View Single Post
Old 04 October 2002, 08:26   #27
Twistin'Ghost
Give up the ghost
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: U$A
Age: 26
Posts: 4,662
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
Maybe I am missing something here.
Probably.
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
The hardware is unlimited in what it can do compared to old machines, look at what beos could do with multiple video streams. Dont blame the hardware for buggy software problems.
That's not what I said at all. You are mixing my comments about software with what I said about custom co-processors. Off the top of my head, let me see...OK, show me a big, badass powerful PC format a floppy disk while also doing...erm, most anything really. An age old thing that itsy bitsy old-school Amigas were doing in their infancy. No fancy graphics or anything needed here, just a basic function done on every computer. Since modern hardware is "unlimited in what it can do compared to old machines" and all. If it passes the test, I will bang up some more examples.
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
The high level programming languages allow faster development since you can get pre made code for all the network, video, interface apects and you can spend most of your time on the main function of the application. There is nothing stopping you from booting a 3ghz P4 system from a linux (dos etc) floppy and running your own c code that interacts directly with your chosen hardware.
Pre-made code is nice if you want everything to look and behave exactly the same way. It has its place, I suppose. I find it effective having menus, requesters, etc. to be uniform in applications and utilities. But in games? It's one of the problems in games these days. It's like having games that are created with a construction kit, IMHO. And you yourself are the one who said to not blame hardware for buggy software. Who the heck is using the hardware if they're relying on prefab everything. We were talking, too, about the capabilities of one machine against another, so the software hasn't much to do with what the machine itself is or is not capable of.
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
The amiga stopped being advanced a long time ago, the stunning demo's you refer to were only stunning at that time if somebody was shown those demo's today for the first time I dont think they would think it was state of the art.
It stopped being advanced?!? Unusual choice of words. The demos didn't stop being stunning, although this may be the case to you. I wonder what current PC's provide you that falls under the auspice of "stunning". Unreal Tournament? IE? Playing MP3 files? The Amiga never stopped being advanced - in fact, it was so far ahead of its time, most of the technological advances of today's machines only need porting over to the Amiga. The only thing the Amiga needs to do them is horsepower - something which modern PC's certainly have beaucoup loads of. Far less than an Amiga would need to perform the same task due to a more logically designed hardware base. I'd like to see the PC world create the kind of stunning demos found on the Amiga by the bucketload. I have looked at the PC demo scene and find it a crashing bore with the same routines reshuffled from demo to demo. (yawn)
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
The audio and video packages today offer many more features then were available 10 years ago. I think your problems lie with the software/OS and not the hardware. I still stand behind what I said, new PC's make most anything possible. It doesnt matter how efficient you program anymore (alot of the old demo's pushed the hardware to its limits, but tooks many years of programming knowledge of the non-evloving hardware to get there), just that you can do what is needed to be done.
So you think having custom co-processors offers no advantage to slamming every instruction through the processor? Stand behind what you like, but I disagree with you most wholeheartedly.
Twistin'Ghost is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.06136 seconds with 9 queries