EnigmA Amiga Run 1997 July/EnigmA AMIGA RUN 20 (1997)(G.R. Edizioni)(IT)[!][issue 1997-07 & 08][EAR-CD IV].iso/lightwave/lwmlist/94.lightwave-10/000046_owner-lightwave-l _Wed Oct 5 11:53:53 1994.msg

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-05 | 4KB

Return-Path: <owner-lightwave-l>
Received: by mail3.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom)
    id IAA23731; Wed, 5 Oct 1994 08:48:04 -0700
Received: from hpfcla.fc.hp.com by mail3.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom)
    id IAA23720; Wed, 5 Oct 1994 08:47:58 -0700
Received: from hpfcogv.fc.hp.com by hpfcla.fc.hp.com with SMTP
    (1.37.109.4/15.5+IOS 3.20) id AA06142; Wed, 5 Oct 94 09:48:17 -0600
Received: by hpfcogv.fc.hp.com
    (1.37.109.4/15.5+IOS 3.22) id AA09164; Wed, 5 Oct 94 09:48:18 -0600
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 94 09:48:18 -0600
From: Steve Koren <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Image Size
X-Phase-Of-Moon: the moon is waxing crescent (0% illuminated)
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


> I think it would be more like photoshop not a full VM, in that only
> lightwave would see it.  This would also mean that everyone (WinNT, Amiga,
> SGI, etc.) would have the same way to solve the problem, this would help

I suppose so... but I still think it is better just to let the OS do it.
WinNT, Amiga, and SGI all have VM already.  Perhaps for an image
processor like ImageFX or Photoshop it makes some sense since they can
do VM customized for their particular use, which is very well defined.
But it isn't so clear to me that a custom VM in LW would be better.

(BTW, I don't know about Photoshop, but the VM in ImageFX isn't "real"
virtual memory, in the sense that it doesn't use the MMU for address
translation.  Instead, it simply has an internal API which knows how to
read parts of buffers from disk or memory as necessary.  So it won't
conflict with MMU style VM, and in fact they may both be useful at
once.  If LW did something like that, I suppose I could live with it).

> > effort improving other things instead of reinventing the wheel (see
> > also: file requesters :-).  Also, there is always the risk of their

> Would the Amiga file requesters show up on WinNT or SGI??

No, but presumably NT and SGI also have system-standard file requesters.
I think it is better for all apps on a particular platform to use the
same requester, than for the same app to use the same requester across
multiple platforms.  The advantage of using the system-standard file
requesters such as ASL is that they can be replaced by the user with a
user specified one by using SetFunction() (or the equivalent on other
OS's).  If the application hard codes one, you're pretty much stuck with
it whether you like it or not, not to mention that its different from
what all your other apps use.

In any case, the 3.0 ASL file requester is better than any other one
I've ever seen, so its in my best interest if apps use it :-)

Anyway, I guess my point is just that instead of re-inventing things
which already exist, Newtek might as well just use them, and spend their
time adding cool new rendering or modeling features.  Instead of making
LW be able to directly write JPEG files, for example, just run a
conversion program in the background to convert frames as they appear.
All three OSs above can do that sort of thing quite well.  (BTW, lense
flare is a different argument since LW knows things about them that a
post processor won't unless you tell it).

Just MHO,

  - steve