From: cherborth@semprini.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (Chris Herborth)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Organization: InterZONE Design
Subject: Re: ADVOCACY: Falcon - Why I'm buying it...
	<C0yz4z.8y1@ecf.toronto.edu>
	<H.ea.HPf8TACelYs@semprini.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca>
	<C14JnK.B3J@ecf.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: cherborth@semprini.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
X-Software: HERMES GUS 1.04 Rev. Sep  5 1992
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 20:46:54 EST

In <C14JnK.B3J@ecf.toronto.edu>, AL RASHID SHAHIR writes:
> What was YOUR point? YOU were the one who started this tack...Here I was just
> ranting away as usual, then you jump in and start with this graphix issue.
> I wasn't the one who put down the Falcon's graphix, you were. Now when I say
> the Falcon can readily use higher graphix modes, you claim it doesn't matter!
> Well the Falcon can do anything in these modes...you name it. So I'm not
> likely going to JUST watch gif's in these modes...

Well, you see, you where complaining about the 640x480x16 graphics on
clones and saying the Falcon blew it away.  You weren't comparing the
Falcon (ie, an unreleased computer) to the '486 systems I was talking
about (ie, a currently available computer), you were comparing it to the
poor VGA cards many people are stuck with, but would never buy for a new
system.

> NEVER? I sorta doubt it's gonna be delayed THAT long...

Well, if it isn't the motherboard quality, it'll be the packaging, or
the FCC (yes, I know it's passed FCC "B" registration... I'm being
faceitious).  Even if the Falcon was released, could I see it anywhere
within a 30-minute drive?  Nope.  There are no dealers.

> If that was your point, why were you flaming me at all? My post had nothing
> to do with this. Although I sympathize, I must ask you your purpose in your
> flaming me. 

You were spouting about how PCs suck in comparison to the Falcon.  Since
I've been looking at 'em (got bored with that Falcon spec from
_last_summer_ that I had) I thought I'd try to correct your
misconceptions.

> About the VRAM stuff. I'm not sure that the Falcon's graphic speed. Last
> I heard was that the CPU receives the graphix data in 32bit (or 64bit -not
> sure...read coupla posts before) Dunno if this is relevant though...seems
> pretty fast to me... <-- Not very knowledgeable 'bout graphix speeds.

From what I've seen/know about Atari computers (and the Falcon),
graphics work like this:

1) CPU draws into the computer's RAM (at 16Mhz over a 16-bit bus for F030)
2) At the appropriate time (60x per sec in US/Canada/etc) the video
   shifter takes over the system, grabs that area of screen RAM, and
   draws it on the screen as fast as possible (at 16Mhz over a 64-bit
   bus for F030), then drops control of the system back to the CPU.

Hmm, now that I think about it, I guess the shifter doesn't take
complete control.  Either that, or it takes total control for each scan
line, and then gives control back to the system.  Otherwise, all those
funky palette-switching effects we've been seeing on the ST (for games,
Spectrum-512, etc) wouldn't be possible...

Then again, I could be wrong.

> That's why I flamed you. You can't compare such an expensive computer with
> the Falcon, which was designed as an _entry-level_ computer.

And I've been saying that a _very_ fast '486 system with LocalBus video
capable of 1024x768x256 is going to cost you as much as a Falcon030
system.  That _entry-level_ computer is as expensive as a "high-powered"
"workstation" PC.  (Not my words.  According to NCR, the '486/33 under
my desk at work is a "workstation".)

> Well, Microsoft's like that... Wait, weren't you comparing the Multitasking
> in Windows to the Falcon? Or were you comparing any multitasking shell?

I was talking about OS/2...  Several times I've said there's no way I'd
put DOS/Windows on a computer.

> That was the whole point of the interlude... I was just saying that the Falcon
> can't be compared to such an expensive system (compati8ble in this case).

But it's NOT an expensive system!  It costs _as_much_ as the Falcon does!

> I was refering to the Cyrel (yes I know about it, I thought you didn't so I 
> left that out) as an example that Atari computers could do the same thing as
> fancy compatibles.

By... adding a new graphics card!  Just what you'd do on a PC!  For
probably half the price...

> This are is more an area of personal choice. In school, we use Sun's 
> so we need lotsa windows to run backround stuff... Anyway, a lot of people
> swear by overlapping windows, and some extol the virtues of separate ones.
> As for the speed factor, I don't think anything like that would "slow the 
> system down"! In fact wouldn't it even go faster, as it wouldn't have to worry 
> about redraws concerning the other program??

True, it's personal choice, but I've never ever heard anyone complaining
that their screen was too big.  Too small I hear all the time, but never
about it being too big...
-- 
-------------------========================================-------------------
Chris Herborth
cherborth@semprini.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st