Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!dxb132 Organization: Penn State University Date: Monday, 6 May 1991 10:19:31 EDT From: Message-ID: <91126.101931DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu> Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: 2.0 Compatibility References: <913.28202b13@vger.nsu.edu> In article , dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) says: > Frankly, I think it is little short of amazing that SO MANY programs > that go DIRECT TO HARDWARE still work... generally because the majority The hardware hasn't changed. It would be amazing if things didn't work. > when they go direct to hardware. That alone does wonders for > compatibility and portability. Not really. It ensures that multitasking works properly...doing a proper OwnBlitter or whatever doesn't help a person with XYZ Corp. video card however. > Thank your favorite deity that *WE* don't have to worry about having > to write specific drivers for a myrid of different peripherals. On > the Amiga, they all use STANDARD interfaces. Oh really, then why is Commodore's own gfx card not supported under the OS? (at the moment). Literally zillions of program will require updates to support device independent graphics. > go direct to hardware for everything, which is WHY they need all those > drivers. Even their VGA standard isn't a standard -- applications still > need to pack separate drivers for every VGA board in existance. Is the Amiga any different in this area? Not at the moment. Because there is always the built-in graphics standard to fall back on, it's not considered a big deal. > developer's to adhere to strict use of the OS. Easily as many Apple > programs go direct to the hardware as Amiga programs, with the > exception that they generally don't have multitasking in mind (you > wonder why so many programs break under MultiFinder, this is one of the > reasons). This can't be true because of the extreme degree of compatibility that Amax-II exhibits. Certainly not true if you count Amiga games. :-) > good job in this department for 2.0). Take a look at IBM's mainframes. > The code is incredibly bloated now because they insist on maintaining > compatibility all the back to day 1... it keeps the OS in the stoneage. Sounds like OS/2, if you've been following that. :-) > * That screen dimensions can be larger than 640x400 (i.e. overscan) > * That the workbench may have more than 2 bit planes. Why not support any resolution? Hard-coding 768x480 is not any better than hard-coding 640 by 400. Again, zillions of program assumes things like this...and will break when the system changes *for real* -- even if written in what is considered the "proper" way. What is considered correct programming can, and should change from time to time! -- Dan Babcock