Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!brahms.udel.edu!don From: don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: (Video) Hardware Idiots ? Message-ID: <17268@chopin.udel.edu> Date: 11 Jun 91 19:10:24 GMT References: <1991Jun8.085839.3556@news.iastate.edu> <17259@chopin.udel.edu> <1991Jun10.034118.17541@marlin.jcu.edu.au> Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 64 In article <1991Jun10.034118.17541@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes: >Look stop flaming Marc when he is basically right! C= will take at >least 2 years to get device independance working, considering their >limited resources and the amount of time 2.0 has taken. Changing the >graphics library to handle chunky pixels is hard work, and I feel most >of the the calls will need new ones, with old software using the old >calls for compatibility. C= will take a LONG time to do this!! So, since you seem to be privy to the same information as Marc is, perhaps you could tell me how long CBM has had people working on DIG, how many people, and how far along they are? In writing 2.0, CBM had to cover nearly every software aspect of the system, while maintaining as high a compatibility level as possible. For DIG, it involves a more 'focused' change. There may not even be a high level of compatibility at issue (depending on how it's designed). A redesign of the current graphics system would certainly be difficult, but it's always possible that they'll simply put something together from scratch and hope the market drives developers to take advantage of this. >> I have a choice between 6 NTSC display modes, as well as PAL resolutions. >>For my needs, 640x400 _is_ adequate, for now. I have no need for a 16 million >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>color workbench. I wouldn't _mind_ having these things available, but just >>because they're not doesn't make the Amiga's chipset inadequate. > >Ha, 640*400 is FAR FROM adequate. If you've ever used a more powerful >machine you'll know that. Just because you don't need colour and I >don't need colour doesn't mean nobody needs colour. Reread what I wrote. You yourself underlined "For my needs". Are you dictating my needs? Yes, I've used 'more powerful' machines, and I like having the large many-colored screens... but I don't _need_ them, and often the speed penalties involved in this type of display detract from my overall impression of the system I'm using. I would _like_ to have these things, but by no means do I _need_ them. I never claimed that others may have a need for such things, or that they don't increase productivity or the usefulness of a machine in many cases. >I really am sick of people flaming Marc whenever he says something >negative about the rubbish C= chip set, or points that the OS is >missing something (like any MEMORY PROTECTION AT ALL, and seemingly >none planned). I'll let you all get back to your worship of C= .... > People flame Marc (often out of habit) because, even though often he has valid points buried deep (very deep) within his postings, he usually expresses them in forms like, "Commodore will never do X. The Amiga isn't the best at Y so it is a dead machine. The chip set doesn't have 1024x1024 4096-bit holographic image support so it's inadequate for everything. CBM made more money last year so their R&D spending dropped. Nobody uses Amigas for anything but playing games.", etc. More often than not, his facts are fabricated, he makes broad generaliz- ations based on specific (often inaccurate) examples, and makes all- encompassing 'factual' statements based on subjects about which he has little or no real information. -- Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork is spoken fork() be Amiga Student On-Campus Consultant, U of D here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.