From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Avoid the Amiga 4000
Date: 12 Oct 92 03:24:23 GMT
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science

In article <35767@cbmvax.commodore.com> mks@cbmvax.commodore.com (Michael Sinz) writes:
>grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) writes:
>>I think you're substantially off base here.  The system software works at it
>>harder than you describe, but I'll leave it to one of the software guys to
>>describe the details.
>
>As George has said above and we have said before, 99% of the software will
>be promoted to non-flickering modes if you select that option in preferences.
>Why not 100%?  Well, it is this simple:

And the software that doesn't get promoted is obviously violating the rules
and should be tossed.  Amiga owners need to stop supporting the bozo hackers 
who don't follow the rules.

>The Amiga is used in video production fields and one of the strongest features
>of the machine is that it does NTSC/PAL video very well and right out of the
>box.  (No add-ons)  Now, as a video application, it is important to be able to
>output video scan rate displays when you want.  As such, if you ask for a 
>video scan rate, you get that.

Speaking of add-ons, I'd guess that you would at least need an RF modulator
to get composite NTSC out.  Would the A520 and similar devices work?  I'm
not a hardware type and have been wondering if the 24bit versus 12bit video
will affect all of the RF modulators, genlocks, and that sort of thing.

>Now, how does this impact current software?
>
>Well, software that is pure 1.3 code (no 2.0 features are used) will always
>be promoted as in pre-2.0 days there was no way to define the video monitor
>(scan rate) that you wanted to open your screen in.

And everyone needs to get rid of that junk ASAP.

>If the software does do 2.0-like things and uses the "default" monitor 
>settings it will also be promoted as that is a safe promotion.

So some of the older and poorly written software may indeed work.  This
might really upset MB and the other little bitchers and whiners.

>If the software uses the 2.0 display database to let you select the mode you
>get to choose the display mode you want and thus it will do as you choose
>(which could include a true video-interlaced display - flicker and all)

This is where I have a few questions.  Would it be possible to give the user
the ultimate control over the display?  I really don't like the fact that
many programs simply open their screen as they see fit.  Hell, there are plenty
of apps that could run on the Workbench, but the bozos who write the software
don't seem to comprehend that fact.  I'd like to be able to force an app to
run on a screen of my choice.  If the program is written properly, it will
acknoledge that fact and adapt itself to work on my screen.

>If the software uses 2.0 functions and *asks* specifically for a VIDEO
>compatible display, it will get what it asks for.  (Or if it asks for
>any other specific display/scan rate/etc.)  Now, as it turns out there is
>one rather popular program that does this:  DPaint IV.  It does this
>so you can use PAL or NTSC as an option in DPaint.  They know about the
>problem and they also know about the display database so I would guess that
>a version of DPaint will be available shortly that uses the display database
>and gives the user the option.

But I as the user should be able to force the app to run on a non-interlaced
screen no matter what the program asks for.  If the app would like to run on
an interlaced screen, it should ask me first before attempting to open one.

As for DPaint, well, I wish that someone would re-write it to follow the rules.
It has some great features and I find it very useful, but it is silly that it
has to be patched and/or re-written so much.

>Yes, this is an issue, but it is mainly an issue of incompatible needs.
>That is, if you are using a genlock, are you not also doing video?  If you
>are doing video, are you not using video display modes?  And, since video
>is needed, are you not interested in getting interlaced video (which is
>what televison uses)?

I cannot understand why some people insist on a de-interlacer for the A4000.
Why on earth is it needed if it can be done in software?  As an A3000 owner,
I can attest to the fact that it is a great hack, but there are many little
annoyances that I'll be glad to be rid of.  The pointer breaking up, the
damn half-line flicker, the shimmer on cold mornings (of course I haven't
switched either the monitor or A3000 off in months and don't know if it still
does it :-), etc. are problems that can be ignored, but I'd rather not have
them at all.

BTW, no one has said anything about the new hires and superhires sprites.
Can the mouse cursor be in one of these modes?  I hope so, as the lores
sprite has driven me crazy for years and is very pitiful looking compared
to the rest of the Workbench.

>>Yes, some subset of users may feel some pain due to this mutual exclusivity.
>>How many?  There are plenty of non-video slot genlocks out there in any case.
>
>Right, George.  How many people will need both?

How many people need either one?  I've been using Amigas for years both for 
pleasure and for business and have never needed a genlock.  Sure, they're
neat and it's great that the Amiga is so easily adaptable to video, but not
everyone uses the Amiga for video work.  I need the 256 color modes more
than anything else as most of my work is on VGA/SVGA PCs (I know, I know,
PCs and Clones suck.  But it is a job and someone's got to do it.  :-).

>>Do you know this, or are you must making an inference based on what
>>you've "heard"?

Funny how so many fools still listen to what MB says.  

>Go play with an A4000 and use programs with it.  Bring up DPaint III (not IV)
>or ProPage or FinalCopy or most any other program.  Make sure you have turned
>on the promotion mode and, if you want scan-doubling, also the VGA-ONLY icon.
>You may find out that the display that comes out of the A4000 is actually
>cleaner than that of the A3000.  You may also find out that you can use more
>colours and have more colours to pick from or use the same number of colours
>and run much faster.

Sounds great!  Will most of the programs be able to specify colors from the
24bit palette?  I know this sounds stupid, but many of them seem to be 
hard-coded for a 12bit palette and I was wondering what the effect will be
on the AGA machines.  

Speaking of the palette, the color wheel looks nice, but is it possible to
get a slider-type palette selector instead?  I've used the color wheels on
the Mac and Winslows and personally think they are a bad idea.

Also, you guys seem to be working towards RTG and with that I'd guess you'll
have to resort to some sort of color-sharing scheme.  Others may disagree,
but I don't want other programs messing with my palette.  Under Windows and
the Mac, I've often become quite upset when each new application screws up
the color palette.  The "best fit" is definitely not.

>>If you don't want more colors and are either happy with an '030 or already
>>have an '040 card, then the A3000 might be the best deal.  Marc's error is
>>in asserting that some particular user profile, his or yours applies to
>>the 90'th percentile of the target market.

Hell, C= is wasting its time if it is even thinking of including the whiners
and bitchers like Marc in any target market.  The best thing that you guys
could do would be to buy that bozo a Mac or Clone so he'll go bother those
poor slobs.

>Yes, please remember what all of you (net-people) have asked for.  Also
>remember what the Amiga market needs and asks for.  The biggest need was
>for more colour in *video* modes.  More resolution with more colour too.

And you folks at C= certainly delivered.  I was hoping for at least 8bit
color in 640x400 NTSC, but didn't know if you'd be able to get that in
the Productivity and SuperHires modes.  All I can say is that I am truly
impressed and am quite pleased with the A4000's video capabilities.

>Non-video modes (non-interlaced 640x480) with more colour.  Well, we have
>given you this.  You get more colour, more colours, and more resolution
>in the A4000 and AGA chipset.  You can now do photo-realistic displays
>with the 24-bit colour resolution of the chips and the HAM-8 mode which
>can mathematically give you all 16,777,216 colours if you had the pixels.

This has been stated before and I was wondering how hard it will be to
pick the proper 64 base colors for the SuperHAM modes.  What happens
with the older HAM mode?  It uses 4096 colors I'd guess, but are those
colors from a 12 or 24 bit palette?  There are some HAM pictures which
could benefit from a better selection of colors.  For example, a smoothly
shaded sphere (popular with the ray-tracers), is really difficult to do
in HAM as the color transitions are so coarse.  Would this be any different
on the A4000, or will it be possible to have HAM images which allow for
the finer 24bit color transitions?

>(Realisticly, you don't have that many pixels and good pictures display
>just fine in the simpler to render 262,144 colour mapping type which is
>what marketing calls 256,000 colours since we told them 256K colours.)

256,000 is also easier for non-computer types to understand.  I teach a
computer science class to a bunch of business majors and they really don't 
seem to be able to grasp the fact that K and M don't always mean 1000 and
1 million.

>Anyway, the major need for the market of the Amiga was addressed.  In addition
>the 68040 gives you more speed too.  (Which is always nice)

How fast is it?  I'd be interested in seeing the results of things like
AIBB, SysInfo, and that sort of thing for the A4000.  I've used the 040
NeXTStations, 486s, and other fast machines, but none have made my A3000
feel slow.  I'm truly hoping that the A4000 will feel as fast compared 
to the A3000 as the A3000 did compared to the A1000.

>>This especially comes across in the flaming about the IDE drive.  Nobody
>>seems to want to really talk about how well it works or doesn't, just that
>>SCSI is what they think it should have and *everyone* should pay for.

Part of the problem is that IDE is associated with the Clones.  Many folks
can't seem to handle this and somehow believe that IDE is somehow slow since
PCs use it.  Funny thing is, the 245M IDE Seagates on my 486 at work are 
easily as fast as the 210M SCSI Maxtor on my A3000 and the orignal 52M Quantum
that came with it.  

>>Just about everyone needs a hard disk to make effective use of a machine
>>like this.  Not many really care about the interface, only is it big enough
>>and can you get/attach a larger or second drive.  Nowhere near as many
>>folks as should have have SCSI attached backup devices.  All the A4000 does
>>is say that folks with special needs have to pay some increment over the
>>base model to address those needs.

Good point.  Several of the bitchers and whiners have admitted that they only
have one drive, but they all seem to think that SCSI is needed anyway.  I am
not sure what you guys will come out with next, but it is my guess that the
IDE will make a lot of sense in a lower-end AGA box.

>Notice that the PC market has 97% of the machines shipping with IDE as
>the *only* hard drive interface.  Notice also that this has not prevented
>much in the way of sales or usability.  Notice also that IDE costs *much*
>less to have on the motherboard than DMA SCSI does.

But the whiners like MB will still flame you no matter what you do.  If
the A4000 had SCSI-II, a DSP with 32 voice 16 bit sound, 1280x1024 24 bit 
graphics, and a fellatio port, MB and his bitchy friends would still find
something to complain about.

>Now, for me, I need SCSI.  So do others.  However, it is not a reason to
>call the machine useless.  In fact, if it were, most of the computers in
>the world (IBM-PCs, 97.4% of them) would be useless too.  (I do want SCSI
>and so does the marketing department and so does Lou who had stated
>that the SCSI board will be made and that highend machines will be
>introduced with it on the motherboard in the future)

Will it be the 4090, 4091, 3090, 3091, or what?  Any idea what the retail
price might be?  SCSI-II boards for the Mac and PC are not cheap and I
don't really expect C='s board to be either.  However, if it is Zorro III
and is really fast, I'll buy one just to say that I've got a Zorro III
card in my machine.  :-)

>/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
>|      /// Michael Sinz  -  Senior Amiga Systems Engineer              |
>|     ///                   Operating System Development Group         |
>|    ///   BIX:  msinz      UUNET:  mks@cbmvax.commodore.com           |
>|\\\///                                                                |
>| \XX/     "I think not." said Ren'e Descartes, then he vanished.      |
>\----------------------------------------------------------------------/

Skip Sauls
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu