Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!ufqtp!sutherla
From: sutherla@qtp.ufl.edu (scott sutherland)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: My Opinions on Amiga Graphics Enhancements
Message-ID: <825@orange9.qtp.ufl.edu>
Date: 16 Dec 89 18:03:21 GMT
Reply-To: sutherla@orange9 (scott sutherland)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project
Lines: 92






This letter was originally sent to Wayne Knapp in response to his
article which describes a powerful IBM-clone-based graphics system
which out-performs the Amiga and costs ~$4000. This article is also
aimed at giving my feelings concerning the large number of articles
dealing with the "NEED" to improve Amiga graphics, and specifically
motivated by the articles on the Transputer/Graphics boards and 
add-on boards by Commodore and 3rd-party vendors. The following 
statements are my own.
>
>
>However it is possible to get 340x0 based cards that give 1024x768x256
>for around $1000.  The point is that the abilities of the pc clones are
>improving very fast.  Let's hope that the Amiga will start picking up
>some speed!
>
>                                        Wayne Knapp 



	Yes, you can buy add-on boards for IBM's and clones that surpass
the amiga in terms of resolution, color, speed, etc. And, as you have 
pointed out, the cost of such systems is now becoming comparable to the
cost of an Amiga. Fine. I have no problem with this. But, my FUNDAMENTAL
PROBLEM with the whole concept of this type of comparison is actually
the whole reason I bought an Amiga in the first place. That problem 
stems from the phrase "ADD-ON". Case in point: when I was looking into
purchasing the Amiga, I already owned a PC clone. I looked into options
for enhancing the graphics of this computer instead of getting a whole
new computer. The best option for me at the time (cost vs performance) 
was the highly touted PGC or PGA card, with 640x480 and 256 colors out
of a pallette of 16 million (I think this is correct. It HAS been 2 
years, so my numbers may be off, at least in the 16 million color part).

	I opted for the Amiga for one fundamental reason. The graphics on
the Amiga, which were close, but not quite up to the PGC, were STANDARD
MODES. Thus, any Amiga program could use them. All Amigas have them. Not
true for the PGC. NONE of the plethora of software out, including paint
programs, supported it. I would have to write ALL applications which 
would take advantage of this power by MYSELF. Now, for some people, this
is fine. These are probably the same people who would consider getting
a TARGA board or this new TRANSPUTER board that is being mentioned on
the net. To me, this TRANSPUTER board for the Amy is NO BETTER than the
PGC was for the IBM (in principle, I mean, NOT in capabilities). It will
be owned by a select few, and they will have to program it. The gang at
IMPULSE also feel this way, as they stated in their latest news letter
that this was their FUNDAMENTAL reason for NOT porting Turbo Silver to
this board. So, I am not alone. At least with the stock Amiga, even though
the HAM mode is somewhat exotic, several paint programs USE it, and all
Amiga owners can access it, even program it. 

	I am NOT fundamentally opposed to the Sliced HAM or Sliced EHB 
modes being referred to lately in comp.sys.amiga, because, even though
they are considered "HACKS", they are available to ALL Amiga owners
(exception: S-EHB for some A1000 owners). I am NOT fundamentally 
opposed to the NEW CHIP SET, with NEW modes. Although this is somewhat
of a GREY area, since NOT ALL Amiga owners will be able to afford them,
they ARE downwardly compatible with all existing Amiga modes, and, thus, 
it is somewhat of a compromise. In order for the Amiga to become 
competitive with these '386 machines or 34020 (is this correct?) boards, 
a completely NEW CUSTOM CHIP SET and MOTHERBOARD architecture (32 bit,
faster than 7.16 MHz) will probably have to be built. (The A4000? ;^))
This machine would probably NOT be able to be downwardly compatible
with current machines and would be much more expensive. 

	I applaud Commodore for building the Amiga with video and processor
enhancements in mind (since they put in special slots JUST FOR this purpose),
but, the NEW graphics board they are putting out is not any better, IN
PRINCIPLE, than the PGC, Targa, or any other high quality graphics 
ADD-ON. How many software vendors, including games, paint programs, ray-
tracers, etc., will believe that enough standard Amiga owners will pay
the $$ for this board to make it economically feasible to port their 
programs over to this board??? My guess: probably no more than 5-10.




	Well, I realize that this is somewhat muddled, but I trust that
I have made my point with my "NOVEL" above. I am glad you like your 
system. I do not think that it is "valid" to compare it to the Amiga and
its "standard" graphics modes. If you think that this is a valid argument
and would be of interest to the readers of comp.sys.amiga, you are
welcome to post excerpts of this to that group. Or, let me know and I will 
post an article.


Scott Sutherland
sutherla@qtp.ufl.edu