Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!uvaarpa!vger.nsu.edu!manes From: manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: 2.0 Compatibility Message-ID: <913.28202b13@vger.nsu.edu> Date: 2 May 91 19:06:58 GMT References: Lines: 185 In article , mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: > I'm posting this with no intention of starting a flame war... > > I've been using 2.0 for a couple of weeks now, and despite a > few bugs and missing features, it is delightful. As I use it, > though, I am beginning to see the Amiga market becoming highly > fractured. I've seen it run on a 68000 machine, and it is > reminiscent of the Mac (SE, Plus, etc.) in terms of performance. Funny the performance hit does not seem to great to me. In fact, in some ways it seemed as though 2.0 ran faster on my A2000 than did 1.3. Perhaps if you reduced your number of colors on your Workbench?? - What missing features?? > > I have a 1Meg Amiga 500 that still has 1.2 in ROM, and I suspect > that there are a lot of similar machines in the universe. This > is the first segment of Amigas that programmers must consider. > If there are, say, 1.5 Million A500s with 1.2, .25 Million > A500s with 1.3, and some future number with 2.0 (all in ROM), > we programmers must at least support 1.3 and 2.0 features. This > means writing two sets of routines for our programs... It is very easy to see which version of the operating system you are running under. Personally the sooner 1.3 dies the better. Those who don't want to upgrade, well, that is sad. Life goes on. I am sure that these folks who don't upgrade to 2.0 will still be happy with the games they have been playing and the new ones that come out and toss the operating system anyway 1/2 :-). Since all Commodore computers will be shipped with 2.0 in ROM in the near future, the 1.3 issue will dissappear over time. > > The A1000 is appearing as if it is not going to get much continued > support, at least from Commodore, but as developers, we should still > support it. The A1000 is an Amiga after all, and it should run all > the programs even if hardware expansion becomes limited in the future. If you were a registered developer you would know better than this. Sigh, looks like you pirated, ahh sorry, stole 2.0 to me. Which in my opinion makes your opinion seem a bit, well, less than crediable. > > The A2000s should definately be upgraded to 2.0, so we see another > class of machine to support. And there is the 3000, too, which has > subtle differences in hardware which can (and possibly should) be > taken advantage of. All Amiga's should upgrade to 2.0. The differences in the A3000 hardware has little to do with 2.0. > > And there was talk a while ago about Commodore coming out with a > new graphics standard a while ago (the Lowell board), which again > requires a different programming strategy. And what if CBM comes > out with yet another standard? As far as I know, the U of L board has only been announced for UNIX, not for AmigaDOS. Perhaps this will change, but as of today there is no announced definition of a extension to Amiga graphics under AmigaDOS from Commodore. I kinda doubt Commodore will jump to a quick solution for upgrading Amiga graphics hardware for AmigaDOS. I suspect they will spend their efforts "rightly" on retargetable graphics libraries and perhaps a enhanced Amiga chipset. Until then, we will have to live with the 3rd party graphics solutions. This is my opinion, not based on anything other than the postings I have seen here. > > And then there are all the various 24-bit graphics adapters (toaster, > HAM-E, DCTV, etc.) which might deserve consideration for support... Each vendor will support their idea of the 24 bit solution. So far, each of the 24 bit solutions solve different problems. As long as there is a file standard between these devices, I am not sure what other support is needed by developers. Though IFF24 is not the best solution, it certainly works -- and will work for the forseeable future. > > Slowly but surely, the Amiga has gone from a machine that had a finite > set of standard features to deal with to one that is going to be as > varied as the PC is. With the PC, there are several graphics adapters, > mouse devices, audio peripherals, operating systems, etc., that an > applications programmer has to write almost as much device support > code as application specific code. Can you give a solid example of this? Or is this your vision of the future? And if it is your vision, what could Commodore do to keep your future from becomming a reality? Further, would the 3rd parties who develop hardware/software solutions appreacite Commodore's fix? That is called 'growth'. It is not bad. The Amiga really has not diverged that much, nor do I think it will in the future. Remember, the developers, make their coins by solving problems on a particular platform. That is the basis of their income. > > I do like the new and powerful features that can be added to the > Amiga, but I wonder how cost effective it is, for example, to write > a 2.0 only application. How possible is it to make software that is > going to be compatible for a long time to come? As good as 2.0 and > the rest of the addons are, I am concerned that it will be a long time > before we see developer support for most of it. I know it is currently > possible to just stick to 1.3 calls and still support 2.0, but there isn't > much good in all the great things that have been added if they aren't used. Time corrects these things. > > The Macintosh family of computers has been successful because Apple has > forced people to adhere strictly to the use of the OS for even the most > primitive operations. Unfortunately, the Amiga OS is designed to allow > multiple applications to share and directly manipulate the hardware. It > is quite common on the Amiga for an application to bypass the graphics > library and use the blitter (directly) or the cpu to render directly into > bitplanes. All these applications won't work on a radically different > display device (such as the lowell one). What "application" do you konw that does this? I "know" games do this all the time, but games are not applications. There is a difference. Further, not locking programmers into a religion is "good" not "bad". Shame on you for thinking different. ;-) I refer you to to my previous comments on the U of L board. > > It sure looks safe to simply write CLI based applications, because they > won't break as easily, but these kinds of programs aren't any better than > a Unix or MS-DOS or MPW program (to a large extent). The Amiga has a > decent GUI in Intuition, but even its use doesn't appear as if it is going > to keep applications compatible for a long time to come... One of the > first things I noticed about 2.0 is that when I run CygnusEd in a workbench > window, the pull-down menus no longer line up correctly (thanks to 2.0's > ability to allow me to change the default screen font). CygnusEd has been updated for 2.0. Of course the shrink gadget is _still_ broken (Perry!!!!), however it works fine besides that. > > This is not a lament, but a objective view of what looks like is going on. > It would be ideal to be able to rely on the OS for future compatibility, > but there are going to be a zillion gotchas that we are going to have to > deal with from now on (for each new hardware and OS platform). The Amiga > is becoming like the Mac in that when the hardware/software changes, those > who get the improvements will have to upgrade their software to gain full > compatibility. Why don't you become a registered developer?? That way the people you are trying to talk to will hold the proper respect. Suppose you created BlazeMonger 16 - The final Saga, and I decide that it would not hurt you if I stole it and ran it on my system. Would you appreciate that? Would you really be interested in my comments about that? I grant that a operating system is not the same as a application or game, but Commodore has spent dollars to create 2.0. Developers have paid Commodore dollars for access to beta software, so they can provide you with better products. Why do you feel that you can just 'ignore' these things? And further, why would you think anyone would care about your visions if you can't respect the rights of others? Now if you are a registered developer and you do have 2.0 legally then ignore all that I have said. However, I believe I already flammed you before on this subject. > > -- > **************************************************** > * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * > * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * > **************************************************** -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "The Most lopsided deal since ..." | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ================================================== "I protest Captain! I am not a merry man!" - Lt. Worf