Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Opinion Article : Amiga DE a Good Idea, Poor Execution  (Read 13752 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Francis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 5
    • Show only replies by Francis
    • http://www.tao-group.com
Re: Opinion Article : Amiga DE a Good Idea, Poor Execution
« Reply #59 from previous page: May 26, 2003, 12:39:29 AM »
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

know I`m probably "jumping the gun" here, but when AmigaOS4 is released, will their be an Intent/AmigaDE Player for it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When porting intent to a specific operating system, experience has taught us that the major requirement for the port has been knowledge of the underlying platform, not of intent. Therefore, if we take AOS4, we will achieve the best results if the Amiga specialists familiar with AOS4 do the integration work. Best regards, Francis
 

Offline downix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2003
  • Posts: 1587
    • Show only replies by downix
    • http://www.applemonthly.com
Re: Opinion Article : Amiga DE a Good Idea, Poor Execution
« Reply #60 on: May 26, 2003, 01:54:35 PM »
@Francis

Saw the Intent logo on that new Defender game from Midway.  Way to go
guys.

PS, tell JT hi for me.
Try blazedmongers new Free Universal Computer kit, available with the GUI toolkit Your Own Universe, the popular IT edition, Extremely Reliable System for embedded work, Enhanced Database development and Wide Area Development system for telecommuting.
 

Offline JohnHarris

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 3
    • Show only replies by JohnHarris
Re: Opinion Article : Amiga DE a Good Idea, Poor Execution
« Reply #61 on: May 26, 2003, 06:25:33 PM »
Thank you Francis for your post.  It's great to hear about the success and progress of intent, since our own success as AmigaDE developers depends so highly on it.

Like Ohno has already mentioned, I love to program for intent and VP.  I'm having more fun than I've had in a long time in this industry, despite continued waiting for any financial success.

To those still wondering why this platform is special, I can offer the following:

Platform independence with no recompiling.  Yes, Java already does this, but only if you program in Java.  Intent provides a solution without the language restriction, and with higher performance.  And I actually like most of the API.  Contrary to most platforms I've worked with where one of the first steps is to write a low-level 2D library, the one in intent is already suitable for gaming with hierarchical object lists, layers, alpha blending, minimal rectangle updates, etc.

Granted, at this moment in time the benefits are hard to see because of the lack of hardware products supporting intent.  The "potential" to run everywhere is only meaningful if real-world devices actually run intent products.  We don't have much of that yet, but Francis' list of partners is very encouraging.  

Personally, I think Amiga's game card approach to getting intent products into devices that don't have native support for it is very cleaver.  Let's face it -- while theoretically possible to run content via a "player", no one in significant numbers is going to buy products this way.  Amiga's game cards hide the player concept within the card, so that from the user's perspective, all they need to know is that they plug it in and it works.  No separate pieces to worry about.  This gives developers a viable market for the products right now, while we wait for native intent platforms to be available.  (And there's no reason we can't continue to sell cards to non-intent devices).

It's all moving slower than we wanted or expected.  I blame the crash of the whole tech industry for that, and almost everyone has had trouble coping with it.  What I find most disturbing, is that people's frustrations are being vented and directed as personal attacks on Amiga.  These guys have hung in there through all the adversity because they continue to believe in what they're doing.  That, more than all the other rumors and attacks flying around tells me that they are working on something very special, that it is worth making sacrafices for, and that I feel even more compassion for what they're going through.

- John
 

Offline downix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2003
  • Posts: 1587
    • Show only replies by downix
    • http://www.applemonthly.com
Re: Opinion Article : Amiga DE a Good Idea, Poor Execution
« Reply #62 on: May 26, 2003, 06:40:04 PM »
@JohnHarris

The idea behind Intent is good, but blaming the crash of the tech
sector is improper.  Intent is good, in it's place.  There are certain
things it should not and could not do.  Francis will agree with me
there that using Intent as, say a Server OS is highly risky and rather
suspect.

A good approach for Amiga, using Intent, would have been to focus more
on delivering a new platform for Intent, rather than trying to turn
Intent into a new platform.  Porting Intent to a PPC-native AmigaOS,
say by working with the MorphOS crew, could have solved many issues
with Intent.  Running a seperate copy of Intent in each program would
have allowed for MP while keeping VP, just produce a lower-level IPC
framework (ARexx-port replacement) for all programs to take advantage
of, and viola, you've got a virtual-processor MP situation.  (I know,
it's more complex than that, but it can be done like thus)

But that didn't happen, did it?  As is, Intent is still a nice
technology looking for it's chamption.
Try blazedmongers new Free Universal Computer kit, available with the GUI toolkit Your Own Universe, the popular IT edition, Extremely Reliable System for embedded work, Enhanced Database development and Wide Area Development system for telecommuting.
 

Offline JohnHarris

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 3
    • Show only replies by JohnHarris
Re: Opinion Article : Amiga DE a Good Idea, Poor Execution
« Reply #63 on: May 26, 2003, 09:52:10 PM »
Quote
The idea behind Intent is good, but blaming the crash of the tech  sector is improper.


Regardless of possible future plans to integrate intent or the DE into AmigaOS, you have to look at them as separate and barely related projects right now.  DE/intent for mobile devices which is what it's designed for, and AmigaOS for the desktop (or server).

What I blame the crash for, is the failure of the AmigaDE to reach profitable status.  There's several reasons for that, including lost deals that were previously thought to be assured, and difficulty in obtaining additional VC.

At some point, Amiga thought they had the resources to develop both the DE for mobile devices and the AmigaOne/OS4.  That may have even been true had certain things not gone wrong, but looking at the current situation, both camps have clearly suffered from insufficient resources whereas either one could have fared better without the other.

Some have pointed to the DE as a distraction, while others have (IMO more correctly) pointed out that the DE was and still is the opportunity with far more potential.  M$ owns the desktop market, and people are talking about sales for AmigaOne/OS4 in the "thousands".  Those kinds of numbers are not enough to build or even sustain a company on, and yet Amiga forged ahead with the machine.  Why did they do this?  I have no idea, but suspect at least in part that they felt an obligation to do so because of the existing Amiga community.

Mobile devices and the next generation cell phones in particular are not yet dominated by anyone, and there was and still is tremendous potential here.  As I see it, the choice they made to support the Amiga community (i.e. the people who now seem to be turning against them), is what may have taken away the resources needed to become a successful company. (Albeit success in a different arena than what those former Amigans would have wanted).

Back to where I started, had the crash not happened,
I think certain deals wouldn't have fallen through and both products would have been completed much earlier.  Hopefully, it will all still work out.

- John
 

Offline olegil

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 955
    • Show only replies by olegil
Re: Opinion Article : Amiga DE a Good Idea, Poor Execution
« Reply #64 on: May 27, 2003, 06:37:31 PM »
You're still wrong about needing to use assembly to get higher performance. The thing is, GCC creates assembly, then proceeds to _optimize_ that assembly code, before finally calling a separate program (which isn't part of GCC, it's part of the binutils package) called "as", which is an assembler. The part where assembly is needed is for things like:
direct IO access on x86 processors (need to call special instructions because it's not a memory address, it's an IO address etc)
timing loops (4 NOP instructions etc)

If it's the need for speed GCC can usually do it better. Or you can take the assembly output of GCC, go through it manually and tweak it, then save this as the basis for future compiles or work. But usually it's going to be very good.

What you should aim for is to understand how C gets translated into assembly, and avoid the pitfalls. And if you don't like to use stack much in assembly, why would you use it in C? That sort of things. I mean, a for-loop in C can be translated into a "decrease and branch on not zero" in assembly, which takes 2 instructions (one on m68k), plus a third (second) for initialising the value. Could you do a loop with less instructions if you were writing in assembly?
 

Offline JohnHarris

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 3
    • Show only replies by JohnHarris
Re: Opinion Article : Amiga DE a Good Idea, Poor Execution
« Reply #65 on: May 28, 2003, 06:03:32 PM »
Quote
You're still wrong about needing to use assembly to get higher performance... If it's the need for speed GCC can usually do it better.


Not a chance.  Maybe it can do better than some programmers who are not adept at Assembly, but an expert coder can do far better than some compiler.

Think about it -- as long as the programmer knows everything about the CPU that the compiler does, you're talking about asking a computer program to optimize code as well as a human mind.  When the concepts are complex and abstract, there's no comparison between the effectiveness of a computer versus a person.  Over and above that, there's almost always tricks in Assembly that can't be done from C.

Quote
What you should aim for is to understand how C gets translated into assembly...


This part is right on the money however.  Especially since different compilers produce code in different ways.  Studying the compiler's output can really help tune the final results, and once you learn the tricks, they can continue to be applied.   I've seen some really exceptional C code that gets within half the speed of Assembly or so.

- John