X-Original-To: raycomp@shell.visi.com Delivered-To: raycomp@shell.visi.com Delivered-To: raycomp@visi.com Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 04:20:32 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Bernardo X-X-Sender: rbernardo@shell1 To: "Raymond C. Bryan" Cc: commodor@listserv.buffalo.edu, johnf@CP-TEL.net Subject: Re: Dave Haynie comments X-Originating-IP: 192.107.41.17 X-IgLou-Customer: verified X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:91.9762 C:97.1311 ) X-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:1.0000) r p m c X-pstn-addresses: from [1099/50] X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:91.9762 C:97.1311 ) X-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:1.0000) r p m c X-pstn-addresses: from [926/40] Due to popular demand, here are Dave's comments. :-) Truly, Robert Bernardo Fresno Commodore User Group http://videocam.net.au/fcug ------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 05:56:05 GMT From: Dave Haynie Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: Why do you think... On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 03:41:21 GMT, Don Romero wrote: >actually.. the C=64 suffered the same curse.. heavy reliance on >proprietary hardware that had no future, let alone 3-4-5 generations of >future.. In the day the C64 was built, no one EXPECTED a future. The next one would be entirely different. It was only the success of the C64, the 10's of millions of them, that led to a compatible upgrade. And, while maybe it's not well known, but our C128 was at least the second attempt, within Commodore, at a C64 upgrade. Our team, led by Bil Herd, was the one that understood the importance of both maintaing C64 compatibility and making the new machine something more. The C64/C128 were not cursed. They were long, long past their day by the time Commodore went under. I suppose the interest today is largely nostalgia. Same reason I'm building a MAME (Multi-Arcade Machine Emulator) console for my game room. >nostalgia .. and dirt cheapness.. I think a fair number of the C64-retro folks have never run a real C64, but just run emulators on the PC. >I predict there will be a similar revival for the Amiga once 4000T >systems are selling for $35, including monitor and Picasso II video card, >on eBay.. :-) I'd probably buy one :-) Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting dhaynie(at)jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004! "Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com ------ Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:04:43 GMT From: Dave Haynie Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: Why do you think... On 10 Mar 2004 19:13:29 GMT, Joona I Palaste wrote: >""Azrael" " <"Azrael". @p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org> scribbled the following: >> In message <00433fe8@elebbs.bbs>, Joona.I.Palaste@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet. >> org >> wrote: >> A C64 can also be expanded with a better processor, more memory, a new >> OS and so on. But it is true that the vast majority of the software >> written for the C64, even today, will run on a stock machine. And, as well, that very little software runs with the additions. The C64 was just too primitive to allow big changes in a compatible way. >> I wish the Amiga could have somehow maintained backwards compatability >> with the C64. I think that would have made the Amiga a much greater >> success. Nope; if anything, it would have crippled the Amiga. There is a time when things need to change. The Amiga did more new stuff in a single product introduction than any new computer before or since. Invoking too much of the past would certainly have hurt this. >> users would have been more likely to upgrade to an Amiga than some >> other platform, and there were a lot of C64 users out there when the >> Amiga was introduced. >Backwards compatibility with the C64 for the Amiga is pretty much >impossible. The computers differ far too much, starting right down from >different processor architectures, one of which is 8-bit, the other >32-bit. The processors weren't even made by the same company! Well, the Amiga's keyboard was much closer (based originally on a 6500/1 chip, though the "Cherry" keyboards for the A2000 were using something else, they were an OEM deal). >Think about it: How would *you* have wanted the backwards compatibility? >You insert a C64 disk into the Amiga's 5.25" drive and type >LOAD "*",8,1 >RUN Really. The only proper way to run C64 software on the Amiga was via an emulator. A bunch of them existed, but didn't sell all that well. One big reason was simple: when you used an Amiga, you had a far more advanced computing environment. Most users would not give that up to run the C64 software. And emulation was the only way it could possibly have been kept compatible. We discovered, in the C128 project, that the C64 ROM was very much _functionally_ part of the C64's hardware description. Changing anything would break some commercial application, as they had nasty habits, like jumping into undocumented routines in BASIC, etc. just to save RAM. We had originally changed the font, just to de-uglify it a bit, but this caused the Island Graphics paint program to take something like 20-30 minutes to boot up, because it "missed" when trying to dot a bit "i" it drew from ROM. So the C128 actually banks the font ROM between C128 and C64 mode, in hardware. Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting dhaynie(at)jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004! "Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com ------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:29:49 GMT From: Dave Haynie Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: Why do you think... On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:59:36 GMT, ""Azrael" " <"Azrael".@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org> wrote: >In message <0043741b@elebbs.bbs>, Joona.I.Palaste@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org >wrote: >> Backwards compatibility with the C64 for the Amiga is pretty much >> impossible. >I realize that it was impossible given the way in which it was designed. >But it could have been designed in from the beginning and this was the >point I was trying to make. Ok... no, it couldn't have been. Period. End of story. C64 compatibility would have crippled in the Amiga in heinous ways, for very little added value. There are times when it makes sense to try for backward compatibility, and times when it doesn't. >Of course the Amiga wasn't designed by Commodore so that >would never have been a consideration. It certainly would have been >possible to do. I can run 8088 software on my P4 There is more in common between the original IBM PC and a modern PC than between the C64 and the Amiga. And even at that, once things get even a little complicated, what you claim isn't true. You probably can't run most MS-DOS programs on a Windowx XP machine. Or CGA. Or whatever that 1982-1985 PC used for sound. Stuff just isn't supported anymore. But hey.. it'll all work in an emulator. > and PS1 games on my PS2. That was a design decision that probably did add complexity to the PS2. But you're also talking about a totally different age. Sony's making their own CPUs there, along with the graphics chips and all, they're not using anything off-the-shelf in the PS2, other than the Direct Rambus memories. Such things were not possible, at this level, back in 1982-1983 (when the Amiga was started). And even at that, it only works because of the way the PSX1 was done. It's a game machine, and it only needs to talk to a small bit of I/O. How would you get the unchanged C64 ROM loading programs from an Amiga floppy or hard drive? With all the hacks, that sort of stuff never worked very well on the C64 itself. You basically have to fool the C64 environment into thinking there's a 1541 (or something similar) there. Especially when the C64 application launches a program on the 1541's CPU :-). EMULATORs. They do this perfectly, without complicating the new thing. This isn't that unusual. While you guys never saw this done, of course, C= was tossing any backward compatibility with the Amiga chipset with the "Hombre" project (the successor to AAA). And AAA itself -- the 64-bit Amiga chipset. That took extra years simply because it was trying to stay compatible with the original chipset. That compatibility was inherently broken in 64-bit systems anyway, the whole thing got expensive (four large chips in a 32-bit system, six large chips in a 64-bit system, VRAM, etc). It would have been far better to toss out bit-level compatibility for AAA. Maybe it would have been finished before C= tanked. The issue, of course, is the growth of operating systems. In the modern world, you can throw out pretty much anything but the CPU itself (even the CPU if you're clever, like the Transmeta CPUs), and still run the old applications. That's precisely because they don't bang any registers, etc. They always talk to device drivers. This was almost universal in the Amiga; graphics was very nice, but far too close to the metal. It made the Amigas fast in the early days, but it was a boat anchor after about 1988 or so. >It's not even close to an impossible task. In mathematical terms, - = In engineering terms, we toss out the insignificant issues, and thus, == . If there's no proper way to do it, it can't be considered, even if you could actually do it, given enough effort, cost, and/or compromise. Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting dhaynie(at)jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004! "Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com ------ Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:43:22 GMT From: Dave Haynie Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: Why do you think... On 14 Mar 2004 11:41:14 GMT, Joona I Palaste wrote: >""Azrael" " <"Azrael". @p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet.org> scribbled the following: >> In message <0043741b@elebbs.bbs>, Joona.I.Palaste@p0.f0.n0.z0.fidonet. >> org wrote: >>> Backwards compatibility with the C64 for the Amiga is pretty much >>> impossible. >> I realize that it was impossible given the way in which it was >> designed. But it could have been designed in from the beginning and >> this was the point I was trying to make. Of course the Amiga wasn't >> designed by Commodore so that would never have been a consideration. It >> certainly would have been possible to do. >*IF* the Amiga had been designed by Commodore then there would have been >hope for it. Nope. Not even remotely. C= didn't design the Amiga, but keep in mind, the C128 and the Amiga 1000 were contemporaries. They started the early work on the Amiga back in '82 or '83, we started the C128 in '84. The Amiga competed more, especially back then, with the Commodore 900. In fact, it killed the Commodore 900. The Commodore 900 was a new platform: based on the Z8000 16-bit micro, running Coherent (a UNIX clone), sporting a megapixel monochrome display. A very good system, in fact. But plagued by overambition for awhile -- the original designers couldn't get it to work. George Robbins and Bob Raible did, but they were the second or their team to attempt it (they not only got it working, they made it faster, etc). This was not a $150 computer, anymore than the Amiga was, initially, a $150 computer. There wasn't the slightest though to making the Commodore 900 C64 compatible. There wouldn't have been any more thought given to the Amiga, had that been done totally in-house (of course, it couldn't have been -- that kind of innovation in a single product only, ever, comes from startup companies). >But the two computers were so much different right from the >start. Like Dave Haynie said, the way the Amiga turned up, emulation was >pretty much the only way to run C64 software on the Amiga. The only practical way, especially in those days, to get the C64 compatibility was to build some variation of a C64. C= wasn't willing or able to give us everything we needed to make the C128 the best way possible. There's no way anyone would have signed off on any additional complexity on the Amiga, especially when, at best, it's of questionable value. People happy with their C64s didn't buy Amigas. People who wanted more, did, but that didn't automatically make their C64 vanish in a puff of blue smoke. They still had it, could still use, just as well the day after they bought that first Amiga as the day before. The Amiga wasn't trying to continue anything that the C64 did, was trying to be new, to a revolutionary extent. And it succeeded, at least in that regard. >Of course you >can run 8088 software on your P4 because the software has been handled >by Microsoft all the way, and the hardware has been handled by Intel, >and they've been trying to keep backwards compatibility all the way, not >just add it as an afterthought. Here's also something to chew on -- when you run MS-DOS programs in Windows 2000 or XP, you're not running on the 80x86 directly, you're running in an emulator. Same with Windows 3.1 support, to the extent it still exists. That's the reason that MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 programs actually ran on every version of Windows NT: MIPS, PowerPC, and Alpha. There's a built-in emulator. You can't _really_ have 16-bit stuff multitasking along with 32-bit stuff in the x86, or in MS-DOS, or in the PC's BIOS. Even they had to "cheat" :-) >It's really amazing how people think that slapping a Commodore label on >the outside of the Amiga's plastic casing somehow makes it next in line >of the C64/C128 architecture. Yup. Amiga was something else, and it was supposed to be. Keep in mind, the C128 only shipped about a month before the Amiga 1000: August 1985 vs. September 1985. No one at Amiga or C= imagined for a femtosecond that the Amiga was supposed to be a C64/C128 followup. It was to the C64 very much what the Mac was to the Apple ][... the future. Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting dhaynie(at)jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004! "Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com ------ Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:04:12 GMT From: Dave Haynie Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: Why do you think... On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 04:43:11 +0000 (UTC), dfevans@bcr10.uwaterloo.ca (David Evans) wrote: >In article <40570f70.2516453068@news.jersey.net>, >Dave Haynie wrote: >>On 14 Mar 2004 11:41:14 GMT, Joona I Palaste >>wrote: >>>It's really amazing how people think that slapping a Commodore label on >>>the outside of the Amiga's plastic casing somehow makes it next in line >>>of the C64/C128 architecture. >>Yup. Amiga was something else, and it was supposed to be. > The only thing one could defend it as being, with any sanity, is a >descendant of the Atari 800. But even that is pushing things a bit. Well, to the extent that Jay designed the Atari 800 chip architecture, and then years later, the Amiga architecture. Of course, I did system design on the C128, and later on the Amiga 2000, 3000, etc. but no one's really looking for a hidden C64/C128 magic trick in the Amigas. We do learn as we go. And find other opportunities. For one, on the C128, the primary goal was a wicked level of compatibility. I don't think we hit 100%, but it was awfully good. And there were a number of terribly squirrely things necessary to make this happen (I was the guy in charge of making the expansion port compatible, which basically meant testing everything we could find, when they didn't work, finding out why, then hacking the early C128 prototype to fix the problem). Oddly, much more closely related are the Commodore 900 and the Atari ST. After the whole ousting of Jack, a few middle managers and engineers eventually packed it up and showed up at Atari. They included one of the teams that had [unsuccessfully] been developing the Commodore 900. They proceeded to design the Atari ST. Fortunately, C= still had the guys who made the Commodore 900 work... they went on to design the Amiga 500 :-) Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting dhaynie(at)jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004! "Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com