Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cica!iuvax!maytag!watdragon!bmacintyre
From: bmacintyre@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Cheesy Amiga Video
Message-ID: <1990Sep6.144238.2830@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: 6 Sep 90 14:42:38 GMT
References: <9714@scorn.sco.COM>
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 65

allanh@sco.COM (Boy Howdy) writes:
>   [ description of the new Denise modes ]
>
>So if I understand this correctly, this means that the A3000--which
>otherwise sounds like a wonderful machine, 16- or 25-Mhz 68030 and
>all--can't do something even the most basic PS/1 or PC with a cheap VGA
>card can do: decent, high-resolution noninterlaced video with a real
>selection of colors.  (Since when does 640x480x16 colors constitute
>"a large burden on system resources" for a 68030?)
					    ^^^^^^ not the 030, the
						   graphics system.

Yes, and the basic PS/2 or PC with a cheap VGA card can't do some of the
things that the Amiga video can do.  Such as multiple screens with 
different resolutions.  Such as HUGE bitmaps that the screen can be
a window onto. 

Side note: the 3000 has what is equivalent to a flicker-fixer in it,
so all the _old_ interlaced modes are de-interlaced if you want them.
So, 640x480x(4 bitplanes) would not put a load on the system, any more
than the interlaced workbench I run on my 1000 at home would.

The reason that the Amiga video is limited is because of the basic 
operating constraints of the system.  On the "cheap VGA cards" or even
the more expensive ones, the video ram is dedicated to video. 
you don't have the enormous flexibility that having _1_MEG_ of screen
memory gives you.  How many times have you seen any computer (aside
from an Amiga) slide down a screen to reveal one hidden below?
A 640x480x2 Productivity Mode workbench screen will take ~80K of ram.
A 1280x1280x2 Virtual Scren (that you could then scroll around on) 
would take ~410K.  You get the idea.

I would not give up multiple screens for higher res and more colour.
Heck, I couldn't afford the _monitor_!

>I'm not saying that an Amiga should have workstation-quality video out
>of the box, nor am I saying that the Amiga should become "IBM-
>compatible," but something as expensive and as powerful as an A3000
>_should_ come with video that's at least as good as what's standard in
>the IBM and Macintosh worlds.  I believe that the weird video modes are
>what's really keeping the Amiga out of the mainstream.

I believe concentrating on one aspect of the whole video system, and 
ignoring things that make it unique and powerful, are what's really
keeping the Amiga out of the mainstream. :-)
 
>In fact, I'd bet that if Commodore were to introduce a new A3000 that
>was identical to the original _except that Super Denise was replaced
>with VGA and Super-VGA-like capabilities_, the new one would easily
>outsell the original, simply because of the better standard video.

Of course, such a machine wouldn't fit in with the rest of the Amiga
graphics family, and thus wouldn't run the software that's out there.
But who cares about that, right?

I agree that say 1280x960 non-interlaced with 8 bit colour would be
nice.  But only if it fits in with the current system.  Eventually it
will be possible to do it, I believe.  But until then, I'll stick with
the "cheesy Amiga graphics"

Of course, until the above is possible, I won't bother getting a new
computer.  :-)  Remember, real Amiga's have keyboard garages!
-- 
-- Blair MacIntyre, Professional Leech on Society ( aka CS Graduate Student )
-- bmacintyre@{watcgl, violet}.{waterloo.edu, UWaterloo.ca}