From: mike@struad.uucp (Michael Cianflone)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re:  A4000 at WOC
Distribution: world
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:50:05 PST
Organization: Structured Applications & Designs, Inc. R&D Institute.

In article <1992Sep12.151838.917@ra.msstate.edu> skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.071832.16158@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N Barrett) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep12.010011.9732@cco.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>>When in 256 color mode, the machine really crawled.  Just moving this 
>>>icon around was horrible.  The reason for this, I believe is that the 
>>>AA Chipset, although 32 bit, is still only 7MHz or something (to keep 
>>>in sync with NTSC).  The performance was worse than a Mac with a 68030 
>>>in 256 color mode.  At least in the workbench (using 3.0).  Maybe there 
>>>are still some bugs, but it was alot slower than expected.
>>
>>In a way, the AA chipset is going to become the great equalizer, in favor 
>>of systems like the Mac and IBM systems which have had 256-color hi-res 
>>modes for a long time.  Ever since the Mac II and IBM SVGA systems first 
>>started coming out, people have been complaining about their slowness while 
>stating (falsely) that the Amiga was faster.  The real problem all along has 
>>been that 640x480x8 is a hell of a lot of data to move around, and the Amiga 
>>did not have any modes to use as a comparison against these systems.  Sure, 
>>the Amiga seemed faster, but only because it's inferior display meant that 
>>it was not burdoned with moving lots of data around.
>
  I was at the show. I used the 4000 for quite some time. The 256 color mode
was actually very useable. In 640x400 mode with 256 colors, it was about the
same speed as a 3000 in 640x400 8 colors. It was actually pretty quick. Even
the 1280x400 256 color mode wasn't too bad. But the pictures in that
resolution!!! WOW! Very, very nice!  256,000 colors at once in HAM, and given
proper colors for the 64 color registers, it's possible to have 16.7 million
colors at once (given a screen large enough to display it).

>
>>But along comes the AA chipset, and we finally get to see how an Amiga 
>>performs with 8 bitplanes at 640x480, and we see that it **CRAWLS**.  In 
>>fact, we find that the Workbench is **UNUSABLE** in 256-color mode because 
>>it is so slow, even though the Mac and IBM systems -- which have been 
>>available for much longer -- are pokish but still very usable with 256 colors.

  *We* get to see how an Amiga crawls, huh? I don't think *we* were at the
show. I don't think *we* used a 4000. Head, out of ass. There, feel better? The
workbench was quite useable, and still quite snappy. Try using it before
making ass of oneself.

>>>The odd thing about the AA chipset, then, is that it could easily move
>>die-hard Amigaoids to viewing Mac and IBM systems with a little more respect.

  Not hardly. See above.
>
>>| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
>>--------------------------------------------------


--

                 Structured Applications & Designs, Inc.
Mike Cianflone - Senior Software Engineer - Hardware Consultant - Tech Support

                 PD Type Kits To Help The Amiga Community
The Multi-Kickstart Board Project        The 2 Meg Agnus Project *coming soon*
The A1000 ROM Kickstart Board Project *coming soon* 1280x1024x8 graphics card?
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!struad!mike       INET: mike@struad.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy