From: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: CBM mention on 12/11/92 Computer Chronicles
Date: 21 Jan 1993 23:43:56 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

In article <1993Jan21.221904.9009@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, Jerry Shekhel (jerry@msi.com) wrote:
: Gregory R Block (gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
: : DIG is simply one way of doing things, it is
: : NOT the only way.  When fast graphics are a concern, and they always
: : have been on the Amiga, display-list DIG is simply NOT a viability.

: Bullshit.  SGI has the fastest graphics in the world, and their library (GL)
: is not only device-independent, but network-extensible as well.  This is
: another common Amigoid belief -- that every AmigaOS compromise was made for
: some divine purpose, or because there is no other way.  Not so.  There are
: bad decisions evident in AmigaOS just like in all other systems.

Eh boy.  Okay.  Listen carefully.  First, you're advocating that DIG
is more important than raster-based graphics.  That's fine.  Then you
go and use SGI as an example.  That's not.  I suppose getting the
ASIC's to get GL to run quickly on an Amiga would cost nothing, eh?

I wasn't referring to DIG as any specific implementation, silly.  I
meant DIG as in DEVICE INDEPENDENT GRAPHICS.  At the point in time, I
was also referring to that in a machine-independent sense.  Raster
based graphics ARE faster than a display-list oriented DIG system.  In
theory.  Due to the way they work.

Anything is fast when you throw a whole lot of hardware and some
custom ASICs at a job.  Bringing an SGI into this as proof of your
example was a bit hard-headed, wasn't it?

And of _COURSE_ there are bad decisions evident.  I'm just saying that
the choice of raster-based graphics ISN'T ONE OF THEM BY DEFAULT.

Note the capitolized words, especially the last two.  BY DEFAULT.
Raster-based graphics aren't an automatic mistake.

: There's plenty wrong with the Amiga approach, obviously.  Otherwise, there
: wouldn't be all this bitching about old graphics standards.  How come I
: can't buy a super-high-res graphics card that works with all Amiga software?
: Simple -- no DIG.

No, no RTG.  One does not REQUIRE DIG to have graphics work on a
super-hi-res graphics card.  And they ARE different, obviously.  4.0
is VERY unlikely to get display-list oriented graphics thrown on top
of the current system (well, it COULD be done, but it's unlikely).
Instead, graphics will get retargeted to a driver, just as they do
now--except currently, that driver, the driver for the internal
chipset, is integrated with the library.

: It's important, but so are DIG/VM/MP.  Which is more important?  It
: depends on what you want to do with your machine.

Yup, I guess so.  :)  I'm just getting tired of arguing points against
you.  It seems like it's always me on the opposite side of the fence.  :)

: Greg!  Are you OK, man?

(shh, I'm dead, don't tell anyone)

--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: "Just because Workbench isn't painted like a pimp's BMW doesn't    :)
(:  mean it's not sharp, elegant, and functional."    -Ian Kennedy    :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Wubba :)