Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!es1
From: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita)
Subject: Re: 2.0 Compatibility
Message-ID: <1991Apr30.165027.30646@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita)
Organization: Columbia University
References: <mykes.2036@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1991 16:50:27 GMT

In article <mykes.2036@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
>And there was talk a while ago about Commodore coming out with a
>new graphics standard a while ago (the Lowell board), which again
>requires a different programming strategy.  And what if CBM comes
>out with yet another standard?
>
>And then there are all the various 24-bit graphics adapters (toaster,
>HAM-E, DCTV, etc.) which might deserve consideration for support...
>
	What's wrong with a standard? It's not as if CBM is
redefining the same standard over and over again. As to those new
boards, most likely (since the Amiga market ain't that big)
they'll fight it out and there'll be clear winners given a few
more months.
	What's wierd is that in one paragraph you worry about CBM
coming out with a graphics board standard and then you worry
about how there are lots of standards.

>Slowly but surely, the Amiga has gone from a machine that had a finite
>set of standard features to deal with to one that is going to be as
>varied as the PC is.  With the PC, there are several graphics adapters,
>mouse devices, audio peripherals, operating systems, etc., that an
>applications programmer has to write almost as much device support
>code as application specific code.
>
	The Amiga market is finally maturing. Perfect
observation. Of course (except in graphics boards, where we're
worse) we are much more unified than they are. Two bus standards,
same auto-config standard. Same CPU slot. Same Video slot. Same
SCSI. Same ports on the back. One disk format (realistically).
etc. etc. Not so bad I don't think. Besides, since we have a REAL
operating system, not a DISK operating system, much of that is
hidden from those who don't want to deal with it.

>The Macintosh family of computers has been successful because Apple has
>forced people to adhere strictly to the use of the OS for even the most
>primitive operations.  Unfortunately, the Amiga OS is designed to allow
>multiple applications to share and directly manipulate the hardware.  It
>is quite common on the Amiga for an application to bypass the graphics
>library and use the blitter (directly) or the cpu to render directly into
>bitplanes.  All these applications won't work on a radically different
>display device (such as the lowell one).
>
	Unfortunately? I think it is very fortunate. Let the
programmer do what is best. If his software breaks, he'll learn.
If he doesn't learn, he'll go out of business. The compatibility
with 2.0 is so high that I'm convinced that most programmers were
reasonable with there programming standards.
	As to accessing the HW directly, that's why there are
semaphores and such to make that work LEGALLY. You can obtain the
blitter all for yourself and break nothing.

>This is not a lament, but a objective view of what looks like is going on.
>It would be ideal to be able to rely on the OS for future compatibility,
>but there are going to be a zillion gotchas that we are going to have to
>deal with from now on (for each new hardware and OS platform).  The Amiga
>is becoming like the Mac in that when the hardware/software changes, those
>who get the improvements will have to upgrade their software to gain full
>compatibility.
>
	I don't understand this thing about compatibility. I'm
probably missing your point, but compatibility seems to be the
least of the Amiga's problems. As to using newer OS features,
just check the revision number when you open a library. If it is
37 or greater, use the new features. Otherwise don't. ProWrite
did it quite effectively.

>--
>****************************************************
>* I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast  *
>* but play like Leisure Suit Larry.                *
>****************************************************


	-- Ethan

"Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
