Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nems!ark1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!tank!gargoyle!ddsw1!corpane!sparks
From: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Cost of color (was: Bitplanes - good or bad)
Keywords: writing a pixel
Message-ID: <1694@corpane.UUCP>
Date: 12 Apr 90 14:39:07 GMT
References: <5917@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> <1990Mar31.092753.203@actrix.co.nz> <10581@cbmvax.commodore.com> <5975@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> <10724@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc., Louisville Ky
Lines: 43

daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:

>In article <5975@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne C Knapp) writes:
>>In article <10581@cbmvax.commodore.com>, mks@cbmvax.commodore.com (Michael Sinz - CATS) writes:

>>Having a card like the Hercules card that ran with the Amiga wouldn't 
>>hurt Amiga sales.  Plus, if it didn't require a bridge board and supported
>>intuition it would be economical and very attractive to Amiga developers. 

>The problem isn't the hardware; such a card would at least as easy to design
>for the Amiga bus.  The problem is the software, and the question of where the
>software display intelligence resides.  In most of the MS-DOS world today (of
>course I know this is changing, however slowly, with things like Windows and
>TIGA) the intelligence for driving a particular graphics card is contained in 
>each application program.  Each program must implement it's own graphics, 

>Nothing's stoping anyone from taking the
>MS-DOS approach (board-specific program knowledge) or the Mac approach

ARRRGH!! This is one of my biggest beefs against MSDOS! (I use it everyday at
work), every damn board has to have a specific driver in each software package
that you want to use it with. A real pain in the behind. We just got an
Orchid Pro VGA board (does up to 1024 x 768). But can we use it transparently
with all software? NOOOOOOOooo! I have to have a special driver for AutoCAD,
another for Windows, and another for Ventura (which doesn't work!). And 
under Xwindows under unix, it says it supports the Orchid board but the
driver doesn't work here either. And Deluxe Paint II says it supports the
Orchid, but the 800 X 600 X 256 color mode doesn't work. The board does
have a standard VGA mode (320X200) (640X480) that does work with most programs.
so I have to go with the least common denomenator in most cases. So why bother
paying oodles for a board I can't use most of the time? If it didn't work
with AutoCAD I would have shipped it back.

But the point is, I have no desire to see such kludges appear on the Amiga.
I love the transparency of the hardware to the software. Graphics, sound,
peripherals (printers and modems and such). Don't even get me started on
printers under MSDOS! even worse than the graphics cards. 


-- 
John Sparks  | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY)
sparks@corpane.UUCP |                                     | PH: (502) 968-DISK 
The future isn't what it used to be.