Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rutgers!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Hardware Idiots ?
Message-ID: <22058@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 30 May 91 21:24:03 GMT
References: <21889@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1991May27.090523.8605@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl> <22006@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1991May30.095308.25743@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl>
Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 150

In article <1991May30.095308.25743@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl> breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) writes:
>In article <22006@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:

>>>The Amiga IS a big C64 with lots of memory and nice custom chips. 

>>No it's not!  You are absolutely wrong.  That's the problem.  The Amiga is 

>If you look from a theoretical hardware view it is. It is still a Neumann 
>machine. There are some extra features like a blitter,copper and DMA but
>the basic principle is still the same. The main difference is the OS.

Hey, get a clue.  We're hardly talking about basic Von Neuman machines here.
"A Big C64" is hardly identical to "any Von Neuman machine".  Are you also
claiming that VAXen, IBM mainframes, and for the most part, Cray, are also
even bigger C64s.  This point has far less to do with machine architecture
than it does with machine philosophy.  Really, our business is a creative one,
don't y'all go getting too hardcore left-brained on me.  I think what I was
talking about was pretty clear.

>>something considerably more.  Keep the C64 in mind when you think of treating 
>>the Amiga the same way.  Ever notice how the C64 just kept improving over the 

>I bought one of the first A500 (no 14xxx). The OS hasn't improved for me. 

Realtive to what?  It's an earth shattering improvement over the C64 Kernal, 
a real big earthquake over MS-DOS, and at least in some ways, a dandy shake
over UNIX.  You will see "Microkernel Architecture" touted more and more in
the UNIX press, even.

>I bought 1.3 1 year ago. Apart from FFS nothing much has changed. For the
>normal user: Kickstart 2.0 is not released. So you can't speak of much
>improvements of the OS (for the A500/A2000 users).

I was, in fact, speaking to the possibility of advancement.  A C64 class 
machine comes as-is, and will forever be that way.  Even under 1.3, you can
do things that shake the foundations of MS-DOS, for example.  You will, some
day soon, be able to run 2.0.  And 2.0 is much improved, but that has 
realatively little to do with the point.

>The next thing is the hardware. OK, you can have now 1MB chip (or even 2MB
>if you take the A3000). But the hardware for the A500 stayed the same. 

You aren't likely to see hardware metamorph before your eyes.  But there 
will hopefully always be new hardware.  In the case of the C64, we had to
leave it behind, there was no alternative.  Properly written Amiga software
will work on A500s and future Amigas.  If you treat the A500 as a C64, it
too will eventually have to be left behind.  If you treat it as an Amiga,
it will be able to advance, at least in software.  And software is the bottom
line; it's what makes your computer worth something.

>In 1986 having 32 colors was great. Nowadays not. Most computers can have 
>256 (real) colors on their screen. 

Actually, most computers have 16 onscreen colors, if they have colors at all.
When you look at the hot new toys for sale today, don't forget about the 
everyman's computers that aren't sold to business, or the vast number of
computers already out there (start with 12 million C64s if you need a
guideline).

>The answer had to be the A3000, but isn't. 

Since the A3000 accepts plug ins, it can support any kind of graphics.  The
only reason you don't like this is (a) you're too cheap|poor to buy an A3000, 
and (b) there are no graphics standards for add-in Amiga boards under AmigaOS.
There really aren't under MS-DOS either, that's only made things harder for
those people, not stopped development.  Hasn't stopped hardware on the Amiga
either.  But don't expect $500 graphics adaptors in a $500 computer.  Yet.

>What I need is colors and resolution (both not just one of them). 

Then why did you by a $500 computer....

>I work as an astronomy student in Leiden. People prefer the Sun workstation 
>above the DEC 3100 even though the DEC is 3 times faster. Why? The Sun has 
>the possiblity to have a larger screen (in pixels). 

... rather than a $10,000+ computer (eg, Sparcstation with bigtime color 
graphics).  I think you and I both know the answer.

>You have to stay in front of the competition.(i.e. look at Screen machine , 
>counterpart for Amiga Vision). If that is not done, I see , I really regret 
>this, the Amiga just die a slow death like the C64. 

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the A500 doesn't compete with
color SparcStations.  They are totally different animals, and each pretty well
suited for their markets.

As for the C64, last quarter there was a 48% or so percent increase in sales.
Not bad, IMHO, so a machine that indured a "slow death".  Realize, of course,
that C64 sales are nothing but gravy at this point, any new C64 sales are 
pure profit and no real effort.  

>As a possitive contribution: why not introduce a graphicscard standard. 

This will certainly be done.  You have no concept of how much work it will
be to support arbitrary graphics boards in a compatible fashion without 
giving away many of the graphics advantages you expect from an Amiga.  I
really don't either.  Fortunately, there are people with vision beyond that
of either of us considering the problem at present.  As for the desire
for this, it's obvious, we've been talking about it for many years.  

>Something like the IBM. 

Um, er, you really don't understand IBM computers very well, do you.  There is
no graphics architecture on most IBM compatible computers.  You can buy 
MS-Windows, but on a comparatively small number of programs support this.  The
vast majority of graphics programs on the PClones do it on a program by
program basis.  Each program must implement its own window, menu, etc. manager.
It must provide its own custom driver for any graphic display card it wants to
support.  I have a PClone here with about four EE-CAD type programs on it, 
though I rarely use it.  Along with those four programs, I have about 70
separate graphics drivers.  Each program must be separately configured for
the graphics card in the machine.  They all support VGA, EGA, and CGA, which
are extremely primitive graphics systems, even for the most part when
compared with your A500.  Anything slightly different might be supported,
might not, based on the particular application.  

You have the right idea, but the wrong computer.  IBM/MS-DOS system have NO
graphics support.  Overall, Apple's Macintosh does it right.  It could be
better, but the bottom line is that the graphics display is an operating 
system problem, as it should be.  Not an application problem.  That's the
way the Amiga should head.

>If the OS of the Amiga is properly written, it should be easy to be able to 
>redirect the graphics output (assuming the OS always uses graphics.library 
>for output). If there is a standard for those cards then manufactures can 
>build cards for them.

A standard is of course the way to go.  But you obviously have no idea how
difficult it is to support an arbitrary graphics device.  Do you know how
the Amiga graphics system works?  Reasonably straight forward bitplane
architecture, with graphics coprocessors, all memory mapped.  Now add a
dumb packed pixel display, like VGA.  It can't do 1/2 of what the Amiga
chips can do, but you'd still like to have as many applications use it as
possible if you have it in your system.  Now add the A2410, which has its
own TI 34010 graphics processor on it.  You want to offload as much work to
that processor as possible.  Now stop to think.  Your CPU has to do everything
for the VGA card, and it won't be fast.  Amiga's blitter and copper can offload
a good portion of the work from the CPU.  The TIGA board can understand commands
as abstract as "draw a circle at 300, 578, of radius 102" if set up properly.
How do you support all of these to the best of their ability, and still retain
Amiga compatibility.  After that, consider a graphics device, like EGA or the
C128's 8563, which is completely port mapped, rather than memory mapped.  As
the Who said many years ago, "the simple things you see are all complicated"...

>Erwin
-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy
	"This is my mistake.  Let me make it good." -R.E.M.