Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!knuth!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg From: elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: 2.0 Compatibility Message-ID: <00674018813@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM> Date: 12 May 91 03:26:53 GMT References: <913.28202b13@vger.nsu.edu> <91126.101931DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu> Organization: Eric's Amiga 2000 @ Home Lines: 39 From article , by mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz): > In article dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes: >> So why don't the PC app writers use the supposed VGA and driver >> standard for VGA and other cards? Because they are slow, buggy, and >> vary too much across card manufacturers. Oh, and by the way, other >> resolutions use entirely different 'standards' that are also slow, >> buggy, and vary too much between card manufacturers. > > Don't expect better from Commodore. They have fewer people in house than > IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Compaq and the rest. They have fewer people than Uh, IBM, Microsoft etc. don't write VGA drivers (except IBM's own VGA driver for the PS/2's with VGA on the motherboard). I suspect that most companies putting out a VGA card have *ONE* programmer on staff. Commodore beats that easily :-). (And we don't know what Commodore's up to, or most people don't, at least, so how do you know how many graphics people Commodore has, anyhow? Far as you know, they could have contracted each and every one of Jez San's programmers to write a killer graphics.library that'd out-perform Starglider II :-). > And 1.3 has almost 6 years of work behind it while 2.0 has a lot less. I've > seen more bugs in 2.0 than I ever saw in 1.3, especially when running > 1.3 applications (NOT GAMES). Just out of curiousity, which bugs are you talking about? In old WB 2.02 or 2.03? In the lastest developer release of Workbench 2.04? If the latter, remember that you're under nondisclosure, and that bugs are one of the things covered (i.e., they don't want developers running around giving the product a bad reputation, at least, not until they've squashed all the bugs, shot the programmers, and burned the ROM's!). And where's the 6 years of work behind AmigaDOS 1.3? As far as I can tell, it's identical to 1.2, except for the Workbench and Extras disks. And 1.2 probably had about the same number of programmer-hours behind it as 2.0... Commodore has staffed up somewhat since the lean days. -- Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg