From: tnel6@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: Re: New Game Standards***
Reply-To: tnel6@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:41:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.222911.17700@Virginia.EDU>, mlc9g@Virginia.EDU ("Matt Condon") writes:

>mr_scary@laks.trenton.sc.us  writes: 
>
>I think you're totally misunderstanding the whole issue.
>Video-wise, NO Amiga model is readily expandable.  Sure, you
>can buy a 24-bit video card -- anyone, even we lowly 500 users,
>can do that -- but since there are no real standards in 24-bit
>video cards, no game publisher in their right mind is going to
>waste resources programming games for them (the only exception
>I've seen is one company that programmed a game for THEIR OWN
>card).  My point was that you'll never see AGA on a 1000, 500,
>2000, or 3000.  AGA was not one of the design specifications
>when those models came out, and Commodore made no attempts at
>making it possible to upgrade to future technology when they
>designed them.  Instead, they put the graphics chips right on
>the motherboard, where no direct changes could be made.  IBM,
>on the other hand, was smart enough to leave all graphics to a
>separate card, so that all a user has to do is pull out the old
>card and put in the new.  Don't talk about 500 users
>complaining -- we should ALL be, so that maybe Commodore would
>get some sense in them.  What it comes down to is that, in
>reality, the video on your 3000 (or 2000, or whatever) is no
>more expandable than my 500.
>
>The problem then continues...  Even if I buy an AGA machine,
>they're still just as unexpandable.  Now I'm looking at having
>to buy yet another machine when the next standard comes out.
>It's just simply not worth it.
>
>I suppose it all comes down to the fact that, back in the early
>days when the Amiga was being developed specifically as a game
>machine, and not a serious computer, it made sense to go ahead
>and put everything the way it is -- who's ever heard of an
>expandable video game system?  But steps should have been taken
>when the project turned into a full-fledged computer to make it
>expandable.  They weren't then, though, and they still aren't
>now.

First off the reason MS-DOS machines have versitile video is that
IBM decided that no one would want anything but mono which they provided
to their users.  The same is with secondary storage et al.  What you must
understand is that although the video cards may be exchanged most users had to
upgrade their systems motherboard anyway.  286 processors were too slow to
handle VGA even at 320X200 resolutions.  So out came the 386 line.  Nice cheap
easy upgrade no doubt.  So now they have fast 486's with >=256 colors but in
16-bit slots.  So what happens when they all want to go to 24-bit graphics. 
Well 16-bit slots are useless for transfering that much data.  So they have to
upgrade the motherboard once again.  The main problem I had with Commodore is
not that they didn't provide a video upgrade path, a 68000 can't handle it 
anyway, but that they didn't upgrade the video at all for 7 years.  Now the
obvious response is that you have a processor that can handle the graphics,
right.  well then you run into the problem of a slow bus.  Ever tried to access
16-bit memory through a Zorro-II, its damn slow.  So then you want the new
graphics card on you accelerator, AT A LOW PRICE.  Well you can't have your
cake and eat it too.

Jonathan
jchewett@iastate.edu

No I don't have a cig. :-)