Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!know!news.cs.indiana.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!daveh From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Amiga OS *IS* state of the art, but the NeXT is better Message-ID: <20329@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 3 Apr 91 18:24:25 GMT References: <.$2G0ysf1@cs.psu.edu> <1991Apr3.045757.24803@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1991Apr3.075121.18084@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) Distribution: usa Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 56 In article melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > That's why the Amiga has the best character generation > software and the best 3-D modeling software of anything in its > price range. >Why is it better? I'm not that familiar with the Amiga character >generation software. How is it better than Display Postscript? Display Postscript is simply an interface layer, it has nothing to do with character generation, 3-D rendering, or any other application you'd care to point at. If you're asking about 3-D rendering software, the reason the Amiga has good 3-D rendering software is that it that it's had such software much longer than other platforms, and what's shipping now has the advantage of being its second or third generation. Same reason people like the Mac's DTP software; it's mature. People were attracted to the Amiga for this, I suppose, based on its natural support of video display and the fact it could support realtime animation, rather than requiring spooling out to videotape. The ability to spit out NTSC doesn't simply make a system good at video. The Amiga can also genlock. And it can display a 1280x400 (nominial) image, which helps out titling considerable. It supports overscan, crutial to video work. Video Toaster is even more suited to video display. It supports a full color 1500x900-something NTSC display. Multiple input sources switched in software. Digital video effects in real time. And, apparently, much more. Along with a boatload of softare. You can't do any better on any personal computer. >On another thread, how much raw CPU does it take a computer to make up >for the advantage the Amiga has with its blitter? Does the blitter >effectively run at 14MHz? Someone told me that it was only 3MHz. Someone was confused. The Amiga chip bus runs 280ns cycles, effectively the same speed as a 14.3MHz 68000. Except for the fact that Agnus' bit image manipulator ("blitter") does barrel shifting, line draw, and modulos in hardware. So it does image manipulation much faster than a 14MHz 68000. >Does a 33 MHz PC have comparable graphics capabilities to an Amiga 500? Yes and no. Typical 33MHz PClones can't move graphics around as efficiently, but the SVGA display adaptor certainly has better resolutions available -- 31kHz/35ns pixels, 24 bit CLUT, 8 bits/pixel, etc. The typical A500 SCSI hard disk controller is, as well, far more efficient than the typical EDSI interface on a 33MHz PClone (in PC parlance, the A500 controllers are bus masters), though this only becomes important when multitasking (which the A500 does, of course). >-Mike -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.