4 ms·
Perhaps, but it is more likely they provided many options, hoping it worked out. Sometimes it did not. We look back, and some machines were almost there, like
by ddingus 7y ago
Perhaps, but it is more likely they provided many options, hoping it worked out.
Sometimes it did not. We look back, and some machines were almost there, like the Apple GS. Still great, but with just a bit more thought, could have been amazing.
Many of the better effects on C64, and other computers, were actually exploits. Bugs in the logic were found, then abused, then perfected.
Most of the better titles on the old 2600 (VCS), for example, exceeded engineering specs. A bit of flexibility left in turned out to make all the difference in the world.
Older machines used a combination of software and hardware. That combination turns out to be quite potent over time as people continue to explore what may be possible.
Some have coaxed better color, interlaced video, and more out of a C64, despite that not being intended.
The memory map options were likely flexible, "just in case", and where that was the thinking back then, it often became the max potential case.
- Annatar 7y ago"Older machines used a combination of software and hardware. That combination turns out to be quite potent over time as people continue to explore what may be possible." Makes me wonder what undiscovered things are possible with say, a SPARCStation 1+, or an Indigo2 R10000 when bit-banging the hardware directly.
- ddingus 7y agoI have wondered that about SGI machines too. One guy did explore the largely unused, shared memory graphics system that was used on the O2 and NT workstations SGI made. He made a very precise compositor. Was capable of many real time effects and sub pixel accuracy. The thing could take huge images and do real time transforms, effects at a couple hundred MHZ clock. I ran it once, in the very early 00's. Can't for the life of me seem to remember enough to get a URL.
- ddingus 7y agoA more recent example is the Parallax Propeller chip. A bunch of us pushed it's video sub-system well beyond the design spec. It could make all kinds of signals. Too fun.
- Narishma 7y agoI think the Apple II GS didn't work out mainly for political reasons. Apple (or rather the Mac parts of Apple) didn't want it to. They artificially crippled its hardware so as not to compete against the higher-margins Macs.
- ddingus 7y agoTrue. But, I think most of that came down to clock speed.