Re: Second Sight SVGA Board Info (text onl

[yoshi@CSOS.ORST.EDU (Yoshi)]

Nathan Mates (nathan@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
:    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.

	I didn't say it COULDN'T support anything above {xxx}x200,
	Nathan. I said w/ a stock GS monitor, it could only support
	{xxx}x200 non-interlaced. This is truly lame, and will always
	be.

: 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.

	Successfully? It's an evil mode; by evil I mean it's a screwed
	up aspect-ratio; i've *NEVER* used 640-mode in my programming,
	and I never WILL. It's just plain silly, IMHO.

:    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.

	Well, of course, the SS could support something like the PCs
	MODE X, which could do WACKO resolutions, such as 320x400,
	which actually looks pretty cool (check out ScreamTracker
	v3.01b; results look nifty)... I'd prefer 640x480, 'cuz the
	aspect-ratio would be correct.

: 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.

	If I was going to develop something which used large sums of
	CPU or used large sprites/graphics, I wouldn't use some hi-res
	mode like 1024x768x{whatever} nor 640x480x{whatever}. I'd use
	320x200x256, because it's what i'm used to... It's one of the
	reasons I never went into learning how to program in a 640x480
	mode on the PC. MOV AX,0013h, INT 10h was a lot easier (if I
	remember correctly... damn it's been awhile since i've done
	80x86ASM).

:    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

	Overpriced. I compare a lot of things to the PC market, be-
	cause it's "the head of the flock." SCSI cards for the PC cost
	basically nothing, as do IDE cards. PCs have accel. boards,
	but not for CPU-speed.

: were in the same ballpark. VOCs were $300 and up, TWGS when it came

	Overpriced. A Video Blaster (more Creative Labs crap, but it's
	the only company I know of who makes a card like this) costs
	around $200, and does a ton more things than the VOC does, plus
	has big-time software support.
	 
: 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.

	Yup. Mem. boards for the GS have always been basically dirt-
	cheap; when I found out my 4MB board was gonna cost me $100,
	I just about said "You've GOTTA be kidding." Great prices on
	RAM & RAM boards for the GS, that's for sure.

:    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.

	Neither would I.

:    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,

	Is it for me... I'm not holding my breath on the TR either;
	i'll stick w/ SNES programming if I want SNES-type results.
	:-)

: 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

	Why would I want 132x60? 80x50 is fine with me; but I don't
	*NEED* a hi-res text mode. I'm not gonna play Moria in a nice
	huge text screen... Now, the multiple-colour scheme would be
	a nice addition, but I don't need it; though ANSI would look
	more realistic, it's not something *I* want; if other people
	want it, by all means, i'm not stopping them.

	Secondly, I don't need 1024x768. A 320x200x256-real (meaning
	none of this crap 16-per-hline limitation garbage) card with
	some SNES-style scaling/zoom & plane-overlaying would be all
	i'd be asking for.

: the TR user-programmable, like the SS, or will you have to rely on
: what's done in hardware and live with that?

	Well, you seem to have to rely on the hardware of the SS any-
	ways. Can't upgrade it to 1024x768x16.7 or anything like that.
	I doubt the TR'll do this either, so.

:    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.

	The TR does what I want it to do; plane overlay, and some
	MODE-7 like effects which the SNES does. Of course, I can stick
	with my original idea of: If I want SNES-style graphics, do
	it on the SNES. (shrugs) I've seen the TR in person, working
	just fine: I have not seen the SS in action. It's "all talk"
	right now to me.

:    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

	I had a problem with this too; I didn't like how the developers
	kept changing it's stats around; "Oh it'll do 8 planes..." then
	2 months laters "oh now only 2" and then AGAIN "no, it'll support
	4." ARGH! :-)

: 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.

	I don't need SVGA for my GS: I'm not gonna be running CAD soft-
	ware. If I wanted hi-resolutions, i'd get an SGI. (shrugs)

	To me, the GS was never made to do decent graphics. 8-bit EVERY-
	THING, due to the ports. I can't stand it; it's almost like the
	640k DOS-conv-mem limitation. Slow bus, 8-bit everything, and
	the graphics support is just blah. Now, the sound, on the other
	hand, i've always been impressed with (plus, the GS is the only
	machine which i've encountered which has excellent sample-edit-
	ing tools; i'm trying to fix this by writing a sample-editor like
	"Sound.Edit" for the GS on the PC, but we'll see).

--
|       Jeremy 'Yoshi' Chadwick        |  ______  ___   ___   ___  ______  |
|         yoshi@CSOS.ORST.EDU          | |:     \|   | |:  | |:  |/      | |
|- Computer Science Outreach Services -| |           | |   | |           | |
|        - IRC Administration -        | |___|\______| |___| |______/|___| |
|   "...I still recall the taste, of your tears..." --- Trent Reznor/NIN   |