PC still playing Amiga catchup

[smerf]

Current CUDA GPUs can enable some DX10.1 features via NVAPI. Best example is FarCry2 PC.

"FarCry 2 reads from a multisampled depth buffer to speed up antialiasing performance. This feature is fully implemented on GeForce GPUs via NVAPI. Radeon GPUs implement an equivalent path via DirectX 10.1. There is no image quality or performance difference between the two implementations."

Hi,

@Hammer,

Know what you mean, I was really ticked at MS when I read about the new 10.1. There was a big billiwac by both nvidia and MS on this. Both companies are still fighting about who was right or wrong on this. All i have to say is that a lot of people spent a lot of money (like I did) for nvidia 8800 graphic cards that were now not up to date because of MS changes in their coding. One of the major things I noticed was when playing fallout 3 in SLI mode, I had to disable SLI while playing fallout 3 because of 10.1 programming errors. SLI worked great using windows aero but tended to crash and cause screen distortions while playing this game. I usually crashed 3 times a night while playing until I learned to disable the SLI mode. I paid a lot of money to get SLI in order to have the faster frame rates, but MS frapped me up there. I HATE MS and their buggy bloated OS that you have to pay money for. By the way I had the same problem playing far cry in SLI, but when I played it on Linux using cedega, it played without any crashes or problems.

smerf

[amigaksi]

You have not yet proven that the Amigas joystick port is capable of actually being able to support anything like that rate.
...

You must have missed some posts.  I can read the joystick on Amiga way faster than 1Khz.  Try it out yourself if you don't accept.

>That is not the same though as what you said originally, is it? In fact it's nothing like what you said originally.

I know what I stated original which you have misconstrued: from post #570: "Amiga has both API and hardware level compatibility-- that's better than relying on some API which may be bugged, you have little information as to what it actually does, and is definitely slower."

>You've said this time and time again. Prove it.

I prove it for myself.  You have to go repeat the experiment and prove it for yourself.  Why haven't you replied to my posts where you were refuted rather than wait a while and restate the same argument again.

>Excuse me? I've said from the beginning that banging the hardware on the modern desktop PC is an exersise in stupidity for many of the reasons given here already.

Because the point is not banging the hardware on modern existing systems where one system's hardware differs from another.  Point is, IF HARDWARE WAS BACKWARD COMPATIBLE, it's better to allow for API access as well as going direct to hardware.  

>...hardware legacy compatability. Do not try to turn this around because you've been called on your BS.

Your misunderstanding is NOT my problem.  The only part of modern hardware that you can do direct access via hardware is the legacy compatible ports and memory map areas.  That's a good thing.  Your the one who is trying to cheat by trying to misconstrue clear cut things.

>No it isn't. Unless you're trying to play some kind of pathetic game of semantics. "Commonly used desktop programs" is quite clear in of itself. But if you want to be a pedant, fine.

I don't care if you call them "common" or not.  They are USEFUL programs that require going directly to the hardware.  And there are thousands of such programs out there that require precise control of hardware and can't rely on vague, inexact API calls.

>That is a given. I note that you still managed to dodge the point again however.

You keep missing the simplest of points-- the joystick is faster to read on Amiga.  How can you possible understand something like real-time events.

>Yes, and how many of those ways can be done without it having a detrimental effect on other processes. Further how can you maintain compatability across the huge differences between computers?

That's not the point.  You only go directly to hardware if it's backward compatible and you know it will work the same on other systems.

[koaftder]

To amigaksi:

Would you agree with the statement, "The smaller the number of instructions to complete a task, the faster that procedure will run" ?

[the_leander]

In general they do fix bugs as versions keep going up and up,

Specifically addressing DirectX, you'll have DX8, for instance. then you'll have bugfixes so that when you run something like dxdiag, you'll end with DX8.000000005 or something. A change from 8 to 9 specifically means a jump in capabilities, for instance shader support.

 

but in one sense you can consider adding more functions a type of flaw as well since that means original was missing things that are now present.

Things being done now probably weren't even a hardware developers wet dream 20 or more years ago! Technology advances, capabilities improve. To try to write it off as flawed because the guy who helped design the XT didn't forsee oneday that graphics processors would become fully programable and that hard drives would be in the Terabyte range is beyond retarded!

You're seriously pulling at straws now. The wise thing to do would be either to retire or concede.

[amigaksi]

DOS TSRs and device drivers(e.g. CD-ROM) also run in real mode. Anyway, my SoundBlaster X-Fi USB2.0 is not SB16 backward compatible in REAL DOS mode.

First of all, my application that I used to test several SB cards does not require any drivers, TSRs, or even COMMAND.COM/BIOS/etc.  It runs by directly going to the hardware I/O ports, DMA channels, IRQ vectors.  I am not saying *ALL* sound blaster cards are backward compatible.  I was giving an example, that it is possible for sound cards to maintain backward compatibility on the hardware level and the bullcrap about it's too complex nowadays is just that-- bullcrap.

[amigaksi]

Specifically addressing DirectX, you'll have DX8, for instance. then you'll have bugfixes so that when you run something like dxdiag, you'll end with DX8.000000005 or something. A change from 8 to 9 specifically means a jump in capabilities, for instance shader support.

 

Things being done now probably weren't even a hardware developers wet dream 20 or more years ago! Technology advances, capabilities improve. To try to write it off as flawed because the guy who helped design the XT didn't forsee oneday that graphics processors would become fully programable and that hard drives would be in the Terabyte range is beyond retarded!

You're seriously pulling at straws now. The wise thing to do would be either to retire or concede.

Your getting too emotionally and can't think straight anymore.  Concede to a point that's irrelevant to my point is retarded for you to come up with.

[amigaksi]

And what sort of "hardware access" stanards do you propose for modern GPU's? You're thinking is so yesteryear with rgards this branch of hardware than you seemingly fail to note that modern graphics hardware has all but completely evolved away from fixed function pipelines into turing complete programmable devices.

Do you, in all honesty, even have the faintest notion how modern graphics hardware works?
...

All I am stating regarding hardware standards is that they base it on I/O ports and memory maps like VGA/EGA/CGA was rather than API calls.  That way, you don't have to rely on any drivers and API calls although those can also be present in a system.

>From the above statement, clearly not. I could program a "pallete change" for my GPU that simultaneously sets every colour register in parallel in a couple of shader clock cycles.

Now you call an API to do that which works on majority of PCs and see how well it performs as compared to Amiga swapping two palette registers or to a standard VGA swapping color registers.  You can't just target your machine since we are talking about making it work in general; that's why I am talking hardware compatibility to begin with.

>However, palette changes are a thing of the past for modern hardware. I haven't used a indexed colour mode for more than a few hours (usually when retgrogaming) in almost 10 years, even on the Amiga.

That's subjective.  But regardless, I was giving example where I/O accesses are better than API calls and Amiga I/O accesses aren't that slow.

[the_leander]

>You've said this time and time again. Prove it.

I prove it for myself.  You have to go repeat the experiment and prove it for yourself.  Why haven't you replied to my posts where you were refuted rather than wait a while and restate the same argument again.

The data was torn to shreds, all you've recorded is signal noise. You have yet to show that the computer can actually react to anything like the numbers you suggest.

>Excuse me? I've said from the beginning that banging the hardware on the modern desktop PC is an exersise in stupidity for many of the reasons given here already.

Because the point is not banging the hardware on modern existing systems where one system's hardware differs from another.  Point is, IF HARDWARE WAS BACKWARD COMPATIBLE, it's better to allow for API access as well as going direct to hardware.  

Ahh, back to your make belief world. Sorry, this is the real world, you've had it explained why your make belief world doesn't work at least a dozen times now.

>...hardware legacy compatability. Do not try to turn this around because you've been called on your BS.

Your misunderstanding is NOT my problem.  The only part of modern hardware that you can do direct access via hardware is the legacy compatible ports and memory map areas.  That's a good thing.  Your the one who is trying to cheat by trying to misconstrue clear cut things.

Cheat nothing. I understand fully what you're saying, what you're saying is demonstratably false at every turn you take in order to justify your position.

>No it isn't. Unless you're trying to play some kind of pathetic game of semantics. "Commonly used desktop programs" is quite clear in of itself. But if you want to be a pedant, fine.

I don't care if you call them "common" or not.  They are USEFUL programs that require going directly to the hardware.

I C WUT U DID THAR!

Dodging the question again eh? Guess that proves that you've no answer.

 And there are thousands of such programs out there that require precise control of hardware and can't rely on vague, inexact API calls.

Yup, and the vast, vast majority of them are found in embedded situations where the hardware would be considered limited even by Spectrum users of the 1980's. You have yet to show (outside of your fairy land) how this would be in any way beneficial to the common desktop user, yet there have been plenty of examples of where it isn't by other commontators.

>That is a given. I note that you still managed to dodge the point again however.

You keep missing the simplest of points-- the joystick is faster to read on Amiga.  How can you possible understand something like real-time events.

You have not proved that the amiga will actually respond at anything like that sort of speed yet.

>Yes, and how many of those ways can be done without it having a detrimental effect on other processes. Further how can you maintain compatability across the huge differences between computers?

That's not the point.

That is precisely the point, it's the point that every other person on this board has been trying (and failing) to get through to you! Your response to the explanation of why your demands for full and complete hardware access has been to create a wonderful makebelief fairy land where hardware doesn't change even a fraction as radically as it has over the past 20 years!

You only go directly to hardware if it's backward compatible and you know it will work the same on other systems.

And since you can't do that, even between different models of the Amiga (which is again why C= stopped providing hardware diagrams of the chips in question and encouraged developers to use API's instead) the supposed performance increase in immediately offset by the fact that your code will have to be modified or at least take into account a great many variables in order to actually be useful to the rest of the world. The time it takes to do that as well as take advantage of the hardwares "full" capability is so great that in the mean time the hardware has moved on and you can do all that and more via an API in the same timeframe.

[smerf]

In general they do fix bugs as versions keep going up and up, but in one sense you can consider adding more functions a type of flaw as well since that means original was missing things that are now present.

Some even divide up the number of the version into some major function change or bug fixes...

Hi,

@amigaski,

Do you ever have any idea what you are talking about, well lets explain it to you in very easy terms

Once upon a time a great computer was developed, it was called an Amiga, it had great features like stereo sound, great graphics, and a new feature called muti tasking meaning that it could run several programs at once due to pre-emptive tasking. This great computer held this domain for about 10 years until the big bad microsoft company developed windows with much support from hardware developers to take over the Amiga kingdom. Now Amiga owned by Commodore didn't have this support because they squandered all the money on such things as the PC-10 and PC-20 instead of improving the King Amiga, when the coffers went dry due to overspending in other areas the Amiga finally succumbed to being bankrupt, a great savior called Gateway said they would help poor king Amiga, but they to gave up because it seemed that microsoft had their hands into everything, it was rumored that microsoft paid Gateway a huge sum to drop development of the new Amiga. Now no one really has proof of this and it is just rumor. Then a new savior emerged, another Mister Bill, but alas all he could do was rewrite games for iphones (not very good ones either). Now during this time the hardware was advancing and the speed of the hardware increased, the graphics cards displayed more colors, and then came up with such things as shaders and math calculations to do such things as display vapors, fogs and dust on the new graphics hardware, poor Amiga was still bragging about faster boot times, and joystick speed ( I threw joystick time in because I know how hard you fought for this Amigaski) so as you can see children the versions of DX weren't really flawed they just imporoved with time, and if the evil microsoft would of told about their improvement in the shaders from version 10.0 to 10.1 then the hardware developers would have used it to improve their hardware.

have a nice day Amigaski, as much as I hate to say this, the old saying that the Amiga can emulate a PC, but can the PC emulate the Amiga is over, done with and no longer valid. The PC can not only emulate a PC, but has actually improved the Amiga through emulation, for now today the Amiga emulator program can use USB, DVD's, and even usb digital camera's, sata drives and most modern day hardware.

Amiga wins by default, because I still like it.
and thats all that counts

smerf

[the_leander]

Your getting too emotionally and can't think straight anymore.  Concede to a point that's irrelevant to my point is retarded for you to come up with.

On the contrary, when you say something as retarded as you did I will respond in kind. You brought it up, you were shot down and tried to squirm out of it any way you could.

And now this... :laughing:

[the_leander]

Hi,

@amigaski,

Do you ever have any idea what you are talking about, well lets explain it to you in very easy terms

Once upon a time a great computer was developed, it was called an Amiga, it had great features like stereo sound, great graphics, and a new feature called muti tasking meaning that it could run several programs at once due to pre-emptive tasking. This great computer held this domain for about 10 years until the big bad microsoft company developed windows with much support from hardware developers to take over the Amiga kingdom. Now Amiga owned by Commodore didn't have this support because they squandered all the money on such things as the PC-10 and PC-20 instead of improving the King Amiga, when the coffers went dry due to overspending in other areas the Amiga finally succumbed to being bankrupt, a great savior called Gateway said they would help poor king Amiga, but they to gave up because it seemed that microsoft had their hands into everything, it was rumored that microsoft paid Gateway a huge sum to drop development of the new Amiga. Now no one really has proof of this and it is just rumor. Then a new savior emerged, another Mister Bill, but alas all he could do was rewrite games for iphones (not very good ones either). Now during this time the hardware was advancing and the speed of the hardware increased, the graphics cards displayed more colors, and then came up with such things as shaders and math calculations to do such things as display vapors, fogs and dust on the new graphics hardware, poor Amiga was still bragging about faster boot times, and joystick speed ( I threw joystick time in because I know how hard you fought for this Amigaski) so as you can see children the versions of DX weren't really flawed they just imporoved with time, and if the evil microsoft would of told about their improvement in the shaders from version 10.0 to 10.1 then the hardware developers would have used it to improve their hardware.

have a nice day Amigaski, as much as I hate to say this, the old saying that the Amiga can emulate a PC, but can the PC emulate the Amiga is over, done with and no longer valid. The PC can not only emulate a PC, but has actually improved the Amiga through emulation, for now today the Amiga emulator program can use USB, DVD's, and even usb digital camera's, sata drives and most modern day hardware.

Amiga wins by default, because I still like it.
and thats all that counts

smerf

Smerf, I don't often agree with what you write, but every once in a while you'll produce a gem like this and I'm left with my jaw on the floor.

Bravo sir, and may your miggies continue to trundle on far into the future!

Thats actually brightened my day :afro:

[amigaksi]

On the contrary, when you say something as retarded as you did I will respond in kind. You brought it up, you were shot down and tried to squirm out of it any way you could.

And now this... :laughing:

Read post #570; that's where I brought up "bugged" APIs and now you have distorted it to the point as if that's required to support everything I have stated here.  It's irrelevant to my point that APIs are inferior to direct hardware access.  I see you can't address the relevant points and have to resort to stupidity of just saying things like "prove it" after it has already been proven.

[amigaksi]

Hi,

@amigaski,

Do you ever have any idea what you are talking about, well lets explain it to you in very easy terms
...

It sounds like you don't understand the main point either.

[amigaksi]

...Thats actually brightened my day :afro:

I already know you are in the group of "blind following the blind".

[amigaksi]

The data was torn to shreds, all you've recorded is signal noise. You have yet to show that the computer can actually react to anything like the numbers you suggest.

...

PROVE IT.  I torn to shreds someone's speculation that it's noise.  And NOISE is ALSO REQUIRED to be recorded for a joystick recorded in order to repeat the performance EXACTLY.  Get a brain before you reply.  And you have yet to reply to the LOGICAL facts already posted of why it's NOT noise.

>Ahh, back to your make belief world. Sorry, this is the real world, you've had it explained why your make belief world doesn't work at least a dozen times now.

It's not make believe.  Amiga has both hardware compatibility and API.  VGA is also.

>Cheat nothing. I understand fully what you're saying, what you're saying is demonstratably false at every turn you take in order to justify your position.

That's you blurting out blindly whatever comes on the top of your head.  Go prove it for yourself.  I'm not your slave.  I have evidence and can repeat the experiment anytime.  All you have is your BLIND belief.  You look like your too emotional biased to look at it rationally-- it shows when you start taking people's quotes and modifying them so you don't have to address the points.

>Dodging the question again eh? Guess that proves that you've no answer.

No, I only use PCs for internet and floppy simulations so that's COMMON application for me.  You dodged the question-- WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE COMMON to be useful?

>...common desktop user, yet there have been plenty of examples of where it isn't by other commontators.

I am a common desktop user.

>You have not proved that the amiga will actually respond at anything like that sort of speed yet.

Huh.  I guess I'll leave you to your ignorance on that.  

[rest of the rubbish deleted since it was already addressed refurted several times]

[amigaksi]

To amigaksi:

Would you agree with the statement, "The smaller the number of instructions to complete a task, the faster that procedure will run" ?

With caching and misalignment causing delays, you can have some larger piece of code execute faster than a smaller piece of code.  Also depends on what the instructions are.  One IN on PC is much slower than 100 MOVs if processor is like 1Ghz.