CompuServe Thread

Amiga QuickTime anyone?

49 messages in this thread
#15400From: Peter G LiapisJan 26, 1992 10:32 PM
Does anyone know of anything for the Amiga similar to QuickTime on the Mac? QuickTime appears to digitize in-motion video (about 1 in 20 frames or so), syncs the sound, and plays it back on a standard Mac screen (and with system 7.0 in any linked application). Seems to me that the Amiga ought to do this sort of thing with its eyes closed. I can see some neat possible applications for this, even though the storage thing is horrendous (about 20-25 seconds on a high density floppy). I'm doing a DTV presentation in Vancouver in March and I'd really appreciate any info out there. Marianne Phinney 70243,2063 (My husband and I share the code, so the names are different. So sue me….)
#15431From: Jonathan HirschmanJan 27, 1992 9:47 PM
Marianne– Have you seen Quicktime? Its terrible! I downloaded the extension and some sample files, and the quality is nasty. I played it on a 16mhz MacIIci; all of the animations played in a tiny window (perhaps 100×80) and in 8bit color. The frame rate is slow and choppy. The biggest animation was 80 frames; it was around 500k compressed. I could see, incidentally, if you were using a Mac IIfx or Quadra with a graphic accelerator…you would probably be able to do faster frame rates in a larger window. However, pricewise, you'd be moving into workstation pricing. Try Showmaker…it'll do the same thing, I've been told. Jonathan – via Whap!
#15438From: Ron LegroJan 27, 1992 11:05 PM
Well, the LIVE! series of framegrabbers will bring up to 15 frames per second from a video source into your Amiga in 16-shade grey scale, and contains switching effects (fades, wipes, etc.) in 640×400 resolution for around 400 bucks (it'll do color at a slower frame rate). LIVE! has been around since at least 1987. Another rig, Spectrum, grabs a 24-bit image in 1/30th of a second in full NTSC color for $700 list. The Video Digitizer grabs 320×256 screens with 16 grey levels in 1/60th second and updates at 1 frame/second for $139. You can save images as IFFs and edit them. The $500 Framegrabber 2.0 handles 4096-color images in 1/30th second up to 640×400 resolution, and the Framegrabber 256 handles 256 shades of grey for $700 — don't ask me why it's more expensive than the color version!). Rambrandt is a $4,000 card that handles 32-bit framegrabbing (16 million colors at 1024×1024 resolution). The $2000 Impact Vision 24 card grabs 24-bit color images in real-time; you can display the live input in full color in a scaleable "picture in picture" window on your Workbench (NOTE: This is the only Amiga product I know of that does scaleable-window video input). Impact Vision also contains two genlcoks, a frame buffer, a flicker eliminator, a composite output for color dumps to videotape and high-end paint/sculpt/titling software. To sync sound, you would need a multitasking real-time audio digitizing package, purchased separately. Of course, the Amiga Video Toaster is the ultimate real-time video switcher/digital effects rig, and it'll outrun some fully rigged professional broadcast studios…but it won't do windows. There may be other packages. Get yourself a copy of the Winter '92 AC Guide to the Commodore Amiga for a complete rundown. >>>> Ron Legro / Milwaukee via WHAP! "Wherever you go, there you are!"
#15455From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPJan 28, 1992 7:14 PM
Quicktime is a very weird setup. It keeps video in a delta format very similar to our ANIM 5 format (in terms of concept, not actual file layout) and ties sound to it. The basic difference is that while all (as far as I know) Amiga ANIM players play each and every frame, with time synchronization only if the ANIM is playing faster than the time sync needs, the Quicktime player forces time synchronization no matter *what* speed the frames are being drawn. If it falls behind, it skips frames. The drawback of the Quicktime technique is that in order to skip frames, it has to have a full frame to work with as a base, since all the delta calculations are dependant on the previous frame. So if there are sequences where a long period of time exists between frames which are totally different (thus requiring storage of a full frame delta) and it falls behind, the video appears to freeze until the time for the next full frame is reached. Of course, you can always arrange at coding time to insert full frames every so often to reduce this problem. (With digitized movies, etc. it's not as bad, since variants in color and the like mean that most frames end up being full frame deltas. Not great for speed, but quite acceptable for Quicktime.) It ought to be a rather trivial thing for someone to hack up an ANIM player which would play at a fixed frame per second rate and if it fell behind would wait until the next full frame delta and skip directly to it. You'd need a couple of ANIMs with extra full frames inserted every half second or so in order to make it look good, but that shouldn't be too difficult. Of course, if you limit the animation to a smaller size on the screen, you ought to be able to run it displaying all frames without skipping, and still synchronize with sound. (a la CD-XL) –>Steve Bennett
#15827From: Miguel ChavezFeb 10, 1992 3:37 AM
I know I'm coming into this conversation late, but I think all the responses to the original question have missed a very crucial point. To wit: QT on the mac is now *UNIVERSAL*. Simply pop in the QT extension into your Mac and you can play any qt movie practically anywhere. Whether or not it does this exceptionally well, the fact is that it is a function accessible to all color mac users (the play back that is). We might have similar frame grabber type hardware, but there is no built-in playing function that is as easy to implement and as transparent. This is analogous to the Mac clipboard, which is used so often in the Mac world and practically non-existent in the Amiga world, though we do have SOME sort of clipboard implementation – no one seems interested in taking advantage of it save a few products. Looking at it in a real-world situation, Apple has taken a big slice out of our desktop-video advantage. Even a poor "live-video" contraption like QT has made their edge in multimedia all the stronger. I only wish CBM could do the same kind of thing. At least they seem to be heading towards a standard re graphics. Video should be next.
#15834From: SyndesisFeb 10, 1992 6:07 PM
Theoretically, we could implement a QuickTime player as the standard for the Amiga. I'm sure it would upset Apple to some extent, because the same Quicktime animation would play much faster on an Amiga. Or would it? We don't have a very large color space on our desktop screens. We'd spend a lot of time dithering.
#15850From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPFeb 11, 1992 11:24 AM
I've actually considered a Quicktime *conversion* program for the Amiga. (Apple has already indicated they *want* to see Quicktime support on other platforms, BTW…) I don't think a direct Quicktime player would be feasible on anything less than an A3000 level machine, because the format conversion of the images would take too much time, IMHO. But one could easily convert Quicktime files to a varient HAM mode ANIM 5 (modified to play back synced to real time and sound, which would be fairly trivial) and *that* would almost certainly play back faster than most Macs. –>Steve Bennett
#15853From: SyndesisFeb 11, 1992 2:14 PM
Why convert? You could do both. Where has Apple documented the QuickTime format? (I haven't waded through the latest CD-ROM disc that has the QuickTime examples… is it documented there?) Make a converter and a direct player. You have nothing else to do, right? 🙂
#15854From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPFeb 11, 1992 3:39 PM
The QuickTime developer's CD ROM has the programming manual for Quicktime, and an appendix to that contains the basic description of the file layout, while one of the programming interface header modules also on the CDROM has the actual layout of each part of the file. I haven't yet found the docs for the compression formats but they're supposedly somewhere there as well… It's kind of interesting how much the structure of Quicktime is similar to that of IFF, BTW. They parallel each other in many ways, which isn't all that surprising when you think about it… –>Steve Bennett
#15864From: SyndesisFeb 11, 1992 6:56 PM
Yes, IFF is a great idea. Microsoft uses it for all their multimedia things, too – with Intel byte order. Like the "RIFF" animation format. And because of the Amiga-heads working on Harvard Draw, we used an IFF format for our drawing files, too.
#15855From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPFeb 11, 1992 3:47 PM
Oh yes, and why I think it might be too much to play direct is that Quicktime images end up in a Chunky style 8 bit or 24 bit format once decompressed and deltas are applied. The overhead of converting from a Chunky 8 or 24 bit image to, say, HAM, in real time, would *really* slow down the display, even on an accelerated machine. Even on a HAM-E unit where you could get a 256 color mode one would have to run through the Chunky to planar conversion for every frame which would really eat up the time… However, if I do a converter, I'd probably allow for direct play in any case (of the video, at least) because I'd need to get a bitmap image for each frame as I go anyway. So I may as well display it as I go. Nowhere near full speed, I suspect… –>Steve Bennett
#15860From: Kevin DarlingFeb 11, 1992 6:19 PM
Good idea! … that's what I used to do when converting bitplane Amiga ANIMs to my 8-bit chunky-pixel machine: display while converting. Pretty durned slow, too 🙂 But of course, once converted, they were very fast. But there's a more fundamental difference than the bitplane/chunky format. Amiga ANIMs depend on using double-buffering, in order to prevent update glitches (speed, bitplane rainbow effects, tearing, etc) from being visible. Quicktime Movies, on the other hand, don't have to take up the entire visible screen. They might have to share with text, and even with other Movies. (And of course, QT can scale and dither them to any size/type display.) This means QT (or lookalikes) can't take advantage of double-buffering. You can, of course, if just doing a full-screen Movie converter/player. best – kev
#15879From: Jonathan HirschmanFeb 11, 1992 10:12 PM
John– I think that Quicktime would be a great idea for the Amiga – having this standard might attract more developers to the platform. Of course, with all the rumours that have been flying regarding an upcoming graphics enhancement, it makes all the more sense. Perhaps a Quicktime player for HAM-E/DCTV? This makes a lot of sense, actually – especially if there is an ANIM <—–> Quicktime converter thrown in with the package…<hint>….:) Jonathan – via Whap!
#15852From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPFeb 11, 1992 11:34 AM
Actually, Quicktime provides for the Mac pretty much what IFF has provided for the Amiga. We've had an ANIM format for years now which just about everyone supports. What we haven't had is IFF library support which any application can access, but that's been added in 2.0. Quicktime's only real advantage is their synchronizing of the playback to real time, and *that* is trivial to add to ANIM if we desire it. (Of course, as with Quicktime itself, it means the animation files themselves will be significantly larger since they require full sized Sync frames to be liberally sprinkled amongst the delta frames comprising the rest of the animation…) As for clipboard support, theres no excuse in my mind for Amiga developers NOT to support the clipboard, especially now that 2.0 has the IFF support library in it (all clips in the clipboard are supposed to be in IFF format…). ANIM, being an IFF format, can be clipped just like any other IFF thing… Oh yes, and if you think Quicktime is *easy* to implement, even on the Mac, you haven't read the several hundred page developers manual documenting the over 100 functions it adds to the OS… <grin> –>Steve Bennett
#15863From: Miguel ChavezFeb 11, 1992 6:48 PM
Of course I understand that QT has added '100s functions to the MAC OS'. That's NOT my point. My point is simply this: On a mac, open ANY file within ANY program (okay, make that 90% of the programs out there) and you can PASTE a QT movie into the file. That's it. Nothing else needed! I have several QT movies integrated into MSWord 5.0 documents. You're right, if IFF clipping is now implemented, then I should be able to CLIP one anim from lets say DPIV and PASTE it into Scribble! or somesuch program. But such a thing does not exist yet, and without it, we have now lost something in this DTP/DTV/MULTIMEDIA race with the other companies, a race which I think is very crucial to the Amiga's longevity. You and I may quibble over whether it is a big loss or a little loss, but I consider it rather important.
#15865From: SyndesisFeb 11, 1992 7:01 PM
That particular battle was lost a *long* time ago, my friend. The Mac has benefited from having a file-based representation of all the graphics and text they place on a screen. It's called "PICT". Microsoft Windows has this, too, called the Windows "metafile". With this, it's easy to define a way for programs to place graphics (as PICT or WMF) in a document. Once a program does that in a standard, controlled way, it becomes possible to extend the metafile to do things it didn't do before – like playing movies. The Amiga has never had this. Until it does, every single application is forced to duplicate the functionality that comes for free in the Windows or Mac environment.
#15871From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPFeb 11, 1992 9:02 PM
As far as I know, PICT has *not* been expanded to include Quicktime movies. Every program I'm aware of which supports Quicktime moov's has had to be specifically coded to support them. (Of course, in the process, they get support for Quicktime's still image support as well…) Remember, MS Word 5.0 is a very recent upgrade, and thus they could add Quicktime support to it. But just *try* and paste a moov into an MS Word 4.0 document. I rather doubt you'd get anything at all. (I'll try it tomorrow at work though, just out of curiosity…) –>Steve Bennett
#15893From: SyndesisFeb 12, 1992 11:16 AM
Oh – I haven't read the docs on it, and that's how I'd assumed it worked. Regardless, Apple has a lot of forwards- and backwardscompatibility built into PICT. The situation with ANIMs on the Amiga has always displeased me. With the lack of some standard code, everyone has a much greater chance of being incompatible.
#15895From: Matthew J. W. RatcliffFeb 12, 1992 1:23 PM
Some apple guys giving a demo said QT compatibility for PICT importers was handled through a PD (French) utility called "Wild Magic" they said like 90% of PICT importers worked with wild magic and thus, QT
#15927From: Miguel ChavezFeb 13, 1992 8:42 PM
It can be done… Put simply: There is an extension called Wild Magic developed by the people over at Apple France that will plug into the Clipboard functions of a Color mac and allow it (The clipboard) to support and hold a QT movie clip. I've pasted several movies into a 4.0 version of Word. No problems to report. Interestingly, HyperCard has no direct built-in support for QT since it will only hold graphics in 1 bit PICT (black & white) form (in the clipboard). There is an update available though, for $15 that gives it QT-support. This is not a QT issue though, as it has always been unable to clip anything above 1 bit PICT (Still graphics included).
#15951From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPFeb 14, 1992 10:23 AM
Wild Magic is NOT supported by Apple and they take no responsibility if it causes you problems. It's a quick and very dirty hack which may or may not work in many cases. (I've had it crash more often than not, so I don't use it anymore…) I'm surprised that it got out to non-developers? (Or did you get a developers version of Quicktime?) .–>Steve Bennett
#15955From: SyndesisFeb 14, 1992 10:50 AM
I searched the Mac FF with keyword 'wild' and it led me to one disk image .SIT distributed from Apple. No explicit upload of anything called "Wild Magic" though, except that particular keyword did find a handful of cheesecake uploads. 🙂
#16155From: Miguel ChavezFeb 18, 1992 5:29 PM
Just pop over to the Apple Developers forum here at CIS and you can d/l it no problem. Regardless of the name, the forum seems to be open to one and all. Wild Magic has yet to crash on a program that will accept QT movies.
#15869From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPFeb 11, 1992 8:45 PM
Whoops. Not so. MS Word 5.0 has Quicktime support included already. Many Mac programs DO NOT. Quicktime is not gained without some effort. In order to paste a Quicktime movie into a document both the application and the document format have to specifically support Quicktime (and make Quicktime calls, etc.) It is NOT a painless proceedure by any means. It is a 100% certainty that any program which has not had a revision since May of last year absolutely will NOT be able to include Quicktime movies in their documents. That's when Apple released the Quicktime programming spec to developers. It is a good probability that most of the programs which HAVE had such an upgrade, unless it was a major one (as in the case of MS Word 5.0), will not have added Quicktime support as it is NOT a simple task by any means. The reason you cannot paste an ANIM into Scribble! is that Scribble! simply has not implemented the code required to handle an ANIM in it's documents. There is NOTHING preventing them from doing so. The task of doing so is exactly comparable to adding Quicktime support in a Mac word processor. The fact that Quicktime is NOT a full screen format gives it a minor advantage in that it can therefore easily be displayed within another window on the Mac. That doesn't stop anyone from implementing a similar thing (say, for AnimBrushes) in their word processor on the Amiga. Me, I'd be happy to see just that. (Sorry to all about the long message, but I felt it necessary to clear this up… 🙂 –>Steve Bennett
#15928From: Miguel ChavezFeb 13, 1992 8:49 PM
Whoops! again! MS Word 4.0 can also import QT movies! By using a kludge called Wild Magic practically any application that supports the clipboard can also hold a QT movie. Wild Magic is what has made QT accessible to all Mac users. I think what you've gotten confused is that certain new applications are including better support for QT. Being able to crudely paste a QT movie anywhere in a document is not always the easiest way to get the movie exactly where you want it. The applications are then built to recognize when a QT movie is being manipulated and assist in making the most of it.
#15929From: Bill DwyerFeb 13, 1992 8:49 PM
Steve – have you used QT yet? The Wild Magic init does allow playable movies to be pasted into every Mac application I've tried including many very old ones that could not have anticipated QT. Bill Dwyer
#15952From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPFeb 14, 1992 10:25 AM
I've used Quicktime since the original Alpha release. I've also used Wild Magic, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone. It crashes more things than otherwise. I am truly surprised that anyone other than developers has it, in fact… .–>Steve Bennett
#15900From: John PendergrassFeb 12, 1992 7:33 PM
Miguel, out of curiosity, why would you PASTE a animation file into your MSWord document? So you could print the 'title' screen? Or can you paste it in and print *any* frame of the anim at any place in the doc? Just curious…. thanks. –jp–seattle–
#15930From: Miguel ChavezFeb 13, 1992 8:51 PM
The most familiar demo is one where you would send a letter to your folks on your recent trip to Africa. You would talk about how much fun you had and would include a little video clip showing some of the sights and sounds. Printing of frames is not supported. You would a get a bitmapped graphic that would look quite awful. QT is meant as a real-time player.
#15977From: John PendergrassFeb 15, 1992 12:40 AM
Ah. It's intended for computer video only, not for printing. So you'd send your MSWord doc to someone else, and when they 'edited' (?) it, and turned the page you pasted the QT anim on, it would just show the anim on the 'page'? Sounds like MSWord is more of an interactive 'text/image/anim' viewer than I would have expected. Thanks for the info. –jp–seattle–
#15875From: Ben A LottFeb 11, 1992 9:40 PM
But wonderful C= already has CDXL wich syncs sound to video, just that it's CDTV only (on the new "Heroic age of Spaceflight" CD, neat stuff). So when C= stops shooting thier foot maybe it'll be implemented on all Amy platforms. BEN:Leigh's Computer's
#15876From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPFeb 11, 1992 9:49 PM
I'm aware of CDXL. I believe the way that syncs sound to video is by limiting the size of the image so that it can be played back at full speed all the time. (It's very easy to sync a full speed ANIM to sound. Just specify the frame time to be the correct fps for the ANIM and you're set.) This is somewhat different in that you'd end up synced no matter how fast your incoming media transfers data, although you'd see pauses in the video each time it needed to resync. In theory, you could play such an ANIM back off of a floppy and still have it sync properly… (I shudder at the thought… 🙂 –>Steve Bennett
#15908From: Ben A LottFeb 12, 1992 11:24 PM
yep that's CDXL, but quicktime also limits the size of the image (160 X 102, pixels the actual display area can be bigger though, it'll stretch to fit(quicktime)). and based upon what I played with on the "Heroic Age of Space Flight" CD it's quite nice. BEN:Leigh's Computer's
#15949From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPFeb 14, 1992 10:19 AM
Actually, Quicktime's image size has no limitations whatsoever. But anything bigger than about 200 x 200 runs so slowly that it's not much good except with the tiny images. –>Steve Bennett
#15972From: Ben A LottFeb 14, 1992 8:50 PM
Well the same aplies to CDXL too but the same sad result, the bigger it is the less frames per sec (hmmm 12 frames/sec for 1/4 screen= 3 frames/sec full screen= yuck) BEN:Leigh's Computer's
#15931From: Miguel ChavezFeb 13, 1992 8:54 PM
Exactly my point. CBM seems too slow in implementing what is necessary to keep the machine going. Granted their fiscal situation is nowhere near Apple's, but it still is frustrating to see this QT happen and us Amigazoids not have anything to best (since it can be done SO easily!).
#15937From: Ben A LottFeb 14, 1992 12:20 AM
That's my point too, especially when pointing out CDXL, it's only on CDTV not on the main machines! That's really annoying! C= should release or license the extra 256K of code in the CDTV to all Hard drive interface people so that all users can benifit. BEN:Leigh's Computer's
#15953From: SyndesisFeb 14, 1992 10:48 AM
From what I remember, CDXL is not just software – it's some kind od hardware, a clean link between the CD-ROM drive and chip memory. I don't think it would be possible on an ordinary Amiga without a special interface card.
#15973From: Ben A LottFeb 14, 1992 8:54 PM
I've opened the CDTV both versions (yeah they did have two versions) and the only "special" things were the 2091's custom IC, nonvolitile ram (on the second version), and the control ic's for the LED panel. BEN:Leigh's Computer's (oops I just voided our demo unit's warrenty) BEN:Leigh's Computer's
#16029From: Mike SchillerFeb 16, 1992 12:26 AM
Ben: Do you mean that there are 2 versions of DCTV out there? If so, how can I tell what version I have? I have a fairly early one, as it was one of the first 3 my dealer got in stock when they were first released. 2091's IC? does that mean that the CD-ROM in the CDTV is SCSI? -Mike Schiller In sunny Fort Lauderdale
#16037From: Ben A LottFeb 16, 1992 8:45 AM
2 versions of CDTV (at least)not DCTV, the only way to tell is to open it. The later version has a flash (non volitile) ram tower, the 2091 IC controls DMA drives, its missing the western digital chip to make it full SCSI, the CD-Rom in CDTV is DMA not SCSI (the drive seems to be the same as the one needed for the SoundBlaster Pro card for the PC). BEN:Leigh's Computer's
#15984From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPFeb 15, 1992 10:42 AM
CDXL would be possible on an ordinary Amiga given two things: A fast HD controller, and a fast Hard Drive. Having a CD ROM run CDXL on the other hand, would require a seriously fast CD ROM drive, from what I can tell, to get around the delays caused by having to transfer the data across the SCSI bus into Chip RAM. Most of the CDXL spec is less how it plays back than how it's stored on the CD ROM. Ignore that part and you have a fairly easy thing to implement. –>Steve Bennett
#15954From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPFeb 14, 1992 10:50 AM
CDXL is *not* necessary on a normal Amiga. It's more a way of storing the data on a CD ROM to get the best throughput for reading the animation as they go. You can get a virtually identical picture by taking a standard ANIM op 5 with a digitized sound attached. At least one ANIM viewer (VIEW, and probably others) has no trouble displaying such things. The synchronization of sound to animation is fairly trivial as long as your animation is guarenteed to run full speed. By limiting the size of the animation, this is no problem. (In fact, I recently read an article on synchronizing sound with animation using Amigavision…) . What you *really* want is something that will synchronize an ANIM with sound even if the ANIM is NOT capable of playing at full speed. CDXL won't do that. . On the other shoe… Ask yourself what exactly you'll use this for? And what you'll use to make these movies? There's been an awful lot of hype about Quicktime but I have yet to see much practical use for the average user. They may get programs which use it for specific purposes (training, etc.) but all of that can be done *without* Quicktime on an Amiga with little difficulty if desired by developers. Quicktime is kindof necessary on the Mac, though, because otherwise ANY sort of animation is a royal pain in the you-know-what. It's a nice novelty, and finally gives Mac users some animation capability, but nothing to really worry about. .–>Steve Bennett
#15974From: Ben A LottFeb 14, 1992 8:58 PM
Your right, but why not have it anyway? Who knows, there may be a use for it found yet. BTW CDXL doesn't have to worry about adjustments becuase even at it's worst it works on the least common denominator (Amiga 7.16 Mhz (worst being off of a CDROM picture the results from Harddisk)). BEN:Leigh's Computer's
#15983From: Steve Bennett/SYSOPFeb 15, 1992 10:33 AM
I suppose people could find *some* use for CDXL on a stock Amiga. You'd need a harddisk to handle it at least, or a *fast* CD ROM drive, but that isn't any particular problem. It's really only a matter of writing a player program for it. –>Steve Bennett
#16038From: Ben A LottFeb 16, 1992 8:49 AM
What do you mean by "fast" CD-Rom? CDTV's is only 500Ms not as fast as the current 340Ms drives floating around, and it's maximum transfer rate is only 190K (not counting the burst mode since that work off of buffer stored info), so the majority of Hardrives out there are more than fast enough. BEN:Leigh's Computer's
#15874From: Ben A LottFeb 11, 1992 9:35 PM
Yes C= should do something, like making CDXL available to all Amigas not just CDTV. It's amazing that CDXL is the same pixel res as Quicktime and runs at the same speed off of the 7.16 mhz cdtv with the slooow CD drive, as it would off of a Mac FX with quick hard drive! Amazing what C= can sit on rather than do something constructive with. BEN:Leigh's Computer's
#15932From: Miguel ChavezFeb 13, 1992 8:58 PM
I swear on the Bible that if I had the resources (a good 4 million dollars) I would hire Steve Bennett, Leo Schwab, Jay Miner, and all the others to come on and build, build, build!! Go nuts! Create the absolute best! I could only dream of the results of such an enterprise.
#15938From: Ben A LottFeb 14, 1992 12:21 AM
Ditto but I think one would need more that 4 Mil though. BEN:Leigh's Computer's