Sorry, but what does size optimization have to do with speed? That misconception takes away any relevance your argument might have had. Mind you, though, most of the games I play update the screen well faster than the monitor is able to. The reason that there might be some slowdown is that there is generally a lot more going on behind Far Cry 2 than Lotus III. And why would anyone link MFC to a "simple" Hello World?
...
Do you bother to read the posts that you reply to? Looks like not in this case. I stated not many people optimize programs (which is a fact): "Although PC horsepower allows it do 30fs/60fps, not many people spend the time to optimize and make their code/videos efficient since so much memory/hard drive storage is available. I just saw a "hello world" example on modern OSes give an executable output of 1 MB since it was linked and tied to some multi-function crap (MFC)."
I just compiled a hello world program and it was 1 MB; doesn't mean all compilers do that or you can't change the settings and eliminate the MFC. As far as your blunder that size has no relation to speed, ever check MPEG videos. If they were uncompressed, it would affect the speed. I am surprised to hear this argument from a PC enthusiast since PC memory speed is slower than processor speed so dealing with compressed animations and decompressing them with a fast algorithm would be preferred over uncompressed animations.
>Regarding "running animations from a floppy disk"... The PC too has a demo scene, and some of the best programmers cram down pretty damn impressive (real-time) animations with sound and music in less than 1k. Pretty hard to imagine happening on the Amiga, no?
I'll guarantee that it won't work with nonstandard hardware on everyone's PCs.
>The A1200 was pretty weak compared to contemporary PC's which had already done fluid 256 color graphics and 16 bit multi-channel sound for some time (even an 8 channel 16-bit stereo consumer sound card had popped up a few months before).
You seemed to missed some posts in this thread (or ignored them). Just because some 8-channel 16-bit card is available does NOT mean that everyone has it or that you can utilize it in comparing Amiga with PC. With new hardware add-ons, any computer can do anything. Talk about hardware that's available to most homes and compare with that-- then you can write some application and know that it will work on 99% of PCs out there.
>Really? And no, doing it wouldn't have much of an impact on performance on a multi GHz multi-core processor either way, but it would certainly be a waste of cycles to sample it that often.
Bullcrap. You have NO understanding of the gameport nor I/O timing on PCs. I/O is much much slower than even memory. I suggest you try to time the gameport yourself. And no, gameport is NOT obsolete because Vista doesn't have a driver for it. It exists out there in millions of homes. It was on the PCI surround sound Mag Dog Audio board I purchased a couple of years ago. It's NOT a waste of cycles to sample at 1Khz or above. I wrote a joystick recorder program and the time between changes of direction/firing goes to less than 1 ms in some cases for games like River-raid and others. I can say sampling audio at 44Khz is a WASTE of space, but it's required to capture all possible audible frequencies. Similarly, sampling joystick at 60Hz is NOT good enough.
>If we are going to look at it like a general purpose I/O port (and yes,
I've done that too.) why not compare it to USB 3.0? Let's just say that it's in a different league when it comes to high precision timing.
Are you like confused? USB 3.0 has NOTHING to do with high precision timing. USB 3.0 is a specification; it's not out there in any joysticks. Show me a joystick that uses USB 2.0! Once again comparing Amiga with nonexistent products or products that hardly anyone has. Get real.
