From: bjornhk@dhhalden.no (BJORN HAAVARD KLEVEN)
Subject: Re: GUS SB emulation
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 11:39:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.202000.101237@watson.ibm.com> adkinsg@watson.ibm.com writes:
>>
>>True, software mfg'ers are begining to support the SB Pro, but it's still 
>>not that much better than the same old SB. 
>
>Agreed that it is only marginally better than the "old SB", but it has been out *far*
>longer than the GUS, and we're only *beginning* to se SBPRO support.  How long
>do you think it will be until support is mainstream?  Very long.
>The gus may very well fall the way of other so called "superior" products,
>simply because of poor compliance with industry standards (adlib, sb[&pro], PAS+/16).
>

The reason the SB Pro and the alikes have recieved so little special 
attention from developers, is IMO that they're simply not worth all the 
effort. Since they can only perform marginally better, there's not much 
point in spending a lot of resources (and user disk space) in order to try 
to make it sound a little better. 

On the GUS, however, the basic concept is radically different as well as 
much better, and can be improved with only minimal effort. Now, this would 
sound like a good excuse to not support the GUS, but I have fairly reliable 
information saying that the card will be supported by major developers. 
After all, the *do* want their products to sound as good as possible. 

>>>I don't want to get a card that will not be expelicitely supprted (ie 
>>>PAS16) and has limited emulation of the mainstream stuff...
>>
>>It will be, software developers have a better reason for supporting the GUS 
>>than the PAS16.
>>
>
>Why is this?  As far as developement is concerned the PAS16 is (capably) identical to the
>PAS+, (the only diff is pas16 can record 16bit samples, both can play 16 bit samples
>and have OPL3) and the combination pas+/16 is more attractive in sheer numbers.
>Is it worth it to develop extra features that only a very small segment (total
>amount of soundcards, especially soundcards with adlib/sb compatibility) will be
>able to enjoy?  I would rather have better graphics, or a better plot, smoother
>animation than "superior sound" from my GUS.  Most only (understandably) want
>GUS support because it keeps their investment attractive.

We're not talking about *terminating* Ad Lib/SB/SB Pro support, but *adding*
GUS (and other Wavetable synthesis cards as they become available) support!
Besides, regarding the 'very small segment [of soundcard users]' you're 
talking about, keep in mind that the Gravis hasn't even started to run 
ads for the GUS yet! We're only seeing the begining!

>>>	Guess only time will tell....
>>
>>Yes, but wait to hear it will tell you...
>
>Agreed that only time will tell, but what does "but wait to hear it will tell you.." mean?
>
What about time telling that the GUS will receive wide software support, and 
that making a purchase descission on what soundcard to buy based on which 
cards are compatible with the current (low end) standard might not result 
in a wise investment for the future...

    -=* Bjorn :: bjornhk@sofus.dhhalden.no
  ACCESS DATA :: TEL: (+47)-9-17 50 48/61-97 812 FAX: 61-97 813
                 BBS: 61-97 304/97 945