Conference hydra::amiga_v1

    StarGlider is now shipping.  Only 5 months late, too!

    Better Late than Never though....
    

    but is it wire-frame or solid shapes?
    
    -dave

    I've played Starglider on an ST, and it is amazingly fast.  Well,
    the Amiga version supposedy is 30% faster.  Unfortunately, the graphics
    are wireframe, not solid.  The stereo and digitized speech effects,
    as you might imagine, are far superior to the ST version.
    
    Incidently, an Amiga was used to record the digitized soundtrack
    and speech for the ST version.  A special driver was then created
    to allow the ST to play back these effects.  (Source:  Info Magazine,
    confirmed by Jez San in conference).
    
    By the way, Jez San uses 68000 asssembler almost 100%, and thinks
    that C is for wimps.
    
    Also, the above comments are indirect quotes from some Plinkers
    who have seen/used Starglider on the Amiga.  I have not seen the
    Amiga version yet, but Jez swears that it is shipping now.
    
    Incidentally, Jez is quite fond of both the ST and the Amiga.  He
    once remarked that although the Amiga "pisses all over the ST in
    the graphics and sound department", he actually finds the ST a joy
    to program, largely because most of the operating system is missing,
    which allows him to write directly to the screen and perform all
    kinds of superhuman feats with it.  Of course this means that there
    would be no blitter speedup on the ST version, if and when blitters
    become available.

    30% faster?  The ST version looked deadly enough...is that because
    the Amiga is a killer game system?  :-)
    
    Somebody on USENET, i think it was George Robbins from CBM, was
    pushing for developers to bypass the OS and directly play with
    the hardware, just like on the ST.  I find it impressive that
    they can do all the tricks on the Amiga without having to twiddle
    the hardware directly.  Nice if you someday you get >512K memory
    and want to multitask with the game.  Or the hardware changes in
    a newer model amiga.
    
    -dave

Re: .5

>    Somebody on USENET, i think it was George Robbins from CBM, was
>    pushing for developers to bypass the OS and directly play with
>    the hardware, just like on the ST.

I never heard of anyone from Commodore making that claim, but in
Amazing Computing volume 2 Number 4, Jim Sacks (who did the graphic
design for "Defender of the Crown") said that exact thing.

I thought it was interesting that although Sacks painted the pretty
pictures in DotC, it was RJ Michal that did the programming.  RJ said
he did use Intuition in the game.  Since the Amiga gets so much of its
speed from co-processors, I find it hard to believe that bypassing the
OS to be that important.

    Re: .6
    
    I was thinking a similar thing... and I see some interesting parallels
    here...
    
    The 8-bit Ataris were generally considered to have better hardware
    than the Comodore 64, yet most game software actually seemed to look
    and run better on the 64.  I've heard that the 64 forced programmers
    to be incredibly resourceful in order to achieve great effects,
    whereas the added hardware on the Atari made people kind of lazy.
    
    I wonder if we'll eventually see ST programs that actually run rings
    around Amiga versions for the same reasons?  

    Almost anything written that bypasses an OS will be faster. It should
    not surprise anyone. Usually the OS is there to enforce some structure
    under which tasks can peacefully co-exist. This point is paramont
    in my mind in the creation of software.
                                                 
    Yes writting to the hardware is quick, but just as there are many
    ways to build a car, there are many ways to write software. However
    you cannot expect a Ford body panel to fit a chevy . The
    exec and intuition serve as a good set of ground rules for programmers
    to operate within. Using the tools provided do not limit the creativity
    of the author and protect the interest of the user community. A decision
    to universally bypass the OS would very quickly obliterate the real
    advantage of the amiga and turn the machine into utter kaos. 
    
    
    If that means i'm a quich eater than so be it.
    
    <jim

    Re: .8 and others
    
    Hear, hear!!!!  If I wanted to reboot every time I change programs, I'd
    buy a C64. :')  I don't want to see lots of programs abandon the
    Exec/Intuition software.  RJ and the gang gave of themselves so that
    programmers' jobs would be easier.  I concede that there are certain
    applications that cry out for blinding speed, but there are also plenty
    of goodies that don't need to squeeze out every last cycle.  I don't
    really expect to multitask with a whizbang version of Mutant Asteroid
    Invaders, but I expect so called "serious" software (and even certain
    games) to allow multitasking.  I don't want to see programs that
    take over the computer become the norm.  I resent it when someone
    else decides for me whether or not I can multitask.
    
    End of lecture,
    Gary 

    A couple more points to consider in this argument:
    
    First, an operating system as complex as the Amiga's is a pretty
    new idea to most microcomputer people.  This means dealing with
    concepts that aren't particularly obvious the first time out, as
    well as having to do things in a fashion that seems completely
    convoluted to the traditional bare-bones machine hacker, when the
    paybacks aren't immediately obvious.
    
    The second is that if you're going to ignore the operating system
    and bang bits directly with the chips on the Amiga, there's a lot
    more to learn than 68000 machine code.  For someone who's pretty
    used to a system consisting of a microprocessor, and some easy to
    understand bit mapped graphics interface, the Amiga could well come
    off looking like a morass of hardware.  In general, adding degrees
    of freedom rarely makes the universe less complex.
    
    So, if you have someone who doesn't understand operating systems,
    and therefore finds himself trying to bang all the Amiga hardware
    on his own, he's going to find his job twice as hard, because the
    very software that makes using all that fancy hardware easier is
    precisely the software he's bypassing.

    I wonder if the software companies like multitasking?  Would you
    really want some snooping program multitasking with your copy
    protected program?  If you don't allow multitasking, then why
    not bypass the OS?
    
    Given the market life of most games, by the time a new OS is shipped
    the average game will no longer be popular anyway.  Or the company
    that made it will be out of business.
    
    Just stirring the flames..
    -Dave
    
    p.s. I prefer well behaved software myself, i'm really amazed at
    how successful C-A has been in convincing folks not to bypass the
    OS (maybe the co-processors really do provide the speed that you
    need to bypass the OS on other computers to get).
    

    My opinion on the subject:
    
    For just about any application of programs, except games, I think
    that the programmers should try to make it as well behaved as possible.
    Multitasking is a definite plus on Amiga's side over the ST and
    the MAC, and the software should be able to use it though.
    
    For games though, my opinion changes.  I think the programmer should
    use whatever method he can to make the game work.  In fast action
    arcade type games, speed is of the essence.  If you can make a program
    faster by ignoring exec and intuition, by means do it, if it will
    make it better to do so.  If you can make the program have the same
    result by using intuition and all the other OS calls and such, you
    should try to stick to Amiga's guidelines.
    
    Just an opinion
    
    Derek
    

    I was thinking the same thing as .12, but I wonder what happens if new
    Amiga hardware appears?  C-A went through all this trouble to write an
    OS that would support 68010, 68020, 68***, etc.  Would applications
    that 'cheat' have much chance of working on future machines (eg, higher
    resolution, more colors, more chip memory)   Look at the Mac.. each ROM
    change creates a new list of programs that don't work properly; not
    because of Apple's changes, but because the programmers took shortcuts
    to gain speed. 
    
    I can't wait to see the problems when the blitter chip appears on
    the ST along with new ROMS.  Not to wish ill on those guys, but
    I can't imagine a smooth transition...

    RE: .12,.13
    
    In some cases (mine specifically), the tradeoff is:
    
    	"Do the necessary functions by direct hardware manipulation"
    	 or
    	"Don't write the program.  It is impossible."
    
    I am writing some music software.  I need the speed.  I *MUST* write
    directly to the hardware.  I've tried using the serial and timer
    devices.  They are just too slow.  If I didn't write directly to
    the hardware, the program would be unusable.
    
    This does not mean, however, that this particular program needs
    to take over the machine.  "Writing directly to the hardware" and
    "taking over the machine" need not be mutually dependent.  I am
    doing everything I can to make the program stay well-behaved in
    a multi-tasking environment.
    
    -jim