Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amiga Graphics Archive

amiga.lychesis.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: Amiga Graphics Archive

#41

Post by lysace »

reaperducer wrote: post #37
fredoralive wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only using the party trick HAM mode though. 32 (plus 32 for the half-bright bit plane) is the mode that most software uses. Of course in 1987 a Macintosh II with a fully expanded "Toby" framebuffer could not only do 256 colours, it could do it in 640x480 mode where as a PS/2's VGA could only do 16 colours at that resolution. And an Amiga could only do flickervision at that res. Of course with technology improving all…

Hardly a party trick. Programs that used HAM weren't uncommon. It was an advertised feature, and there were even painting programs. I guess you weren't there.

HAM was useful for showing static graphics.

Re: Amiga Graphics Archive

#43

Post by kstrauser »

A super minor nitpick: it’s jarring to see the Amiga referred to as 16 bit. It wasn’t described that way at the time: it was universally (that I saw anyway) called a 32 bit machine, and reasonably. It had a flat 32 bit address space (although the 68000 itself didn’t support all those address lines because what kind of supercomputer would need 4GB of RAM?). All the registers and operations were 32 bit. Some of the internal operations were implemented in 16 bits, but that was invisible to programmers. Newer models with definitively 32 bit CPUs like the 68060 were nearly 100% backward compatible with older models at the CPU instruction level, even if newer OSes weren’t backward compatible at the API level. In fact, the only program not forward compatible at the instruction level that I remember offhand was Microsoft’s AmigaBASIC. It used the top bits of pointers to store data because the 68000 would ignore them when accessing RAM due to that lack of address lines.

I just don’t see a way to justifiably call the Amiga a 16 bit machine. Although the A1000 had some 16 bit hardware paths, a maxed out A3000 definitely wasn’t 16 bit, and they were nearly completely compatible with each other minus newer features.

Amiga was full-on 32 bit machine. It’s weird to hear it called anything else.

Re: Amiga Graphics Archive

#44

Post by FireBeyond »

appstorelottery wrote: post #25

This is great stuff! As a side note, I wonder if anyone has created a HAM viewer that runs in the browser? I remember HAM flickering by necessity and being amazed by 4096 colors on-screen at once. There was a certain quality of HAM images on the Amiga that made them instantly identifiable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold-And-Modify

Flickering? I don't recall flickering, but I do recall that EHB (extra half brite) to get to 64 colors might have had fringing issues, but that's about it.

Interlacing might have flickered too, depending on your monitor. (Most monitors Commodore made would flicker in interlace mode, but I believe there were some higher end ones that did not).

Re: Amiga Graphics Archive

#45

Post by wk_end »

kstrauser wrote: post #43

A super minor nitpick: it’s jarring to see the Amiga referred to as 16 bit. It wasn’t described that way at the time: it was universally (that I saw anyway) called a 32 bit machine, and reasonably. It had a flat 32 bit address space (although the 68000 itself didn’t support all those address lines because what kind of supercomputer would need 4GB of RAM?). All the registers and operations were 32 bit. Some of the int…

This is a classic dispute when it comes to the 68000. I'm inclined to agree with your perspective, actually, but my impression is that it's highly contested.

Commodore and Atari marketed their 68K machines as 16/32-bit, which is I guess technically the most correct. And other 68000-based machines, like the Sega Mega Drive/Genesis, were marketed as 16-bit - it even says it right on top of the unit!

Re: Amiga Graphics Archive

#46

Post by marbletiles »

kstrauser wrote: post #43

A super minor nitpick: it’s jarring to see the Amiga referred to as 16 bit. It wasn’t described that way at the time: it was universally (that I saw anyway) called a 32 bit machine, and reasonably. It had a flat 32 bit address space (although the 68000 itself didn’t support all those address lines because what kind of supercomputer would need 4GB of RAM?). All the registers and operations were 32 bit. Some of the int…

I recall the A500 series as being thought of as 16-bit in the UK -- the 32-bit marketing started with the A1200, and devices based on it, like the CD32 (hence the name).

Re: Amiga Graphics Archive

#47

Post by vidarh »

wk_end wrote: post #45
kstrauser wrote: post #43

A super minor nitpick: it’s jarring to see the Amiga referred to as 16 bit. It wasn’t described that way at the time: it was universally (that I saw anyway) called a 32 bit machine, and reasonably. It had a flat 32 bit address space (although the 68000 itself didn’t support all those address lines because what kind of supercomputer would need 4GB of RAM?). All the registers and operations were 32 bit. Some of the int…

This is a classic dispute when it comes to the 68000. I'm inclined to agree with your perspective, actually, but my impression is that it's highly contested. Commodore and Atari marketed their 68K machines as 16/32-bit, which is I guess technically the most correct. And other 68000-based machines, like the Sega Mega Drive/Genesis, were marketed as 16-bit - it even says it right on top of the unit!

Yeah, I second that 16 bit or 16/32 was far more commonly used than 32, due to the 16 bit bus.

Re: Amiga Graphics Archive

#48

Post by wk_end »

lysace wrote: post #31
vidarh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or using the copper. Plenty of Amiga games played palette tricks despite not using HAM.

Sort of fair but also very specialized.

Not at all! Use of the Copper to punch up visuals was de rigeur on the Amiga - Amiga games are immediately recognizable by their Copper-fueled sky gradients for instance. I actually think that if there's any really good explanation for why you like might find Amiga graphics more pleasing than VGA, the Copper is the thing.

Re: Amiga Graphics Archive

#49

Post by paozac »

kstrauser wrote: post #43

A super minor nitpick: it’s jarring to see the Amiga referred to as 16 bit. It wasn’t described that way at the time: it was universally (that I saw anyway) called a 32 bit machine, and reasonably. It had a flat 32 bit address space (although the 68000 itself didn’t support all those address lines because what kind of supercomputer would need 4GB of RAM?). All the registers and operations were 32 bit. Some of the int…

In the 80s it was fairly common to consider C64, Amstrad 464 and ZX Spectrum 8 bit, while Amiga and Atari ST 16 bit. In Italy we even had two separate video game magazines: Zzap! for 8 bit and The Games Machine for 16 bit.

Re: Amiga Graphics Archive

#50

Post by kstrauser »

vidarh wrote: post #47
wk_end wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a classic dispute when it comes to the 68000. I'm inclined to agree with your perspective, actually, but my impression is that it's highly contested. Commodore and Atari marketed their 68K machines as 16/32-bit, which is I guess technically the most correct. And other 68000-based machines, like the Sega Mega Drive/Genesis, were marketed as 16-bit - it even says it right on top of the unit!

Yeah, I second that 16 bit or 16/32 was far more commonly used than 32, due to the 16 bit bus.

The bus always seemed like the oddest part to zero in on. By analogy, an Opteron in 2003 was a 64 bit CPU with a 32 bit HyperTransport bus, but no one called an Opteron system 32 bit. The width of a particular internal implementation detail is a strange duck IMO.
Post reply on HN