Re: Second Sight SVGA Board Info (text onl

[nathan@cco.caltech.edu (Nathan Mates)]

In article <36v4lf$h78@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, Yoshi <yoshi@CSOS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>Philip Stephens (philip@labtam.oz.au) wrote:
>	640x200 sucks; it's a completely screwed-up aspect ratio. Get
>	real. Next thing i'll hear is "Yeah man, we can do 1024x200x256!"
>	Give me a break.

   Did you bother to read the press release, or do you only comment
on what other people said in the last 10 seconds? According to the
article Jawaid posted, the following modes are supported, all at
256 colors: 320*200, 640*200, 640*400, 640*480, 800*600, and 1024*768.
Yes, 640*200 is a weird mode, but it was Apple who designed such a
size into the GS, and it's got to be continued. Are you proposing to
simply throw out the modes that everyone's already known and used 
successfully for 8 years now just because you don't like it? Ain't
going to happen.

   When programming a game or the like, one may want the square pixels
of 640*480 or 640*400 (whichever one is closer; I haven't bothered to
check) for such things as simplified rotation of shapes or something.
But, when you want to slam shapes to the screen, and every little bit
of speed counts, the lower resolution and funky sizes may be an
acceptible price to pay for less stuff to move around. If you're merely
porting over existing graphics, you may want the exact same pixel size
ratios, or if you can handle it, simply write a program to translate
the pixels, accounting for the differing sizes.

>: That would require an investment of just $179, well within my budget, and
>: likely to be within the budget of quite a few GS owners.

>	$179 is still outrageous to me. Like I said, i'll wait for the
>	TurboRez, because it has what I want.

   Outrageous? Name a powerful and useful card for the GS that's been
much less than that, new. Zip 8/16s were $199 or so from RC, RamFASTs
were in the same ballpark. VOCs were $300 and up, TWGS when it came
out was much more, and Math coprocessor boards were >$200 also. The
only thing really cheaper was memory cards, mostly because the demand
in other ends of the computer industry drove prices down, and the
amount of engineering necessary to make a GS ram board was pretty much
negligible.

   Some people still believe that Apple will one day come out with
a Rom 04, which like the TR was designed, prototyped, and supposedly
pretty cool. But, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

   According to what I've heard, the TR has hardware scrolling and
screen underlay. Kinda cool, but is it worth the $120 and 6 months
to a year wait? Does the TR have the exact pixel ratios you want also,
unlike the SS? Can the TR do 1024*768 or drive decent monitors when
you want to move up? Can the TR do all of the IBM EGA/VGA text modes
(80*43 up to 132*60) easily, or will that have to be hacked in? Is
the TR user-programmable, like the SS, or will you have to rely on
what's done in hardware and live with that?

   You are a TR diehard; most of the time you simply try to dismiss
the SS offhand; I'd like to hear _exactly_ why you think that the
TR is so much better, will be available, and the SS's stated features
are not relevant to anything you will ever do.

   Personally, I liked the idea of the TR for quite a while, but
became disenchanted with it when it could not be produced to fulfill
everything that had been promised. Then, the SS was announced, from a
group of GS hardware and software people who know what they're doing,
have released quality hardware and software before, and does a good
job at its stated functon: a GS SVGA board.

Nathan Mates




-- 
* Nathan Mates   http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~nathan/               *
* Ftp humor archiver: ftp to cco.caltech.edu, look in pub/humor     *
* "Always listen to experts. They'll tell what can't be done, and   *
*  why. Then do it."  -- Robert A. Heinlein, Lazarus Long           *