@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: Let's say this: ECS added very little USEFUL things. More chipram

That was good. But it hasn't required the full ECS chipset.

In fact, some Agnus versions were already able to provide 1MB of Chip mem.
Quote:

and more screen modes were darn useful, on Linux, ECS is required for VGA screenmodes.

Linux? Do you think that amigans really care about Linux?

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: Linux? Do you think that amigans really care about Linux?

Considering how many Linux kernel developers started with Amiga and used to be Amigans… yes, quite many contemporary Amigans did care.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: Linux? Do you think that amigans really care about Linux? Considering how many Linux kernel developers started with Amiga and used to be Amigans… yes, quite many contemporary Amigans did care.

They started, yes.

But here we're talking about the Amiga time/age and the only thing which was/is important is a chipset which was useful for the Amiga games and/or applications. So, NOT for Linux.

@matthey
Quote:

There are interviews from Jay Miner and Ranger prototypes (looks like one is displayed at latest AmiWest show) yet C= engineers like Dave Haynie know little about it. Jay Miner was payed by C= as a consultant after he left. It feels like C= buried Ranger and hushed up Jay.

Interesting. Here is the printout of my chat with Jay Miner. Wish I knew the date, but I don't recall. Probably late 80s, maybe VERY early 90s.

http://www.techav.com/misc/miner.pdf

It sounds like the article you linked discussed a high resolution chipset. I specifically asked him about additional colors, not higher resolution.

@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote: @OneTimer1 Quote: C= / Amiga Engineers where proud for having one of the best 68k Linux systems, Eh?

C= / Amiga Engineers where proud for having one of the best 68k Unix AT&T systems, ...


Sorry sometimes I make typos when it is about Un!xes ... Unix, BSD, Solaris, SunOS, AIX, OSX, Linux ...

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: Quote: OneTimer1 wrote: Engineers like Jay Miner developed new chipsets before he left the company. The chipset would have used (dual ported) VRam, that costs more than the average A500 buyer would have paid, that's one of the reasons it was never put into production by the management. Well, THIS is absolute BS: there's no proof of that!

------Snip------------------------
Ranger used 2MB VRAM as chip memory. In an interview, Jay Miner described the benefits of using VRAM instead of DRAM; This gave the display system enough memory bandwidth for 1024 × 1024 pixel displays. From the known specification, one could say that the Ranger chipset was designed to compete with Sharp's X68000 personal computers (released in 1987) with VRAM technology to display 1024 × 1024 pixel screens in 16 colors.

Jay Miner ensured that the Ranger chipset was completed and fully tested before leaving Commodore in the hopes that the company would one day release it.
------Snap------------------------
Source: https://amigaland.de/amiga-ranger
Translation by Google

Last edited by OneTimer1 on 28-Oct-2023 at 03:19 PM.
Last edited by OneTimer1 on 28-Oct-2023 at 03:15 PM.

@cdimauro


Quote:

kolla wrote: @cdimauro Quote: More chipram That was good. But it hasn't required the full ECS chipset. In fact, some Agnus versions were already able to provide 1MB of Chip mem.

I think you trapped yourself here....

Any Agnus supporting 1 or 2MB is the ECS Agnus.
Or should we define every different Agnus as it's on version?
So ECS(1MB), EECS (2MB A500+), EEECS(A3000)

Last edited by Kronos on 28-Oct-2023 at 03:30 PM.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: Quote: and the A2410 Tiga card Which is pure crap: it's clear that you don't know how it works! Ask Thomas Richter about it, and you'll see...

But it existed and it proves you wrong.

Quote:

Quote: The Amiga developers at C= where an tiny group of developers, hindered by the obsolete chip production technologies at MOS, technologies that have been good enough for a 2MH 6502 but couldn't even be used for most of the 8/14 MHz chips used in the Amiga. RI-LOL: another great BS.

But that's how it was and proves you wrong.

Quote:

Have you ever took a look at what which logos are printed on the Amiga chips?

I know that a lot of parts wearing the C= logo where not produced in the C= facilities.

Example:

Quote:

I noticed that the Amiga's Lisa graphics chip was made by Hewlett Packard

Source: https://forum.amiga.org/index.php?topic=2363.0

Last edited by OneTimer1 on 28-Oct-2023 at 03:33 PM.
Last edited by OneTimer1 on 28-Oct-2023 at 03:33 PM.

@OneTimer1

Quote:

OneTimer1 wrote: Quote: cdimauro wrote: Well, THIS is absolute BS: there's no proof of that! ------Snip------------------------ Ranger used 2MB VRAM as chip memory. In an interview, Jay Miner described the benefits of using VRAM instead of DRAM; This gave the display system enough memory bandwidth for 1024 × 1024 pixel displays. From the known specification, one could say that the Ranger chipset was designed to compete with Sharp's X68000 personal computers (released in 1987) with VRAM technology to display 1024 × 1024 pixel screens in 16 colors. Jay Miner ensured that the Ranger chipset was completed and fully tested before leaving Commodore in the hopes that the company would one day release it. ------Snap------------------------ Source: https://amigaland.de/amiga-ranger Translation by Google

Which is nothing new compared to what I and Matt discussed before. Have you check our comments? I don't think so.
Quote:

OneTimer1 wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: Which is pure crap: it's clear that you don't know how it works! Ask Thomas Richter about it, and you'll see... But it existed and it proves you wrong.

Well, I've NEVER said something against its existence. Right?

My statement was about the fact that this graphic chip is PURE CRAP, IFF you know how it works.

So, what was wrong with my statement? Nothing!
Quote:

Quote: RI-LOL: another great BS. But that's how it was and proves you wrong.

It was... what?!? Proves what?!?

Did you know who manufactured the Amiga chips? I don't think so.

Did you know at which frequencies those chips were running? 2Mhz, as per YOU statement, or maybe A BIT MORE?

Let me quote you again:

"The Amiga developers at C= where an tiny group of developers, hindered by the obsolete chip production technologies at MOS, technologies that have been good enough for a 2MH 6502 but couldn't even be used for most of the 8/14 MHz chips used in the Amiga."

I've highlighted the relevant part.
Quote:

Quote: Have you ever took a look at what which logos are printed on the Amiga chips? I know that a lot of parts wearing the C= logo where not produced in the C= facilities. Example: Quote: I noticed that the Amiga's Lisa graphics chip was made by Hewlett Packard Source: https://forum.amiga.org/index.php?topic=2363.0

Yes, Lisa wasn't. In fact you do NOT even find the C= logo on the chip.

But Alice WAS produced by Commodore.

You can check both on the Amiga 4000's motherboard:
https://bigbookofamigahardware.com/bboah/ViewFile.aspx?id=30&fileId=5062

@Kronos

Quote:

Kronos wrote: @cdimauro Quote: kolla wrote: @cdimauro That was good. But it hasn't required the full ECS chipset. In fact, some Agnus versions were already able to provide 1MB of Chip mem. I think you trapped yourself here....

Well, that's what YOU think. But it doesn't mean that it's necessarily true: see below.
Quote:

Any Agnus supporting 1 or 2MB is the ECS Agnus. Or should we define every different Agnus as it's on version? So ECS(1MB), EECS (2MB A500+), EEECS(A3000)

Hum... that's what looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS_Technology_Agnus#Chips_by_capability

ECS Agnus which can address up to 1 MB of Chip RAM
8372 - no data*
8372A - Amiga 500 from Rev 6 (NTSC/PAL); Amiga 2000 model B from Rev 6.0 to Rev 6.3 (NTSC/PAL); Commodore CDTV
8375 (318069-16 only) (PAL) - Amiga 500 from Rev 6 (PAL); Amiga 2000 model B from Rev 6.4 (PAL)
8375 (318069-17 only) (NTSC) - Amiga 500 from Rev 6 (NTSC); Amiga 2000 model B from Rev 6.4 (NTSC)

ECS Agnus which can address up to 2 MB of Chip RAM
8372AB - Amiga 3000 from Rev 6.1 to Rev 8.9 (NTSC/PAL)
8372B - Amiga 3000 Rev 9 (NTSC/PAL)
8375 (PAL) - Amiga 500 Plus; Amiga 600 (PAL)
8375 (NTSC) - Amiga 600 (NTSC)
* Somewhere 8372A Agnus mentioned as simply "8372".

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: Besides that, let me quote again myself, with a relevant word highlighted: "But it hasn't required the full ECS chipset."

Which is exactly why your other statement makes 0 sense.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Kronos

Quote:

Kronos wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: Besides that, let me quote again myself, with a relevant word highlighted: "But it hasn't required the full ECS chipset." Which is exactly why your other statement makes 0 sense.

Care to explain why? Otherwise... it has no sense.

@cdimauro

Who made you king to dictate what is useful and not?

I am an Amiga user for more than 30 years, I find ECS a heck lot more useful than OCS even today. And 30 years back, even more so. Back in mid/late 90s, Linux (as well as Net- and OpenBSD) on Amiga was a thing many Amiga users cared about - AmigaOS was in limbo, but the hardware was still capable. Or did we stop being Amiga users when we didn’t use Amiga hardware for your silly games?

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@kolla

Quote:

I am an Amiga user for more than 30 years, I find ECS a heck lot more useful than OCS even today. And 30 years back, even more so. Back in mid/late 90s, Linux (as well as Net- and OpenBSD) on Amiga was a thing many Amiga users cared about - AmigaOS was in limbo, but the hardware was still capable. Or did we stop being Amiga users when we didn’t use Amiga hardware for your silly games?

So you had an Amiga faster then a old PC to be found in the dumpster at that time, but you didn't have a GFX card?

Text mode only might have been o.k. but SuperHighRes for X-Windows???

My 1st Linux impressions were on a 386DX with a basic VGA and that was little more than a tech demo for X-Windows.

A2000+060+Picasso2 a few years later was o.k., but a Pentium could be had for next to nothing at the time.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Kronos

Quote:

Kronos wrote: So you had an Amiga faster then a old PC to be found in the dumpster at that time, but you didn't have a GFX card?

I had (and have) several Amiga systems, including A600 with 030+882, for which there were no graphics cards. Also two A3000s, one with defect Amber. Being able to use VGA monitor was useful. Sure, the A3000s had graphics cards as well (CV64, Picassos, CSPPC), but I always used native output as well.

Quote:

Text mode only might have been o.k. but SuperHighRes for X-Windows???

We are in 2023, Wayland is taking over and still there are people who call it “X-Windows”?? Sigh! It’s the X Window System, latest incarnation being X11, most popular implementation Xorg.

No, not “text mode”, framebuffer mode, fbdev. Linux developers on Amiga and Atari pioneered the Linux framebuffer device handling, which also simplified ports to other architectures.

Quote:

My 1st Linux impressions were on a 386DX with a basic VGA and that was little more than a tech demo for X-Windows.

My condolences.

Quote:

A2000+060+Picasso2 a few years later was o.k., but a Pentium could be had for next to nothing at the time.

Linux is so much more than just PCs, and tons of stuff you take for granted on a Linux PC today originated on other hardware. Same goes for the BSDs.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote: @cdimauro Who made you king to dictate what is useful and not?

Maths?
Quote:

I am an Amiga user for more than 30 years, I find ECS a heck lot more useful than OCS even today.

Good that you've said it: YOU! NOT the VAST MAJORITY of amigans which enjoyed OCS games or applications.

How many of them enjoy ECS (specific!) games or applications?
Quote:

And 30 years back, even more so.

Well, if you limit the audience to you, then it's perfectly fine.

However I've to reveal a secret: YOU were a rare bird.
Quote:

Back in mid/late 90s, Linux (as well as Net- and OpenBSD) on Amiga was a thing many Amiga users cared about - AmigaOS was in limbo, but the hardware was still capable.

I reveal you another secret: when ECS was fully (all chips) deployed Linux didn't even exist. NetBSD neither. And OpenBSD... I just leave the answer as homework...
Quote:

Or did we stop being Amiga users when we didn’t use Amiga hardware for your silly games?

I reveal you the last secret: my "silly" (SIC!) games were the ones which made the Amiga the platform which we know and enjoyed.

WITHOUT those games you would have had no ECS, AGA, whatever. Even applications.

Maybe you need to learn something about Amiga's history: you lived on some Un*x cave 'til now...

Last edited by cdimauro on 29-Oct-2023 at 08:02 AM.

@ECS

Of course ECS was just an adjustment of OCS. It’s in the name.

Enhancements like that are not the issue. It’s how long it took that grinds our collective gears.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

ppcamiga1 wrote: I like ECS. ECS was released in 1990 and in 1990 still has batter graphics than affordable pc.

I get that in 1990 ECS was good for us living in poor countries like UK and Australia, but in your rich Poland you would have been using a 486 PC with SVGA graphics.
How much more “shit” is ECS when compared to the glory of SVGA?

You are a special one, aren’t you?
ECS was good in 1990, but AGA was “shit” in 1992.

Commodore was killed way before AGA was even an idea inside of C= engineer’s head. It started with Jack Tramiel’s ineptitude and shitty business practices. It just took that long for the inertia of the brand to run its course.
But you’re a very subjective, post-hoc kind of person, so I’ll put into language you’re likely to understand:
Commodore’s success or failure was directly tied to your purchasing behavior in 1993, so in reality YOU killed Commodore.

Now climb back under your bridge.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@cdimauro

Quote:

cdimauro wrote: @kolla Quote: kolla wrote: @cdimauro Who made you king to dictate what is useful and not? Maths?

Math doesn’t determine what’s useful or not.
ECS had small yet very useful enhancements over OCS.

Just because YOU don’t find them useful doesn’t mean they weren’t.

Quote:

Quote: [quote]I am an Amiga user for more than 30 years, I find ECS a heck lot more useful than OCS even today. Good that you've said it: YOU! NOT the VAST MAJORITY of amigans which enjoyed OCS games or applications.

“which”? Were they not people? Yes ME, and MANY others - or are you suggesting it was I who implemented Linux and BSDs for Amiga? No, it wasn’t me. Many of tbe names of those who did, you also find in significant software for Amiga in those days.

For those enjoying OCS games and especially applications, ECS was still an improvement. ECS on the A600 made it possible for me to create animations with DPaint that I could not have made on OCS, the A600 was part of a setup for a neuro-science lab, quite useful as many of these animations are still in use there.

Quote:

How many of them enjoy ECS (specific!) games or applications?

You already stated that they enjoy OCS games and applications, unless these don’t work at all on ECS, what’s the problem? A lot of software was capable of making use of ECS features while still maintaining OCS compatibility - was that a BAD thing?

Quote:

Quote: And 30 years back, even more so. Well, if you limit the audience to you, then it's perfectly fine.

Not just me, I was and still is primarily a user, not a developer - I presume the software I used was developed by actual people and that I was not the only user of these software titles.

Quote:

However I've to reveal a secret: YOU were a rare bird.

No, I wasn’t. What’s rare is that I am still here.

Quote:

Quote: Back in mid/late 90s, Linux (as well as Net- and OpenBSD) on Amiga was a thing many Amiga users cared about - AmigaOS was in limbo, but the hardware was still capable. I reveal you another secret: when ECS was fully (all chips) deployed Linux didn't even exist. NetBSD neither. And OpenBSD... I just leave the answer as homework...

I am fully aware of this, of course, but that wasn’t the point, was it. Your claim is that ECS was useless, but it turned out to be quite useful for those who knew how to make use of the enhancements.

Quote:

Quote: Or did we stop being Amiga users when we didn’t use Amiga hardware for your silly games? I reveal you the last secret: my "silly" (SIC!) games were the ones which made the Amiga the platform which we know and enjoyed. WITHOUT those games you would have had no ECS, AGA, whatever. Even applications.

Really, you singlehanded made everything possible with your silly games? How humble. I had not even heard of any of your games until you brought up that fighter game I can’t even remember the name of.

Quote:

Maybe you need to learn something about Amiga's history: you lived on some Un*x cave 'til now...

Says the gamer cave guy. I’m quite aware of Amiga history, not sure I see what you are trying to accomplish with your rantic articles though…

Last edited by kolla on 29-Oct-2023 at 08:38 PM.
Last edited by kolla on 29-Oct-2023 at 01:42 PM.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

@kolla

I guess Ruff n Tumble was OCS? What was the point of ECS when beyond serious applications it made no difference!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios