#irony of new location
67 messages in this thread
It's kinda quiet here since we moved I just thought that after all of the
debate comparing Demos to pre-generated .FLIs, .AVIs, etc. that it was kinda
ironic that here we are surrounded by them.
BTW I'm not trying to restart the fires from that GRAVIS thread (although a
little debate would make thing interesting again <grin>)
Just a thought,
Jeff
Jeff,
There's no escaping the ubiquitous FL? formats. <g>
Jeff,
Why not restart the fires? I love a good flame <g>.
But, seriously, I had to laugh. I had skimmed the news section in the
GRAPHDEV forum, but it sounded like there was ANOTHER demo group forming here
in this section. Then suddenly I found I was not "authorized" to enter the Demo
Team section. Thought I had been locked out.
The reason I had to laugh was that I posted a "where is everybody, and why am
I locked out?" message in the General section of GRAPHDEV. I got FOUR answers
"They're over THERE! Go away and leave our SERIOUS programmers alone with all
this DEMO stuff!" Well, of course, nobody actually said that. Still, I thought
it was funny.
Maybe I just have a twisted sense of humor. From some of the demos I've seen,
it could be helpful for demo writing <g>.
Regards,
Fred Trafton
Dear Fred,
I'm sure they didn't mean to say "go away," they were just trying to be
helpful. Everyone is a little confused from the forum changes but it will be
worth it.
I look forward to the day we're making demos here that can be compared to
neighboring fli's, flics avi's and ani's. I don't know about you but I think
realtime graphics are very exciting. I'm sure that is why I loved FractInt so
much. It was just doing it then, making the calculations and drawing on the
screen.
Demos are like that, the picture is being generated while you watch.
The first time I saw a demo run, I wondered how it could all fit on a single
CD. When I learned it was 1 meg, I felt disbelief and amazement.
Anyway, there is a Demo Team on CompuServe and they will be bringing you some
homegrown demos in the near future!
hugs
*Lily*
Lily,
I know, nobody was being rude. It just struck me funny. Judging from the huge
<?> number of messages here, it seems that some others have gotten lost in the
shuffle as well. Oh, well, I imagine everyone interested in demos will soon
find their way here as well.
BTW, how can I get signed up for the private section? I have no problem with
sharing my code with the rest of the group if I get to see some of your code
too (i.e. "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" <g>). Right now the only
thing I have that might be of interest to the team is a "Ball Engine" of the
type Arjan showed off in the UltraForce "Vectdemo" demo. It's pretty fast, I
have a little demo of a bunch of water molecules bouncing around the screen,
and it does about 35FPS on my 486/66. The "main" program is in Turbo Pascal,
but the ball renderer (with distance shading) is in inline assembly, so that
could be used inside a C implementation just as easily. Oh, BTW, it's in X mode
320×240.
If you're interested, I'd like to join up.
Regards,
Fred Trafton
I am sorry for my delay in answering you. I am sure you can get on
the Demo Team when they have new openings. Just watch this section
and keep prompting us to make sure you're on the waiting list! That
probably sounds like a lot of trouble, but it's the only way.
Lily,
No prob. I sorta hang out here anyway, just to listen to the demo chit-chat.
Maybe if there's several people who want to get some demos together, we should
form more than one demo team or sub-teams or whatever.
At any rate, I just sorta wanted to trade code with people. I write
just for the thrill, and don't really get non-commercial folks who
keep stuff close to the vest. That's why I had no problem with
posting my X-Mode library and PCX stuff, although it represents many
hours of study, hacking, and debugging. Some might feel ripped off if
someone else "steals" their code. As far as I'm concerned, more power
to anyone who wants to use it. So, I don't really understand why the
demo team is doing things "in private". But, whatever. I'll just hang
out and if an opening appears, I wouldn't mind a little code
swapping, even though you may have already seen all of my stuff by
then, considering I'll probably post source code along with any demos
I post. That's what this is supposed to be all about, right, sharing
information?
Naively yours,
Fred Trafton
Hi Fred,
Please, can you tell me that exactly the DEMO TEAM is?
Thank you in advance.
Alex K.
Alex,
I'll try, as best I can, but you should really ask one of the sysops. I'm not
on the demo team yet, I just hang out here.
The demo team is a Compuserve demo-writing team. They are working on
the code, artwork, and music required to put together a Compuserve
demo. I suppose that they'll enter it into one of the demo
competitions if they get ome that is cool put together.
If you don't know what a demo is, download a couple from here and
check them out. They're basically real-time-computed "movies" with a
soundtrack. They aren't like .AVI or .FLI files, though because they
must be calculated at run-time, not just be playing back a sequence
of pictures. This is what distinguishes a "demo" from other types of
computer animation.
Good enough?
Regards,
Fred Trafton
Hi Fred,
I can understand your POV, but if I have worked two or more month on a great
assembly-routine I would like to know who can download it…
I hate computer-kids who download great sources and replaces the 'written-by'
or 'copyright by' – statement.
Have a nice day,
Nils
> I hate computer-kids who download great sources and replaces the 'written-by'
or 'copyright by' – statement.
You let kids limit the ultimate usefullness of your code? Why spend months on
it then? I can understand the practice on local BBS's, but here on CIS the
good apples outweigh the bad eggs.
Bri
Hi Brian,
That's the reason why I'm so happy beeing a member of the Demo-Team… Here I
can upload my sources and I know who's able to download it.
Regards,
Nils
By the way, I'm very busy finishing my composing-software.. At the moment I'm
writing music-code, no special vga-fx…
So, you're doing the music part of this, huh? What does your
software support? Just GUS? Soundblasters? I'm a musician too, but so
far I've been doing VGA-FX and leaving the sound card programs 'til
later. Maybe I'll just use one of the public players for awhile. Nah.
Other people's software is never "good" enough. Always gotta roll
your own. Right?
Hi Fred again (I think we should start a new thread…. Demo-Music or
Music-Stuff or something like this).
>> So, you're doing the music part of this, huh? What does your software
support? Just GUS? Soundblasters? <<
I support all kinds of FM-Synthesis based on OPL-Chips.. I suggest reading the
message I wrote to Dan…
>> I'm a musician too, but so far I've been doing VGA-FX and leaving the sound
card programs 'til later. <<
And I'll do some nice VGA-FX this afternoon.. I have a great new idea to code
plasma which isn't based on sin and cos.. (I know.. plasma is boring and old
but I simply like it). I'll call it EctoPlasma..
>>Maybe I'll just use one of the public players for awhile. <<
I tryed ScreamTracker III. It's great but it crashes if I have EMM386
installed (I need it for UMB.. does anyone know how to use UMB without putting
your CPU into v86-Mode?). And I don't like working with digitized instruments..
I have no experience picking the right instruments. Some of them sound great
when played solo but awful if you add them to the other instruments…
>>. Other people's software is never "good" enough. Always gotta roll your
own. Right? <<
Yes! That's excatly what I'm think.. Why should I buy a great shareware
program for $50 when I can write a better one within a month, sell it for $100
and get a reputation of a world-class-asm-programmer <grin>.
Have a nice day,
Nils
[Has anyone noticed, that I'm going slightly mad?]
I agree. Those are "lamers". You get to exact your revenge by
lambasting them in your next demo. "Greetings to the LAME turkey who
just ripped my code and stuck his name on it. Hope you feel like a
REAL programmer now."
But they're just kids. Nobody in the know is fooled by such
juvenile stuff. It would be like my taking a crayols and marking out
the signature on a Van Gogh, signing my name, and then bragging about
what a great artist I am. But everyone would know, since I couldn't
reproduce another masterpiece. Don't let those kids get to you,
they're just turkeys. They're only hurting themselves.
> I agree. Those are "lamers". You get to exact your revenge by lambasting
>them in your next demo. "Greetings to the LAME turkey who just ripped my code
>and stuck his name on it. Hope you feel like a REAL programmer now."
Heh!
> But they're just kids. Nobody in the know is fooled by such
juvenile stuff. It would be like my taking a crayols and marking out
the signature on a Van Gogh, signing my name, and then bragging about
what a great artist I am.
Yes, that was sort of my point… Here I am a hard working, still
broke graphics programmer, and I feel excluded from 'the demo team
code'. 🙁
As someone that knows what they're looking at, I'd love to see some
cool tricks to drool over, and apply in my own ways in the coming
years. I have some of my own to share, and admittedly I have one set
I dont want to share for free (but that embodies 2 years of effort).
>Don't let those kids get to you, they're just turkeys. They're only hurting
themselves.
For the most part yes, but lets be fair and realize that a few of them
are good guys too, stuck in that peer group, looking for our help.
I've helped a dozen young teens with graphics over the last two
years. 11 were a washout but one, sheesh, he's doing what I couldn't
have conceived of at 15. 😉
>> I've helped a dozen young teens with graphics over the last two years. 11
>>were a washout but one, sheesh, he's doing what I couldn't have conceived of
>>at 15. 😉
Brian,
You had better believe that not all teenagers are morons (all
though most are). But, I can safely say that I' not a moron, and I'm
am only 16, and have quite a few accomplishments under my belt, or at
least starting to go under my belt. <g> I've built a simple 8088
computer from scratch, I'm writing a few chapters for a programming
book, I'm part of the demo team, and will soon be an SL at another
one of CIS' forums, just to name a few. I'm not saying this to brag
(o.k. maybe I am <g>) but I'm just trying to say not all teenagers
are idiots. I would never ever think of just renaming someones elses
code and saying I did it. In fact, I usually don't even use the code
of other people, I prefer to write my own. Well, enough talk for one
day. <-ya
Hiya Lee!
I think you took me wrong… I was defending you guys!
What I meant to say about the 11 washouts / 1 success was that the one success
made the effort worthwhile.
Bri
Yeah, don't rub it in! I'm 39 myself, and I know VERY well that
demos are mostly coded by high-school or college-age "kids". I can
only aspire to doing code at the level of some of these demos. Maybe
some day I will be as good as the Future Crews etc. of the world.
By the way, I wonder what the average age of the members of "Prime"
are? I downloaded "Airframe" from the Internet. Just a 64K Intro, and
it's got some of the most kick-butt polygon stuff in it I've ever
seen. I'm just GREEN with envy!
Bri,
Agree with you wholeheartedly. A lot of them are just trying to
learn, and those in particular are the ones I'm HAPPY to share my
code with. I was just being sympathetic to people who don't want to
see their software floating around with credit being grabbed by
someone else. That is the definition of "lamer" as far as I'm
concerned.
Regards,
Fred Trafton
Hi Fred,
>> "Greetings to the LAME turkey who just ripped my code and stuck his name on
it. Hope you feel like a REAL programmer now." <<
Yes, that's exactly what I would do.. But how should I recognize my
code if they modify and or encrypt it… I think if they not steal
something completely new I have no chance of identifying it… And
another idea: Why should I start a flame-war If I can easy avoid
it…
By the way, I haven't downloaded your Xmode-lib.. Would you please
help me rewriting a short pice of asm-code to work in modex? It's
nothing special, just a hand full of horizontal lines….
Regards,
Nils
<Would you please help me rewriting a short pice of asm-code to work in modex?
It's nothing special, just a hand full of horizontal lines….>
Horizontal lines. Hmmm, this wouldn't have anything to do with 3D
code, would it? It is not advisable to do horizontal lines in mode X.
You have to change planes for every column, and every plane change
requires an OUT. OUT is a slow instruction, so horizontal lines would
be slow. To do things fast in mode X, you should use verticle lines.
Hi Jim,
You're right.. at the moment I have two array for each scanline containing the
end- and the startpoint of a polygon..
It was fast to draw such polys in mode $13. I'm not sure.. If I calcualte the
vertical lines I miss the quadrouble speed (enabling the 4 planes). And of
cause I can not use the rep stosw/stosd instructions.
Correct me if I'm wrong….
Nils
Nils,
I agree with the reply you already got – don't use horizontal lines
with Mode X, use vertical. I know, it's tempting to enjoy writing 4
pixels at once, but as Jim said, this is only better for "big"
polygons. If you're trying to do good 3-D, you'll probably want lots
of small polys instead of a few big ones.
As far as helping you with some ASM, I wouldn't mind giving it a try, but I
don't guarantee the results! Download my X-Lib and check out my vertical line
drawer in there. The Pascal procedure is "XVert". You call it as:
XVert(X,Y,Length,PageBase,Color);
It draws a vertical line top-to-bottom beginning at pixel (X,Y) and makes the
line Length pixels long. The inner loop is pretty fast, given the limitations
of Pascal's 286 code and 8-bit writes. The Inner loop is just:
@LoopPoint:
mov es:[bx],al
add bx,80
loop @LoopPoint
As you probably know, you can probably speed this up for 486
machines by replacing the "loop" with explicitly decrementing cx and
jumping if zero.
If you've got some code you'd like me to comment on, send it by
E-Mail, or just post it in a message, and I'll be happy to do what I
can. I don't claim to be an assembly guru by any stretch of the
imagination, though, I'm just hacking around myself.
Regards,
Fred Trafton
Hi Fred,
If you set the pixels one after another I don't need your help.. I'll rewrite
my code to use vertical lines.. It's no problem because I think I have a
well-commented sourcecode…
By the way, I've done a nice plasma-program. I'll upload it into the
lib today or tomorrow, so you can see what I'm doing at the moment..
It runs full-screen in a tweaked modex with 80×100 pixels and looks
better than most plasma I've ever seen. Yesterday I run it with a mod
in the background and the lights turned off, I (and my parrot who was
sitting beneath me) was hypnotized…
Regards,
Nils
Fred,
I've read you're comments to Nils about vertical lines in mode-X for 3D
polygons and was wondering… What would be more advantageous, the square
pixels of 320 x 240, or the ease of puting pixels in 320 x 200 (and then
adjusting the aspect ratio) ? I've gotten the impression that while vertical
lines are quicker than horizontal in mode-X, standard VGA horizontal are even
quicker. I'm thinking of writing my own 3D library of routines and was
wondering what you (or anyone else thought).
Jeff
Hi Fred,
Like you, I upload things that I spend many hours working on. Usually I put a
notice in the description that gives permission for the piece to be used
(mostly clipart). If a person lets it eat at them that someone is
using/stealing their work, then they shouldn't upload in the first place.
Currently, the demo team is making a series of special effects. I hope I am
allowed to say this. So if you want to go ahead and make something neat,
upload it to the forum! Why not! If the forum management sees you are serious
about working on these things, I am sure they will let you form a separate
team. <grin> But I'm sure the Demo Team will want you for themselves, first!
hugs
*Lily*
Lily,
Okay, I just might do that. My "water molecules" demo is not really ready for
uploading yet, since it's not QUITE a "demo" yet. Although the graphics are
drawn in real-time, the atomic movements are programmed into a movement file
and this series of motions is played back. I want to calculate the motions in
real-time too before I upload it.
Actually, come to think of it, all those neat polygon-engine demos with
little spaceships flying around are done the same way. I mean, all the course
changes, camera angles, ets. are being played back from a table, so what's
wrong with the motions of water molecules coming from a table? Same diff,
right? Hmm … this "real-time calculation" thing gets kinda hazy when you
examine it too close, doesn't it?
Thanks & hugs,
Fred Trafton
>Hmm … this "real-time calculation" thing gets kinda hazy when you >examine
it too close, doesn't it?
Yea, I was thinking your 'real-time' calc definition was close, but not 'on the
mark' for demos. To me, demo's are demo's of innovation. At one time, it was
simply doing anything that moved. Then it was things that moved fast… table
driven or real-time. Then they went 3D…. and still we have many 2D tricks
that are innovative…
hm I guess its 'art'. It aint -how- you do it… its 'what' you do, given
'what was', while working within the limitations of the medium. What makes a
'good' demo is appropriately subjective.
🙂
Bri
Bri,
I agree completely about innovation being the key. I also think that
"artistic merit" has its place in demos too, even when the techniques aren't
the most leading-edge possible.
That's why I felt bad for the coders of "Cosmic", one of the ASM'94
demos I downloaded. Evidently they were laughed at during the
convention, judging from some of the comments they made in their
credits section. This was due to the fact that their source material
was videotape (this is obvious when you watch it). But still, they
made the player, encode and decode the pixels, store all the images
in the code, and do some sort of on-playback sharpening algorithm
(you can see the image processing artifacts, which gives it a cool
"computery" look).
It had no polygon engines, no spinning pictures or "slimy" mutations. So
what? I thought it was really cool, and I think it's the height of snobbery to
call this "lame". Oh well, what do I know?
Regards,
Fred Trafton
>>
That's why I felt bad for the coders of "Cosmic", one of the ASM'94
demos I downloaded. Evidently they were laughed at during the
convention, judging from some of the comments they made in their
credits section. This was due to the fact that their source material
was videotape (this is obvious when you watch it). But still, they
made the player, encode and decode the pixels, store all the images
in the code, and do some sort of on-playback sharpening algorithm
(you can see the image processing artifacts, which gives it a cool
"computery" look).
It had no polygon engines, no spinning pictures or "slimy" mutations. So
what? I thought it was really cool, and I think it's the height of snobbery to
call this "lame". Oh well, what do I know? <<
Basically the idea here is that .FLIs, .AVIs and their ilk are not welcome in
the world of demos; the display is supposed to be calculated and generated
"on-the-fly" in direct opposition to other types of animation. Although the
technical feat of storing that animation in a file that size was quite
impressive, it still seemed like a avi variant.
Yes, there is a good deal of snobbery in the PC-scene, but somehow I don't
think animation compression is all that emotively impressive a thing. I mean
MPEG is very impressive, but there is no trying of new concepts or ideas, just
better compression.
Sorry if this message insults anyone's intelligence. I find myself talking
down to people after a few hours of explaining to AOL members on the net what
keeping on topic is 🙂
Fred,
> I write just for the thrill, and don't really get non-commercial folks who
keep stuff close to the vest. That's why I had no problem with posting my
X-Mode library and PCX stuff, although it represents many hours of study,
hacking, and debugging. Some might feel ripped off if someone else "steals"
their code. As far as I'm concerned, more power to anyone who wants to use it.
I agree completely. I don't really want to start a flame, but to me it smacks
of a truly eliteist attitude for people to hoard their code. I thought
programming was supposed to be fun (unless, of course you do it for a living!
<bg>) and that was the way you learned new things. You say 'Hey, look at this
code, what do you think?' and people would do so, and say 'Cool, but, what
would happen if you did it like this…?' etc, etc.
Anyway, I love demos, and am interested in playing around with them, but if
needs be I will just do it myself.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris,
Well, dude, just jump in any time with some code. I'll be posting my
stuff here as it finishes, so you'll get to see that regardless. All
together, we could be the "public demo team", so tell me anything you
think might be interesting. Actually, I find most demo code
interesting, so it should be tough to bore me with anything you
decide to post.
Regards,
Fred Trafton
How is the honor bestowed (become a active member of the demo team). Not for
me, but I know someone . Norton
Hi Norton,
I am sorry for my delay in answering your request. If you would like to be on
the demo team, please correspond with us here so we will put you on the list to
be considered next time there are openings. We are looking for people willing
to dedicate a lot of hard work, code/art and time.
hugs
*Lily*
Confused?
You bet! I felt kinda lost when I, after having been away for a week
or so, discovered that there wasn't a Demo Team section anymore.
Luckily, it had only moved… 🙂
Best regards, Jens.
Confused?
You bet! I felt kinda lost when I, after having been away for a week or so,
discovered that there wasn't a Demo Team section anymore. Luckily, it
had just moved… 🙂
Best regards, Jens.
Fred,
> Why not restart the fires? I love a good flame <g>.
Maybe I should rephrase what I said. I don't mind restarting the fires, I just
don't want to burn the same fuel. That is, let's continue the debates on
OS/GUI/etc. but not repeat old arguments.
> Maybe I just have a twisted sense of humor. From some of the demos I've >
seen, it could be helpful for demo writing <g>.
Being twisted is helpful in lots of ways, especially for coding and doubly so
for low-level (Asm, etc.) coding.
Jeff
Jeff,
Right. Enough Windows-bashing. Everyone who loves it will continue to love
it, and everyone who hates it will continue that as well. Nobody's going to
smack themselves on the forehead and say, "Now, WHAT was I thinking?" from any
arguments we're likely to make here. So, I'll wait until another good topic
comes along, and then flame away!
Regards,
Fred Trafton
I agree that those who love windows will continue to love it and the that hate
it will continue to hate it. However, it is so much fun bashing things you
hate. Its kind of cathardic (sp?). Sign me up for the Windows Haters and
Bashers Club of America.<g>
Jim,
Me too. My problem is that I love programming, and Windows cuts me off from
getting "down to the metal" as someone said. I wanna stuff bits in registers
whwnever I want to, and not let the operating system do it for me, with code I
could undoubtedly do quicker and better (at least for my one particular purpose
in my one particular program).
So it doesn't run on an Alpha. BIG DEAL! How many Alphas are there anyway?
The clones outnumber them 100 to 1 AT LEAST, probably closer to 1000 to 1.
Bring on the clones!
Regards,
Fred Trafton
something youll find having a hard time doing without getting into
windows is doing REAL 32bit programming.. sure you can do it with
your 32bit dos extenders and sure you can do it with you .386p and
all… but ive yet to see anything that actualy will compile a 32bit
dos program <and i happen to be a windows '95 developer> what id love
to see, and what should fit you nicley, is windows apps, that are
nothing more then "dos" apps written under the windows compiler…
seriously, ive seen doom run under windows <full screen ofcourse<wich
a windows app can easily do>> run faster then it did under dos
5.0/6.0 simply because of the fact that it was running on a true 32bit
os… now think if it were actualy a true 32bit executable, and not
just a 32bit extended…. just because its gui and just because its
platform cross compatible, doesnt mean you have to use those… ive
seen manya screen savers that shove it into 320x200x256 mode <from my
1024×768 desktop> and perform just fine.. ive seen a few good windows
programs that run efficiently that were written with parts in asm…
msc/w does support inline asm and i believe vc++ supports asm files
<though im not 100% sure on that>
Ill admit that windows style programs are not the best for highspeed demos and
such, but ill say that windows is the better operating system for them…<ive
gotten many demos <second reality being one of them> to run just fine under
windows '95… id like to startt seeing some written for that <just cuz the os
aint out dont mean you cant program for it>
Rob
>>something youll find having a hard time doing without getting into windows is
>>doing REAL 32bit programming…….
Why don't you try OS/2 ???
It may not be the most popular (only because of IBM's poor advertising compared
to Microsoft) but it is by far the _BEST_ operating system with the _BEST_
capabilities. It is also the most configurable OS (I don't see windows
changing settings for apps while the app is running. Heh, I don't even see
windows changing windows settings without rebooting)
Lee TAylor [The Demo Team]
>It may not be the most popular (only because of IBM's poor advertising
compared to Microsoft)
If you think thats true, then you (and everyone else anyways) should
read the Dr Dobbs article in the Undocumented Corner, "Microsoft's
Grip on Software Tightened by Antitrust Deal" in the October 94
issue. Before you read it, you may wish to think out how you will
relieve your stress after doing so.
>>If you think thats true, then you (and everyone else anyways) should read the
Dr >>Dobbs article in the Undocumented Corner, "Microsoft's Grip on Software
>>Tightened by Antitrust Deal" in the October 94 issue.
Brian,
Well, I haven't read this article, but I'll look it up if October is still
at the store. How about a quick summary? From the title it does not appear
that I will like what it talks about. It doesn't however sound like it says
Microsoft makes a better OS, which it can't, since everybody knows OS/2 is the
best Operating system. <g> <-ya
Lee TAyor [The Demo Team]
Lee-
OS/2 is the best operating system you say?? Right on, brother!! I
agree…..
Brian Weiss [Demo Team]
> Well, I haven't read this article, but I'll look it up if October is still
at the store. How about a quick summary?
You can get the whole article in Ziffnet, GO ZIFF. Article A16247000.
Theres normally a surcharge for the forum, but it looks like this
month has a special deal for a free introductory download.
>From the title it does not appear that I will like what it talks about.
I assure that you wont, AND its not an article 'for' MS. Its about Microsoft
and how they played the legal system to get out of the antitrust suit, with a
judgement against them that was really a victory in disguise. They may well be
on their way to worldwide monopoly, without fear of JoA regulation.
The impact is far beyond 'computer platforms' and touches upon politics, the
current administrations inadequacy, and the poor example this makes for our
countries future international corporate sales practicies. Well, thats my
half-mast summary, its a long article and says much more.
>it can't, since everybody knows OS/2 is the best Operating system. <g> <-ya
Computers do not live by OS alone. I had it, but there was nothing
much I could do with it. It wouldnt even run my serial ports. And
dang! Files with spaces in the names? nincompoops. Quickly Deleted
after that work project was done. Sure I liked it way better than
Windoze, for what it did do successfully. I couldnt get support for
the simplest questions tho, over in the support forum. (Not to say
I run Windoze often either hehehe!).
Bri
>>>>everybody knows OS/2 is the best Operating system. <g> <-ya
I think it is just the previous failure of microsoft, as Win95 will be the
next.
I have seen programs running on both Os/2 and Linux on the same machine.
The Linux program was 10x faster on the same system (Linux is real 32 bit, does
not use BIOS at all, is completely free, you can even get the sources)
BTW the program I was talking about could not even be programmed in an easy way
on a DOS or Windows machine because they lack multitasking (of course you can
program that on your own, but this should be a considered an OS-task)
I'm not saying Linux is the best operating system, I'm only saying that the
fact that companies like IBM and microsoft are not able to make a system that
really fits a specifc computer (you can link Linux so that it only runs on a
486 with real 486 instructions) makes me think!
Maybe in about one year we will see the first 64bit 80×86 processors and the
32bit operating systems are only arriving now !
We need faster processors because most application programs use less than 10%
than their capacity. Windows rules for compatibilities sake, not because it
is good !
Maybe microsoft has shares in Intel (IBM does !) 😉 — Let's all hope that
Microsoft will find a real rival before they have the complete market for their
own
(In that I also support OS/2 just as a counterweight to MS)
Philip
Uhm…. os/2 is FAR from the 'best' os… <laugh> os/2 cant run its
own apps well let alone windows or dos apps.. not to mention it cant
touch 32bit.. os/2 is still 16 bit down at the core… ibm cant get
that outa there.. microsoft rewrote windows from scratch twice… Win
'95 runs apps better in a window then ran under straight dos, and i
dont mean an exclusive window…. os/2 couldnt touch that with a 20
foot pole… os/2 simply is the failed attempt at true
multitasking… microsoft knew that.. and thats why they ripped ibm
off with it…. os/2 will remain with its outdated 16bit dos under
its 16bit kernel.. while windows is moving to a 32bit dos and a
32bit kernel with true multitasking…. something os/2 will never be
able to boast…
The only reason os/2 is the most configureable os is because it makes
>YOU< configure everything… i know how it is.. it can take upwards
of 3 hours to properly configure a program to run… windows does
that itself for you… so it runs right the first time…
So, how long have you been living in Redmond, anyway?
Whoa! OS/2 isn't 32 bit? Where have you been bucko? OS/2 has been
mostly 32 bit since ver. 2.1!!!! About the only thing that isn't
always 32 bit is the graphics drivers, and that is only because the
vendors (not IBM) haven't written them in 32 bit. The drivers
written by IBM are all 32 bit. IBM beat Microsoft to 32 bit and
everybody knows it (except apparently you). Obviously you must not
have tried OS/2. You sound like a person who talks about something
who doesn't know the facts so he makes stuff up that sounds about
right. Win 95 may be all those things, but where is it? I haven't
seen it. Win 3.1 isn't 32 bit, OS/2 is now, and the new warp version
should be out somewhere around before christmas. Just live with it,
OS/2 IS the better operating system. Sorry to burst your bubble, but
it's fact. <-ya
it may be mostly 32bit.. but os/2's basic core of its kernel is still 16bit..
they never finished upgrading it all to 32bit…
Rob
Rob,
A very interesting message! In all seriosness, I have a couple of questions
for you.
1. Just 'cuz Win95 isn't out doesn't mean you can't write apps for it? It
doesn't? How can I interface with Win95 if I don't know what the "hooks" are
yet? Are there books out on this yet?
2. You haven't seen any flat-32-bit DOS apps yet? Hmm … many of the
ASM'94 demos use Tran's PMODE, which (I believe) does kick the
computer into a flat 32-bit mode. I don't know how else you could get
a 4GB segment. Both Verses and The Real Thing use this (I'm pretty
sure) and several others give thanks to Tran also.
3. You're definitely right about true 32-bits being faster than the
DPMI-type 24-bit stuff. But it was the original Windows that led to
this bastardization in the first place. Now they're finally "fixing"
it in Win95. So I hear. If it ever comes out. I'm sure it will, but
then I was sure Microsoft would really get OS/2 working, too <g>.
4. Although you may be right about being able to run 320x200x256 mode
under windows by telling it to "get out of the way" and then doing
whatever you want to, I still suggest that DOS is a better
environment for this. Because you don't HAVE to have the code in your
program that tells Windows to "get out of the way", nor the code that
nicely restores it back to its previous operating mode when you're
done.
5. The entire idea of Windows is to be portable (at least so I've
heard) across video cards, audio cards, printers, mice, etc. The
moment I tell Windows to get out of my way and handle all the video
myself, I've just done away with the main purpose for Window's
existence. In that case, why bother ever calling up Windows at all?
Except of course that if I'm running Win95, I won't have a choice,
since I'll only be able to run DOS under emulation. What a clever way
for Microsoft to show that their Win95 apps will run faster that DOS
apps! That Bill Gates, what a clever fellow. <g>
Fred,
PMJI, but…
>> … right about true 32-bits being faster than the DPMI-type >>
24-bit stuff. But it was the original Windows that led to this >>
bastardization in the first place. Now they're finally "fixing" it >>
in Win95 …
Actually, the evil geniuses at Microsoft aren't responsible for 286
pmode. It's the evil geniuses at *Intel* who are guilty of this one.
Microsoft has only perpetuated it.
–dkm
David,
You're right of course. It was the half-a**ed 286 arcitecture that
spawned 24-bit DPMI, and those geniuses at Microsoft who decided that
they wanted to support this lame addressing method instead of the
386's flat mode. At the time they came out with Windows 3.0, a LOT of
people were slapping their foreheads and saying "WHY? WHY? WHY didn't
you blow off the 286 and just support the 386? You guys are nuts!"
How right those head-slappers were.
Fred,
The funny thing is, I read somewhere, a programmer on the development team
went off on his own to add protected mode to Windows. It wasn't even an
officially sanctioned project. It might have been years before we even got 286
pmode in Windows if he'd waited to get it approved.
–dkm
>a LOT of people were slapping their foreheads and saying "WHY? WHY? WHY didn't
you blow off the 286 and just support the 386? You guys are nuts!"
Then again, when they chose the XT platform to build from, I had the same
reaction. Since then, nothings been a surprise, just good for a laugh (then a
cry).
Bri
Well.. for you head slappers…. win'95 is 386+ only…. as ive said before..
it IS 32bit… 286's have been blown off… you cant even run the win'95 "dos"
on a 286…
Rob
Thats what development programs are for.. there have been multiple
releases of alpha and betas of it to the developers along with msc to
program for it….
as for your 'pmode' kicking it into 'flat 32bit mode'… its simply a
16 bit program acting like a 32bit program.. you do realize its
running on a 16 bit os dont you? <and calling it 16 bit is pushing
it> things run much faster when actualy compiled for 32bits then when
they emulate 32bits…
win '95 is a full 32bits.. down to the core…
you have to put the code in, but you dont have to put the code in for
lots of other things like direct access to 4 gigs of memory <yes… 4
gigs.. no more 64k segments.. no more ems no more bs "dos extenders">
actualy no… as i stated.. you can write it as a full screen windows
app, not to mention '32bit' <extended> programs run faster under
windows then they do run under your 16bit dos… dont matter how you
mess with it.. 32 bit is 32 bit.. and 16 bit is still 16 bit.. even
witha '32bit' extender…. <i can and do run most demos <that dont
force me to get rida memory managers and such> in a window faster
then i used to under dos 5.0> <oh.. and for those of you that feel
the need to program in that the program wont run if theres emm386 or
such in memory.. stop it.. with win'95 dos… theres no difference
in speed if you have nothing loaded or emm386, qemm, and 10 other
programs that supposedly slow the demos down….>
Rob
Rob,
Don't quite know what you mean about PMODE being some sort of "fake" 32-bit
mode. It's 32-bit all right.
If you're griping that the BIOS and interrupt servers are all
16-bit, and that you have to keep flipping back and forth between
32-bit protected and standard segments every time there's an
interrupt, then of course you're right. Not much you can do about
that except switch to a true 32-bit OS. Heaven help us if Win95 des
this poorly, because we'll all be stuck with it for years to come.
Oh, for a non-GUI "DOS" that's all 32-bit. Of course, I'll need to
replace my entire ROM BIOS too, to really fix this problem. Anybody
make a 32-bit BIOS? Not that I know of …
So what does Win95 do about the BIOS? Just don't ever interrupt into it?
Install its own "bios" in ram at boot-up? What about timer interrupts? I
suppose you could re-vector those interrupts into protected mode descriptors
… hmm. How WOULD that work? It would be a nightmare, for sure.
Regards,
Fred Trafton
>> It's kinda quiet here since we moved I just thought that after all of the
debate comparing Demos to pre-generated .FLIs, .AVIs, etc. that it was kinda
ironic that here we are surrounded by them. <<
BAAAAAHAHAHAHHAAHA!!! I just noticed something… There's this new LIB called
"The Demo Team Anim." And guess what? It's empty. What do they call that
when something contradicts itself? Like the term "Jumbo Shrimp". Begins with
an "A" I think…Just drawing a blank. I guess 2:00 AM is too late to think of
those big words.
Isn't it funny just how ironic irony can be?
– Paul
oxymoron.
Yesssss!!
>oxymoron.
In one of Todd Rundgren video tapes, theres a short segment
'Oxymoron'. First 'Military Intelligence', then 'Computer Graphics'.
<G>
speaking of oxymorons, here's one…
>>—Windows Application—<<
(Ok so I've probably just opened Pandora's Box <Grin>)
Jeff
Heh!
Paul,
Ironic that you should say that … <g>
Regards,
Fred Trafton