Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: CGX supports Radeon  (Read 2971 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline arcticandyb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 412
    • Show all replies
Re: CGX supports Radeon
« on: July 16, 2002, 11:18:42 PM »
Quote
CGX4 is being consantly updated, so I don't see your problem


The problem is that someone who has committed themselves financially to what is basically a set of hardware drivers with bells on, could quite rightly be entitled to think - "hey I contributed to the development of this software and now I can't upgrade to it!"

IMO that's more annoying than unjust.  Anyway, considering that there are probably only around 10K active Amiga users these days, you'd think they'd want to keep their options open, and not shut out what is likely to be thought of as the mainstream Amiga market.

You know what, it's stuff like this that really p###es me off.  Rivalry between 2 or 3 Amiga platforms?  What TF is that about?  Does anyone think there really is enough Amiga support out there to sustain more than one upgrade path, or are we going to see smaller and smaller splinter groups - all arguing with each other, while the world is blissfully unaware of their existance.  After all why would anyone want to join a community that is busy stabbing each other in the back..

Sorry off topic there, but it does annoy the #### out of me.
GPF (the famous Blue Screen of Death) honest version :-

The system has become busy or unstable.
Actually, we say \\"system\\" but what we really mean is \\"Windows\\".
If you like, you can wait and see if the \\"system\\" recovers.
It won\\\'t, but it will give yo
 

Offline arcticandyb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 412
    • Show all replies
Re: CGX supports Radeon
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2002, 06:06:43 AM »
Quote
You can upgrade it, but you may not like the terms if you don't have a PPC or are not interested in MOS, just like noone will be able to upgrade OS3.9 while he is running on a 68k or x86-based emu...


I partially agree, which is why I said more "annoying than unjust".. but I still think that when you rely on a limited number of users for an income, it's better not to annoy them by forcing them down a particular upgrade path - that may or may not be the one they intended to take.  Obviously buyers of the software may not want or (as you point out in other posts) need to upgrade - but for myself.. if I fork over the cash for a product, I like to think I can stay with it for the long haul - not just for my immediate needs.

For example it may not be needed under OS4, but it could be that it's a more efficient set of drivers, and have more options available for the card you're using (fully functional OpenGL for example), and therefore although you may not need it, it would be an improvement over the OS's generic RTG offering.

However you would be right in saying that just because you buy software it doesn't "entitle" you to an upgrade path - the only morally correct thing for a company to do is to provide patches for major bugs (which I see you say are available).
GPF (the famous Blue Screen of Death) honest version :-

The system has become busy or unstable.
Actually, we say \\"system\\" but what we really mean is \\"Windows\\".
If you like, you can wait and see if the \\"system\\" recovers.
It won\\\'t, but it will give yo