Amiga's place in the modern computing world - 00s

[bloodline]

amigaksi wrote:
>By luck, not by design...

There's no such thing as luck as you already tried to use logic to explain it.

>It's totally different. Why would you use two USB lines?!?!? Simple slect USB-Highspeed if you need the bandwidth... or preferably use Firewire...

I hooked up the USB myself to my PC and there are four data lines so all I stated was someone could have incorporated that within the joystick port and maintained compatibility.

Actually 2 data lines... each line is a twisted pair + and -, this elmiates noise in the signal of the link.

The 2 data lines are :1 up stream and 1 down stream... it's a full duplex interface.

You really don't actually know anything of modern systems do you?!?!?

>We are talking about the 21st century!!! The topic of this thread!

Yeah, so am I.  One MOVE.B, (IN AL,DX), LDA is faster than multiple of them.  And if the joystick port was updated to PCI bus, it would run faster than USB even at the hardware level avoiding all bloated APIs.

So why are we not using your system, and instead using the horrible bloated USB?

Honestly, USB may seem bloated, but it offers so much more, it's worth it.

[bloodline]

amigaksi wrote:
>Name me one modern interface that is parallel? I have a long list of interfaces... your turn now.

All my PCs use parallel transfers from CPU to RAM, level 1 cache to the CPU, PCI bus to RAM, etc.  My own project of floppy simulation REQUIRES parallel signals being modified in real-time.

Ok, over distances of 1um a Parallel bus make sense... you stated the DB9 connector, I don't see chip designs rushing to integrate DB9 connectors on their latest CPUs...

Ok, you have conceded that I'm right and are now just deflecting... at least I can remember what you said to start this discussion... and boy am I drunk now :-D

>I don't speculate, I trust testable research. Are you 12 years old?

I am going to PROVE that you are speculating and misleading others who believe you.  I am not stating the research is wrong but YOUR understanding of the research is wrong because perhaps you have not yourself actually done it.  see below.

>My iPhone is LCD based yet in the summer light the display is as clear as a peice of coloured paper... amazing to see actually!

Again switching between PC, Mac, and now iPhone.  We are comparing your PC w/LCD w/quad core or 1000-core to an Amiga.  All the LCDs I have tried in the outdoors give a poorer picture than a TV.

Well you talked about LCD devices... so I mentioned one that I have that works really well on an English summer day... My MacBook Pro is perfectly visible in broad day light too, but my iPhone looks the best, as it is the newest LCD I own...

>>    Before I waste time writing you code that uses 3.57Mhz timing accuracy, are you claiming that the PC timer is more accurate than the Amiga timer? (just yes or no).

>Yes. Simple really.

Okay, I will PROVE you are wrong here as I already have done in another thread.  I will post the code-- which do you prefer 6502 (Atari) or 68000 (Amiga)?  Whichever is easier for you to understand.

I honestly don't care... the it's an irrelevant issue... I can do stuff in realtime on my MacBook Pro that I can only dream of on my Amiga... so what the F**K does it matter?

[bloodline]

amigaksi wrote:

>Actually 2 data lines... each line is a twisted pair + and -, this elmiates noise in the signal of the link.

No 4 data lines.  There are two usb ports that I hooked up from a set of PINS on my motherboard to the front.

That is not what you said. you said that a USB port has 4 pins. That is true, but they are not simply 4 parallel data lines, they have very specific functions... don't start changing your argument mid discussion.

>You really don't actually know anything of modern systems do you?!?!?

Keep your speculations to yourself.  If you read anything I wrote in this thread, you would not ask.

You have consistently demonstrated a lack on understanding, I have had to explain very elementary hardware topics with you... I  now understand your limited knowledge.

>So why are we not using your system, and instead using the horrible bloated USB?

Because of lack of hardware standard.

No, it's because of physics. Please understand that you can't defy the laws of physics...

[bloodline]

amigaksi wrote:
>The 'modern' PC is a piece of junk. It's designed to be (partially) backwards compatible with systems that no one in their right mind would _ever_ want to actually use. Of course, the PC architecture has changed significantly from the days of AT PCs, probably to the point where very little code from that era would actually run on a brand-new PC.

I think backward compatibility is a good thing, but they can definitely keep the backward compatibility and improve other aspects like hardware standards.  

Perhaps, but it can limit the development of a platform... see how long the A500 remained "current"...

Due to lack of hardware standards, people resort to programming at the API level which definitely slows down the software and then again how many people nowadays actually learn to program at the system level or even know the system they are programming.  

Really...? So the Macintosh platform which demanded the use of system APIs is still here and the Amiga which permitted the use to Hardware hitting, is now dead... it's clear which was the best idea.

Even the USB issue being discussed would be better if there was a hardware standard for it rather than using device drivers.

There is a USB Hardware standard it's called EHCI please read up on these topic BEFORE you post... It's your statements like this that make me realise you don't understand the modern world at all.

[bloodline]

amigaksi wrote:
>Ok, over distances of 1um a Parallel bus make sense... you stated the DB9 connector, I don't see chip designs rushing to integrate DB9 connectors on their latest CPUs...

It was regarding integrating USB into the DB9 and simulating a dual USB port as well as using 4 digital lines for joysticks not on the cpu level.  That above was an answer to your erroneous claim that parallel interfaces are no longer being used.

Two serial interfaces are not the same as a single parallel interface... their mode of operation is very different. Don't be an idiot!!

>Well you talked about LCD devices... so I mentioned one that I have that works really well on an English summer day... My MacBook Pro is perfectly visible in broad day light too, but my iPhone looks the best, as it is the newest LCD I own...

Read the specs of 19" LCDs and TVs and see the differences for yourself.

I'm well aware of LCD deficiencies, but their advantages put them far ahead of CRTs... my iPhone LCD shows that.

>I honestly don't care... the it's an irrelevant issue... I can do stuff in realtime on my MacBook Pro that I can only dream of on my Amiga... so what the F**K does it matter?

Now all of a sudden it's irrelevant!  Every software written that utilizes the higher accurate timing will NOT work on your PC.

Go on then, what software won't run on my Mac or my PC...?

[bloodline]

amigaksi wrote:
>That is not what you said. you said that a USB port has 4 pins. That is true, but they are not simply 4 parallel data lines, they have very specific functions... don't start changing your argument mid discussion.

Here I'll quote myself (you can go back and re-read it yourself since I have not edited any of my posts):

"Look, even the USB ports are usually in pairs so you have 4 data lines so if you update the joystick port so that the 4 parallel lines can serve both purposes serial and parallel, it's a superior technology AND backward compatible."

Ok, this argument just got circular... you are refusing to acknowledge what I am trying to tell you... I'll let Alexh or persia or someone else with extensive hardware knowledge explain it to you they might have better luck than me.

No one is using parallel interfaces any more, physics doesn't allow them to run fast enough.

I just PROVED that what people write and what you understand are two different things.

>>Because of lack of hardware standard.

>No, it's because of physics. Please understand that you can't defy the laws of physics...

I am not.  Hardware standards are faster ways to access devices than software APIs.  

EHCI The software ensure that the hardware is future compatible and used to the best possible advantages.

[bloodline]

amigaksi wrote:
Okay, I'll wait for their reply since I don't see why you can't have a dual-USB/joystick port.

maybe they will have better luck

>The software ensure that the hardware is future compatible and used to the best possible advantages.

If the hardware was standardized, you don't need an intermediary layer so the best possible useage of hardware occurs then.

Because the hardware can be changed and improved and any program that used the software API will still work... But any program that hit the hardware won't work because the hardware has changed... This really is elementary stuff...  :-?

[bloodline]

amigaksi wrote:
>>If the hardware was standardized, you don't need an intermediary layer so the best possible useage of hardware occurs then.

>Because the hardware can be changed and improved and any program that used the software API will still work... But any program that hit the hardware won't work because the hardware has changed... This really is elementary stuff...

"If the HARDWARE WAS STANDARDIZED..."  Example, A000:0000 to access the VGA memory has been a long time hardware standard.  I can write to A000:0000 using an ISA VGA card and PCI VGA card, the PCI version just works faster but the hardware standard remained.

VGA is nothing more than a fall back (everything else has failed) mode now... Would you seriously write a program that hit VGA mode now? No, you you use DirectX or OpenGL which would talk to the gfx card drivers and use the hardware featuress of that card as best it can... And by using Dx3D or OpenGL you don't need to worry if the user has a ATI or NVidia gfx card... Both totally different hardware but both work perfectly under the high level APIs... I can't believe we are having this argument in 2008...

[bloodline]

SamOS39 wrote:
I use my A1200 for making minimalist electronica and midi sequencing :-)

I like to use my Amigas for crunchy 8bit sampling and building loops in OctaMED (less so now, I tend to use Logic . I have run OctaMED in UAE quite a bit, again for building loops and a bit of bitcrushing...


I don't really use MIDI anymore most of my external hardware uses USB or FireWire... I have a small M-Box USB<->MIDI convertor for my really old stuff. :-)

[bloodline]

uncharted wrote:

bloodline wrote:


His younger brother, with a low paid job... a wife and two kids, living on a council estate... struggling to make ends meet, and surviving on benefits :-D

I have to disagree.  I'd argue that AROS is a Chav.  

Never worked a day in his life, will never make anything of himself.  Brought into the world with much potential, but ultimately f**ked up by his parents.  Thinks he's gods gift to everyone, and barks on about every insignificant non-achievement.  Tries to make up for the fact that he's driving a sh**ty Vauxhall Nova by tarting it up with a cheap plastic body kit - but it still doesn't go.  

He has a girlfriend, but only because she can't do any better - her last boyfriend is now a dumpster diving old man. ;-)  He treats her like s**t, never listening to her or trying to fulfil her needs, he knows she has no alternative.  

Question him and his lack of progress in the world, or suggest that he could do better and you'll only get abuse, especially from his parents.  If they'd spent more time raising him right rather than slagging off other people (in particular the old man's younger brother) he might have been a winner.

Man, this computer-person analogy stuff if fun :-)

I don't think this chav complains so much, but all else is pretty good :-)

[bloodline]

uncharted wrote:

persia wrote:
The Amiga - it's

Hmmmn, Burberry A1200 case mod anyone?

:lol: that's a trick missed by A Inc.  My god! A Burberry Amiga would have sold by the billion!!!! :-D

[bloodline]

amigaksi wrote:
>by kolla on 2008/6/9 23:24:10
>
>@amigaksi
>
>What the heck is wrong with you?!

Some guy on an Amiga forum

I guess that would be me :-?

is insulting the Amiga (and myself)

Once I figured you out, I was happy to insult you. I never insulted the Amiga, it is after all my platform... I don't however, have an delusions as to what the Amiga is in the modern computing world -00s

Do you even use the Amiga any more, I mean professionally? I do...

with misinformation and there's something wrong with me if I speak out against him with FACTS?  

I spoke the truth, you were essentially speaking gibberish...

Perhaps, you want to answer as to what exactly you are denying: (1) digital joystick is superior to a USB-based one and USB can be implemented within a joystick port,

You think technology from the early 80's is superior to USB... doesn't that alarm you that something is wrong in your brain?

(2) overscan area inherent to NTSC is not accessible via standard graphics cards or APIs,

Overscan is a totally alien concept in the modern world... meaningless!!! Why keep bringing it up? Perhaps we should be talking about the superiority of the Steam engine over the internal combustion engine?

(3) timers are more accurate on Amiga than on PC.

Given the fact that my PC or Mac have clocks that run at billions of Hz... means they can be far more accurate than a machine that only has a clock of 28MHz at it's fastest... And given that the CPU c]doesn't run that fast means it can't respond to anything at that frequency...

Perhaps, you are denying that API calls are less efficient to use than directly accessing standardized hardware.  

The advantage of Standardised API calls over hitting the Hardware is well proven... the downfall of the Amiga was caused in part by devs hitting the hardware.

Even USB has multiple standards and even if there was only one hardware standard, you still have to go through the API since modern OSes won't allow you to access them directly anyways.

No, EHCI is the standard USB2.0 hardware interface. An OS uses APIs to ensure the best use of the Hardware and allow future compatibility... this is a proven concept... Hitting the hardware means that the Hardware is fixed function forever...

 And even if you can access them directly, you need more instructions to read a joystick than with a digital joystick.  Or are you denying the fact the industries don't always use the latest technologies-- heck, even an Atari 800 with an LDA 54016 instruction is faster than reading a gameport which was developed years later.

-Edit- go on then... run a low latency 24bit Sound card from an Atari 800 joyport... eh? not possible? Ok... how about a mass storage device bulk transfer at 20MB/s?

Oh, one more thing, if you are going to reply leave out cursing me out or cursing the amiga out claiming I don't know modern hardware as these don't constitute rational arguments in the college that I come from.

But after pages and pages of rational posts from myself... I can only conclude you are either 12 years old or retarded, heaven forbid... both...

[bloodline]

amigaksi wrote:
As I said insults don't constitute arguments.  Everything I stated was a FACT; if you can't understand, it's your problem or lack of education.

You ignore rational discourse... and thinking up insults for you is more fun :-)

My Education has never been in question, as pretty much anyone on this forum could probably attest to... though I'm not great at German :-( and this annoys me...

I guess one point I can TRY again to see if you can understand:

>The advantage of Standardised API calls over hitting the Hardware is well proven... the downfall of the Amiga was caused in part by devs hitting the hardware.

USB has multiple standards-- the most recent may be 2.0.  

Err... yes, the hardware gets better... but luckily no apps hit the USB hardware interface and so work perfectly regardless of the hardware revision... score one to the software API...

Previously compaq and others had their own.  

Yeah, go on look up OHCI and UHCI... but it didn't matter that USB1.0 had different hardware standards, the common software interface meant apps didn't have to know what interface was in use... Score two to the  software API...

If your hardware is standardized, you can access the hardware directly since the ports/Mem locations will remain the same in the future so you avoid the overhead of APIs.

As soon as you expose the hardware... it is stuck in time, you can never make it better without breaking all the existing software...

 That is the optimal way to use the hardware.  

No it isn't... its the sure fire way of tying your App to one specific hardware revision... all bugs in that revision have to be carried into future revisions... Score three to the Software API...

You avoid overhead, and you know EXACTLY how many instructions you used for real-time analsys.

Who gives a crap... my nice modern CPu can execute billions of instructions every second... in fact, the device I want to access is probably a million times slower than my CPU... if I had to sit there waiting for the device I'd be wasting CPU cycles.... I'll let the OS worry about handling all that and just pull the data stream as I want it.

 I already gave you example of VGA.  You can still access 1024*768*32 in DOS with A000:0000 only thing that became nonstandard was the VGA Video window port.

You have exposed your ignorance... that Screen mode would be a VESA mode... not VGA... again... you would only use VGA or even VESA if you don't want any hardware acceleration... Remember the mess the PC was in in the days of DOS before standardised software APIs of Windows95... without them the PC would have gone the way of the Amiga....

[bloodline]

B00tDisk wrote:

pkillo wrote:

So, adding up the viable operating systems, there's UNIX, and Windows.

And yet the choices you arbitrarily rule out still do as much as if not more than the Amiga.  Just off the top of my head, I can tell you straight up they all sport better web-browsers than the best ones for the Amiga.

Just off the top of my head I can run Netscape Navigator on a stone age 68k Mac... that's better than the Amiga.. sadly... :-(

[bloodline]

Raffaele wrote:

Sig999 wrote:

Ah... so when you say 20 years - you really meant 12 years?

What part of: "Classic Amiga Hardware has 20 years and even latest acclerator card made for Amiga are 12 years old!" you do not understood?  :roll:

Yes, but as soon as you add that 12 year old Accelerator card and that 10 year old PCI bus board and that 8 year old PCI-GFX card and that 9 year old PCI-SoundCard and that 5 year old PCI-USB card... the machine you are talking about is not 20 years old anymore...

[bloodline]

Raffaele wrote:

bloodline wrote:

Just off the top of my head I can run Netscape Navigator on a stone age 68k Mac... that's better than the Amiga.. sadly... :-(

Now your statements are a bit gratuitous...

Are they?

Sure you used Macintosh Machines, and it is obvious that in the age of 68K machines these Mac machines were far more expensive than any Amiga, but have also many, many RAM onboard as standard feature that let them run Netscape Navigator far better than any Amiga could run its browsers...

The cost of the machine wasn't part of your statement... But you could buy a highend Amiga with similar specs to a Mac for around the same price, at that time.

In that Age, Amiga abandoned its first browser, Amiga Mosaic, that was enhanced far more than original Mosaic, and switched to programs like Ibrowse, AWeb, Voyager, that were still BETA software full of bugs...

Does this paragraph support or weaken your argument? I appreaciate English may not be your first language, and I'm having difficulty understanding.

Also Netscape Navigator was supported with a robust team of developers, while Amiga browsers were maintaned by little teams.

And...? That was never in question, you asked "what 20 year old machine would be more productive than an Amiga"... we have given examples.

To make you an example

I have all issues of italian magazine "Enigma Amiga"...

In these historical issues of this magazine (upto 1994/1996 there are well explained how to install Macintosh emulator on Amiga, go on Apple stores and buy the original MacOS, and then install it on the emulated Macintosh, because Office for Mac and Internet browsers for Mac were better than Amiga counterparts...

So 20 years ago the Mac had better software than the Amiga had 20 years ago... fine...

But it is still true that Amiga with enough RAM and decent CPUs could emulate the Mac, better than any real Macintosh Hardware and make these browsers run far better than real Mac.

No they couldn't... the Amiga display hardware was awful at running Mac Apps, most of them expected 16bit displays... and if I ran my Amiga with 256 colours the SErial port couldn't handle the speed of a 33Kbps modem... or even 14.4Kbps for that matter... all the Bus time was used up by the display...

Again then when Amiga browsers evolved, then they surpassed Netscape Navigator in many camps...

No, the last Nascape that runs on a 68k Mac is still better tan any Amiga browser I have on my Amigas...

All over the internet there are testimoniances of people that could affirm that Voyager on Amiga, with enough RAM and a decent processor, it is a very pleasant and unsurpassed experience, more satisfying than any other browser on any platform...

Unfortunately Voyager development was stopped and it could manage only HTML 3.2 without CSS...

I have Voyager 3... it was pretty good, nothing compared with Netscape though...

Also Netscape Navigator is officially dead...

So is the Amiga...

So we could not see any actual match of performances involving these two browsers in a leal competition.

now or 12 years ago when both were in developement?