home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: easy.in-chemnitz.de!mkmk!floh
- From: floh@mkmk.in-chemnitz.de (Andre Weissflog)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
- Subject: Re: Dump the crappy hardware!!! (was: Haynie joins AT team)
- Message-ID: <+CWpy*9J0@mkmk.in-chemnitz.de>
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 18:36:46 CET
- Reply-To: floh@mkmk.in-chemnitz.de
- References: <4iutet$cb2@astfgl.idb.hist.no> <1377.6657T1039T917@es.co.nz> <4kvp45$d6@cdn_news.telecom.com.au>
- Distribution: world
- Organization: private uucp site
- X-Newsreader: Arn V 1.04
-
- In article <4kvp45$d6@cdn_news.telecom.com.au>, aklein@vcomtelc.telstra.com.au writes:
-
- > Give up what?, These custom chips have proven them selves time and
- > time again. The pc clone wold has just recently started to catch up to
- > the AMIGAS standard. Win 95 still won't multitask to the extent the
- > AMIGA can, and to do it you need a shit load of CPU power and memory.
- > Yes it well may do it on a 38x DX40 but bloody slooowly. Evan a 486
-
- Multitasking performance has only very little to do with the
- custom chip set, it's the OS that makes it efficient (or not).
-
- > can be slow at times. As for the graphics side of things, the AMIGA IS
- > STANDARD for the AMIGA!!. What if we did all plug in the SVGA card,
- > which one would we choose, the S3 or the Trident or pehaps the CIRUS
- > Logic, or perhaps the Tseing labs. They all come with their own
- > drivers!, Why? i hear you ask, well its because none are compatible
- > with eachother except in certain video modes and even then those can
-
- That's the whole reason behind a driver system, to hide the
- hardware from the application, no? And that's a good thing. Why should
- I be forced to use one and only one chipset forever? A software
- standard is way more flexible and more open then any hardware
- standard.
-
- > change. This does not stop here either, each program on the pee cee
- > also has its set of drivers, eg autocad, windows, lotus, etc etc. Noe
-
- Wait a moment. The times where every (DOS-) application came with
- it's own set of drivers are gone. That's because DOS didn't provide
- a gfx standard beyond VGA (even that has changed something with
- VESA VBE). With "real" operating systems, you have one display
- driver for the OS' graphics system, and that's it.
-
- > of these drives are a standard either one cant be used for the other,
- > and therfore the packages need to be written for every sort of video
- > avaiable. Now try to port your stupid games over, which standard are
- > you going to use now. The whole thing about a custom chipset was to
-
- VESA VBE 2 or DirectDraw or Direct3D? The amount of work to port
- a game from the Amiga (with or without hardware banging) to the PC
- (with or without hardware banging) is basically the same. But by
- using a driver system you don't need to care about the dozens of
- "custom hardware designs" that exist. If the driver system is
- good, maybe your game runs 4 times smoother when the next
- killer chip set is out (without changing a single line of your code).
-
- > remain compatible enhance the OS and free the CPU up for doing more
- > important CPU things. The reason the OS does what it does so well is
- > because of the very backbone it is sending its signals down, THE
- > BLOODY HARDWARE! I have a degree in computing and to this day we still
-
- Other computer systems have no graphics custom chips built in
- and still their OS'es can use the blitters on the graphics cards
- (through a driver system of course) so the cpu can spend its
- time on more usefull things. That's not necessarely AGA specific.
-
- > have discussions on the efficencies of the AMIGAS design. Custom
- > hardware does work. Look at Intell, Intell processors are custom to
-
- Of course does custom hardware work. But please under the control
- of a software layer. That way you can choose, what custom hardware
- you want to use.
-
- > Intell and pc's! this is a silly thing to say. The chipset in the
- > amiga is the cpu to the IBM. the graphics of the AMIGA are not an IBM
- > standard THEY ARE AN AMIGA STANDARD!!! Sun standard is SUN standard
- > Mac is MAC etc, etc. This is why they are seperate companys, this is
-
- So why did Apple and Sun go PCI then ?
- I don't expect to run Amiga software on a Mac or vice versa
- [hey, but the latter even works :-)]. But I don't feel very
- "free" when I'm forced to use an obsolete and expensive hardware
- when I just like the OS (note that I'm one of those obscure Amiga
- users who have a svga gfx card).
-
- > why the make profit. The only way an OS will run smoothly is if it
- > compliments the hardware it is using and has been designd for. put 95
- > on your 386, it suxs but it could still be a good OS!. Nope I disagree
- > with you extreamly the days of single CPU processing are gone.
- > Mutli-processing is the way of the future, it has been a proven winner
- > for more than 10 years now. Good on the AMIGA, it is doing somthing
- > new, doing a good job, lets see it improve. AMIGA Os would not run
- > like an amiga on a SUN. Nor would SUN OS on a pee cee. A Cray computer
-
- Sure would AmigaOS run on an UltraSparc if it was a real native
- port! It would run way faster on that machine than on any
- existing Amiga.
-
- > is just a little out of reach for most pockets and still The OS would
- > not run the same anyway.
- > Silly argument.
- > Adam.
- >
-
- Bye,
- -Floh.
-
- ====//=== Andre Weissflog <floh@mkmk.in-chemnitz.de> =======
- ...//..........."Spirits in the material world"............
- \\//......90% of everything is crap (Sturgeon's Law)......
- =\\===============================================Amiga!=
-
-