hello Uffe
I wrote
>
>> If programmers only catered for people who had purchased
>> graphics cards then this computer system we all love would
> be in
>> a far worse state than it is now
>
> Would it now? Why are we as users allowed to force the
> programmer to make his programs in a certain way to compensate
> for our old equipment? Why not the other way around? Why isn't
> it reasonable for the programmer to make the program
> requirements so large that we are forced to upgrade our
> computer to run it decently? Nothing is gained if we stay
> still - we have to evolve, and at the moment a lot of people
> doesn't.
I totally agree that we musn't stay still, that is why I've
probably spent around �1200 upgrading my Amiga over the last
three years but I haven't reached the stage of a graphics card
simply because of expense. If programmers are going to write
software that will only run on gfx-cards and hope to force
people to upgrade then they are dreaming. We aren't talking
about the same sort of issues as processor and memory upgrades,
or buying a CD rom drive or a real monitor. All of these
upgrades have plummetted in price and are now very affordable.
Not because of people upgrading their Amigas but because of the
world wide drops in price of chips and memory and the PC
explosion. I would 'evolve' very quickly if an Amiga gfx-card
didn't cost the price of a mid range spec PC.
> I have always had the impression that the Amiga users have
> dictated the software development, and not the other way
> around. If you look at the PC market, then people in general
> have to upgrade because the latest release of Windows, or
> Words or some game wont run on their equipment.
If you read the original post re the problem I'm having with
Voyager 3 (2) you will see that it /*does */ run on my AGA system
but not as it should do. This would appear to be a bug in the
text classes mcc carried over from a previous version of the
mcc. So I should buy a gfx-card to cure a minor bug? Get real.
BTW most serious Windows applications will still run on a 16 colour
VGA screen without any fancy 3D gfx-card. I know because I have
to use Windows NT 4.0 at work on that very set up and it
performs admirably.
>> I may be wrong but I suspect that AGA users are still by
> far the biggest
>> Amiga user group.
>
> Is that an excuse for a program to be able to run on AGA? I
> rather see it as the incentive to the people having AGA that
> it is about time they got a graphics card.
Voyager is meant to be able to run on an AGA screen. The first
version of V3 worked fine because I was able to replace version
24 of the text class mcc with a bug free version. This option is
no longer available.
> The solution is quite simple, and naturally a result from my
> above statements, and you can do either:
>
> 1. upgrade you old computer to reflect today
> 2. downgrade your software to something suitable for you old
> computer.
>
1. Tell me which "new" Amiga do you use. I suspect my computer is
from the very same era as yours.
2. I'm sure Olli won't be adopting such a pompous attitude re
Voyager and his other software. My 'old' computer is capable of
running V 3 in exactly the same manner as yours, just more
slowly.
Now if you actually read my original post can you come up with
something constructive?
Jim Mason
--
====================100% Amiga 1200 Produced====================
------Glasgow, Scotland - City of Architecture & Design 1999------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====================================================================
____________________________________________________________
Voyager Mailing List - Info & Archive: http://www.vapor.com/
For Listserver Help: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "HELP"
To Unsubscribe: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "UNSUBSCRIBE"
