English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Amiga scene

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 15 July 2019, 14:25   #461
activist
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: here
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foebane View Post
This would never have happened with the PC, being the most open platform and open and EVOLVING standard there is,
'Open'.By open you mean bribery, corruption, robbery and rip off on part of IBM, Microsoft and Intel right through the ages.
How else, how did it come to pass, that such a shoddy shambles of a computer architecture would become the standard.

Last edited by activist; 18 July 2019 at 16:04.
activist is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 14:40   #462
Thomas Richter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by activist View Post
'Open'. By open you mean bribery, corruption, robbery and rip off on part of IBM, Microsoft and Intel right through the ages.
How else, how did it come to pass, that such a shoddy shambles of a computer architecture would become the standard.
Frankly, I doubt that this was the reason. The IBM PC was designed as a "good enough" competitor of the Apple II because IBM wanted to get a foot into the consumer market. It became popular because "you cannot get fired if you order from IBM" in the professional market, and from there, they made their way into the homes.

So it was the professional market that drove the whole thing. Ironically, IBM lost its bet because others could mass-produce the same (shabby) architecture just cheaper after having a reverse-engineered BIOS.
Thomas Richter is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 15:04   #463
demolition
Unregistered User
demolition's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Copenhagen / DK
Age: 39
Posts: 3,969
If IBM would have had their way and been able to protect the PC design, the PC would not have gained the popularity that it did. It had to evolve in a somewhat decentralized manner, shaped by voluntary standards mainly focused on making it easier and cheap to manufacture and develop expansions as the price point is a key factor in putting PCs in people's homes.

If the only PC you could buy was from IBM, their only customers would be rich people and small business owners who could also use it for work. It may have been a somewhat shabby design, but it was good enough and that is all you need.
demolition is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 15:27   #464
grond
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Richter View Post
For chunky, the DMA slot allocation would have to be redone. For a 32-bit blitter, the blitter engine would have to be changed, or some additional pipelining would have to be done
I disagree, in my opinion as a chip designer myself those changes would have been small. DMA allocation would not have had to change, all it would have taken would have been some additional latches to realign the DMA data differently before going to the DAC. 8 bit chunky and 8 bit planar take exactly the same amount of data to be read and DAC'ed. The DMA slots would have been exactly the same, just reading from consecutive addresses and not from eight different memory locations. Doing it the planar way is actually more complicated than doing it the chunky way!

The same goes for a 32 bit blitter. A 32 bit blitter could simply have fetched 32bits at a time discarding the occasional unneeded 16 bits of graphics data for misaligned accesses (leading and trailing end). Even for microblits this would always have been at least as fast as the original 16 bit blits and would not have required any change in controlling the blitter. The blitter wouldn't even have had to change for blitting chunky data because the blitter doesn't care about the arrangement of the bits! Quite to the contrary you would have been done with one (longer) blitjob where you used to do "number-of-bitplanes" blitjobs.

Of course, back in the 80s all microchip development was far more demanding than today where you only need to change a few lines of VHDL but nevertheless these changes would have been small if Commodore had had any interest at all in a seriously enhanced product. As you correctly stated, AGA was really just a small patch to keep an obsolete product in the market.

If Commodore really had wanted to overhaul the original Amiga architecture, they also would have had to add 16 bit audio and faster floppy DMA. I believe these changes would have been more significant than an 8 bit chunky graphics mode and a 32 bit blitter.

In the past I think it was often stated that Commodore had lost the original schematics to the Amiga custom chips and that this was the reason why they couldn't do a proper update. Of course, this may be an unfounded rumour or I simply remember this wrong.
grond is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 15:27   #465
sandruzzo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Italy/Rome
Posts: 1,595
Another problem with A1200, was its' market placement. Was it A Home computer? Consolle? Multimedia machine? Commodore did a very poor clear market strategy.

With HDD, a little fast ram, some HW teawks, Maybe, people who used computer to work could have better understand Amiga...
sandruzzo is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 15:43   #466
grond
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by roondar View Post
A 68020 based machine in 1990 would've been really nice. But also, as you point out, much more expensive. Consider this: the only Amiga's that ever sold in any great numbers were those that were priced under 500 UK pounds. I'm genuinely curious why you (and quite a few others) think this would suddenly change with better graphics hardware alongside it?
I think that the price difference between the keyboard type Amigas and the big box Amigas was too big. The A2000 was so much more expensive than the A500 which basically could do the same as the A2000 unless you really wanted to do video editing and such. The A3000 was ridiculously expensive and the A4000 only a bit better because it was mostly a stripped down A3000 but with AGA.

The added processing power of the big box Amigas was devalued by the low and hardly increasing base line Amigas because little software made use of it. While (with some imagination) an A4000/040 could compete with a 486, there were too few of them. If the keyboard Amigas had increased in power over time while more or less keeping the introductory price of the A500, the big boxes would have appeared more attractive and the step up in price less frightening. Remember, I wasn't saying that selling the same tech more expensive would have made everything better, I'm saying more tech for more money and features that would have made sense to buyers (e.g. no PCMCIA which only much, much later started to make sense).



Quote:
Well, I'm still not sure that adding a 32 bit blitter and chunky mode would've really made as much difference as you think. It would essentially only double the Blitter memory bandwidth and allow the CPU to do easier 3D.

Why is that relevant?
A double speed Blitter still can't compete with the 16 bit consoles for 2D performance. For that it would need to be at least 4x the speed of the original.
Where does the 4x figure come from? With a chunky mode, you would have ended up with much less wasted bandwidth for cookie cutting and unneeded graphics data, so yes, I think it would have competed fine with 2D consoles.


Quote:
And in 1990, 3D performance simply wasn't as important - AFAIK no one did textured 3D.
An 8 bit chunky mode is also much faster at blitting text, window decorations and so on, because you don't have to touch eight different places in memory for a pixel but only one. Chunky also totally made sense for 2D graphics and workstation software (i.e. AmigaOS which, of course, was probably a greater obstacle for chunky than the hardware as it was too closely designed around planar bitmaps!).
grond is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 15:53   #467
demolition
Unregistered User
demolition's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Copenhagen / DK
Age: 39
Posts: 3,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandruzzo View Post
Another problem with A1200, was its' market placement. Was it A Home computer? Consolle? Multimedia machine?
Yes to all three. Well, maybe not so much multimedia except for the CD-based models.



I am sure its versatility was one of the reasons for its success. Many of my friends shared their Amigas with their dads (which also fully or partly paid for it) since they would also be able to use it for serious stuff besides gaming. My dad paid 50% of my first Amiga. He didn't use it for games but word processing, accounting etc. If it could only do games, he wouldn't have been able to use it for much and he may not have been as keen on funding it.


An example of an unfocused design is the C128. Besides being a faster and more capable 'C64v2', it had to be ~100% C64 compatible since C64 had so much SW and to also cater for the business market they also threw in a Z80 CPU so it could run CP/M. This made it so expensive that it missed the target on all fronts. They also spent a lot of effort on making the big box Amigas PC-compatible since this was the holy grail in the computer business if you wanted to sell something to non-gamers, but at least here the PC hardware was not added into the base Amiga hardware so those of us who did not need it did not have to pay for it.


Raise of hands - how many around here have actually used the Z80 CPU in a C128 (other than just booting CP/M because you could)?
demolition is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 17:10   #468
roondar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by grond View Post
I think that the price difference between the keyboard type Amigas and the big box Amigas was too big. The A2000 was so much more expensive than the A500 which basically could do the same as the A2000 unless you really wanted to do video editing and such. The A3000 was ridiculously expensive and the A4000 only a bit better because it was mostly a stripped down A3000 but with AGA.

The added processing power of the big box Amigas was devalued by the low and hardly increasing base line Amigas because little software made use of it. While (with some imagination) an A4000/040 could compete with a 486, there were too few of them. If the keyboard Amigas had increased in power over time while more or less keeping the introductory price of the A500, the big boxes would have appeared more attractive and the step up in price less frightening. Remember, I wasn't saying that selling the same tech more expensive would have made everything better, I'm saying more tech for more money and features that would have made sense to buyers (e.g. no PCMCIA which only much, much later started to make sense).
Well, I didn't think you meant increasing prices to big-box Amiga levels. I was thinking more in line of adding say 200 pounds to the base model price. Perhaps I'm overly negative here but I'd still that even with better specs that would be a hard sell to the core audience at the time.

But who knows, I could certainly be wrong. It just feels to me that the main attraction to Amiga buyers always was the low end/cheap models. And if remember the 'market war' with the Atari ST correctly, even the minor 100 or so pound difference between it and the A500 was consistently enough to have the ST outselling the Amiga. AFAIK the Amiga never actually outsold the ST (though this part of my memory is flakey so I accept it could be very wrong).
Quote:
Where does the 4x figure come from? With a chunky mode, you would have ended up with much less wasted bandwidth for cookie cutting and unneeded graphics data, so yes, I think it would have competed fine with 2D consoles.
That figure is based on the number of 32x32 squares the Amiga Blitter can draw compared to a Mega Drive's 32x32 sprite output. Which is about a quarter. I've not bothered with considering the SNES as that had trickery that is clearly out of reach of AGA + 32 bit blitter (such as three layer screens which would require more than 8 bitplanes and two layer screens which also would require over 8 bitplanes (256+16 colours)).

As for wasted bandwidth, I partly agree. However, unless you want to do a pretty radical departure of how a Blitter works, a Blitter chip will draw in rectangles. This limits the optimisations you can do.

Now, with a chunky Blitter you can optimise. For instance, you can skip the extra word for shifting and you could fiddle around with not drawing pixels that are found to be transparent. Skipping the extra word is great, and in practice saves about 1/3 of the average bob size memory bandwidth so that is a nice optimisation. Skipping transparent pixels during output is harder to quantify, but at any rate only saves you part of the output step and you'd still need to check the input pixels for transparency. Which still means using a mask if you want to be able to draw all 256 colours you have.

Not outputting transparent pixels and allowing for any size rectangle without needing to shift are fine optimisations, so please don't get me wrong. I just don't think they're going to make an overall 2x improvement.

Granted, it is true you can save quite a bit when drawing in a chunky mode by using a 'compiled sprite' approach that is specific to the sprite you're drawing and 'knows' ahead of time exactly what pixels to save for restoring, which to draw and which to skip for transparency, but I personally don't think such an approach would translate easily into a hardware version.

That said, I am not a chip designer so I could definitely be wrong. Are there examples of Blitter like chips that did this? Later SVGA cards had Blitters which apparently were really fast. Did they do this?
Quote:
An 8 bit chunky mode is also much faster at blitting text, window decorations and so on, because you don't have to touch eight different places in memory for a pixel but only one.
This is misleading, IMHO. It is true that a single pixel only requires 1 memory address to be touched in chunky vs 8 in planar, but no one would implement drawing things in this way for either chunky or planar. For planar it's pretty much the worst possible way of doing such things and it therefore should come as no surprise that this is not how Amiga OS does things.

In reality such window decorations and (AFAIK*) text would be drawn many pixels at once as that was way more efficient, regardless of chunky/planar architecture. In that case the overall memory you need to touch is exactly identical: drawing, say, an 8x8 pixel object on a 256 colour screen needs 8x8=64 bytes to be touched in memory for a chunky display and a non-chunky display alike (given a sensible generalised character drawing routine).

Edit: do note that the Blitter does 16 bits at a time, so 8x8 was indeed a poor match for it. But that has nothing to with chunky vs planar. You could draw with the CPU (like on the PC) and avoid this limitation altogether.

*) meaning: I'm not 100% sure how Windows draws text, but I'm certain Amiga OS does draw text in blocks and not individual pixels.
Quote:
Chunky also totally made sense for 2D graphics and workstation software (i.e. AmigaOS which, of course, was probably a greater obstacle for chunky than the hardware as it was too closely designed around planar bitmaps!).
I'm not sure, but didn't Amiga OS 3 support RTG and non-planar screenmodes (not that they actually added an RTG driver or anything)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandruzzo View Post
Another problem with A1200, was its' market placement. Was it A Home computer? Consolle? Multimedia machine? Commodore did a very poor clear market strategy.

With HDD, a little fast ram, some HW teawks, Maybe, people who used computer to work could have better understand Amiga...
This was a problem with all Amiga's outside of the big-box ones. The A500 had the same issue, were people called it a toy even though it quite clearly could do many of the things a PC could at the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by demolition View Post
Raise of hands - how many around here have actually used the Z80 CPU in a C128 (other than just booting CP/M because you could)?
Every C128 user ever as it boots into the Z80 on every cold start and reset

Last edited by roondar; 15 July 2019 at 17:29. Reason: Did my best to make this more readable.
roondar is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 17:51   #469
swinkamor12
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Vienna/Austria
Posts: 75
In october 1992 386SX 25 MHz 1 MB RAM with SVGA mono monitor 14" but without HDD cost 370£.
SVGA mono monitor 14" cost 75£ which makes 295£ for base unit.
One can buy 1 MB SVGA graphics card for 50£ and 1 MB RAM SIMM for 20£.
It makes for base unit 365£ and is still less than amiga 1200 lauch price 399£.
Some people pay more? That's their problem, they may check prices.

On 386SX with affordable SVGA card Utlima Underworld and other Wolf clones work very well and this cpu is almost two times slower than 020 in 1200.

As I wrote it was very little needed to make 1200 good enough to make Commodore survive.

Just chunky pixel, slots for fast ram, simple mmu for 020.

Some Amiga fanatics never admit that amiga 1200 was underpowered overpriced shit and main reason why Commodore bankrupt.
Amiga community never be health as long as they do not accept reality.
swinkamor12 is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 18:05   #470
grond
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by roondar View Post
Well, I didn't think you meant increasing prices to big-box Amiga levels. I was thinking more in line of adding say 200 pounds to the base model price. Perhaps I'm overly negative here but I'd still that even with better specs that would be a hard sell to the core audience at the time.
We can't know but that is what I think. I think the added features would have made it clear to the audience that the higher price was indeed giving them more than the A500 did and thus would have created a stronger desire to upgrade. There never was much reason to buy an A500+ or A600 when you already had an A500. Commodore could sell these models only to customers who had not already bought an Amiga from them. If they had upgraded the base configuration of the Amiga earlier, they could have sold more Amigas to the very same customers that already liked their computers.

When you already had an originally more expensive A500 bought in 1987 the fact that the A1200 was a cheaper machine and thus only a little more capable than the A500 (because technology had evolved for five years which mostly went into making the A1200 cheaper and not so much into making it more powerful) also made it a technically too small a step to upgrade and not switch to something completely different.

If the A500 sold for 500UKP in 1987, what would an A1200 in 1992 have been like that had justified a starting price of 500 UKP (or 600UKP accounting for devaluation of the Pound and inflation in general)? Certainly more exciting than the A1200.


Quote:
It just feels to me that the main attraction to Amiga buyers always was the low end/cheap models.
The cheap Amiga models canibalised the expensive ones. Apple was doing pretty well with just expensive Macintosh models. But they had the software and good developer support. Commodore didn't spend a penny on that.


Quote:
I just don't think they're going to make an overall 2x improvement.
Yes, probably, but a speed increase by a factor of 3 doesn't look too bad when comparing to a console's hardware that does a factor of 4.


Quote:
This is misleading, IMHO. It is true that a single pixel only requires 1 memory address to be touched in chunky vs 8 in planar, but no one would implement drawing things in this way for either chunky or planar. For planar it's pretty much the worst possible way of doing such things and it therefore should come as no surprise that this is not how Amiga OS does things.
AmigaOS does a lot of line drawing with the blitter which means the blitter has to draw a line in eight bitplanes per vertical screen line where it would only have to do it in one byte per vertical screen line (OK, this is only true for 45°...0° with respect to a vertical line while horizontal lines would almost be equal to chunky modes in efficiency).

Of course, one could argue that a blitter would have been superfluous with a chunky mode because the CPU was much more suitable for drawing in chunky modes than in planar modes. But the important point is that you can blit chunky modes with a planar blitter without problems because actually there is no additional functionality required (not considering line drawing, of course). Only the line drawing mode would have required a hardware update of the blitter in order to make it deal with chunky graphics.
grond is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 18:07   #471
roondar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinkamor12 View Post
In october 1992 386SX 25 MHz 1 MB RAM with SVGA mono monitor 14" but without HDD cost 370£.
SVGA mono monitor 14" cost 75£ which makes 295£ for base unit.
One can buy 1 MB SVGA graphics card for 50£ and 1 MB RAM SIMM for 20£.
It makes for base unit 365£ and is still less than amiga 1200 lauch price 399£.
Some people pay more? That's their problem, they may check prices.
Yeah, right

They were nowhere near that cheap and you know it. FYI, I did check prices and even the 286 was still more expensive than that at the time. The 386SX started closer to 600 pounds. That's without a harddisk, with 1/2 the memory of the A1200 and with a mono monitor (which is just 'brilliant' for games).
Quote:
On 386SX with affordable SVGA card Utlima Underworld and other Wolf clones work very well and this cpu is almost two times slower than 020 in 1200.
Claiming UU runs well when there's a video linked in this thread that shows it actually doesn't isn't very clever. UU is also not a wolf clone, which is why it doesn't run so well on a 386. Also: affordable SVGA cards were not fast and this was in fact a known problem. I already pointed this out several times.
Quote:
Some Amiga fanatics never admit that amiga 1200 was underpowered overpriced shit and main reason why Commodore bankrupt.
Amiga community never be health as long as they do not accept reality.
And you apparently just can't stop with the thinly veiled personal attacks and posts filled with sheer nonsense.
roondar is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 18:09   #472
grond
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinkamor12 View Post
Just chunky pixel, slots for fast ram, simple mmu for 020.
I don't see any need for the fast ram slots. As I already said, Commodore just shouldn't have put a CPU on the main PCB but offered a 020 and an 030 CPU card with fastmem to choose from. CPU cards just like all those accelerators we all have and that still could have provided more sophisticated alternatives to Commodore's hypothetical offerings. In the end we all paid for the 020 we never or only hardly used...
grond is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 18:14   #473
Retro1234
Boo

Retro1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 5150
Posts: 4,366
It's like a car crash - I can't look away.
Retro1234 is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 18:16   #474
mcgeezer
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Sunderland, England
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by roondar View Post
Yeah, right

They were nowhere near that cheap and you know it. FYI, I did check prices and even the 286 was still more expensive than that at the time. The 386SX started closer to 600 pounds. That's without a harddisk, with 1/2 the memory of the A1200 and with a mono monitor (which is just 'brilliant' for games).
Claiming UU runs well when there's a video linked in this thread that shows it actually doesn't isn't very clever. UU is also not a wolf clone, which is why it doesn't run so well on a 386. Also: affordable SVGA cards were not fast and this was in fact a known problem. I already pointed this out several times.
And you apparently just can't stop with the thinly veiled personal attacks and posts filled with sheer nonsense.
Roondar.... I honestly don't know why you give this guy your quality time in typing out proper responses, he's clearly a jelly head.

You should just write ....
The lady doth protest too much, methink
mcgeezer is online now  
Old 15 July 2019, 18:21   #475
Retro1234
Boo

Retro1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 5150
Posts: 4,366
Poor Damien every other mod has done a runner, get your pacifier ready.
Retro1234 is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 18:26   #476
mcgeezer
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Sunderland, England
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retro1234 View Post
Poor Damien every other mod has done a runner, get your pacifier ready.
Damien isn't a mod.
mcgeezer is online now  
Old 15 July 2019, 18:35   #477
grond
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 653
Quote:
Originally Posted by grond View Post
the important point is that you can blit chunky modes with a planar blitter without problems because actually there is no additional functionality required (not considering line drawing, of course). Only the line drawing mode would have required a hardware update of the blitter in order to make it deal with chunky graphics.
I'm probably too tired to think clearly but it just occured to me that it would probably only have taken a very small fix to make the blitter able to deal with chunky modes: doesn't the blitter allow patterns for the lines it draws? In a chunky mode this pattern would automatically become the line colour and all it would take would be to make the blitter's bresenham use only multiples of 8 for its line coordinates. Other than that the blitter would also draw as if in planar mode with diffX just being x8 as compared to the planar mode.
grond is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 18:51   #478
roondar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by grond View Post
We can't know but that is what I think. I think the added features would have made it clear to the audience that the higher price was indeed giving them more than the A500 did and thus would have created a stronger desire to upgrade. There never was much reason to buy an A500+ or A600 when you already had an A500. Commodore could sell these models only to customers who had not already bought an Amiga from them. If they had upgraded the base configuration of the Amiga earlier, they could have sold more Amigas to the very same customers that already liked their computers.
Well, I think differently - but I can see what you're getting at. I guess we'll never know.
Quote:
When you already had an originally more expensive A500 bought in 1987 the fact that the A1200 was a cheaper machine and thus only a little more capable than the A500 (because technology had evolved for five years which mostly went into making the A1200 cheaper and not so much into making it more powerful) also made it a technically too small a step to upgrade and not switch to something completely different.
I honestly don't get this entire argument - yes, it would've been nice to have gotten more and there is a good argument to be made that AGA was underwhelming compared to what we were all hoping for, but the A1200 really was quite a bit more powerful than the A500.

Let's compare them:
  • CPU: 2x as fast (4x with fast memory)
  • RAM: 4x as much, 2x the speed for the CPU/4x for display (meaning that 640x512x256 is quite a bit faster than 640x512x16 ever was)
  • Graphics: 4x the colours (technically - but only if you count EHB as a 'usuable' mode for games, otherwise it's 8x). Also: DPF and Sprites were much better and for people who didn't have ECS there were now flicker free hires modes when using the correct monitor
  • Blitter: speed went up by a factor of around 1,5 due to lower bus congestion
IMHO, that is not 'a little more'. The A1200 ran rings around the A500 speed wise and could do all sorts of things the A500 simply couldn't.

I'm not saying it's the best ever computer or that you can't have wanted more and I understand why some are disappointed with it. Nor am I claiming that Commodore couldn't have done a better job with the time they had (as they certainly could've!). But the notion that the A1200 is effectively the same machine as the A500 with some tiny changes is just not true in a practical sense.
Quote:
If the A500 sold for 500UKP in 1987, what would an A1200 in 1992 have been like that had justified a starting price of 500 UKP (or 600UKP accounting for devaluation of the Pound and inflation in general)? Certainly more exciting than the A1200.
Quite possibly, but then again - there was the 600GPB Atari Falcon and no one bought that. Even though it has many of the features you're talking about here and could do 3D chunky games fairly well.

It's machines like the Falcon and the later Archimedes models (which were more expensive, but also (much) more powerful than the A1200) failing as well that has me so convinced it wouldn't have changed anything.
Quote:
The cheap Amiga models canibalised the expensive ones. Apple was doing pretty well with just expensive Macintosh models. But they had the software and good developer support. Commodore didn't spend a penny on that.
Quite, but that's essentially part of the point I was trying to make. Commodore always mostly made money targeting the low end. I just don't see it. There were a few competitors in the home computer market that did have more powerful, yet more expensive alternatives and they didn't sell either.

Apple is... Interesting. I'm not sure I'd call what they did in the 1990's a sign of them doing well though. They only just made it.

Anyway, I think you and I have a different opinion here and that's fine. I can see your side of the argument, hopefully you can see mine.
Quote:
Yes, probably, but a speed increase by a factor of 3 doesn't look too bad when comparing to a console's hardware that does a factor of 4.
I'll grant you that, but I'm sure it would still have been disappointing to people who bought one to see their new Amiga struggle to keep up in number of objects and colours on screen (and that's not counting all the nifty SNES effects).
Quote:
AmigaOS does a lot of line drawing with the blitter which means the blitter has to draw a line in eight bitplanes per vertical screen line where it would only have to do it in one byte per vertical screen line (OK, this is only true for 45°...0° with respect to a vertical line while horizontal lines would almost be equal to chunky modes in efficiency).
It also does a lot of block based blitting, which is what I was getting at.

And of course - if you want to, you can remove most of the line drawing as windows and window decoration could be done as little blitter objects instead (which is how Windows draws them IIRC). As nice as Amiga OS is, I've never been convinced it was truly optimised for drawing speed. Then again, neither was Windows.

As an example: I remember having a 'toy program' that let you move windows across the screen fully drawn on the Amiga and that ran surprisingly well compared to the normal OS window drawing and updating.
Quote:
Of course, one could argue that a blitter would have been superfluous with a chunky mode because the CPU was much more suitable for drawing in chunky modes than in planar modes. But the important point is that you can blit chunky modes with a planar blitter without problems because actually there is no additional functionality required (not considering line drawing, of course). Only the line drawing mode would have required a hardware update of the blitter in order to make it deal with chunky graphics.
Well, some more upmarket SVGA cards came with Blitters and these apparently made Windows run quite a bit faster so I guess they can still be useful for a chunky mode system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grond View Post
I'm probably too tired to think clearly but it just occured to me that it would probably only have taken a very small fix to make the blitter able to deal with chunky modes: doesn't the blitter allow patterns for the lines it draws? In a chunky mode this pattern would automatically become the line colour and all it would take would be to make the blitter's bresenham use only multiples of 8 for its line coordinates. Other than that the blitter would also draw as if in planar mode with diffX just being x8 as compared to the planar mode.
Yes, the Blitter does allow for a 16 pixel pattern of your choosing when drawing lines (or filling or clearing for that matter).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgeezer View Post
Roondar.... I honestly don't know why you give this guy your quality time in typing out proper responses, he's clearly a jelly head.

You should just write ....
The lady doth protest too much, methink
You're right, I really shouldn't reply. But... here's why I still do reply to things like this (though probably far too frequently):

It's not about the person or even their post. It's not even about the tone of their message. It's about how forums work. I know only too well that people tend to only read and remember the last few pages of a long thread. This is why longer threads often end up repeating the same arguments over and over and it's also why pushing back to falsehoods is needed (regardless of why these falsehoods persist - I'm not saying people in this thread are doing this on purpose. I'm assuming people just misremember).

If no one pushes back when someone writes things that are not true, new readers might read these such posts and get the idea that they make sense. There's already so much misinformation out there in retro land (heck, despite trying very hard, I've certainly made mistakes and wrote things that ended up being false so I'm not excepting myself here).

If I can keep at least some accuracy in threads like this, I'll consider that a success.

Worst part about this is that all this forum activity comes straight out of my Amiga coding time. So perhaps I should spend less time on the forum after all.
roondar is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 21:51   #479
vulture
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Athens , Greece
Posts: 1,056
Without a better cpu and some fast ram, I doubt a chunky mode would have any real importance at having a Doom port. I mean, if a 68030/50mhz+AGA runs it at about the same fps as a 386DX40mhz+VGA, there's not much a chunky mode by itself could've done.
vulture is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 21:54   #480
sandruzzo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Italy/Rome
Posts: 1,595
If A1200 was in all part 4x A500, who cares about Chunky mode!
sandruzzo is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A1200 RF module removal pics + A1200 chips overview eXeler0 Hardware pics 2 08 March 2017 01:09
Sale - 2 auctions: A1200 mobo + flickerfixer & A1200 tower case w/ kit blakespot MarketPlace 0 27 August 2015 19:50
For Sale - A1200/A1000/IndiAGA MkII/A1200 Trapdoor Ram & Other Goodies! fitzsteve MarketPlace 1 11 December 2012 11:32
Trading A1200 030 acc and A1200 indivision for Amiga stuff 8bitbubsy MarketPlace 17 14 December 2009 22:50
Trade Mac g3 300/400 or A1200 for an A1200 accellerator BiL0 MarketPlace 0 07 June 2006 18:41

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 00:01.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.12838 seconds with 15 queries