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)."
So how are these people who don't optimize their code a fault of the system design?
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.
Congratulations. How did this ever pass off as a valid argument when you wrote it down? I can make you a 1 GB hello world example to compile, that's how much PC:s suck!
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.
That's totally besides the point. Weren't we discussing
program size in relation to speed? Because MPEG files are not programs, and a smaller program doesn't mean a faster program.
I'll guarantee that it won't work with nonstandard hardware on everyone's PCs.
That's true for most 1k intros (which are often tightly tied to the features of a specific GPU), but I have some great looking 256 byte intros (that often use standard VGA software rendering) and 64k (which work on most graphics cards) that run on anything I throw them at. Now show me a demo that runs on any "standard" amiga without modification i e WHDLoad.
By the way, do you know there is no extreme "small coding" (i e < 256 bytes) scene for the Amiga? There is too much overhead to set the chip set up to do something interesting without using non-standard APIs.
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.
If you want to look at it that way, you can't even compare the two different systems. I would argue that this design difference (monolithic vs. modular) is one of the factors of the death of the Amiga. But I can tell you that pretty much every multimedia home PC had a SB16 compatible sound card for pretty much a decade after it was released.
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.
Oh, the game port. I can't try it because I don't know anyone with a gameport joy-pad. I have a gameport on some of my sound cards though, which I sometimes use for MIDI which works fine and dandy with no noticable jitter or delay at 31.25 kbits/second (although I understand that these are two separate interfaces).
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.
Show me a game that samples the joystick at 1000Hz. I can imagine some bullet hell shoot'em'up would need pretty high sample rates, but I don't think you'll ever see anything going up that high. It is DEFINITELY not common to sample at more than 300Hz, so the test case is hardly a practical one. Your fingers and eyes are not as sensitive to high frequency information as your ears.
But yeah, go ahead, show me a game that uses and benefits from that high joystick sampling. Most Amiga games, I'm sure, don't sample more than a couple of times per redraw.
Are you like confused? USB 3.0 has NOTHING to do with high precision timing.
Confused? That makes two of us, then. Yes, you do need pretty tight timing to transfer data at 5 GB/s, and the latency is lower than ever with USB (not that latency was ever an inherent problem with USB pads and sticks).
USB 3.0 is a specification; it's not out there in any joysticks. Show me a joystick that uses USB 2.0!
Joystick ports can also be used for general purpose parallel I/O
If we are going to look at it like a general purpose I/O port
general purpose I/O port
I/O port
...
Once again comparing Amiga with nonexistent products or products that hardly anyone has.
Say what you want (or you could compare to USB 2 instead), but I'll bet that in a couple of years there will be more users of USB 3.0 enabled PC:s than there were ever Amiga users.
Get real.
Haha.
