To help you out, I'll give you a brief rundown of what we might do
in a typical day.
1. Image is scanned on a Clone using HP ScanJet //c.
2. Image is transfered via FTP to the Amiga from the Clone.
3. Image is loaded into ADPro.
4. Image is scaled to proper dimensions.
5. Palette is unified.
6. If needed, image is loaded in to DPaint for touch-up.
7. Final image saved.
8. Image is transfered via FTP from the Amiga to another Clone.
9. Image is used on the Clone.
Please tell me what we are missing out on. We've tried various
Clone image-processing programs and find them to be lacking as
most are geared for the Windows environment. While DIG may be
nice, it can play havoc with your graphics if you would like to
maintain a unified palette, and most of them use a ridiculous
page metaphor rather than a screen metaphor. Although I've only
played around with PhotoShop on the Mac, it also seems to be
geared towards a windowed environment and is therefore less useful
to us than ADPro or the various Amiga packages.
Oh, I forgot, you'll ignore this post because you can't come up
with a decent response to my questions. Chalk this up as being
one more thing that Marc can complain about, but when challenged,
he is hard-pressed to come up with a reply.
>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
>------------------------------------------------
Skip Sauls
sk...@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu
Psigon Matrix....do you DOUBT us??
>In article <1993May1.1...@prime.mdata.fi> e...@mits.mdata.fi (Henri Tamminen) writes:
>>And I think, that there a few VERY GOOD software on Amiga already, for example
>>Image FX and Imagemaster, not to forget ADPro, are on a par with PhotoShop and
>>for some features even better. Lack of software is not problem in Amiga,
>>atleast not for me.
>
> ADPro sucks. ImageFX and ImageMaster do NOT compare to PhotoShop, as much
>as stupid Amigoids would like to delude themselves into believing that they
>do. Do either ImageFX or ImageMaster include any support for EPSF structured
>images, for instance? PhotoShop has a mini PostScript interpreter specifically
>for handling of EPSF files. This is just an example, of course. PhotoShop
>includes many other facilities that the Amiga programs don't have.
>
ImageFX has a full Alias (SGI) interpreter specifically for handling of Alias
files. This is just an example, of course. ImageFX includes many other
facilities that the Mac programs don't have.
ImageFX has a full Morphing program (Cinemorph) specifically for handling
morphing images. This is just an example, of course. ImageFX includes many
other facilities that the Mac programs don't have.
ADPro has the EPSF loaer/saver you speak of....but ya may as well ignore that
since the program sucks, eh Marc?
>-----
>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
>------------------------------------------------
\
Jim Martin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screeeemmmmmin fast 4000/040..YEEEEEEHA!! X-ASOCC (CBM Blew that one)
Jim Martin MATRIX -- If it's made, we sell it. Almost.
-----(612) 656-9693-- MAR...@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU
We're almost done with the Cray module for the EmPlanT. :) heh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dariusz Bolski
> ADPro sucks.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim. Read on.
> ImageFX and ImageMaster do NOT compare to PhotoShop
You try to avoid talking about ADPro because it is ADPro which is in many ways
more useful than PhotoShop.
[examples of almost useless features of Photoshop over others deleted (useless
for me and for everyone I know of who uses Photoshop) ]
>PhotoShop includes many other facilities that the Amiga programs don't have.
Just an examples of what PhotoShop does not have or has quite poor.
1) does not have REXX support,(like ADPro)
2) does not have Custom Loaders Savers modules (expandable by REXX like ADPRO)
3) has incomplete IFF module (the one which it has really sucks)
4) has poor dithering.
5) is slow as hell. (or is it yet another OS problem? And PhShp is fast?)
6) has nonexistent batch processing (in my opinion)
7) has mistaken OS on top of which it works.
8) is buggy
9) tends to crash really bad. (but that could be a problem of OS)
10) has a tendency to loose images for no apparent reason.
11) cannot see more than a few hundred images (very few) in a directory.
Thus sequences of images have to be split into few directories.
12) etc.
I do work with Photoshop. And I think Photoshop looks beautiful and cute.
But I think in the stage it is now it is mostly useful for a photography
retouching (and similar works).
As I work with animations I miss the features I just spelled out.
What do you use PhotoShop for? Or ADPro? or ImageFX? If you tell us how
do you use them, mightbe someone could help you to structurize your work
to achieve best results with least resources used? Did you talk to someone
professient (I am not sure how to spell this word, sorry if misspelled) in
all of them, and then you made up your opinion?
>Marc Barrett -MB- | email: bar...@iastate.edu
To. Summarize. Photoshop is great. But not end of all.
Dariusz Bolski
de...@xaos.com
Ian Kennedy
>as stupid Amigoids would like to delude themselves into believing that they
>do. Do either ImageFX or ImageMaster include any support for EPSF structured
>images, for instance? PhotoShop has a mini PostScript interpreter specifically
>for handling of EPSF files. This is just an example, of course. PhotoShop
>includes many other facilities that the Amiga programs don't have.
Uhhohh. I think EPSF has replaced tax software as Marc's big stick.
You're a really sad case Marc.
--
-------------------------
MAIL : IA...@MICROSOFT.COM
A1200/85MBHD OS3.0 Yeah!
-------------------------
Gerald G. Washington
> ADPro sucks. ImageFX and ImageMaster do NOT compare to PhotoShop, as much
>as stupid Amigoids would like to delude themselves into believing that they
>do. Do either ImageFX or ImageMaster include any support for EPSF structured
>images, for instance? PhotoShop has a mini PostScript interpreter specifically
>for handling of EPSF files. This is just an example, of course. PhotoShop
>includes many other facilities that the Amiga programs don't have.
I use Photoshop almost on a daily basis on my Quadra at work. It is
excellent, and I must agree that it is much more useful than ADPro since
Photoshop offers full on-screen operations. Now, ImageFX with the proper
graphics card would be much better on the Amiga than ADPro.
Though, the Amiga does have a program which may give Photoshop a run for
its money, now. OpalPaint.
-- Gerald
Dobalina
[Marc Barrett deleted]
>I use Photoshop almost on a daily basis on my Quadra at work. It is
>excellent, and I must agree that it is much more useful than ADPro since
>Photoshop offers full on-screen operations. Now, ImageFX with the proper
>graphics card would be much better on the Amiga than ADPro.
>
>Though, the Amiga does have a program which may give Photoshop a run for
>its money, now. OpalPaint.
Reality check here... how about some prices on said programs?
>
>-- Gerald
>.
>.
Cheers
====================================================================
[ Ben Hardy Disclaimer: I did it. ]
[------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Famous last words: "They have no weapons, why would they?" ]
====================================================================
Henri Tamminen
Hmm... did I forget to say, it was my opinion ?
I HAVE USED PHOTOSHOP 2.0 on several different Macs countless times ( including
my own II x and friend II fx ) and I say, it's a good software, but as I also
said, Imagemaster, Image FX and ADPro ARE AS GOOD. ADPro is mostly used for
converting image formats ( atleast in my use ) and Imagemaster/ ImageFX for
editing picture.
Ofcourse these programs lack few very good features found in Photoshop, but
so do Photoshop when compared to Amiga software.
Of course I don't need this EPSF for ANYTHING when I am processing images and
I don't know any, who do...
Of course, you have your own opinions.
Jerry Shekhel
:
: >: Do you actully mean "comes with" when you say "built in"?
: >What difference does it make?
:
: Weren't you the whiner when it came to definitions during the Windows-is(not)-
: an-OS debate?
In this case, it doesn't matter. All the user sees is a box with a video
plug. Whether that plug is wired to the motherboard or sits on a card
plugged into the motherboard makes no difference to the user.
:
: As far as I'm concerned, "comes with" is better than "built in" because you
: can usually get a choice of which machine "comes with" what.
:
Me too.
:
: >Of course. Every motherboard I've seen with integrated video has a jumper
: >or a switch for disabling it.
:
: Of course, any truly advanced OS would just start using "whichever" video
: card you activated, and then it would be just a matter of which plug your
: video cable went into....
:
OK wiseguy. Let's say you have two video cards in your computer. How do you
"activate" one of them without using a switch or a jumper? Think about it
now -- no software can run until you "activate" one of the video cards.
: David C. Navas
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
| Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | in my book of memories. |
| ... In rhythm! | je...@msi.com | -- Guns N' Roses |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
Jerry Shekhel
:
: >: Do you actully mean "comes with" when you say "built in"?
:
: >What difference does it make?
:
: a slotted video card.
:
What difference does it make (to the user)?
:
: >Of course. Every motherboard I've seen with integrated video has a jumper
: >or a switch for disabling it.
:
: Oh, it's essentially replaced then. Can't use dual monitors, one for the
: control panel, one for high end video output. Too bad...
:
That's OK. On a system with a modern graphics architecture, you can display
both on one monitor. And save half your deskspace.
: -jack-
Jerry Shekhel
:
: Multiple shells .. try one DOS window, do along list and then click
: outside it. It will stop scrolling :-) It can only work if it's window
: is activated :-)
Click the "Background Execution" item in the "Settings" dialog box, and
repeat your experiment :-)
: George
Jerry Shekhel
: >
: > So does MCA PC's and NuBus MACs.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Not! You still have to mess around with reference and driver disks.
: Autoconfiguration with MCA is poor.
What if a card has several modes of operation? A video card, for example,
can support 1Kx768 in interlaced mode, 60Hz non-interlaced, or 70Hz NI,
depending on your monitor. How would AutoConfig select that? By reading
your mind?
: Michael
Eyvind Bernhardsen
> Michael Grom (gro...@sputnik.rhein-main.de) wrote:
> : >
> : > So does MCA PC's and NuBus MACs.
> : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : Not! You still have to mess around with reference and driver disks.
> : Autoconfiguration with MCA is poor.
> :
>
> What if a card has several modes of operation? A video card, for example,
> can support 1Kx768 in interlaced mode, 60Hz non-interlaced, or 70Hz NI,
> depending on your monitor. How would AutoConfig select that? By reading
> your mind?
Well, you could look at the Amiga... It has programmable scan rates; do you need
to set any dip switches? Nope, all done in software.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. Software mode switches would make the computer FLEXIBLE; we
don't want THAT now, do we?
> : Michael
> | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
-Eyvind
Henri Tamminen
>In article <1993May3.1...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, je...@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>Well, you could look at the Amiga... It has programmable scan rates; do you need
>to set any dip switches? Nope, all done in software.
>
>Oh, sorry, I forgot. Software mode switches would make the computer FLEXIBLE; we
>don't want THAT now, do we?
>
>-Eyvind
Excuse me !?! WHAT computer or card ( modern one ) still use DIP switches to
select resolutions/ scan rates ?
It's done in software in PC's, MAC's and Amiga's and maybe thousand other ones
as well...
So, what the hell are you talking about ?
Systemkennung Linux (noalias)
|> It's Stupid idiotic developers who write programs which violate Commodore's
|> rules, and thus end up with programs which crash on some Amiga Setups.
Well, it good not to hit the custom chips under AmigaDOS. But try to do something like another OS. In this case you _must_ have that harware informations. If I'd have to do the X-server of Amiga Linux today, it would be
ECS only. Reason: No Informations. On the other side: if you do somthing like demos and games, you sometimes need direct access to the hardware for better performance.
--
Ralf Baechle
Internet: li...@informatik.uni-koblenz.de
Fido: Ralf Baechle 2:241/5418
Jerry Shekhel
: > : >
: > : > So does MCA PC's and NuBus MACs.
: > : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > : Not! You still have to mess around with reference and driver disks.
: > : Autoconfiguration with MCA is poor.
: > :
: >
: > What if a card has several modes of operation? A video card, for example,
: > can support 1Kx768 in interlaced mode, 60Hz non-interlaced, or 70Hz NI,
: > depending on your monitor. How would AutoConfig select that? By reading
: > your mind?
:
: Well, you could look at the Amiga... It has programmable scan rates; do
: you need to set any dip switches? Nope, all done in software.
Same with MCA, EISA, and most ISA video cards. That's what a configuration
utility or a reference diskette is for.
:
: Oh, sorry, I forgot. Software mode switches would make the computer
: FLEXIBLE; we don't want THAT now, do we?
:
Of course we want that. Unfortunately, many Amiga owners refuse to
acknowledge that we already *have* that on other systems as well as the
Amiga.
: -Eyvind
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
Jack Radigan
>: Oh, it's essentially replaced then. Can't use dual monitors, one for the
>: control panel, one for high end video output. Too bad...
>That's OK. On a system with a modern graphics architecture, you can display
>both on one monitor. And save half your deskspace.
Not in realtime.
-jack-
Jerry Shekhel
:
: >That's OK. On a system with a modern graphics architecture, you can display
: >both on one monitor. And save half your deskspace.
:
: Not in realtime.
In time as real as we are capable of perceiving it.
: -jack-
Stephenson Daniel A
>Jack Radigan (jp...@faatcrl.faa.gov) wrote:
>:
>: >That's OK. On a system with a modern graphics architecture, you can display
>: >both on one monitor. And save half your deskspace.
>:
>: Not in realtime.
>
>In time as real as we are capable of perceiving it.
Is time, itself, real?
>: -jack-
>| JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
>| ... In rhythm! | je...@msi.com | -- Guns N' Roses |
Gerald G. Washington
>
>Yet another unsubstantiated claim. Read on.
>
>> ImageFX and ImageMaster do NOT compare to PhotoShop
>
>You try to avoid talking about ADPro because it is ADPro which is in many ways
>more useful than PhotoShop.
>
>[examples of almost useless features of Photoshop over others deleted (useless
>for me and for everyone I know of who uses Photoshop) ]
>
>
>1) does not have REXX support,(like ADPro)
>2) does not have Custom Loaders Savers modules (expandable by REXX like ADPRO)
Well, I hate to disagree, but Photoshop (PS from now on, since I'm lazy
tonight), does have this ability via the "Acquire" menu option. I have
added loaders for Amiga-HAM, ElectricImage images, and the Microtek
color scanner.
>3) has incomplete IFF module (the one which it has really sucks)
I don't use this much, but the extra loader may solve whatever problems
you speak of.
>4) has poor dithering.
I use a 32-bit graphics card, so I wouldn't know.
>5) is slow as hell. (or is it yet another OS problem? And PhShp is fast?)
True, but not on a Quadra 950.
>6) has nonexistent batch processing (in my opinion)
>7) has mistaken OS on top of which it works.
>8) is buggy
>9) tends to crash really bad. (but that could be a problem of OS)
>10) has a tendency to loose images for no apparent reason.
>11) cannot see more than a few hundred images (very few) in a directory.
> Thus sequences of images have to be split into few directories.
>12) etc.
Not a bad list, but I tend to prefer PS to ADPro for the on-screen
operation. I haven't used ImageFX or Imagemaster or OpalPaint.
-- Gerald
Dobalina
>Mark Andrew Hawling (ch...@cse.unsw.edu.au) wrote:
>:
>: Multiple shells .. try one DOS window, do along list and then click
>: outside it. It will stop scrolling :-) It can only work if it's window
>: is activated :-)
>:
>
>Click the "Background Execution" item in the "Settings" dialog box, and
>repeat your experiment :-)
I did an experiment with this. I wrote a C program called bump. It
Looked like this:
main()
{
long k=0L;
while (1)
printf("%08ld\r",k++)
}
OK. Got two copies running side by side. Host system was 486SX running
windows 3.1. Opened Xtree while these two tiny simple programs ran.
Do you still think I had a fast system? Nope. Set all the execution
options to enhance Xtrees operation. It was horrible. Windows is
still really only good for switching b/w a few tasks in memory.
>: George
>--
>+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
>| JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Time just fades the pages |
>| Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | in my book of memories. |
>| ... In rhythm! | je...@msi.com | -- Guns N' Roses |
>+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
Den
>:
>: >Of course. Every motherboard I've seen with integrated video has a jumper
>: >or a switch for disabling it.
>:
>: Of course, any truly advanced OS would just start using "whichever" video
>: card you activated, and then it would be just a matter of which plug your
>: video cable went into....
>:
>
>OK wiseguy. Let's say you have two video cards in your computer. How do you
>"activate" one of them without using a switch or a jumper? Think about it
>now -- no software can run until you "activate" one of the video cards.
Not flaming or anything, but if you had and amiga with a boot menu
and the custom GFX chips built in, it's be theoretically possible to
access the boot menu (both mousebuttons on reset) and use the builtin
chips to display options... one of which could be to select which graphics
board to use (or which boards to disable). This is how it works with
devices such as hard disks and floppies which can be disabled under 3.0.
I don't know about boards though.
Den
Dariusz Bolski
>dbo...@tirana.berkeley.edu (Dariusz Bolski) writes:
>>bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>Just an examples of what PhotoShop does not have or has quite poor.
>>1) does not have REXX support,(like ADPro)
>>2) does not have Custom Loaders Savers modules (expandable by REXX like ADPRO)
>
>Well, I hate to disagree, but Photoshop (PS from now on, since I'm lazy
>tonight), does have this ability via the "Acquire" menu option. I have
>added loaders for Amiga-HAM, ElectricImage images, and the Microtek
>color scanner.
Well, I did figure out how to make ADPro make a phone call to me (to my home)
and tell me in a voice that the image rendering is done, than "save" it over
the phone line and bring it on the screen of my home Amiga. (REXX)
I did not figure it out how to do it with Acquire option in Photoshop. This
is the level of customization I use in ADPro and I cannot make Photoshop to
have.
>>3) has incomplete IFF module (the one which it has really sucks)
>
>I don't use this much, but the extra loader may solve whatever problems
>you speak of.
In this case you're might be right. I just would expect that such a prominent
program like PS can save IFF format right. Last I needed to use it it could
do only 8 bit/pixel and the dithering down from 24 to 8 was so bad that
I couldn't believe it.
>>5) is slow as hell. (or is it yet another OS problem? And PhShp is fast?)
>
>True, but not on a Quadra 950.
Well, if opening the 30MB image on a MacIIfx with 32MB RAM takes
about 10 minutes, than on Quadra 950 it would take 3 minutes. Still way to
slow for me. I did not try to open 100 MB image on it yet (this is the
size I would like to work right now). I don't have that much time to wait
for the program just to allocate memory.
>
>>6) has nonexistent batch processing (in my opinion)
>>7) has mistaken OS on top of which it works.
>>8) is buggy
>>9) tends to crash really bad. (but that could be a problem of OS)
>>10) has a tendency to loose images for no apparent reason.
>>11) cannot see more than a few hundred images (very few) in a directory.
>> Thus sequences of images have to be split into few directories.
>>12) etc.
>
>Not a bad list, but I tend to prefer PS to ADPro for the on-screen
>operation.
So do I. I use ADPro mostly in batch mode. Because of its REXX programmability,
it blends with the overall image processing system smoothly and painlessly.
And it does huge jobs without complaining nor forcing me to click fifty
thousand times on a OK button (like PS. does).
>-- Gerald
Regards,
Dariusz Bolski
Systems Manager & Graphics Programmer :: XAOS, San Francisco
de...@xaos.com
Konstantin Wiesel
>From: Aric....@ofa123.fidonet.org
>Subject: Re: The AAA and AGA
>Date: 29 Apr 93 03:38:00
>> Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
>> From: ken...@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
>> Message-ID: <1993Apr28....@a.cs.okstate.edu>
>> Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
>> Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
>>
>> Here's what Commodore could do to make am Amiga with *really* fast video:
>>
>> 1) Double the clock speed of the AGA chips from 14.3 MHz to 28.6 MHz.
>> 2) Instead of having the custom chips do something on every other clock
>> cycle of the CPU, have them execute instructions on *every* clock
>> cycle. The custom chips could then operate concurrently *all* the
>> time. Plus, the serial port, parallel port, floppy drive, and hard
>> drive could also operate *completely* concurrently with the CPU.
>> 3) By doing these two things, video would be four times as fast as it is
>> now! You'd have an Amiga that would really burn then!
>
>I'm not sure how well you understand how the Amiga chips work. Here's what
>I think they need to do, ASAP, with the chipset:
>
>For the high-end:
>
>Increase the video fetch bandwidth to 6-8 times that of AGA (and use dual
>ported VRAM for god sake!). This would allow 800 x 600 at 24 bit, 72 hz;
>1280 x 800 at 16 bits (how about a HAM10 mode?); 1600 x 1200 at 8 bits.
>With the VRAM, there would be NO DMA contention with the blitter, copper or
>the CPU.
>
>Now, stick in a blitter that's actualy faster. AGA has a 16 bit slow
>blitter! this new chipset should have a 32 bit blitter, running at least
>double speed (this, IMHO, *should* have been in AGA!), for a total 4 times
>speed improvement. It shouldn't be much harder to get it running at 8
>times the speed of the AGA blitter.
>
>Next, the CPU access to chip ram shouldn't be locked into the absolutely
>rediculous 7.14Mhz 68000 memory cycles! It ought to be able to access chip
>ram at near the full speed of the CPU (naturaly there would probably be
>syncronization delays, and the blitter et'al get precedence over the CPU).
>
>Give us chunky pixels. This will make lots of operations faster. Line
>drawing should be faster now with the blitter, as well as CPU driven pixel
>based operations like texture mapping etc.
>
>Now, we have fast graphics.
>
>Oddly enough, the next generation chipset should be close to these specs.
>If only it was out *now*.
>
>Finaly, something that would be extremely cool: Have the blitter able to
>SCALE images! That would make it quite easy, and FAST, to show
>animations/video within resizable windows.
>
I think the standard bus cycle (around 280ns) in chip mem should be
upspeeded to at least 20ns and the band with to 32bit doubled what is
allready done including the double cas modes should provide 40 times the
amount of data per display line compared to the amount the old amigas
provide. I think this is no problem with todays technology. The blitter
should be consequently upgraded to 32bit should have more dma channels also
for the pattern in line mode. The Grafix display should be programmable in
the way it reads the data, why not defining the next pixel by a function
instead of just stupid linear reading this could be done in conjunction with
a display list like the sprite data list that contains the function and or
other data. The sound should be consequently upgraded to 16bit with at least
8 channels 16 would be better and a DSP subsystem with own bus connection to
the DA. It should contain also AD's. The sprites should be made wider and
deeper and should include shrink and zoom capabilities. The display should
support packed bit format for 256 colors and a 16bit highcolor mode. This
are only a few features that could be done if the chips were consequently
upgraded.
_
_ //
\X/ Amiga.... feel the power! It seperates the men from the boys!
Konstantin Wiesel Email:Kwi...@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de
Jerry Shekhel
:
: I did an experiment with this. I wrote a C program called bump. It
: Looked like this:
: main()
: {
: long k=0L;
: while (1)
: printf("%08ld\r",k++)
: }
:
: OK. Got two copies running side by side. Host system was 486SX running
: windows 3.1. Opened Xtree while these two tiny simple programs ran.
: Do you still think I had a fast system? Nope. Set all the execution
: options to enhance Xtrees operation. It was horrible. Windows is
: still really only good for switching b/w a few tasks in memory.
:
Your program, while simple, is a CPU hog. Run two of those on any
machine and it'll get bogged down.
:
: [ Ben Hardy Disclaimer: I did it. ]
:
Mark 'Mark' Sachs
>Dobalina (NC...@musica.macarthur.uws.EDU.AU) wrote:
>: I did an experiment with this. I wrote a C program called bump. It
>: Looked like this:
>:
>: OK. Got two copies running side by side. Host system was 486SX running
>: windows 3.1. Opened Xtree while these two tiny simple programs ran.
>: Do you still think I had a fast system? Nope. Set all the execution
>: options to enhance Xtrees operation. It was horrible. Windows is
>: still really only good for switching b/w a few tasks in memory.
>:
>Your program, while simple, is a CPU hog. Run two of those on any
>machine and it'll get bogged down.
*Any* machine, eh...?
I was sufficiently curious (and sufficiently bored) to check for myself.
Typed "bump" in. Compiled it with good ol' Lattice C 5.0. Ran it in two
Shell windows side-by-side on my A3000/25.
So far, so good... both of 'em counting up. Workbench slowdown barely
noticeable, if at all.
Time for the heavy-duty stuff. I loaded Mike Seifert's Asteriods-II demo.
Immediately I noticed that hey, it was slowing down! Whaddayaknow! I figure
it's because Workbench operations are very light on the CPU, while
Asteriods-II will take as much CPU as you wish to fling at it. The
Amiga was dealing out CPU time evenly between the Bumps and Asteriods-II,
as all were running at the same priority.
So. Pondering this, I 圕'ed both copies of Bump. In both Shell windows
I did CHANGETASKPRI -1; this means processes started in those Shell
windows will run at reduced priority (everything else will still be
running at Priority 0 [we Amiga owners already know this, but hey, this
is an *educational* forum, right?])
Ran both Bumps again. Ran AsteriodsII. And hey! This time, no slowdown!
AII got all the CPU time it needed thanks to higher priority, and the Bumps
ran in the background soaking up what was left.
So what's the conclusion?
Uh... let me check the top of the thread...
What was the question... Ah, yes. Well, my conclusion is that if Windows
can't successfully run two copies of "Bump" simultaneously without a
slowdown in all the other processes, well, then Windows is pretty damn
pathetic. But then, we already knew that, didn't we? :-) :-) :-)
"...so I propose that we destroy the moon, neatly solving that problem."
[Your blood pressure just went up.] Mark Sachs IS: mbs...@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions, they'd try to charge me for them.
ObAsteriodsII: Anyone with an A3000-class or better machine tried it with
the game delay cranked down to 0? Zooooooooooooom! :-)