Amiga.org

The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Amiga Emulation => Topic started by: direktorn on May 02, 2013, 07:00:27 PM

Title: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: direktorn on May 02, 2013, 07:00:27 PM
Impressive that an operating system older than the DVD format can display a picture with more pixels compared to Full HD..
 
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=3b04ad50d6b195a3&id=3B04AD50D6B195A3%21306&action=Share
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: commodorejohn on May 02, 2013, 07:11:43 PM
I'd look, but this SkyDrive bullcrap won't let me because *haughty sniff* my browser isn't new enough. In the future, you might want to put this kind of stuff on a less stupid service like ImageShack.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Dr.Bongo on May 02, 2013, 07:23:02 PM
What system specs is that running on?
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: direktorn on May 02, 2013, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: commodorejohn;733522
I'd look, but this SkyDrive bullcrap won't let me because *haughty sniff* my browser isn't new enough. In the future, you might want to put this kind of stuff on a less stupid service like ImageShack.

Sorry but I really hate to have to upload things and ImageShack has loads of banners and **** :(
 
You can view images on Skydrive by loading the image url, here :)
https://public.dm1.livefilestore.com/y1pp121BpexhQLXzfEqjBIz-tR8H8hsrz_NAI1Hi3fXaSykHCsmOJih1nTmGUxXeLEn/CyberGrab2560.jpg?psid=1
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: direktorn on May 02, 2013, 07:29:38 PM
Quote from: Dr.Bongo;733523
What system specs is that running on?

I filed it under Emulation, might give you a clue? :-)
 
WinUAE running on a i7 machine. 512M FastRam, 24-bit desktop, a few GB of storage (I copied my original Amiga 4000 HD plugging it in using a USB-IDE adapter/converter)
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Oldsmobile_Mike on May 02, 2013, 08:01:19 PM
Tried to look but just got a loading icon for about five minutes.  What the he^# is SkyDrive hosted on that it bogs down my entire browser, a Commodore 64?  Maybe just upload your image onto Amiga.org.  ;)
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: direktorn on May 02, 2013, 08:31:20 PM
Quote from: Oldsmobile_Mike;733529
Tried to look but just got a loading icon for about five minutes. What the he^# is SkyDrive hosted on that it bogs down my entire browser, a Commodore 64? Maybe just upload your image onto Amiga.org. ;)

Did you try the direct url? That worked fine in IBrowse, not sure what crappy browser you'r using.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: commodorejohn on May 02, 2013, 08:34:53 PM
Yeah, sure, use a crappy service and then blame the browser.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Oldsmobile_Mike on May 02, 2013, 08:36:56 PM
Quote from: direktorn;733532
Did you try the direct url? That worked fine in IBrowse, not sure what crappy browser you'r using.


Opera, IE, Firefox, all latest versions and on different computers, always had problems accessing content hosted on that crappy site.  Maybe I should be using IBrowse, LOL.  ;)  Oh well, saw it on the direct link, looks good, now to get it to work on a real Amiga!  ;)
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Crumb on May 02, 2013, 08:37:09 PM
Some years ago I created a 2000x1500 8bit screenmode with mi PicassoIV just for fun :-)
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: kickstart on May 02, 2013, 08:39:49 PM
Quote from: Crumb;733535
Some years ago I created a 2000x1500 8bit screenmode with mi PicassoIV just for fun :-)


nice... and this on a real amiga.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Khephren on May 02, 2013, 09:08:14 PM
cool, but loses it's appeal when it's not the real hardware.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: direktorn on May 02, 2013, 09:49:39 PM
Quote from: Crumb;733535
Some years ago I created a 2000x1500 8bit screenmode with mi PicassoIV just for fun :-)

About 17 years ago i ran 1600x1200 in 16 or 24 bit (cant remember) on Apple 21" fixed monitor http://www.apple-forever.com/detail/148.html that only support a 1152 resolution.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: direktorn on May 02, 2013, 09:50:11 PM
Quote from: Khephren;733539
cool, but loses it's appeal when it's not the real hardware.

Might be, but as this is the UAE forum what would one expect ... :quickdraw:
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: TheBilgeRat on May 03, 2013, 12:10:22 AM
Quote from: direktorn;733525
I filed it under Emulation, might give you a clue? :-)
 
WinUAE running on a i7 machine. 512M FastRam, 24-bit desktop, a few GB of storage (I copied my original Amiga 4000 HD plugging it in using a USB-IDE adapter/converter)


Now that's a load of horse leavings right there.  Man.

But still pretty sexy :D
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Thorham on May 03, 2013, 12:59:15 AM
Quote from: direktorn;733521
Impressive that an operating system older than the DVD format can display a picture with more pixels compared to Full HD..

Not really. It simply depends on the monitor driver you're using.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Rob on May 03, 2013, 02:45:03 AM
Quote from: Thorham;733553
Not really. It simply depends on the monitor driver you're using.


I remember when I first got OS4 back in 2004.  I'd had the A1 for about a year and was using a 14" Acer monitor I'd borrowed from my brother.  Linux had restricted me to a max of 800x600 so when I got play with P96 I decided to try and push out the max resolution of 2048x1536 just for fun.  Amazingly it worked, it was as flickery as hell and totally unusable due to the small size of everything on that tiny 14" screen.

I think I settled for for 1024x768* proudly telling myself that Amiga was way better than Linux.

Now I use a 24" LCD at 1920x1200 and can't really imagine going back to tiny screens with low resolutions for Workbench use.

*maybe even 1280x1024, I know that I was able to get a stable image at higher resolutions than the Debian installer had made available to me.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Thorham on May 03, 2013, 03:21:51 AM
Quote from: Rob;733561
I remember when I first got OS4 back in 2004.  I'd had the A1 for about a year and was using a 14" Acer monitor I'd borrowed from my brother.  Linux had restricted me to a max of 800x600 so when I got play with P96 I decided to try and push out the max resolution of 2048x1536 just for fun.  Amazingly it worked, it was as flickery as hell and totally unusable due to the small size of everything on that tiny 14" screen.

Under AOS that simply depends on the drivers. AOS3.x supports Workbenches up to 16384x16384 pixels in size (perhaps 2.x as well). Under Linux it may simply have been a driver issue, where the desktop was restricted to what the driver could display.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Darrin on May 03, 2013, 03:56:19 AM
I've been using a 1920x1080 Workbench on my A4000 for ages.  It is set at the maximum resolution of my monitor, so I don't see the need to exceed it.  :)
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: direktorn on May 03, 2013, 10:13:47 AM
Quote from: Thorham;733553
Not really. It simply depends on the monitor driver you're using.

Not true.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: direktorn on May 03, 2013, 10:15:45 AM
Quote from: Darrin;733568
I've been using a 1920x1080 Workbench on my A4000 for ages. It is set at the maximum resolution of my monitor, so I don't see the need to exceed it. :)

What GFX card do you have? I've have not seen one displaying above 1600x1200 in more than 8-bit :/
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: gertsy on May 03, 2013, 12:16:53 PM
Quote from: direktorn;733589
What GFX card do you have? I've have not seen one displaying above 1600x1200 in more than 8-bit :/


I'm guessing it's a pci card thru mediator.

But the workbench in the skydrive pic is thru winUAE yeah?
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Thorham on May 03, 2013, 12:27:00 PM
Quote from: direktorn;733588
Not true.

Yeah, right :rolleyes:
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: psxphill on May 03, 2013, 01:39:57 PM
Quote from: direktorn;733521
Impressive that an operating system older than the DVD format can display a picture with more pixels compared to Full HD..

It's not that impressive. If you need a higher resolution than 256 x 256, it makes sense to support 65536 x 65536. No idea if there are any issues with that though, because some of the code might think all calculations can fit into a word and when you have windows wrapping off the left or right of the screen then you might run into problems.
 
The os can probably handle 8192 x 8192 without any problems. It should be possible to test this as most graphics cards can set up scrolling displays larger than your monitor.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Thorham on May 03, 2013, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: psxphill;733607
The os can probably handle 8192 x 8192 without any problems.

Maximum is 16384x16384, you can see it in the screen mode prefs.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Rob on May 03, 2013, 02:20:44 PM
Quote from: Thorham;733564
Under AOS that simply depends on the drivers. AOS3.x supports Workbenches up to 16384x16384 pixels in size (perhaps 2.x as well). Under Linux it may simply have been a driver issue, where the desktop was restricted to what the driver could display.


I think Linux was limited by what the monitor was telling the Linux driver it could handle.  I'm sure I was able able to get 1600x1200 out of my 17" Viewsonic when I plugged that in.  The Viewsonic stayed at my parents house where it was used with my A1200 and I eventually got a 19" TFT to use with the A1.

I imagine that it's probably possible to manually configure the display driver in Linux but I didn't know much about Linux and didn't care to learn.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: SysAdmin on May 03, 2013, 02:24:12 PM
Quote from: commodorejohn;733522
I'd look, but this SkyDrive bullcrap won't let me because *haughty sniff* my browser isn't new enough. In the future, you might want to put this kind of stuff on a less stupid service like ImageShack.


Agreed Skydrive is crap! Why does anyone use it?
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: direktorn on May 03, 2013, 02:26:46 PM
Quote from: Rob;733612
I think Linux was limited by what the monitor was telling the Linux driver it could handle. I'm sure I was able able to get 1600x1200 out of my 17" Viewsonic when I plugged that in. The Viewsonic stayed at my parents house where it was used with my A1200 and I eventually got a 19" TFT to use with the A1.
 
I imagine that it's probably possible to manually configure the display driver in Linux but I didn't know much about Linux and didn't care to learn.

All digital and the last analog-only monitors use DDC to tell the graphics card and the driver the resolution the monitor supports.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_Data_Channel
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Darrin on May 03, 2013, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: direktorn;733589
What GFX card do you have? I've have not seen one displaying above 1600x1200 in more than 8-bit :/


As Gertsy said, I use a Radeon card on a Mediator busboard.  Works great.
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Crumb on May 03, 2013, 03:53:25 PM
@kickstart

Of course! Emulators are like "sex dolls"... not the same as real amigas :D
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Oldsmobile_Mike on May 03, 2013, 04:59:29 PM
All of the computers I set up at my office have between 2-4 monitors.  I wonder if I could use WinUAE on one of these and have a 3840x2400 Workbench, or 3240x1920, or 5760x1080?  :D

Personally I always liked that Workbench could scroll out to 16384x16384, but I wonder how much chip ram that would eat up?  LOL.  :)
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: direktorn on May 03, 2013, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: Oldsmobile_Mike;733630
All of the computers I set up at my office have between 2-4 monitors. I wonder if I could use WinUAE on one of these and have a 3840x2400 Workbench, or 3240x1920, or 5760x1080? :D
 
Personally I always liked that Workbench could scroll out to 16384x16384, but I wonder how much chip ram that would eat up? LOL. :)

I'm more a one-screen-fits-all guy - My neck hurts if I'd have to move all the time to different screens :)
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Thorham on May 03, 2013, 07:55:00 PM
Quote from: Oldsmobile_Mike;733630
Personally I always liked that Workbench could scroll out to 16384x16384, but I wonder how much chip ram that would eat up?  LOL.  :)

For a two color screen that would amount to 32 megabytes :D
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: direktorn on May 03, 2013, 11:01:08 PM
Quote from: Thorham;733647
For a two color screen that would amount to 32 megabytes :D

Luckely GFX screens don't consume Chipmen..
Title: Re: 2560x1200 WB
Post by: Thorham on May 03, 2013, 11:19:15 PM
Quote from: direktorn;733674
Luckely GFX screens don't consume Chipmen..

They were wondering about the chipmem usage :p