Johan Klockars wrote:
-------------------------------
>> PC architecture is same old that in first
>> 8086...
> The programming model changed a _lot_ with
> the 386.
OK...they change memory 64k-blocking to fake 32-bit thinks.
>> there is no memorymapped-io,
> Of course there is memory mapped I/O. That
> not all hardware uses it is mostly a matter
> of legacy support and convenience.
Ok...but programs cannot use them Atari way.
>> no DSP-chip
> Most reasonably good soundcards have DSPs in > some form.
OK. I have seen actually PC/Mac soundcard that have four DSP-chips, but and big but you cannot program them yourself.
>> no graphics in memory,
>Thank God!
If you see how Silicon Graphics do that, you wound say that way.
And with Atari Falcon is very nice to make up and down scrolling with only set where videl reads graphics...of course double or trible buffering is nice too...
> (Some chipset built-in graphics hardware
> does have that, though.)
Problem is that PC cannot take real advantage of it.
>> no sprites...
> Just about every graphics card has a sprite > for the mouse pointer.
cool...at last...old cards don't
> For more generic sprites you'll have to look
> at some games consoles and their relatives.
PS2 would nice architecture...
>> there is not anything new nice
>> architecture.
> What would you classify as new and nice?
how about PS2, Gamecube...SGi it's only nice, because architecture is actually old.
>> homecomputer at price 150euros/dollars like
>> I buy at 1985...
> useable PC's for $200 at various places in
> the US
cool...(why they don't sell them in europe)...
> What do you want sprites for, anyway?
It is nice if you can move thinks on the screen and you can draw under it without memory programming and it's save a lot memory bandwidth.
