Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekig5!wayneck
From: wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: amiga on a mac ii budget- the sequel
Message-ID: <3091@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>
Date: 3 Aug 88 19:26:49 GMT
References: <575@super.ORG> <3075@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> <179@kesmai.COM> <6536@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 55

In article <6536@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich) writes:
> >> (can't get to the 8 bits per pixel easily yet which is a key
> feature in my >> mind) Really?  People keep talking about this, but I
> just can't understand why people need six trillion colors, except for
> bragging purposes.  I'll admit that easy access to 256 colors would be
> nice, but you just can't tell the difference with more.  Actually, I'm kind of
> curious as to why one would need 8 bits of color. Making a bar graph with 4097
> bars on it?  Can you really see the difference between a HAM smooth shade and
> an 8 bit smooth shade?!?!?!?  
> 
If you are doing bar charts, still pictures and such HAM is okay.  If you
want to do 3D animation HAM is much harder and more limited than having a
larger number of bit planes. 

HAM is interesting, but isn't a general solution for the worlds graphics
needs.  Take a look at the Targa board for the PC.  15 bit planes 512x480 
display.  Comparing its display to HAM is like comparing a zerox copy
of a color picture to the color picture.  These types of displays can be
done now for less than $500.  Surely something better than HAM could be
done on the Amiga now for less.

The A500 does include a lot of bang for the buck, true not on the cutting
edge, but a very reasonable machine.  However I'm not so impressed with 
the B2000, because for the same about of money you can get a 286 machine
with VGA graphics which aren't bad. (Even though I rather have a 68000
than a 286)

Graphics are a real tender spot with me since I work at Tektronix.  In
fact Tek's lead in the Graphics market was what drew me here in the first
place.  10 years ago, if you had anything to do with graphics at all
it was likely you would use Tek gear.  Now? Tek hasn't kept up, and 
for the most part Tek graphics are a minor player in the computer graphics
market.  If CBM doesn't push the graphics a little,
after all it is the Amiga's main claim to fame, the rest
of the world will march on by just like it has with Tek.  I think it
is more fun to be with a leader than a follower.  So the problem is
the Amiga is quickly falling out of the lead.  Without considering cost,
(which always is going down in the long run) Apple and IBM are taking
the lead.

When the Amiga first came out I was one of the first to put my money
down.  The first Amiga showed amazing graphics at that time for that
amount of money.  Now things seem to be changing.  The Amiga seems to
be starting to get a hold of the video market, so if it is improved 
maybe just maybe it could really grab ahold of the market.  Rumors about
new chip sets isn't enough.  When I first saw the Amiga it was the 
programs running that sold me, not the stories about it.   Hope this
clearifies what my position is.  I'm not agaisnt the Amiga, I want to 
see it to continue to improve and grow.  It has great potential, but
the potential will decease the long it is left on the shelf.

                             Sincerely,
                                 Wayne Knapp