From: bloc1469@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Gregory R. Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: Attn Commodore: You are making a Big Mistake (Hardware Manual)
Date: 23 Nov 1992 04:02:26 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering Dept. University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33
Keywords: hardware reference manual

In article <1992Nov21.123328.10653@ifi.uio.no> stigo@ifi.uio.no (Stig Arne Olsen) writes:
>We all know that, but who buys the machines? Commodore? 

Does it matter?  98% of the people who buy the machines aren't
programmers.  That 2% of programming types is going to have a rather
large % being registered developers under one program or another.
Those are the people who are going to WANT to do it the way C=
says--because they see more of the future than those 98%, or even the
part of the 2% that aren't developers.

Whether you want a HRM for good intentions or bad, C= producing one
enables people to keep hitting the hardware in non-future-compatible
ways.  They no longer want to see that happen.  Not putting out a HRM
is the best way to do it.

Listen, it's simple.  Read through the RKM-Libraries.  Read how
some of those library functions are written.  They say to do certain
things, or not to do certain things.

People constantly break them.

Who the hell is going to listen to a few warnings that say not to hit
the hardware in a book that lists all of the hardware to hit for you?

Not enough people to make a difference.  So, looking at it from the
perspective of DIG, putting out a HRM HURTS C= MORE THAN IT HELPS
PROGRAMMERS.

See?

>I think you missed my point earlier that a lot of people buy machines
>because of the demos. This is something that is very unique for the Amiga.
>So, I think your point about not doing anything for sales is wrong. 
>How many A500 vs A3000 has there been sold? If you don't release any
>new machines between the A1200 and A4000, I think you will see that the
>same thing will happen again, the A1200 will be the clear winner.
>I don't know if you guys at Commodore have even seen programs like ProTracker,
>that have become almost a standard in the demo world. Now there even exists
>mod-players for ms-dos machines! 

Mods will continue to work under AGA, and they don't hit graphics
hardware.  There's no reason ProTracker can't use OS routines for its
graphics, is there?

What would I like to see?  I'd like to see Chris Green come out with a
demo to prove that it can be done.  He's obviously got extensive
knowledge of real-time texture mapping.  I say let's see it.  ;)

He said that once upon a time, he was a bit of a hardware-hitter
himself.  Well, show us how an old pro does it then!  Come out with a
demo (doesn't even have to be source-released, y'know!) and knock our
socks off.  Besides, it'll give those corporate buggers a real
pissing, make a lot of happy user groups, and a ton of happy dealers
showing off lightning-fast real-time graphics response on Amiga sales
floors.

>I wouldn't blame you (C=) if you redesigned the whole chip-set so that all
>hardware coded stuff broke. It's not your problem if my code doesn't work!

You're wrong:  It's their problem.  That should be obvious.  How ever
much I happen to like the guys, it should be dead obvious that these
idiots take the bad programming practices of others seriously--they
put all of those bugfixes into 2.04 and even more of them into 2.1.

It's NOT meant as a slam against C= or the engineers, SW or HW.  It's
just that if it's not obvious enough that C= takes the blame for buggy
programs, and that C= puts huge amounts of manpower into letting those
buggy programs get away with what they do, then I don't know how else
to show it.

>And you must realize that there is a difference between coding applications
>and demos. Demos are not supposed to last a lifetime. When you release new
>chip sets, people just adjust after a while. It's not so critical as you
>seem to think. If you worry about getting the best possible hardware, let
>me worry about my programs working.

Democoders of past become applicatoins programmers of now.  I think
Chris Green might agree.  And with those democoders comes the crappy
programming practices that most demos utilize.  Banging hardware
becomes so instinctive that to do anything else takes more work than
it needs to due to total unfamiliarity.  Things that were natural to
do with hardware become unnatural to do with the OS, which seems slow
and sluggish in comparison--or should I say DID, because that isn't
true any longer.

>Get real. I guess you would say that a discussion is a debate where
>all ends up having your opinion.

You don't seem to get it.  C= didn't say "Well, guys, we're thinking
about not putting out a HRM.  What's your opinion?".  They said "There
shall be no HRM, mortal.  Cope."

Users demanding from C= that they do something that impinges, or in
this case, devastates future plans (as it would do to any DIG plans,
or for that matter, future chipset design) is different from holding a
discussion, isn't it?  I sure think so.

>So, I was right. They have to pay a fee (how much is this small
>fee, anyway?). If a program requires kickstart 2.0, it's not very likely

A small fee.  Seriously.  Why do you think they charge 20 bucks for
includes/autodocs?  It's to retain their copyrights.  It's also to
ensure quality.

>that the ones who will use it do not have wb 2.0 too. And this makes it
>it impossible to do for public-domain/freeware programmers.

It's really meant for large applications, I believe.  To create
bootable disks, so to put.  There are still lots of people, I imagine,
because I personally wouldn't know, that reboot their machine when
they want to run some program by using a bootable disk.

Greg
--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(:   "You said the world was magic, I was wide eyed and laughing."    :)
(:			-The Indigo Girls, "Joking"		      :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)