🚀 go-pugleaf

On 19 Apr 1996, Gaven Miller wrote:

> 8 Mhz isn't pleasurable for me (that is why I upgraded), however the
> plethora of accelerator cards for it shows just how good the design was.
> How many accelerators can you get for your PC?

If memory serves, the video hardware took turns with the rest of the 
system (talking ST here) for access to the RAM.  I've always wondered how 
they sped this up without an amazing number of wait states, and amazing 
cache, or both.

Accelerators for PC?  Well......

(1) 286 can get a 386SX (like Kingston's "386/now")
(2) 386SX can get a clock-multiplied 486slc
(3) 386DX can get a Cyrix 486DRU (or whatever)
(4) 486: Most SX/DX motherboards either have "overdrive" processor slots,
    or can have the CPU moved and jumpers changed.  Either way, can go up
    to DX4/100 (does AMD make a DX4/133?) or the Pentium overdrive (I always
    want to call this kludge the Pentium SX).
(5) Pentium?  I don't know of any accelerators, but 4 out of 5 ain't bad, 
    you did ask, and Pentiums are so much faster than a 520ST that they're
    "already accelerated" it could be argued (grin).


> 
> > dont even go down below 640x480 and 256 colors at a minumum because they all 
> > see lower as a TOTAL JOKE. I have mor memory in my video car , 8 megs , than 
> > most sters in their systems.    Its almost the 21st century and you are on 
> 
> And how much of that 8 Mbytes in your video is used? As a single screen
> you would be able to have (at 256 colours) a screen larger than most
> current monitors can display. 640x480x256 only uses 300k (307200 bytes)
> for one contiguous image. Going to 24-bit colour ups this to 900k
> (921600), or even 32-bit (which is really 24-bit colour with an extraneous
> byte added to speed up [ha!] processing), this will only go to 1200k
> (1228800). So where is the other 6984k of video ram used?


How much does 1600 x 1280 in true-color need?  Heh...never seen more than 
4 myself.  Never had nor needed more than one myself.

 
> 
> That smacks of "more money than common sense", or the PC-worlds "my stats
> are better than your stats" childish phallus comparisons. 
> 

Goodness sakes, such a graphic choice of words!  Heh heh.  Such 
comparisons are everywhere, in every commodity, not just PCs.  (Not that 
I'm defending it, mind you)


> > technology that really hasnt changed since first conceived in 1979-80
> 
> 1979 was the conception date of the Atari 8-bit. 
> 

Actually, 1979 was the release year.  The 400/800 was conceived in 1978.


> THE ST was conceived in 1985. It owed nothing to the 8-bit, as it was a
> "fresh from day one" design. 
> 

No, the ST was a good machine in its day, but typically slapped-together 
in a Tramiel corner-cutting move.  Too bad the Amiga wasn't an Atari 
product, because with the ST's OS it would have been an Atari user's wet 
dream.  I always felt like the 520ST was sort of a next-gen Commodore 
64....from the guy who brought you the Commodore 64.  Corner cutting like 
only 3-voice sound.  I guess it owed its sound capabilities to the 8-bit 
Commodore because although totally different sound chips, similar 
capabilities.  By definition of what ATARI was prior to the ST, the ST 
was an alien design and only Atari because of the name stamped and 
stickered on it.



> I own a TT, conceived around 1990. I am rarely in a screen mode lower than
> 640*480*16. My physical RAM is not limited to the 640k of "conventional" 
> RAM, and 8 or 16 Mbytes of Extended. I have 4Megs of 16-bit RAM, and 16 
> Mbytes of 32-bit RAM - both of which are expandable (in my case to 10 and 
> 128 Mbytes respectively).
> 

You have two totally separate RAMs - ST RAM and TT RAM.  Such an eloquent 
way to do things, eh?  Such duplication.  Since there's all that ST RAM 
in there, why didn't they just throw in a $12 68000 and you could have 
stuck on another keyboard and screen and used both types of RAM at the 
same time....heh heh.


> The PC architecture was conceived around 1980, (for the September 1981
> release of IBM's original "home computer" PC). Little has changed since
> then - video is still card based, rather than using (possibly separate)
> motherboard ram. 

IBM's home computer was the PCjr, the dismal flop that came LATER and 
totally separate from the original conception of the PC.  Yeah, video is 
card based, so it can be tailored to individual needs and doesn't have to 
fight the CPU to access system RAM.

> 
> PCers rarely use lower because they have been brainwashed that lesser
> colours are (ugh!) primitive, nasty and (sometimes) not even available. 


Actually, because lesser colors look like sh*t and remind me of the days 
when I had no choice but 16 or 4 colors.  The real world has more than 16 
colors and so does my PC screen.  You gotta problem with that? (grin)

> 
> Most just plug-in and go with whatever setup the machine was in when
> shipped to them, and remain blissfully ignorant of anything else the 
> hardware is capable of. 
> 

Hey - whatever works for 'em.  Who says you have to judge them?  Many 
people drive their sedan to work totally stock.  Others probably lower it 
and put on 50-series tires and black windows, foxtail on the antenna, 
speakers the size of what the steering wheel USED to be and a steering 
wheel the size of what the speakers USED to be....maybe put on some 
hydraulics and some fringe hanging in the window to match that velvet 
glued on the dash!  The driver of such a vehicle might look over at the 
guy who drives the same car stock but still makes it to work on time, and 
naively think that the guy is "blissfully ignorant" because he doesn't 
realize his car is capable of becoming a rolling ghetto.

For lots of people, the PC is like a can opener or table saw: They turn 
it on, use it, and turn it off.  When you're using your power drill, do 
you contemplate what it is capable of?  If the holes you're drilling are 
satisfactory, do you perplex yourself thinking that you don't have, 
should have, or do have the best power drill on the market?  Personally, 
I drill with the sucker and then throw it back in the box.....kind of 
like my PC.  Are you suggesting that it is used improperly, and what is 
your basis for such?


> Lesser colours onscreen will give faster video performance, smaller video
> RAM requirements, and cheaper video hardware. 
> 

You sound like the proponents of the original Macintosh.  HEY, THAT'S 
IT...LET'S ALL BRING BACK MONOCHROME!!!  Can't get any less colors than 
that!  No thanks.  As imperfect as my P5/PCI computer is, it makes 
beautiful graphics that no sour grapes can detract from.

> Few users _need_ 256 or more colours. 
>

Few people _need_ a remote control for their television set, but it sure 
is nice.


> 
> The most common use of computers is for word processing. This is one area
> where large numbers of colours are a waste of time and money. 

Yeah but it's fun to play Descent II or Mech Warrior between pages....but 
you wouldn't know these games since they're not available on your platform.


> 
> A PC as a home computer (read "games box") is overkill. Why spend
> thousands on an obsolete-before-you-buy-it PC when, for one tenth the
> price, you can buy a console? 

I use both!  I'm probably more of a Nintendo man than PC.  I relish many 
NES and Super NES games that aren't available on other consoles or 
platforms.  Yet I play some "nexgen" type games on my PC.  What's wrong 
with that?  Who says you can't enjoy it all?