From: eas3714@ultb.isc.rit.edu (E.A. Story)
Subject: Re: Attn Commodore: You are making a Big Mistake (Hardware
Originator: eas3714@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 beta rel2
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 21:39:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.100547.188@imada.ou.dk>, Bjoern Reese writes:
> Oh dear, and I thought this thread had almost died...

Nope...(evil laugh)

> I pay a lot (I didn't say whether it was too much or not) for my
> computer, and I have a right to be able to use it as I like
> (including hardware bashing.) As nobody pays me anything for my
> demos, nobody has the right to expect anything from it. They can
> take it or leave it.

THAT's fine... but that's not what we are discussing.  IF C= releases a
hardware manual with AGA registers in it, they are basically saying that
they will support these registers in the future.  They won't, so they aren't.

Coding demos using the hardware is fine with me.  Use any of the AGA hardware
doc files that are appearing now to do it.  C= is not preventing you from
bashing the hardware at all... They're just not supporting it.

Remember, we're talking real life here... It's apparent that some developers
don't read the little notes in the existing HRM about retaining compatibility.
What makes you think they will pay attention to a note about some of the AGA
registers not being supported?

> If a piece of software doesn't work, it's the fault of the _publisher_
> In principle, I still can't comprehend why the computer manufacturer
> put these restrictions upon everybody, simply because the publishers
> fail to inform their customers properly. I think it a matter between
> the publisher and the customer.

No, it's not, especially since it isn't an isolated occurance.  The program
a publisher releases reflects on the machine it runs on.  If a good amount
of programs won't run on a certain Amigas why bother buying them?  What
does this say to people considering the Amiga as a purchase?  The average
person will NOT blame the publishers for non-working games, they will blame
the computer.

> People have stated that hardware bashing is slowing down the development
> of new custom chips. Maybe so, but these days one might expect downwards
> compatibility within all chip families. Take the 680x0 or the 80x86
> families for instance. It is expected that new chips in these families
> are compatible with previous chips (and yes, I agree that the Pentium
> (80586) is looking like a dinosaur.)

We're talking about custom chips, not CPUs.  A CPU is
just a *little* bit more critical to a computer's operation, isn't it?
You can't change a CPU's instruction set without problems, but you can
certainly change a custom chip if the hardware is abstractly represented
to the programmer.  Your analogy works about as well as some of the game
prgrams we're talking about.

> If C= wants to make new chips
> which aren't fully compatible with the previous chips, and they want
> us all to use the OS, when they should release the new machines under
> a new name (since it is a new machine) and state that it runs KickStart
> V99.99 (or whatever.) Then the software packages can state that they
> run on KickStart V99.99, or UNIX, or Windows 3.0, etc.

Of course... but how well would it sell?

-- 
"THAT is a DRY turtle.  That turtle is NOT moist!"
Ezra Story, a student at RIT, and
eas3714@ultb.isc.rit.edu, his trusty(?) mailing address.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer