#Lightwave for the 'x86?
18 messages in this thread
Hi!
Are there any plans for 'porting LightWave to the DOS world anytime
soon? I sincerely hope so…
Tarek Okail/VA
Me too, especially with all the CBM woes. It would be great to see a Windows
version or Lightwave.
Steve Banfield
<Me too, especially with all the CBM woes. It would be great to see a Windows
version or Lightwave.>
A Mac version is more likely…..!
AET
<Me too, especially with all the CBM woes. It would be great to see a
Windows version or Lightwave.>
<A Mac version is more likely…..!>
What makes you think this?
<Me too, especially with all the CBM woes. It would be great to see a
Windows version or Lightwave.>
<A Mac version is more likely…..!>
<What makes you think this?>
When I was a full blown Windows user I thought every thing else was cow
droppings. But then I discovered the Mac systems for what they were…. GREAT!!
Until Windows NT gets a little more streamlined, and until the PC's become more
hardware Plug & Play (SCSI and all that), I just think the Mac systems offer
more of a high tech machine.
I work on high-end Macs all day long….. come home and jump on the
A4000/Toaster…… and when I must use my IBM clone I sigh sadly……!
The Mac is the closest thing (in it's price bracket) toward a perfect computer.
If they could add the Amiga chipset and make it true multitasking it just might
reach the stars…..!!!!
AET
John–
Also, all the processor specific programming could be kept. And, it
wouldn't take too much to redo the interface. If LightWave was ported to the
'x86 market, they'd have to redo the interface, they wouldn't be able to use
Windows <too slow>, and redo the processor-specific code in order to make it
run at optimal speed.
Still, I'm hoping…
Tarek Okail
I'm tied of hearing how programs can't use windows on a PC. There are
a number of video boards on PC's that makes windows very usable. I have
used a number of 3-d animation programs and CAD programs that run very
well under windows. Yes, it takes horse power. I good 66MHZ 486 or pentium
with a Diamond Viper, ATI Ultra pro, or good S3 card can run windows just
as fast as an Amiga display.
Steve Peters
Steve,
Just to hop in here. I have a 486 DX66, with an ATI Ultra Pro and 16mb ram. My
associate conducted a number of experiments to test performance for certain
multi-media effects between this system, my amiga 4000 and (somebody else's)
MAC. There are a number of effects – for instance, moving complex images across
a screen – that appear to be far more professionally achievable on the AMIGA
than the IBM or even MAC. I compared similar types of effects using ASTOUND,
COMPEL, and CHARISMA in IBM and DIRECTOR (mac)
versus SCALA and MEDIA POINT. You can achieve these effects in IBM/MAC but I
think there is some rendering time involved, e.g., construction of an AVI/QUICK
TIME file. At least thats what my experiments showed.
Anyways, I would be very interested in comments on this, as it proved to be a
critical reason why I purchased the AMIGA (I want to produce multi-media).
Now that the AMIGA's future is uncertain, I want to again see if high quality
smooth movement of complex images are possible in IBM/MAC in real time. (Maybe
with another video board)..
look forward to hearing from you all out there.
You're right. I use Scala on a fairly old A2500/30 and it's simply amazing
how smooth and fast it is, especially given that all the wipes,
transitions, etc., are handled in software. I have yet to see any PC or
Mac that could equal this package. A PowerPC should be able to, of course.
— Ron Legro / MILWAUKEE WI USA via AUTOPILOT
["Phun, phun, phun on the Infobahn…"]
The Amiga is very good at playing animations and moving images. The
video on IBM clones have hardware that is very fast at line drawing, text,
and simple shapes.
So, for CAD and 3D modeling a clone works well. For multi media and
animation the Amiga still wins.
Steve Peters
Thats a good clarification. Thanks.
Michael Miloff
Steve–
Yes, I know. However, no matter what hardware you have, the fact is
that there's another layer of software between the graphics program and the
hardware when you're running Windows. I'd much rather have a graphics program
for DOS than for Windows, particularily when it comes to animation and
rendering.
Tarek Okail/VA
The problem with DOS programs doing graphics is that they don't use
the fast video coprocessor available on many PC video cards. Under
windows each video card company writes a driver so that standard windows
calls run very fast. DOS programs seem to use standard VGA or SVGA and
don't use the coprocessor.
Rendering from DOS is O.K. but I'd bet the Win32 interface and flat
model code ( 32 bit address ) would be faster. A good DOS extender and
flat model would be a little faster yet, but I like running Windows NT
and multi-tasking. One reason I like the Amiga.
Steve Peters
You don't do your machine justice. I have a pentium system running windows
with a matrox MGA II 64 bit PCI accelerator card. I run 1024 x 768 displays in
24 bit faster than my Amiga 4000 040 can display a 'hi-res' flickering
workbench. The amiga was a cool machine, but the unstoppable steamroller of
the PC clone world marches on/over all in its path.
PMFJI, but what's all this talk about LW on something other than Amiga? Other
than the CBM woes is there anything inherently better than an Amiga for the
Toaster or LW? As a producer of high-speed hardware, yeah, I'd love to see LW
on NT on MIPS, but what's the big deal about LW on another slow platform like
x86? Isn't that precisiely the problem with the Amiga?
When all is said and done, if LW were available on a variety of platforms which
one would you invest incremental money on? If you already have a MAC or PC
great! But maybe if you have an Indigo that would be great too. But if you're
investing incremental money wouldn't you want something more powerful than a
PC, more widely supported than an Indy, more affordable than an Indigo, more
extensible than a MAC and more likely to see the 21st century than an Amiga?
don
Don,
PMFJ, but < is there anything inherently better than an Amiga for the Toaster
or LW?> The issue is strictly one of market size. Make LW available for the PC
and its potential market has just grown exponentially. It's got nothing to do
with what's the "best" platform, just what's the biggest. The PC might well be
the "worst" of the 3 platforms for video and animation. But by virtue of its
size and the perceived future market for business videoconferencing, advances
in PC video and animation over the past year has been rather remarkable and I
suspect in another 2 years or so it may well be the "best" platform for video
and animation. If you disagree, just guesstimate the amount of R & D money
currently being spent to improve Amiga video handling vs. the amount currently
being spent to improve PC video handling.
Just my two cents worth,
Andrew
Andrew,
I wouldn't disagree with anything in your email. But, for getting the stuff in
and out of the system what kind of solution exists for the PC that can match
the Amiga? If you say the Targa boards from Truevision first consider that
these cards cost plenty, like $4000 for the EISA version and they don't even
have PLANS for a PCI version. Further, yeah there's lots of PCs out there but
exactly who's spending money trying to make them more video compatible?
Certainly not the system vendors! Besides, from a compute standpoint what
advantage does an x86 system offer over a comparably priced Amiga, assuming you
could get one?
Don
Don,
Basically, I think we agree. <from a compute standpoint what advantage does an
x86 system offer over a comparably priced Amiga, assuming you could get one?>
In my book, none. But I bought a Beta VCR because of its technical superiority
over VHS. Ultimately, market share rules.
<exactly who's spending money trying to make them more video compatible?> Well,
Texas Instruments, Hauppauge, Orchid, Diamond, Matrox, IBM, FAST electronics,
Truevision, and Intel all come to mind.
Andrew