PC still playing Amiga catchup

[Jpan1]

I think the whole idea of speed is completely relative, to the user...
In my opinion drawing a simple picture is as fast on Dpaint as it is on any modern graphics package, in fact maybe faster on an Amiga because there were less complicated options and less pixels to push around!
The 'feel' of Amiga was definately faster because the programmes were smaller and much more 'economical' and out of the box, ready to use. There are a lot of labour saving devices on the PC but the more complicated and convoluted it gets the less attractive it is to work with. The modern PC is great at processing vast amounts of information but does that make it more enjoyable? hmmm Amiga wins for simplicity and user friendliness

[Jpan1]

I think the whole idea of speed is completely relative, to the user...
In my opinion drawing a simple picture is as fast on Dpaint as it is on any modern graphics package, in fact maybe faster on an Amiga because there were less complicated options and less pixels to push around!
The 'feel' of Amiga was definately faster because the programmes were smaller and much more 'economical' and out of the box, ready to use. There are a lot of labour saving devices on the PC but the more complicated and convoluted it gets the less attractive it is to work with. The modern PC is great at processing vast amounts of information but does that make it more enjoyable? hmmm Amiga wins for simplicity and user friendliness

[Arkhan]

I think the whole idea of speed is completely relative, to the user...
In my opinion drawing a simple picture is as fast on Dpaint as it is on any modern graphics package, in fact maybe faster on an Amiga because there were less complicated options and less pixels to push around!
The 'feel' of Amiga was definately faster because the programmes were smaller and much more 'economical' and out of the box, ready to use. There are a lot of labour saving devices on the PC but the more complicated and convoluted it gets the less attractive it is to work with. The modern PC is great at processing vast amounts of information but does that make it more enjoyable? hmmm Amiga wins for simplicity and user friendliness

I agree with that.  I can't do photoshop.  I feel like im drowning in all the crap on screen.   I use Neo-Paint which is some kind of derivative of PC Paintbrush era DOS paint programs.  It has a streamlined feel like all the old DOS/Amiga paint programs.


i still blow at art, but thats a different story :laughing:

[amigaksi]

In Windows NT, there are only two I/O privilege levels used i.e. level 0 & level 3. Usermode programs runs in privilege level 3. All usermode programs should talk to a device driver that arbitrates access i.e. to minimise conflicts.

...

Yeah, that's the rule.  But if the at ring0 you had standardized hardware, you can write more efficient code.

>Define this "big problem nowadays." in terms of numbers.  One could write a kernel mode driver for I/O level 0 access. Most PC games talks to DirectInput or xInput APIs i.e. userland programmers do not have worry about specific implementations i.e. makes development easier.  

If those implementations were standardized like 8253 example I gave or even VGA standard modes, you can have more efficient code.  On Amiga, writing to OCS registers works for all OCS/ECS/AGA amigas.

>...IF you notice with PC GPU(a type of stream co-processor array) market, they annually change their micro-architecture i.e. they went from SIMD(Geforce 4 TI), VLIW (Geforce FX), SIMD (Geforce 6/7),  SIMT(Geforce , MIMT**(Geforce GT300). “Hitting the metal”  requires userland software rewrites.

Hitting the metal can be done and product enhanced.  I still use same I/O ports and memory address of A000:0000 for VGA access on ISA-based VGA cards, VESA-based VGA cards, PCI-based VGA cards, and AGA-based VGA cards.  So they improved the video cards and yet maintained backward compatibility at hardware level.

>The Xbox 360 controller assumes lack of PC keyboard access. Note that, the mouse is one form of analogue control.

But mouse is usually read as digital data so it's more exact than reading an analog value which tends to fluctuate between various values.

>In real world controls, analogue controls reigns supreme.

I wasn't speaking from marketing point of view-- but one of ease of use and learning in a majority of games.

[amigaksi]

Come on, you need more than one button for some games, no amount of programming can make that easier. I don't like the other extreme - the PS1/2/3 controller still annoys me due to the number of buttons. Best controller I've used so far? The Gamecube. Just the right number of buttons, a nice big "Go" button under your thumb, and analogue shoulder buttons that can also be used digitally. But come on, 3 buttons is probably a bare minimum for a lot of games these days to avoid reaching for the keyboard from time to time. I remember hating the Amiga version of Street Fighter compared to the SNES because of the lack of buttons. Less than three might make it easier to play, but imposes tough limits on the flexibility of the game. Hell, I remember Spy Hunter on the Atari 800 had support for a special 2-button joystick (was actually wired as a second joystick's fire button), so you could use 2 different weapons and drive at the same time. It was great!!

You can get away with a couple of buttons by separating the game selection/starting to be separate from the joystick.  Atari 800 had the console keys separate from the joystick button.  Atari 7800 had the two button joysticks.  They would also work on Amiga.

[amigaksi]

let me come at this from a different perspective.

how many chipsets are there currently?

...

I know current video/audio boards are NOT backward compatible on hardware level (except basic VGA graphics).  But that trend is with modern systems.  Older PCs did have hardware level compatibility like Amigas.

>you see the original amiga and aga amiga had the advantage of being the same hardware regardless of machine so people were able to get away with banging the hardware while programming. this also stiffled what commodore could have done with their chipsets since they had to maintain hardware backwards compatibility. this is why commodore was trying to move people away from doing that.

Don't see why it would "stifle" things.  Hardware compatibility is a good thing; API-level compatibility is not as good-- slower and harder to compute response time overall.

[Daedalus]

You can get away with a couple of buttons by separating the game selection/starting to be separate from the joystick.  Atari 800 had the console keys separate from the joystick button.  Atari 7800 had the two button joysticks.  They would also work on Amiga.

Yeah, I understand that, but what about using 3 different weapons for example? Or a driving game with more than just accelerate/brake? Or even Street Fighter? High punch, middle punch, low punch. An awful pain if you have to combine a button with a joystick movement to choose a different attack. And it rules out attacks while jumping, crouching etc. Yes, 10 buttons is making things overly complicated, but so is limiting yourself to 3 or less. Of course start/pause/reset can be moved away, but sure you don't need more than that anyway - game select screens shouldn't need more than direction and one button.

[the_leander]

Yeah, that's the rule.  But if the at ring0 you had standardized hardware, you can write more efficient code.

No, what you would have is a problem for 2 or three years down the road building up. The thing that killed the amiga was the fact that it could not keep up.

Anyone writing software tied to specific hardware in this day and age would be fired on the spot in any large software firm. And with good reason.

If those implementations were standardized like 8253 example I gave or even VGA standard modes, you can have more efficient code.  On Amiga, writing to OCS registers works for all OCS/ECS/AGA amigas.

Do you have even the slightest concept of how much things have advanced in the last twenty years in terms of audio and video? You have API's there to abstract these changes and to be fair, DirectX is a pretty damn efficient way of doing things. It's unlikely that you could learn the hardware of a modern GPU these days well enough to improve over what is already available in a reasonable timeframe. To be clear, even mid range GPUs are more complex then every chip on any Amiga ever created in their totality.

Hitting the metal can be done and product enhanced.  I still use same I/O ports and memory address of A000:0000 for VGA access on ISA-based VGA cards, VESA-based VGA cards, PCI-based VGA cards, and AGA-based VGA cards.  So they improved the video cards and yet maintained backward compatibility at hardware level.

LULWUT?! You're comparing 2d VESA to a modern capable 3D GPU? ROTFLMAO!!!

Hitting the metal, given the complexity of modern systems isn't just retarded, it is a complete waste of resources.

Come back when you get a clue.

I wasn't speaking from marketing point of view-- but one of ease of use and learning in a majority of games.

Err, Microsofts tools are among the best on any platform bar none. You want to learn how to produce modern games, you use their tools. It's actually one of the few things they really did get right.

[amigaksi]

Yeah, I understand that, but what about using 3 different weapons for example? Or a driving game with more than just accelerate/brake? Or even Street Fighter? High punch, middle punch, low punch. An awful pain if you have to combine a button with a joystick movement to choose a different attack. And it rules out attacks while jumping, crouching etc. Yes, 10 buttons is making things overly complicated, but so is limiting yourself to 3 or less. Of course start/pause/reset can be moved away, but sure you don't need more than that anyway - game select screens shouldn't need more than direction and one button.

I guess example of data compression is appropriate here.  If you take majority of games, and take down how many buttons are a must to play, you will end up with a series of number with some maximum and minimum (0 for pacman, 2 for defender, 176 for Flight simulator, etc.).  Now rather than carry lg(MaxButtons-1) bits, you simply use the lg(majority of cases for buttons-1) and have special codes/cases for those exceptions.  So for example, Atari 800 games generally only need one button so in case of Defender they used the Space bar for Smart Bomb and some other key for hyperspace.  That makes it simple for the user to figure out and not need a manual everytime he puts some game in.  Nowadays, you switch games and you have to remember which button did what in addition to making learning curve bigger for each game and less responsive due to bigger choice of options for buttons.

[alexatkin]

It entirely depends on the game.

For example, I can pick up and play almost all racing games without having to learn the buttons.

The games I have a real problem with are RPGs like Fable 2, Oblivion and Fallout 3.  That said, those games would totally suck without all those buttons as you would spend too much time navigating the menu system.  Plus, those games are very much designed for you to play frequently and obsessively, so that you wont forget the controls.  If you can't get into those games due to the controls, then you have far more serious issues and those games are not for you.

Its true, I forgot what on earth I was doing on Oblivion because I left it too long since I last played.  Its also true however, that the controls are the least of my problems there, its the actual missions and what I did last that are bigger problems.  Even a complex control scheme you should be able to pickup after a few minutes.

Basically, you can't say modern gaming sucks simply because the games have more depth/detail and so require more controls.  I have more Xbox 360 games on my shelf that I love than I ever did on Amiga.  Granted partly because I was so young and had no money back then, but also partly because games are so much more fun.  

I, unlike some people, hate games which are so hard you only do a few levels then die and have to start again.  I used to get very bored with those games and while it means games are easier, I get a lot more enjoyment out of them which is the most important thing at the end of the day.

[ElPolloDiabl]

I'm not a fan of console controls either. A keyboard has the right blend of complexity/familiarity/simplicity.
With a console I feel like a mage trying to meld a wild magic surge... It doesn't feel right, not for me.
I grew up with a keyboard/joystick interface.
A mouse interface is very intuitive like the steering wheel in a car.

[jkirk]

Don't see why it would "stifle" things.  Hardware compatibility is a good thing; API-level compatibility is not as good-- slower and harder to compute response time overall.

if you find one method inefficient in the current system you can change the system to be more efficient then create a driver to interface with the api. if we maintained hardware compatibility you would have to either create both chips on one die or use the existing inefficient method. both are bad since putting both on one chip would be expensive. and using the inefficient method will prevent optimization to improve performance.

[amigaksi]

No, what you would have is a problem for 2 or three years down the road building up. The thing that killed the amiga was the fact that it could not keep up.
...

I already answered this.  VGA went through an evolution where it kept backward compatibility at the hardware level.

>Anyone writing software tied to specific hardware in this day and age would be fired on the spot in any large software firm. And with good reason.

Might does not make right.  So big companies are following some API standard that does not mean it's the most efficient method.

>Do you have even the slightest concept of how much things have advanced in the last twenty years in terms of audio and video? You have API's there to abstract these changes and to be fair, DirectX is a pretty damn efficient way of doing things. It's unlikely that you could learn the hardware of a modern GPU these days well enough to improve over what is already available in a reasonable timeframe. To be clear, even mid range GPUs are more complex then every chip on any Amiga ever created in their totality.

Take any software using those APIs, and I can write a more efficient software going directly to the hardware.

>LULWUT?! You're comparing 2d VESA to a modern capable 3D GPU? ROTFLMAO!!!

You just don't understand the point.

>Hitting the metal, given the complexity of modern systems isn't just retarded, it is a complete waste of resources.

It's the same resources you use as with API.

>Come back when you get a clue.

You have no clue that it's better to have hardware level compatibility as well as APIs.

>Err, Microsofts tools are among the best on any platform bar none. You want to learn how to produce modern games, you use their tools. It's actually one of the few things they really did get right.

I prefer the simpler digital joysticks over analog joysticks w/various interfaces and 10+ buttons.  As I have experienced and seen many others, people have a harder time dealing with the complexities of extra buttons and analogicity for every game.  Wasn't it Microsoft that implemented a GUI and mouse to make things SIMPLER.  How about a mouse with 10+ buttons.  Actually, I saw one of these and it's terrible trying to even move the mouse around without pressing some button accidently and having something weird happen.

[amigaksi]

if you find one method inefficient in the current system you can change the system to be more efficient then create a driver to interface with the api. if we maintained hardware compatibility you would have to either create both chips on one die or use the existing inefficient method. both are bad since putting both on one chip would be expensive. and using the inefficient method will prevent optimization to improve performance.

They speed up processors and functionality while maintaining compatibility; they sped up VGA and functionality while maintaining compatibility; Creative Labs made all those Sound Blaster cards while maintaining backward compatibility.

[jkirk]

They speed up processors and functionality while maintaining compatibility; they sped up VGA and functionality while maintaining compatibility; Creative Labs made all those Sound Blaster cards while maintaining backward compatibility.

the only reason this is there now is for a generic driver in the bios to display bootup messages. and windows to load a generic driver on initial bootup. this is not backwards compatibility just a basic commandset.

nearly all soundcards use the soundblaster 16(compatible) commands also for a generic driver.  however to get the most out of it you need the driver for the card you are using. all they did was create a subset on the chip for the most basic functionality. so no there is no backward compatibility just SB16 compatibility.

simply you are mistaking backward compatibility to a basic codeset for initial bootup.

in cpu chips the basic x86 codeset is maintained as is the extensions added to improve the performance. the hardware does change tho they have to make allowances for all those commands. they become more complicated and problematic because of this.
see errata(pentium4)

[bloodline]

the only reason this is there now is for a generic driver in the bios to display bootup messages. and windows to load a generic driver on initial bootup. this is not backwards compatibility just a basic commandset.

as for processors the same thing goes as vid cards. there is just enough functionality for bootup processes. this coding has to be standardized to get the system going due to the small size of the bios.

nearly all soundcards use the soundblaster 16(compatible) commands also for a generic driver.  however to get the most out of it you need the driver for the card you are using. all they did was create a subset on the chip for the most basic functionality. so no there is no backward compatibility just SB16 compatibility.

simply you are mistaking backward compatibility to a basic codeset for initial bootup.

More often than not, this backward compatibly that the hardware offers, is actually just an emulation... which links nicely to amigaski's other "ignorance thread"...