🚀 go-pugleaf

James Hogan wrote:
> Bill Clinton <ttp0581> writes:

> U7 came out around late March/early April 1993, a week or two after 
> Strike.  I think the 286/386 question was pretty much obsolete by then, 
> anyway.  :)

You're right, you are. Hell, I couldn't even play U7 on my (lower end) 386.
By the time I was finished feeding the god-damned Avatar, I had lost 10 pounds
myself. What a game.

--
Hartmut Schmider, Kemisk Lab. B  |  Nein, der Seele bleibt keine Narbe 
DTU - 301, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark  |  zurueck. Der Menschheit wird die Kugel
                                 |  beim einen Ohr hinein und beim andern
e-mail ha...@tkemi.klb.dth.dk    |  herausgegangen sein.     K. Kraus

Hello, fellow flight-simers!

>>System Shock was an out-of-house game, so was Ultima Underworld I and
>>II.  U8 Wingcomander Series, Strike comander, etc were all in-house.  As
>>far as I'm consered that last time there was a good inhouse games from
>>Origin it was Ultima 6. over 5 years if I remeber correctly, and i
>>expect it to be the same for a while.  However I have no doubt that they
>> will continue to have games with excellent graphics.  not much gameplay
>>tho.

>What was wrong with the first two WC games?  Most people agree that 
>they're great.  WC2 was recently inducted into CGW's hall of fame, even...

No kidding, has this guy even played WC yet? I haven't met a single WC 
player who didn't like the game even if they did prefer the SW series or 
complained about its lack of "realism."

Also, how about WOU, U7, U7.5? They were excellent titles too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    /*\-\/*\-\				Colonel Aubrey "SwiftHeart" Chen
   (********) )				of TCN
    \******/ /				swif...@access.mbnet.mb.ca
     \****/ /	Don't say a word	"18 days to go..."
       \/_/	unless you can draw a better heart! :)

I've been lucky enough to get to play System Shock CD, and--aside from 
all arguments about whether going to a CD only approach is good or 
bad--the one thing I can tell you is this: the move has the *potential* 
to improve the quality of games vastly. As if System Shock weren't 
phenomenal enough (if you're into immersive, high-end games), the CD 
makes the disk version look like nothing. Being an RPG fan (for the most 
part), I didn't think things like full speech in all the e-mails and logs 
would matter much. Boy, was I wrong. The logs are recorded on top of 
background sound effects (like gun shots, distant mutant shrieks, 
mechanical stomping, et cetera). The effect are chilling. Also, the CD 
offers several video modes. Even if you have a low-end machine, you can 
switch from 320x200 (the vga mode the disk version supported) to 320x400, 
and the results a really astonishing. And if you have a faster machine, 
you can take it to 640x480 (or 640x400), or even all the way up to 
1024x768. System Shock was made to be immersive, to capture that 'you are 
there' atmosphere; the CD takes this to new reaches. So, to make a long 
ramble just a little bit longer, I see the move to CD as a good one for 
gamers--more art, more sound, no more space limitations. We win, all the 
way around. 

j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (James Hogan) writes:

>"Justin Circelli (CS)" <circ...@eng.usf.edu> writes:

>>I've read a few messages in the group about virtual reality games and 
>>have one comment to make.  Everyone thinks DOOM is great and was the 
>>first of its kind, but anyone with any real taste knows that  Ultima 
>>Underworld was the original virtual reality game.  Even though its about 
>>two years older you can still interact with it better than you can with 
>>DOOM.  Lets put it this way Underworld makes doom look like shit. So quit 
>>talking about it.

>Each games has its pros and cons.  Doom is an action game, UW is an RPG; 
>it's like (pardon the cliche) comparing apples and oranges...  the fact
>that they both happen to have a 3-D first-person engine is irrelevant. 

	I think it is most relavent, considering that some of us like
and play both genera. To my mind the interface to the 3-D, first person
perspective _is_ the issue, not the action/rpg catigorization. In this
respect, if I were to have the Looking Glass (Underworld) interface used
in Doom, Dooom would be a better game for it, which is also the underlying
point of the original poster.

-- 
 Dennis E. Weldy                    |    enter-> 01101011
 dwe...@expert.cc.purdue.edu        |            10101010
 "In _wildness_ is the preservation |            01011101
    of the world."   -Metallica     |            01101010->exit

j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (James Hogan) writes:

>dwe...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Dennis E. Weldy) writes:

>>>Each games has its pros and cons.  Doom is an action game, UW is an RPG; 
>>>it's like (pardon the cliche) comparing apples and oranges...  the fact
>>>that they both happen to have a 3-D first-person engine is irrelevant. 
>>
>>	I think it is most relavent, considering that some of us like
>>and play both genera. To my mind the interface to the 3-D, first person
>>perspective _is_ the issue, not the action/rpg catigorization. In this
>>respect, if I were to have the Looking Glass (Underworld) interface used
>>in Doom, Dooom would be a better game for it, which is also the underlying
>>point of the original poster.

>I enjoy both genres as well, but I still don't think either one can
>necessarily be placed above the other.  If you stick a LG-style interface
>in Doom, where you can pick up and manipulate objects, solve puzzles,
>etc., Doom becomes a completely different game, no longer the pure action
>game it was meant to be. 

	No. Forget the rpg elements (solving puzzles). The _interface_ was
the issue. The 'arrow-on-the-screen' movement v.s. point and this button,
shuffle and that button or just keyboard. The ability to pick up objects
like in the real world v.s. walking over them ("I'm so good I can pick
them up with my toes. Everytime. Honest!"). Perception of detail is _more_ 
as you get close, not less.
	If you _were_ talking about this, then I apologize for the wasted
bandwidth I have just caused. |-]
-- 
 Dennis E. Weldy                    |    enter-> 01101011
 dwe...@expert.cc.purdue.edu        |            10101010
 "In _wildness_ is the preservation |            01011101
    of the world."   -Metallica     |            01101010->exit

swif...@access.mbnet.mb.ca (Aubrey Chen) writes:
>>What was wrong with the first two WC games?  Most people agree that 
>>they're great.  WC2 was recently inducted into CGW's hall of fame, even...

>No kidding, has this guy even played WC yet? I haven't met a single WC 
>player who didn't like the game even if they did prefer the SW series or 
>complained about its lack of "realism."

	Hey, nearly EVERY game out there has some kind of "lack of realism"
bar some of the "atmosphere-flight sims".  I never saw SW's series having
inertial flight.  But WC is great because of the way the action "grabs" you
and just does not let go.
	I wonder how many WC pilots out there really tilt their head back
when executing a 180 overhead turn with 3 cats on your tail hurling missiles
and laser shots and a capital ship about 1000 units in front of you?
*grin*


>Also, how about WOU, U7, U7.5? They were excellent titles too.

	What the heck is WOU???

					- Falcon

dwe...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Dennis E. Weldy) writes:
>j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (James Hogan) writes:
>>"Justin Circelli (CS)" <circ...@eng.usf.edu> writes:
>>>I've read a few messages in the group about virtual reality games and 
>>>have one comment to make.  Everyone thinks DOOM is great and was the 
>>>first of its kind, but anyone with any real taste knows that  Ultima 
>>>Underworld was the original virtual reality game.  Even though its about 
>>>two years older you can still interact with it better than you can with 
>>>DOOM.  Lets put it this way Underworld makes doom look like shit. So quit 
>>>talking about it.

>>Each games has its pros and cons.  Doom is an action game, UW is an RPG; 
>>it's like (pardon the cliche) comparing apples and oranges...  the fact
>>that they both happen to have a 3-D first-person engine is irrelevant. 

>	I think it is most relavent, considering that some of us like
>and play both genera. To my mind the interface to the 3-D, first person
>perspective _is_ the issue, not the action/rpg catigorization. In this
>respect, if I were to have the Looking Glass (Underworld) interface used
>in Doom, Dooom would be a better game for it, which is also the underlying
>point of the original poster.

	Not entirely; the original poster also insinuated that Doom was the
1st 3-d action "virtual reality" game.  Which is wrong anyway.  Doom never
did make me dizzy, no matter how many times I spun around or ran facing a
brick wall.  Wolfenstein 3d did.  So if one has to use the term "virtual
reality" loosely, then the title of "father" would belong to Wolf.
	I also agree with you on the Underworld interface making Doom a much
better game; it would eliminate the boredom of shooting everything that moves.
:-)

					- Falcon

j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (James Hogan) writes:
>gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (GM Enierga) writes:
>>	We "whine" because the target market not only is small at the moment
>>(Pentiums) but also because the products designed for it are for the gurgler.
>Nearly everyone who's run Armada or the WC3 demo on a 486 has had no 
>complaints about the speed.  Origin's target audience is not just people 
>with Pentiums.

	A 486 DX 33?  I would really be surprised if that was the case.
As for the complaints bit... though someone said that it was a "major
pre-release game engine", that same someone said that it's speed was not
satisfactory.
	But tell me honestly: looking at Origin's trend, do you REALLY believe
they will keep supporting the 486 market?  I am not talking NOW (though you
could take this "now" as some sort of beginning) but perhaps a year from now:
do you think Origin's games will support the 486, when a year ago its games
still ran "satisfactorily" on a 386?
	Keeping an open mind.  By the way, are you in any way affiliated with
Origin?

						- Falcon

: 	A 486 DX 33?  I would really be surprised if that was the case.
: As for the complaints bit... though someone said that it was a "major
: pre-release game engine", that same someone said that it's speed was not
: satisfactory.
A lot depends on the video card of a computer. For example last year when I
finanlly got Doom, played on my dx-50, 8 meg ram, it was very choppy, the
video card was 512k trident. Insert a 1 meg Tseng labs card, the game was
smooth, insert a 2 meg VLB card, the game wasn't smooth anymore, it was
fast.
: 	But tell me honestly: looking at Origin's trend, do you REALLY believe
: they will keep supporting the 486 market?  I am not talking NOW (though you
: could take this "now" as some sort of beginning) but perhaps a year from now:
No, I would be amazed if I could purchase a new Origin game released next
year, and play it on full detail. I'd expect Bio forge will be the last
Origin game I could play. This holds true particularly if they phase VGA out
for Svga, like EGA was phased out for VGA.
: do you think Origin's games will support the 486, when a year ago its games
: still ran "satisfactorily" on a 386?
: 	Keeping an open mind.  By the way, are you in any way affiliated with
: Origin?
I know the question wasn't addressed to me, but I couldn't resist adding my
$0.02 worth :)
-- 
.__________________________________________________________________________.
|Internet: pfle...@scu.edu.au                                             |
| One hour from now WING COMMANDER 3 will be one hour closer to release    | 
|__________________________________________________________________________|

In article <39pe45$d...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
GM Enierga <gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>	But tell me honestly: looking at Origin's trend, do you REALLY believe
>they will keep supporting the 486 market?  I am not talking NOW (though you
>could take this "now" as some sort of beginning) but perhaps a year from now:
>do you think Origin's games will support the 486, when a year ago its games
>still ran "satisfactorily" on a 386?

Who cares?  This thread just gets more and more ludicrous.  If Origin targets
a market that's too small, they'll go out of business or they'll wise up.  If
on the other hand, they can sustain their success targetting high end machines,
more power to them.  They are not the United States Postal Service (which
has a mandate that it *must* serve every address in the US).  The point is,
get over it.  If you can't run WC III (or whatever their next game is) then
you've got a few choices:  upgrade your machine (but don't bitch about being
"forced to," it's just a game after all, you *can* live without it); buy it and
run it on your substandard machine (and don't bitch about it not running well,
unless you have the minimum recommended system); or (and here's a radical 
thought) don't buy the damn thing.  There is no law that says you must play
WC III.  To some people, this game would be enough to make them upgrade their
computers.  To the vast majority, it's not.  Figure out what category you're
in and be happy.  Look at it this way:  you *will* upgrade your computer
eventually.  If you don't do so for another couple of years, you'll be able
to pick up WC III for $20 in the bargain bin and run it faster than it ran
when it was released.

Justin (who's wondering how this thread got so long)
-- 
Justin Martin Anderson  |  My opinions are my own.  |  The Anderson Hypothesis:
jand...@netcom.com     |  But I'm willing to sell  |        People are stupid.
GSS d H>! s:+ !g p1+ au+ a- w+ v+ C+>++ US+ P- L+ 3 E- N++ K- W M- V-- -po+ Y 
             t+ 5+ j R>+ G? tv b++(+++) D++ B- e++ u** h! f r n- y+

In article <39pe45$d...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (GM Enierga) writes:
>j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (James Hogan) writes:
>>gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (GM Enierga) writes:
>>>	We "whine" because the target market not only is small at the moment
>>>(Pentiums) but also because the products designed for it are for the gurgler.
>>Nearly everyone who's run Armada or the WC3 demo on a 486 has had no 
>>complaints about the speed.  Origin's target audience is not just people 
>>with Pentiums.
>
>	A 486 DX 33?  I would really be surprised if that was the case.
Actually, I ran Armada on a 386/40 and aside from a small bit of jerkyness when there
are a large number of ships on the screen, it ran just fine.

Since WC3 uses the same engine, with a SVGA mode, I assume that you'd get okay
performance on a 486/33 as long as it had local bus video. You wouldn't get super duper
performance, but I can see it working.....

>As for the complaints bit... though someone said that it was a "major
>pre-release game engine", that same someone said that it's speed was not
>satisfactory.

BTW- What issue of what magazine can one find this Demo? If I can find it, I'll
try it out on my 386/40 (no local bus video obviously), and I'll be happy to
test it out for the lower spectrum users, and tell everybody here how it went.....
(I just don't know where to find it :) )

In article <39pe45$d...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
GM Enierga <gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>	A 486 DX 33?  I would really be surprised if that was the case.
>As for the complaints bit... though someone said that it was a "major
>pre-release game engine", that same someone said that it's speed was not
>satisfactory.
>	But tell me honestly: looking at Origin's trend, do you REALLY believe
>they will keep supporting the 486 market?  I am not talking NOW (though you
>could take this "now" as some sort of beginning) but perhaps a year from now:
>do you think Origin's games will support the 486, when a year ago its games
>still ran "satisfactorily" on a 386?
>	Keeping an open mind.  By the way, are you in any way affiliated with
>Origin?
>

I don't really see the problem with Origin not supporting 486 in next year..

1. you have every options not to buy any of their games.
2. by this time next year, the price of Pentium compatible machine (with
   the coming AMD, Cyrix and NextGen chips) will be less than $2000 (I 
   think I saw this prediction in the current issue of Byte magazine).
3. Intel P6 will be out by summer, 1995 (so 486 will be 2 generations behind
   by this time next year).

Anyway, I still think that the first point is most valid.. you DON'T need
to buy any of their games if you DON'T want to.  For the same reason, nobody
is complaining Cray for only making supercomputer.... why do we want to 
complain Origin for only making high-end games?  

In article <39pe45$d...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
GM Enierga <gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (James Hogan) writes:

>>Nearly everyone who's run Armada or the WC3 demo on a 486 has had no 
>>complaints about the speed.  Origin's target audience is not just people 
>>with Pentiums.

>...but perhaps a year from now:
>do you think Origin's games will support the 486, when a year ago its games
>still ran "satisfactorily" on a 386?

Why should they support the 486 a year from now? By then, the P5 and it's like
should drop below $2000 and be readily available. Why not take advantage of
all that processing power, especially when your goal is to create worlds? If
you can't run their games with your setup, don't buy them. They will still make
plenty money, and when you do get an adequate system, you can get it too.

-- 
Hungry Dragon | Ajaipal S. Tanwar, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht
-==(UDIC)==-  | University of Texas at Austin - joe...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
"Now pretty please with sugar on top, clean the f**kin car"

dte...@cco.caltech.edu (Dirk W. Tebben) writes:

>In article <39me7u$e...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>James Hogan <j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>yc...@mhoro.cc.columbia.edu (Yung Jin Chew) writes:
>>
>>>even remember some   of the  not-so-good games  that   Origin wants to
>>>forget as quickly  as  possible?  How about  "worlds of  Ultima"?  The
>>
>>Hey, now.  :)  Savage Empire and Martian Dreams were, IMO, _fantastic_.  
>>Way underrated.
>>

>Damn straight!  Martian Dreams was, IMHO, better than Ultima 6.  Never
>understood why nobody bought it.  It was also the only genuinely
>*funny* Ultima game.

I have to agree.  Savage Empire was IMO a much better game than 
Ultima 6.  Less righteous, more cool things, better scenery,
neat and simple magic system, cool characters, more than one 
way to do most things... and SHORTER.  I quit Ultima 6 after 
I got tired of wandering around in yet another dungeon 
with no automapping, trying to find stuff. I finished Savage
Empire in a nice amount of time, and felt satisfied.

-Phil
-- 
--------
Phil Northcott              |         "The first rule of Electrical 
SFU Engineering             |          Engineering: It works better
Vancouver, BC, CANADA       |          if you plug it in"

In article <pnorthco....@sfu.ca>, pnor...@malibu.sfu.ca (Phil Northcott) says:
>
>dte...@cco.caltech.edu (Dirk W. Tebben) writes:
>
>>In article <39me7u$e...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>>James Hogan <j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>>yc...@mhoro.cc.columbia.edu (Yung Jin Chew) writes:
>I have to agree.  Savage Empire was IMO a much better game than 
>Ultima 6.  Less righteous, more cool things, better scenery,
>neat and simple magic system, cool characters, more than one 
>way to do most things... and SHORTER.  I quit Ultima 6 after 
>I got tired of wandering around in yet another dungeon 
>with no automapping, trying to find stuff. I finished Savage
>Empire in a nice amount of time, and felt satisfied.

I whole-heartedly agree.  I loved those two games, and I loved
Ultima 6.  The game engine was very playable for its time and the
storylines were interesting and not overly complicated.  My
question is:

Didn't Origin state a long time ago (forgot where I read this) that
they would make more Worlds of Ultima using the U7 engine?  Heh,
of course a hybrid U7/U8 engine (with the best features of each) would
be even better.  Am I imagining this, or did Origin just dump the
project?

Shrike

: I whole-heartedly agree.  I loved those two games, and I loved
: Ultima 6.  The game engine was very playable for its time and the
: storylines were interesting and not overly complicated.  My
: question is:

I disagree.  I really enjoyed U6 and thought it was too easy.  However,
I also liked both world of ultimas and solved them both fairly easily.  
The negative aspect was that u didn't have 2 build your characters up 
because u didn't have tough monsters 2 fight.  I enjoyed U4-U5 where
much of the game was spent fighting and saving for weapons.  It has
become too easy just to take everything and make your chars unstoppable.
Just my opinion.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brought to u by the Funk.  My not be reproduced without the express
written consent of Funk or anyone with the first name of Zarley.
Have a nice day.                                            Go Devils!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

pfle...@scu.edu.au (Nightfox) writes:
>: 	Keeping an open mind.  By the way, are you in any way affiliated with
>: Origin?
>I know the question wasn't addressed to me, but I couldn't resist adding my
>$0.02 worth :)

	Well, at least now I have that 2c coin I always wanted. :-)

							- Falcon

j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (James Hogan) writes:
>gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (GM Enierga) writes:
>>	That does not answer my question.  It may all come on CD-ROM, but
>>excluding odds, how much of that WILL be good - ie worth buying a CD-ROM for?
>>(just as the WC's made the purchase of a sound card essential... or is that a
>>faster machine?  I forget).

>Have you seen the WC3 demo yet?  IMHO, _this_ is what CD-ROM is made 
>for.  :)  And once you see the cinematics, I think you'll agree that it's 
>worth buying a CD-ROM for.

	No, but then again I do not have a CD-ROM, nor has that particular issue
been released here yet.  I do have a friend who has a CD-ROM, so if he gets it
I will be able to see for myself.  But there was someone who posted his
findings of the demo on the net, and I believe you even replied to that post too
- agreeing with some of his negative comments.
	Having said all that, I should also tell you that I did promise myself
when news of WC3 were leaked out that I _WOULD_ buy a CDROM if the game turns
out to be what it is touted to be.  Yes, the WHOLE game, not just the
cinematics... otherwise I will just wait for when the movie comes out. :-)


>>	And didn't Privateer have "A Chris Roberts game" in its credits?

>Did it really?  It's been a while.  :)
>I believe he was the producer, while the designer was Joel Manners (?).  
>At any rate, I got the impression that he wasn't as invovled in the 
>design process as he was in the rest of the WC games.  (I could be wrong.)

	Well, since you are the official FAQ writer (thanks by the way) you
should know more about this than I do.
	But if what you said is true - that he wasn't as involved - then it
makes a whole lot of sense that the game did not turn out to be what it should
have been.  Chris Roberts is "just off" the level occupied by Mr. Meier... and
it is things like this which have kept him "just off", unfortunately.  After
seeing what he came up with when he did Times of lore, Space Rogue, and WC
series SO FAR, one knew that he was/is destined for cyberspace greatness. :-)


>>>Most people think Armada has an excellent multiplayer mode, FWIW.
>>	And that's all.  Should have been released as some kind of add-on
>>rather than separately, IMO.

>I wish they would have recognized the AI as a problem and fixed it... 
>then it really could have been a much better game.
>  |      James P. Hogan      | Check out the REVISED WC3 FAQ, version 1.10! |

	Well the strategy could have been improved too.  Simply doing basic
planet-hopping, making better ships and looking for the enemy carrier is not
THAT big of a deal.

							- Falcon

>In article <39pe45$d...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>GM Enierga <gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>

>I don't really see the problem with Origin not supporting 486 in next year..

>1. you have every options not to buy any of their games.
>2. by this time next year, the price of Pentium compatible machine (with
>   the coming AMD, Cyrix and NextGen chips) will be less than $2000 (I 
>   think I saw this prediction in the current issue of Byte magazine).
>3. Intel P6 will be out by summer, 1995 (so 486 will be 2 generations behind
>   by this time next year).

>Anyway, I still think that the first point is most valid.. you DON'T need
>to buy any of their games if you DON'T want to.  For the same reason, nobody
>is complaining Cray for only making supercomputer.... why do we want to 
>complain Origin for only making high-end games?  

Listen I don't know where you come from, but when stuff sucks on this planet 
people complain about it.  It's one of the ways of getting what they want in 
the future.  If people don't complain then you get the same old crap and 
Origin, or whoever, doesn't know why no one bought their product, or who 
bought their product, or why they bought their product.   
By the way, don't hold your breath for a P6 by next summer.  And if Intel goes 
to RISC the damn things won't work right with half the stuff anyways, atleast 
game wise.

PDeMaio

Is that a light at the end of the tunnel or just an oncoming train?

pde...@draper.com (PDeMaio) writes:

>By the way, don't hold your breath for a P6 by next summer.  And if Intel goes 
>to RISC the damn things won't work right with half the stuff anyways, atleast 
>game wise.

Actually, oh skeptical one, Intel looks like they will make the P6 by next
summer, or at the latest the fall.

Meanwhile, Intel and HP are both working on the P7, and they are shooting for
a very new architecture, not CISC or RISC (don't ask how), which will still be
compatible with the Pentium and 486 chips of today.

By the way, people are now saying that Origin is going to be "all Pentium."  I
really don't see how this will exclude the 486 market, since the Pentium only
has one instruction more than the 486.  In other words, what works on the
Pentium also works on 486's.

Also, games optimized for the Pentium does not mean that it will not work on a
486.  Optimization means that the compiler makes code that will utilize the
strengths of the Pentium to full advantage, like the branch prediction, dual
pipelining, and on-chip caches.  It just so happens that this kind of code can
also benefit the 486, since it has its own on-chip cache.

So us "scrubs" with the obsolete 486 systems don't have to worry for a while.
After all, Intel is still developing for the 486 architecture; just look at the
new DX4 Overdrive that they released a week ago.

			- Allen "Ninja" Kim

I have a very fast Quantum hard drive with a capacity over 400Mb and it is 
*much* faster than any CD-ROM drive I have used. I haven't bought one because
I honestly don't see the point in my case, but I am alarmed that fewer and
fewer games are coming out on *only* CD-ROM. Do you think the day will come
soon when I just can't get the games I want? (Even now, I would love to play
'Alone in the Dark'). BTW, I play a lot of rpg's, yet I still have 180Mb left,
so it's been a good investment.
-- 
Anna
--------------------------------------------------------
"I disagree with every word this man has said,
    but I will defend to the death his right to say it"
                                              VOLTAIRE
--------------------------------------------------------

Would you please stop talking about this?  I hate having to delete 2-3 pages 
of titles saying "Re: Origin - CD-only forever!".

Ray W.

jand...@netcom.com (Justin Anderson) writes:
>In article <39pe45$d...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>GM Enierga <gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>	But tell me honestly: looking at Origin's trend, do you REALLY believe
>>they will keep supporting the 486 market?  I am not talking NOW (though you
>>could take this "now" as some sort of beginning) but perhaps a year from now:
>>do you think Origin's games will support the 486, when a year ago its games
>>still ran "satisfactorily" on a 386?

>Who cares?  This thread just gets more and more ludicrous.  If Origin targets
>a market that's too small, they'll go out of business or they'll wise up.  If
>on the other hand, they can sustain their success targetting high end machines,
>more power to them.  They are not the United States Postal Service (which
>has a mandate that it *must* serve every address in the US).  The point is,
>get over it.  If you can't run WC III (or whatever their next game is) then
>you've got a few choices:  upgrade your machine (but don't bitch about being
>"forced to," it's just a game after all, you *can* live without it); buy it and
>run it on your substandard machine (and don't bitch about it not running well,
>unless you have the minimum recommended system); or (and here's a radical 
>thought) don't buy the damn thing.  There is no law that says you must play
>WC III.  To some people, this game would be enough to make them upgrade their
>computers.  To the vast majority, it's not.  Figure out what category you're
>in and be happy.  Look at it this way:  you *will* upgrade your computer
>eventually.  If you don't do so for another couple of years, you'll be able
>to pick up WC III for $20 in the bargain bin and run it faster than it ran
>when it was released.

>Justin (who's wondering how this thread got so long)

	First of all, I care - I don't want to feel the need to upgrade my
every 3 years.  And the points you have raised are valid... you have basically
said what I did in a more explanatory sense.  Thank youI guess, now I won't be
getting all that mail telling me all that you have said above.  And yes, I WILL
upgrade my comp sometime... if that was not the case - well, how many people do
you know that still run word processors and games from their trs80 machines?
As for the thread... *shrugs* I am not the only one writing here.  I just reply
to whatever I think I have an opinion on.  If people do not like reading these
things, then they have the choise of NOT reading them; I stopped reading doom2
related stuff a LONG time ago.
	So don't give me this attitude of this thread boring you.  No one
ordered you to sit on hot coals if you didn't read it.

							- Falcon

PS.	And that goes for all the other people out there who are "bored" with
this thread.  Don't read it if you do not want to.
	It's nice to have a choise, isn't it? :-)

vi...@eecg.toronto.edu (Vi Cuong Chan) writes:
>In article <39pe45$d...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>GM Enierga <gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>	A 486 DX 33?  I would really be surprised if that was the case.
>>As for the complaints bit... though someone said that it was a "major
>>pre-release game engine", that same someone said that it's speed was not
>>satisfactory.
>>	But tell me honestly: looking at Origin's trend, do you REALLY believe
>>they will keep supporting the 486 market?  I am not talking NOW (though you
>>could take this "now" as some sort of beginning) but perhaps a year from now:
>>do you think Origin's games will support the 486, when a year ago its games
>>still ran "satisfactorily" on a 386?
>>

>I don't really see the problem with Origin not supporting 486 in next year..
>1. you have every options not to buy any of their games.
>2. by this time next year, the price of Pentium compatible machine (with
>   the coming AMD, Cyrix and NextGen chips) will be less than $2000 (I 
>   think I saw this prediction in the current issue of Byte magazine).
>3. Intel P6 will be out by summer, 1995 (so 486 will be 2 generations behind
>   by this time next year).
>Anyway, I still think that the first point is most valid.. you DON'T need
>to buy any of their games if you DON'T want to.  For the same reason, nobody
>is complaining Cray for only making supercomputer.... why do we want to 
>complain Origin for only making high-end games?  

	Of course.  As for the P6... I bet you not; if what they say that the
chip WILL be backwards compatible with all other intel chips and at the same
time pushingnew technology (RISC or something) then I think it will be a while
to come yet.  They had said once it was going to come out around this time.
Besides, the Pentium is not nearly old enough... why would they not want to
milk this market for all its worth before showing us their next beast.
	As a final point, _I_ personally am not complaining about Origin
making high end games... if that was not the case we would not have had the
ground breaking WC's etc...  I just wish they would just tighten up their
coding so it could run a little better on a lesser machine.  THAT is what I
have been saying Origin is guilty of: very sloppy coding.
	It's amazing how some people misinterpret things to suit their own views
of what something says.

								- Falcon

>>>I do, as do most people I know.  It's pretty lame when Angel keeps 
>>>calling me "The Stud," but it's more involving if she calls me 
>>>"James"... :)
>>
>>	I guess we all have many reasons NOT to enter our given names... I'll
>>let your imaginations figure out why. :-)
>>	Oh, and James... she doesn't really know you. ;-)

>I know that.  It's called make-believe.  Role-playing.  Acting.

I agree with James (has it always been like this?) on this one. At least 
you tend to believe that Angel "knows" you if she addressed you by name 
than by something like "The Stud". I am sure we are all quite aware that 
we're playing games than living a life. :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    /*\-\/*\-\				Colonel Aubrey "SwiftHeart" Chen
   (********) )				of TCN
    \******/ /				swif...@access.mbnet.mb.ca
     \****/ /	Don't say a word	"21 days to go...I think."
       \/_/	unless you can draw a better heart! :)

In article <39u0dp$k...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (James Hogan) says:
>
>Your chacter is a jerk who deals in slaves and drugs and cares only about 
>himself.  The people you deal with are dull and one-dimensional, and not 
>once do you deal with them outside of business -- there's no personal 
>interaction as there was with the WC series.  You don't get to know 
>any of them as individuals.  Your character never has to deal with the 
>pain of losing a friend.
>
>This is what draws people into the WC plot -- the fact that they get to 
>know and even care about their wingmen, and are concerned when they're 
>being pummeled by Kilrathi, or are angry when they get killed.  What's 
>the big deal about an alien drone threatening to take over the Gamma 
>sector if you (the player) don't give a crap about the people or places 
>inhabiting it?
>
>  *--------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
>  |      James P. Hogan      | "It's hard to imagine the sound of a hacksaw |
>  | j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu |       cutting through a man's skull..."      |
>  *--------------------------*----------------------------------------------*
>

I'm not sure about any one else, not that it matters much anyway, but one of
the main reasons I did like Privateer was that the lead character was not the
typical holier than thou hero. He was strickly in it for the money and if
ethics got in the way of making money, he went around them. The great thrill
of Privateer is that you stil hang around the WC universe, but you do just
about what you want to do. Hell, I still play it just to take out Kilrathies
(sp?) and Confed all alike.
The one thing that I do miss about the game is having other people there with
you that you can talk and fight with/against, but hey eventually Privateer 2
is gonna come out, and for me in particular, that excites me a whole lot more
than playing WC 3. 
My $.03 in. (hehe, gotta paid!)

Relax
/---------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| The contents of this message may  | Relax2Max is what I do, I do it well. |
| seem odd and unusual. This is to  | wcus...@wppost.depaul.edu            |
| reflect the nature of the sender. | Rela...@aol.com                     |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------------/

j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (James Hogan) writes:
>gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (GM Enierga) writes:
>>>calling me "The Stud," but it's more involving if she calls me 
>>>"James"... :)
>>	I guess we all have many reasons NOT to enter our given names... I'll
>>let your imaginations figure out why. :-)
>>	Oh, and James... she doesn't really know you. ;-)

>I know that.  It's called make-believe.  Role-playing.  Acting.

	Tsk Tsk Tsk... I guess you did not notice my smiley at the end of my
sentence James.
	Need I say more?

						- Falcon

j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (James Hogan) writes:
>The main reason I was fairly confident WC3 would turn out well (at the 
>time I wrote the message -- before the demo came out) was that I had 
>talked to several different people who had seen the game shown at trade 
>shows (where capital ship combat went fairly smooth on a high-end 486), 
>or seen OSI's promotional video, and thought the acting was pretty good...
>things like that.  Not simply based on marketing hype and magazine previews.

	Well, you have now also seen the demo.  Care to update your FAQ to
give us your "results" based on whatever questions arise from the demo? :-)


>I still stand by my original statement that one shouldn't judge a game 
>simply based on a company's past track record.  If you simply say "I have 
>my doubts about WC3 based on OSI's past releases," fine, I can understand 
>that.  But to say "Even though OSI claims it will run on a 486 I know it 
>won't run on anything less than a Pentium and I'm not going to buy it" 
>is silly, IMO.
>  |      James P. Hogan      | Check out the REVISED WC3 FAQ, version 1.10! |

	I don't think I ever said that.  All I said was that if WC3 does not
run on the 486 at ALL (hey, maybe I won't be able to run the groovy SVGA flight
bits but the VGA engine still looks light years ahead of anything else out
there - and that includes Star Crusader - so I will want to play it on my 486)
I will not buy the game, cause for me it is ridiculous to upgrade a machine for
just one game.  I know there are people who do it and I am not saying it is
silly... just looking at whatever one's pocket can handle I guess.  Besides, I
DON'T KNOW if "WC3 won't run on anything less than a Pentium" because I have
seen absolutely zippo of the game (save the 1st lot of screenshots they
uploaded... which reminds me: do the Kilrathi STILL look like puppets, or do
they actually have that "star trek aliens" feel to them?) and as I have said
many time b4 but people still don't realise it (ok, sorry - SOME people), I
will NOT judge a book by its cover.
	I guess all my whining is in the hopes of Origin making their code as
good as they did it on WC2 and NOT as bad as they did on Pacific Strike.  If
WC3 is going to be the blockbuster everyone thinks it will, and maybe even
keeping in line with the "classic" status its 2 prequels achieved, I will buy
it.  Just as long as they don't expect me to buy a Pentium+ just to play the
game. :-)

						- Falcon
 

doc...@eng.umd.edu (John Sabean) writes:
>In article <39pe45$d...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (GM Enierga) writes:
>>j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (James Hogan) writes:
>>>gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (GM Enierga) writes:
>>>>	We "whine" because the target market not only is small at the moment
>>>>(Pentiums) but also because the products designed for it are for the gurgler

>>>Nearly everyone who's run Armada or the WC3 demo on a 486 has had no 
>>>complaints about the speed.  Origin's target audience is not just people 
>>>with Pentiums.

>>	A 486 DX 33?  I would really be surprised if that was the case.

>Actually, I ran Armada on a 386/40 and aside from a small bit of jerkyness when there
>are a large number of ships on the screen, it ran just fine.
>Since WC3 uses the same engine, with a SVGA mode, I assume that you'd get okay
>performance on a 486/33 as long as it had local bus video. You wouldn't get super duper
>performance, but I can see it working.....

	Wow... if that is true then maybe there is hope after all - assuming
of course that the gameplay is good and that the enemies are not as "dumb" as
they were in Armada.  Can someone tell me how the demo performed on the above
machine (486dx33) with just ordinairy ISA?  And please don't give me "official
fps" figures... but a real point of view of what they thought of the demo (the
playable bit) on the above specs.  Thanks.

								- Falcon

ak...@crux4.cit.cornell.edu (Allen Kim) writes:
>pde...@draper.com (PDeMaio) writes:
>>By the way, don't hold your breath for a P6 by next summer.  And if Intel goes
>>to RISC the damn things won't work right with half the stuff anyways, atleast 
>>game wise.

>Actually, oh skeptical one, Intel looks like they will make the P6 by next
>summer, or at the latest the fall.
>Meanwhile, Intel and HP are both working on the P7, and they are shooting for
>a very new architecture, not CISC or RISC (don't ask how), which will still be
>compatible with the Pentium and 486 chips of today.

	This is strange - I heard that what you describe above (Intel & HP
thing) will actually be the P6/686 chip.


>By the way, people are now saying that Origin is going to be "all Pentium."  I
>really don't see how this will exclude the 486 market, since the Pentium only
>has one instruction more than the 486.  In other words, what works on the
>Pentium also works on 486's.

	Not necessarily... if the Pentium's abilities are utilised fully, then
the 486 will NOT - because the pentium is like 2 chips in one, ie 2 general
processing chips in one, not a beefed up 486 and co-pro.


>Also, games optimized for the Pentium does not mean that it will not work on a
>486.  Optimization means that the compiler makes code that will utilize the
>strengths of the Pentium to full advantage, like the branch prediction, dual
>pipelining, and on-chip caches.  It just so happens that this kind of code can
>also benefit the 486, since it has its own on-chip cache.

	How can it benefit the 486?

>So us "scrubs" with the obsolete 486 systems don't have to worry for a while.
>After all, Intel is still developing for the 486 architecture; just look at the
>new DX4 Overdrive that they released a week ago.
>			- Allen "Ninja" Kim

	But do they have the motherboards to take advantage of this new chip
speed YET?  Here in Oz we are still waiting for something like that to become
available (in other words, what's the point of putting legs on a fish if the
fish is never going to walk on land?)

								- Falcon

In article <3aq1lh$5...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
GM Enierga <gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>ak...@crux4.cit.cornell.edu (Allen Kim) writes:
>>pde...@draper.com (PDeMaio) writes:
>
>>By the way, people are now saying that Origin is going to be "all Pentium."  I
>>really don't see how this will exclude the 486 market, since the Pentium only
>>has one instruction more than the 486.  In other words, what works on the
>>Pentium also works on 486's.
>
>	Not necessarily... if the Pentium's abilities are utilised fully, then
>the 486 will NOT - because the pentium is like 2 chips in one, ie 2 general
>processing chips in one, not a beefed up 486 and co-pro.
>

	Don't credit the Pentium's superscalar design too much.  Sure, it
can execute up to two instrcutions per tick, but I bet it rarely does,
especially with the bloated and gaudy coding.  So in no way is Pentium
"2 chips in one".  So far, the coders have practically no incentives to
utilize the Pentium's abilities fully.  It's a big honking hoss of a chip
and human reflex is only so good.  So programmers fill the games chokefull
of graphics, sounds, and whatnot.  Just so much eye-candy _for the most part_.
Certainly, I'm not going to discount attractiveness of SVGA graphics but
at what cost are those 'enhancement' achieved?  Games that can work
well in a lesser chip don't. 
	 I think tight, efficient coding, excellent
gameplay, and good audiovisuals can make a game a classic.  But so far,
some makers are concentrating on the last factor over the first two.
And it's not coincidental that increasing processing power and 
emergence of 'multimedia' in games are linearly pathed.  And it's also
not surprising to note that the first two factors don't require a big honking
hoss of a processor.

	[snip on pipelining and 486 chips]
>
>	How can it benefit the 486?
>

	It can benefit a 486 in that tighter and more efficient code can 
benefit just about any chips.  Branch prediction should allow Pentium to
achieve closer to 2 instructions per tick, and just as easily allow faster
performance from a 486.  


						--C h a e
-- 
E-mail: pala...@p.imap.itd.umich.edu     | finger pala...@umich.edu
	cha...@engin.umich.edu            | for more info. :)
 
	CBR900RR + Yoshimura prep + Arai + full leather = Happy Chae :)

gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (GM Enierga) writes:

>>Actually, oh skeptical one, Intel looks like they will make the P6 by next
>>summer, or at the latest the fall.
>>Meanwhile, Intel and HP are both working on the P7, and they are shooting for
>>a very new architecture, not CISC or RISC (don't ask how), which will still be
>>compatible with the Pentium and 486 chips of today.

>	This is strange - I heard that what you describe above (Intel & HP
>thing) will actually be the P6/686 chip.

Nah, Intel already began work on the P6 before the marriage with HP.  The
fruits of that alliance will be the P7, which is due around the time I get
out of grad school (considering I go).


>>By the way, people are now saying that Origin is going to be "all Pentium."  I
>>really don't see how this will exclude the 486 market, since the Pentium only
>>has one instruction more than the 486.  In other words, what works on the
>>Pentium also works on 486's.

>	Not necessarily... if the Pentium's abilities are utilised fully, then
>the 486 will NOT - because the pentium is like 2 chips in one, ie 2 general
>processing chips in one, not a beefed up 486 and co-pro.

Some people have called the Pentium "two 486's working together."  That's not
true; it's a lot more complicated than that, and it's pretty tough to explain.


>>Also, games optimized for the Pentium does not mean that it will not work on a
>>486.  Optimization means that the compiler makes code that will utilize the
>>strengths of the Pentium to full advantage, like the branch prediction, dual
>>pipelining, and on-chip caches.  It just so happens that this kind of code can
>>also benefit the 486, since it has its own on-chip cache.

>	How can it benefit the 486?

The 486 has a single pipeline, so optimized code will flow through the 486
more smoothly.  The performance benefits, however, will be offset by the
slowdown caused by using code that was intended for the Pentium, so the
overall benefits will be negligible.


>>So us "scrubs" with the obsolete 486 systems don't have to worry for a while.
>>After all, Intel is still developing for the 486 architecture; just look at the
>>new DX4 Overdrive that they released a week ago.
>>			- Allen "Ninja" Kim

>	But do they have the motherboards to take advantage of this new chip
>speed YET?  Here in Oz we are still waiting for something like that to become
>available (in other words, what's the point of putting legs on a fish if the
>fish is never going to walk on land?)

Oh, but you CAN use these new DX4 Overdrives in most existing boards.  If
you have a DX/33 or DX2/66 with a ZIF socket, chances are good that you can
remove the chip and plop in the DX4, since both chips operate on a 33 MHz
bus.  If you have an SX/25 or a DX/50 (in my case), usually there will be
a jumper that can change the bus speed to a 33 MHz setting.

And if you're wondering about voltage, yes the DX4 is 3.3V while existing
motherboards are 5V.  That's why the DX4 has an on-chip voltage regulator
so that it can work on 5V motherboards.

			- Allen "Ninja" Kim

A few comments before I start:
Please please please if you want to spend time praising each others' comments
or yelling at each other, take it to email.  I have no desire to read
a Falcon vs. others squabble mixed in with useful info/speculation about CPUs.

ak...@crux4.cit.cornell.edu (Allen Kim) writes:

>Nah, Intel already began work on the P6 before the marriage with HP.  The
>fruits of that alliance will be the P7, which is due around the time I get
>out of grad school (considering I go).

You mean HP+Intel = a really nice CPU?  Btw, what improvements will the 686
have over the 486 and 586 class processors?

Oh, btw, regarding Falcon's comments about the PowerPC coming out: although
the PowerPC is competitive with the 586 line, it has its own instruction set
and is not (to my knowlege) 586 compatible.  It may be 486 compatible with
translation software.  I'm not sure, though.  Any PowerPC people out there?

In other words, I don't think the PowerPC will make Origin program for
Pentiums, and I don't think Origin will go Pentium-only any time soon
because of the vast number of powerful 486 class processors which can
sometimes outperform the low-grade pentiums, at a significantly lower price.

>Some people have called the Pentium "two 486's working together."  That's not
>true; it's a lot more complicated than that, and it's pretty tough to explain.

How about "A 586 can perform at a rate of 1 to 2 486s depending on the
nature and optimization of code"?

>Oh, but you CAN use these new DX4 Overdrives in most existing boards.  If
>you have a DX/33 or DX2/66 with a ZIF socket, chances are good that you can
>remove the chip and plop in the DX4, since both chips operate on a 33 MHz
>bus.  If you have an SX/25 or a DX/50 (in my case), usually there will be
>a jumper that can change the bus speed to a 33 MHz setting.

I'll have to check; I think mine's attached to the motherboard itself.  Anyone
got wire cutters? :)

>And if you're wondering about voltage, yes the DX4 is 3.3V while existing
>motherboards are 5V.  That's why the DX4 has an on-chip voltage regulator
>so that it can work on 5V motherboards.

Ain't it wunnerful to be an engineer? :)

>			- Allen "Ninja" Kim

					Michael Lewchuk
					lew...@cs.UAlberta.CA

Chae Ho An (pala...@umich.edu) wrote:
: >	Not necessarily... if the Pentium's abilities are utilised fully, 
: > then the 486 will NOT - because the pentium is like 2 chips in one, 
: > ie 2 general processing chips in one, not a beefed up 486 and co-pro.

: 	Don't credit the Pentium's superscalar design too much.  
: ... So far, the coders have practically no incentives to
: utilize the Pentium's abilities fully.

Pentiums ability goes more than just superscalar. The integration of
some RISC methods into the chip makes for a different coding philosophy
and optimization, such as maximizing register use.

Coders have a great incentive to optimize to the Pentium, especially
for CPU bound applications. Modern UNIX SVR4 for the Intel processors,
for example, benefit greatly by having a Pentium-optimized kernel.

: 	 I think tight, efficient coding, excellent gameplay, and good 
: audiovisuals can make a game a classic.  But so far, some makers are 
: concentrating on the last factor over the first two. And it's not 
: coincidental that increasing processing power and emergence of 
: 'multimedia' in games are linearly pathed.  And it's also not 
: surprising to note that the first two factors don't require a big 
: honking hoss of a processor.

The more efficient instruction set and scheduling, and the more
efficient structure of the Pentium as a whole, makes for more efficient
coding in general. That is, from the same high level source code,
a compiler can optimize better and generate more efficient code
for the Pentium. There is an even bigger gain if programmers
purposefully take advantage of these features in the original code.

[How can Pentium optimized code benefit 486]
: 	It can benefit a 486 in that tighter and more efficient code can 
: benefit just about any chips.  Branch prediction should allow Pentium to
: achieve closer to 2 instructions per tick, and just as easily allow faster
: performance from a 486.  

Sorry, but under many (most) circumstances code optimized for the 
Pentium would be detremental to the 486. How adversely depends on
the nature of the program itself. Coders see the biggest advantage
for optimizing for the Pentium if the program were CPU-bound.

For example, a coder decides to optimize for the Pentium either
manually by specifying more work to be done on the register level
or by using a compiler flag (say the -K Pentium on SVR4 CCS compilers).
This typically results in a *bigger* code size, but because the
Pentium capabilities are fully utilized, also results on a *faster*
execution time. (Analogous to CISC vs RISC design; RISC gains in
code size but typically faster in CPU-bound execution.)

Trying to run the same code on a 486, (if it runs at all), will
result in a performance *hit* because now the 486 has to cope
with a larger code and does not have the ability to optimize
on the register level the way Pentium does. This results in 
a *looser* code for the 486, not tighter.

Indeed, the fact that Pentium optimized code is detremental
to the 486 and below is a big reason (from a marketing point
of view) why it is not done often. Many vendors (such as
Microport for its 4.2.1 operating system offering) offer
both Pentium and non-Pentium versions.

The same was true re: optimizing for the 486 would hurt the
386, especially because the availability of the L1 memory
in the 486.

-Ade Barkah
--
Head of Development
Renaissance Knowledge Systems
Englewood, Colorado

In article <3arcil$e...@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca>,
Michael Lewchuk <lew...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:

>You mean HP+Intel = a really nice CPU?  Btw, what improvements will the 686
>have over the 486 and 586 class processors?

	Yep!  According to the industry paper PC Week, Intel is teaming up 
with HP to develop a wholly-RISC processor that will be two generations ahead
of current Pentiums.  While HP will provide its know-how from its PA-RISC
processors, Intel will have the fab capacity and addition research to make it
compatible with previous generations' software.  The P6 generation being
developed right now is indeed Intel's in-house, and will be a hybrid CISC-
RISC chip.  Expect the P7 to be released sometime in 1998.

>Oh, btw, regarding Falcon's comments about the PowerPC coming out: although
>the PowerPC is competitive with the 586 line, it has its own instruction set
>and is not (to my knowlege) 586 compatible.  It may be 486 compatible with
>translation software.  I'm not sure, though.  Any PowerPC people out there?

	Yep...  Currently one will need a software emulator called Soft-
Windows to run DOS stuff on an unmodified PowerMac.  It does not even do
386enhanced mode and runs about the same speed as a fast 386.  There are
hardware cards with Intel 486 chips on-board for the PowerMac (September
Computer Shopper, if I'm not mistaken), but I don't know how well they
work.

	Origin can conceivably write games for PowerPC.

>Pentiums, and I don't think Origin will go Pentium-only any time soon
>because of the vast number of powerful 486 class processors which can
>sometimes outperform the low-grade pentiums, at a significantly lower price.

	That's gonna change pretty soon...  Pentiums are gonna start getting
dirt-cheap.  Scarcely a month ago a Pentium-90 chip cost $800.  Now it's
$580.  By January a P54C-90 shouldn't cost more than $450.

>I'll have to check; I think mine's attached to the motherboard itself.  Anyone
>got wire cutters? :)

	Good news here...  Most 486s don't have their 486 chips soldered on-
board.  They are usually thumb-pressed into a high-insertion-force socket or
locked into place with a zero-insertion-force socket.  I think yours is
probably the former.  It just takes a little judicious prying with a 
jeweler's screwdriver.  =)  I did several of those (losing a pint of blood
in the process because of cuts from jagged soldering everywhere inside a
computer) for my clients...  It's not hard, but can be a bit painful at times.
(grin)  And if you buy the OverDrive package, it comes with a chip puller!

	The reason why they are not usually soldered in place is because your
reseller don't pop in the chip until they know which flavor you want when you
bought your computer; these motherboards are usually designed to take 
processors running at various speeds.

TRH Sends

th...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu (Tom  Hong) writes:

>In article <3arcil$e...@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca>,
>Michael Lewchuk <lew...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:

>P6 developed right now is indeed Intel's in-house, and will be a hybrid CISC-
>RISC chip.  Expect the P7 to be released sometime in 1998.

How can you combine CISC and RISC efficiently?  Eliminate all medium-level
instructions and have just the basics and some very complex instructions?

>>Oh, btw, regarding Falcon's comments about the PowerPC coming out: although
>>the PowerPC is competitive with the 586 line, it has its own instruction set
>>and is not (to my knowlege) 586 compatible.  It may be 486 compatible with
>>translation software.  I'm not sure, though.  Any PowerPC people out there?

> [ .... PowerPC emulates 386DX software, 486DX hardware ...]
>	Origin can conceivably write games for PowerPC.

Yes, but I still don't believe that it will induce Origin to drop the 486
market.  On the contrary, it will induce Origin to stick with 486s.  While
they could develop PowerPC-specific code, the question is "will the market
support PowerPC versions of WC3?".

>>Pentiums, and I don't think Origin will go Pentium-only any time soon
>>because of the vast number of powerful 486 class processors which can
>>sometimes outperform the low-grade pentiums, at a significantly lower price.

>	That's gonna change pretty soon...  Pentiums are gonna start getting
>dirt-cheap.  Scarcely a month ago a Pentium-90 chip cost $800.  Now it's
>$580.  By January a P54C-90 shouldn't cost more than $450.

Well, here in Canada, the Pentiums are still $3000+, and the 486DX4s are still
under $3000 for a reasonably efficient system, I believe.  Most of the stores
I deal with are still selling only DX2s and DX4s and the occasional SX2.

>>I'll have to check; I think mine's attached to the motherboard itself.  Anyone
>>got wire cutters? :)

>	Good news here...  Most 486s don't have their 486 chips soldered on-
>board.  They are usually thumb-pressed into a high-insertion-force socket or
>locked into place with a zero-insertion-force socket.  I think yours is
>probably the former.  It just takes a little judicious prying with a 
>jeweler's screwdriver.  =)  I did several of those (losing a pint of blood
>in the process because of cuts from jagged soldering everywhere inside a
>computer) for my clients...  It's not hard, but can be a bit painful at times.
>(grin)  And if you buy the OverDrive package, it comes with a chip puller!

Cute.  I'll have to take a look at my motherboard, but on the other hand I'll
probably just replace the entire motherboard.  I don't have local-bus graphics
and without it the extra CPU power would probably be meaningless unless
advanced versions of Windows (should I want to buy them) become REAL CPU HOGS.

>	The reason why they are not usually soldered in place is because your
>reseller don't pop in the chip until they know which flavor you want when you
>bought your computer; these motherboards are usually designed to take 
>processors running at various speeds.

Ah.  And this is what makes the corner-store computer dealer possible, eh?

>TRH Sends

					Michael Lewchuk
					lew...@cs.UAlberta.CA

In article <3aru0n$1...@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca>,
Michael Lewchuk <lew...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:

>How can you combine CISC and RISC efficiently?  Eliminate all medium-level
>instructions and have just the basics and some very complex instructions?

	(grin) They tried to explain it in PC Week but I didn't understand it.
=)  Let me see if I can go back to the SEAS library and find out which issue
it's in.

>> [ .... PowerPC emulates 386DX software, 486DX hardware ...]
>>	Origin can conceivably write games for PowerPC.
>
>Yes, but I still don't believe that it will induce Origin to drop the 486
>market.  On the contrary, it will induce Origin to stick with 486s.  While
>they could develop PowerPC-specific code, the question is "will the market
>support PowerPC versions of WC3?".

	Agreed.  The DOS segment of the market is where the money is,
considering that it makes up 70% of desktop machines presently in use.
Thus far, I think PowerPC machines are still mainly "serious" machines,
be it PowerMac or IBM RS/6000s...  High-powered boxes intended for
academia, business, research, professional graphics, etc...  Not for the
home.  It's not something that one buys for the kids to bang around with,
at least, not yet.  So you are probably right in questioning the existance
of a market for real complex games written in native PowerPC code.

>Well, here in Canada, the Pentiums are still $3000+, and the 486DX4s are still
>under $3000 for a reasonably efficient system, I believe.  Most of the stores
>I deal with are still selling only DX2s and DX4s and the occasional SX2.

	Oops!  I often forget that my posts crosses borders!  (sheepish grin)
But yes, Pentium prices are dropping precipitously here in the States.  Are
there import restrictions and such for you guys when buying computers down
here by mail order from places like Dell or GW2K?

>Cute.  I'll have to take a look at my motherboard, but on the other hand I'll
>probably just replace the entire motherboard.  I don't have local-bus graphics
>and without it the extra CPU power would probably be meaningless unless
>advanced versions of Windows (should I want to buy them) become REAL CPU HOGS.

	Ah...  Yes, in this case it would definitely be worth it to upgrade
your motherboard, if just to update the bus architecture.  Local bus is fast
becoming a necessity these days due to the increased demands software makes
on our machines.  As far as motherboard swaps go, you can get a pretty good
VESA Local Bus motherboard for $150 in the States...  Here in New York City
my supplier gives them to me for $100 apiece.  However, you would have to
make two additional investments--  A good VLB video card and a VLB hard disk
controller (IDE or SCSI depending on which one you have) and *those* are the
major expenses of the upgrade.

>>	The reason why they are not usually soldered in place is because your
>>reseller don't pop in the chip until they know which flavor you want when you
>>bought your computer; these motherboards are usually designed to take 
>>processors running at various speeds.
>
>Ah.  And this is what makes the corner-store computer dealer possible, eh?

	Yep!  Except I don't even have a corner-store!  (grin)

TRH Sends

lew...@cs.ualberta.ca (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>A few comments before I start:
>Please please please if you want to spend time praising each others' comments
>or yelling at each other, take it to email.  I have no desire to read
>a Falcon vs. others squabble mixed in with useful info/speculation about CPUs.

	My humblest apologies.  I ahve written to this effect in my last such
post.


>ak...@crux4.cit.cornell.edu (Allen Kim) writes:
>>Nah, Intel already began work on the P6 before the marriage with HP.  The
>>fruits of that alliance will be the P7, which is due around the time I get
>>out of grad school (considering I go).

>You mean HP+Intel = a really nice CPU?  Btw, what improvements will the 686
>have over the 486 and 586 class processors?

	Yeah, I would also like to know what the heck the 686 is supposed to
be.  It seemed logical for the P7's "specs" to be those of the P6, but according
to what you say above...
	Let's just say you have managed to confuse me.


>Oh, btw, regarding Falcon's comments about the PowerPC coming out: although
>the PowerPC is competitive with the 586 line, it has its own instruction set
>and is not (to my knowlege) 586 compatible.  It may be 486 compatible with
>translation software.  I'm not sure, though.  Any PowerPC people out there?

	That may be hard to get an answer there.  As far as I know down here
the PowerPc is STILL not out. (The PowerMac is, but that's a diff. kettle of
fish).


>In other words, I don't think the PowerPC will make Origin program for
>Pentiums, and I don't think Origin will go Pentium-only any time soon
>because of the vast number of powerful 486 class processors which can
>sometimes outperform the low-grade pentiums, at a significantly lower price.

	If games like WC3 are going to become the norm for Origin (and
assuming they do survive the gamble) then I cannot see them programming for the
486 much.  Already there are people with dx2's who are saying that the SVGA
full fight mode is not fast enough.


>>Some people have called the Pentium "two 486's working together."  That's not
>>true; it's a lot more complicated than that, and it's pretty tough to explain.

	I know its not that simple, but it's fairly close.  I said it was 2
chips rather than 2 486's. (If the latter was the case, I think one would need
to borrow a few heatsinks from some Mechanoids!) ;-)


>How about "A 586 can perform at a rate of 1 to 2 486s depending on the
>nature and optimization of code"?

	Makes sense to me.


>>Oh, but you CAN use these new DX4 Overdrives in most existing boards.  If
>>you have a DX/33 or DX2/66 with a ZIF socket, chances are good that you can
>>remove the chip and plop in the DX4, since both chips operate on a 33 MHz
>>bus.  If you have an SX/25 or a DX/50 (in my case), usually there will be
>>a jumper that can change the bus speed to a 33 MHz setting.

	But you will need the board to run at a clock-triple speed (or something
like that - and yes I know that a DX4 is only clock-3x INSIDE the chip).  If
this was the case then they would NOT had brought out motherboards which take
advantage of the dx2 chips - and I mean specific motherboards which are
"downward compatible" - I know they exist for I have seen them).


>>And if you're wondering about voltage, yes the DX4 is 3.3V while existing
>>motherboards are 5V.  That's why the DX4 has an on-chip voltage regulator
>>so that it can work on 5V motherboards.
>Ain't it wunnerful to be an engineer? :)
>					Michael Lewchuk

	*smile* Not if you have to listen to all those engineer jokes. ;-)

							- Falcon

In article <3as49j$5...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
GM Enierga <gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:

>>You mean HP+Intel = a really nice CPU?  Btw, what improvements will the 686
>>have over the 486 and 586 class processors?

	Yes, according to the industry paper PC Week, HP and Intel will team
together to develop a wholly RISC processor for personal computers based on
HP's PA-RISC designs.

>	That may be hard to get an answer there.  As far as I know down here
>the PowerPc is STILL not out. (The PowerMac is, but that's a diff. kettle of
>fish).

	Neither is an IBM-made PowerPC personal system available here in the
states yet.  The only PowerPC machine made by IBM that I know of would be
the RS/6000 AIX workstation.  They keep claiming, "any day now..."  But it's
getting pretty comical.  =)  Kinda like, "How much farther, Papa Smurf?"
In addition, any IBM-made PowerPC personal system made before the unified
PPC Reference Platform between Apple and IBM is not going to sell well.
The users seem to want to be sure of the PowerPC's direction before
committing.

>	But you will need the board to run at a clock-triple speed (or somethin
>like that - and yes I know that a DX4 is only clock-3x INSIDE the chip).  If
>this was the case then they would NOT had brought out motherboards which take
>advantage of the dx2 chips - and I mean specific motherboards which are
>"downward compatible" - I know they exist for I have seen them).

	Nope...  I put together clone machines and have built up DX4
systems for several clients.  One does not need special motherboards for DX4
OverDrives.  Regular DX4s without the voltage regulators don't need anything
really special either; there are motherboards out there that can accept 3.3
or 5-volt CPUs by simply setting the appropriate jumpers.  Regardless of
processor speed, be it DX4-100, DX2-66, or DX-33, they all can use the same
motherboards (except for the voltage considerations I mentioned).  There is
no *VLB motherboards* out there for Intel 486 chips (AMD and Cyrix is another
matter) which exceed 33mHz bus speed, and that is due to the limitations of
the VESA Local Bus, which has a top speed of 40mHz.  That's why the Intel
486DX50 (not the DX2-50) was never popular; its 50-mHz bus speed is just too
fast for VESA Local Bus and consequently DX50s are sold in ISA or EISA
systems.  Newer VLB boards have 50mHz speed restrictions, but these are not
very prolific as yet.

TRH Sends

: 	I don't think I ever said that.  All I said was that if WC3 does not
: run on the 486 at ALL (hey, maybe I won't be able to run the groovy SVGA flight
: bits but the VGA engine still looks light years ahead of anything else out
: there - and that includes Star Crusader - so I will want to play it on my 486)
If you have a DX-50, Local bus video card, your set for SVGA graphics
in dogfights where a capital ship is not present. The engine in the demo is
unoptimized. I actually think the engine is date before Armada was released,
so it unoptimized, as they admit in the readme file. So who knows how much
faster it's going to be on final release?

: I will not buy the game, cause for me it is ridiculous to upgrade a machine for
: just one game.
I agree, my DX-50 is going be lasting me at least another 2 years,
regardless of what OSI or any other company does.

  I know there are people who do it and I am not saying it is
: silly... just looking at whatever one's pocket can handle I guess.  Besides, I
: DON'T KNOW if "WC3 won't run on anything less than a Pentium" because I have
: seen absolutely zippo of the game (save the 1st lot of screenshots they
: uploaded... which reminds me: do the Kilrathi STILL look like puppets, or do
: they actually have that "star trek aliens" feel to them?)
They look okay in the demo. Their are only two scenes with them in the demo,
and each scene lasts 5-10 seconds tops.

 and as I have said
: 	I guess all my whining is in the hopes of Origin making their code as
: good as they did it on WC2 and NOT as bad as they did on Pacific Strike.
Origin wouldn't agree, but I think Pacific Strike was the best thing that
happened to Origin, and the consumer. It was a kick in the teeth they
needed. I notice Both Bioforge and WOG have been pushed back to next year,
more code optimizations perhaps? Afterall it can't take that long to through
some speech into a game.

  If
: WC3 is going to be the blockbuster everyone thinks it will, and maybe even
: keeping in line with the "classic" status its 2 prequels achieved, I will buy
: it.  Just as long as they don't expect me to buy a Pentium+ just to play the
: game. :-)
Origin have spent around about $4 million, I think they want this game to
run fine on as many types of computers as possible.
:  
-- 
.__________________________________________________________________________.
|Internet: pfle...@scu.edu.au                                             |
| One hour from now WING COMMANDER 3 will be one hour closer to release    | 
|__________________________________________________________________________|

th...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu (Tom  Hong) writes:
>In article <3arcil$e...@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca>,
>Michael Lewchuk <lew...@cs.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>You mean HP+Intel = a really nice CPU?  Btw, what improvements will the 686
>>have over the 486 and 586 class processors?

>	Yep!  According to the industry paper PC Week, Intel is teaming up 
>with HP to develop a wholly-RISC processor that will be two generations ahead
>of current Pentiums.  While HP will provide its know-how from its PA-RISC
>processors, Intel will have the fab capacity and addition research to make it
>compatible with previous generations' software.  The P6 generation being
>developed right now is indeed Intel's in-house, and will be a hybrid CISC-
>RISC chip.  Expect the P7 to be released sometime in 1998.

	Well, I guess that explains everything.  Thanks for the info guys. :-)


>>Pentiums, and I don't think Origin will go Pentium-only any time soon
>>because of the vast number of powerful 486 class processors which can
>>sometimes outperform the low-grade pentiums, at a significantly lower price.

	How?  I thought the Pentium chip was a significantly better chip, which
needs software to be written directly for it in order to tap that "power".


>TRH Sends

lew...@cs.ualberta.ca (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>th...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu (Tom  Hong) writes:
>>>Oh, btw, regarding Falcon's comments about the PowerPC coming out: although
>>>the PowerPC is competitive with the 586 line, it has its own instruction set
>>>and is not (to my knowlege) 586 compatible.  It may be 486 compatible with
>>>translation software.  I'm not sure, though.  Any PowerPC people out there?

>> [ .... PowerPC emulates 386DX software, 486DX hardware ...]
>>	Origin can conceivably write games for PowerPC.

>Yes, but I still don't believe that it will induce Origin to drop the 486
>market.  On the contrary, it will induce Origin to stick with 486s.  While
>they could develop PowerPC-specific code, the question is "will the market
>support PowerPC versions of WC3?".

	Why would they want to do that?  Seems to me that by the time the
PowerPC will finally emerge (if), then by that time the 686 will be just about
ready to roll out... so it would be a little useless writing games for a machine
like the PowerPC - especially if it will stay "serious" as another person
elsewhere describes.  As for Origin dropping the 486 market... well I doubt they
will be seriously supporting it a year from now (if they still exist a year
from now ie).


							- Falcon

th...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu (Tom  Hong) writes:
>In article <3as49j$5...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>GM Enierga <gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>>You mean HP+Intel = a really nice CPU?  Btw, what improvements will the 686
>>>have over the 486 and 586 class processors?

>	Yes, according to the industry paper PC Week, HP and Intel will team
>together to develop a wholly RISC processor for personal computers based on
>HP's PA-RISC designs.

	Ok - can someone please clue me in here: is the Intel/HP baby going to
be the 686 or 786?  If the answer is the latter (ie 786) then what on earth
is the 686 supposed to improve on?


>	Neither is an IBM-made PowerPC personal system available here in the
>states yet.  The only PowerPC machine made by IBM that I know of would be
>the RS/6000 AIX workstation.  They keep claiming, "any day now..."  But it's
>getting pretty comical.  =)  Kinda like, "How much farther, Papa Smurf?"
>In addition, any IBM-made PowerPC personal system made before the unified
>PPC Reference Platform between Apple and IBM is not going to sell well.
>The users seem to want to be sure of the PowerPC's direction before
>committing.

	I'm beginning to wonder if they will EVER release the PowerPC... I mean
if Intel releases its next generation chip (see above) supposed to be out end
of '95, then it would be kinda useless of the blue giant to do it.  Why buy a
Concorde now when a passenger stratospheric jet is going to come out any day
now?


>	Nope...  I put together clone machines and have built up DX4
>systems for several clients.  One does not need special motherboards for DX4
>OverDrives.  Regular DX4s without the voltage regulators don't need anything
>really special either; there are motherboards out there that can accept 3.3
>or 5-volt CPUs by simply setting the appropriate jumpers.  Regardless of
>processor speed, be it DX4-100, DX2-66, or DX-33, they all can use the same
>motherboards (except for the voltage considerations I mentioned).  There is
>no *VLB motherboards* out there for Intel 486 chips (AMD and Cyrix is another
>matter) which exceed 33mHz bus speed, and that is due to the limitations of
>the VESA Local Bus, which has a top speed of 40mHz.  That's why the Intel
>486DX50 (not the DX2-50) was never popular; its 50-mHz bus speed is just too
>fast for VESA Local Bus and consequently DX50s are sold in ISA or EISA
>systems.  Newer VLB boards have 50mHz speed restrictions, but these are not
>very prolific as yet.
>TRH Sends

	Ok... Q.#2: if that remains the case, which as I understand you wrote
above as being "any kind of motherboard can handle a DX4 chip provided the chip
socket has the right amount of pinholes in it...", why is it that there are
motherboards out there which have, using the DX2 chip for example, been
"optimised" to run a DX2?  Yes, I DO realise that all DX based chips run 33Mhz
extrnally no matter what their internal speed is, so I guess what I am really
asking is "why are there motherboards out there which say they can run a DX2
chip for example?"  Is it just the amount of pinholes and that's it, or is
there something more?

	And a general question: assuming Origin survives a year from now - and
I guess this has to do with a lot of other soft. companies as well, including
EA who have released a Pentium-only playable US Navy Fighters (or whatever) -
will they still be releasing software for ye old 486s?  IF so, please give me
reasons why you believe so.  Oh, and don't email me either - a post will do. :-)

							- Falcon

pfle...@scu.edu.au (Nightfox) writes:
>: 	I don't think I ever said that.  All I said was that if WC3 does not
>: run on the 486 at ALL (hey, maybe I won't be able to run the groovy SVGA flight
>: bits but the VGA engine still looks light years ahead of anything else out
>: there - and that includes Star Crusader - so I will want to play it on my 486)

>If you have a DX-50,

	Nope... and btw - is a DX-100 a dx-99 really (ie a DX4)?  In other
words, is it based on the DX33 or the DX25?


> Local bus video card,

	Nope... and again, for a 486 computer, WHICH is better? VLB or PCI?
And is it likely that when the 686 will be released they will bring out a
new chipset as they brought out the PCI for the Pentium chips?


> your set for SVGA graphics
>in dogfights where a capital ship is not present. The engine in the demo is
>unoptimized. I actually think the engine is date before Armada was released,
>so it unoptimized, as they admit in the readme file. So who knows how much
>faster it's going to be on final release?

	I think James the FAQ writer can really answer that - he's more in the
know than most of us here I suspect.


>: I will not buy the game, cause for me it is ridiculous to upgrade a machine for
>: just one game.
>I agree, my DX-50 is going be lasting me at least another 2 years,
>regardless of what OSI or any other company does.

	How long have you had it?  I hope you are right though... even though
games like Nascar are being released, at the moment it really does not worry
me since Nascar (I hear) cannot run fully on a P90 even.  Which reminds me:
what specs does EA's "US Navy Fighters" (or whatever) need?


>: uploaded... which reminds me: do the Kilrathi STILL look like puppets, or do
>: they actually have that "star trek aliens" feel to them?)

>They look okay in the demo. Their are only two scenes with them in the demo,
>and each scene lasts 5-10 seconds tops.

	Well, I FINALLY had a look at the demo too.  I was very impressed -
especially with the acting, it really did make me feel like watching the
trailer for a top new sci-fi movie... I especially liked Tolwyn's (McDowell)
and that other redhead-spiked-hair guy's (not Maniac, but the one who says in
point form something about not having R&R for so long) performances...
but I digress.  The Kilrathi looked better than I expected, but somehow those
"flat elongated lips" still remind me of those Dark Crystall muppets...  I
think there is still room for improvement (or is it too late?  How about
touching up with comp. graphics like they did in the Crow?).
	At least they remembered to keep the Emperor's bad eye. :-)


>: 	I guess all my whining is in the hopes of Origin making their code as
>: good as they did it on WC2 and NOT as bad as they did on Pacific Strike.

>Origin wouldn't agree, but I think Pacific Strike was the best thing that
>happened to Origin, and the consumer. It was a kick in the teeth they
>needed. I notice Both Bioforge and WOG have been pushed back to next year,
>more code optimizations perhaps? Afterall it can't take that long to through
>some speech into a game.

	If that is true, then perhaps the complaints of "people like me" have
not been in vain.  About Bio-forge though, is it REALLY possible to make a
game like that "totally interactive"?


>  If
>: WC3 is going to be the blockbuster everyone thinks it will, and maybe even
>: keeping in line with the "classic" status its 2 prequels achieved, I will buy
>: it.  Just as long as they don't expect me to buy a Pentium+ just to play the
>: game. :-)
>Origin have spent around about $4 million, I think they want this game to
>run fine on as many types of computers as possible.

	Within reason, I guess.  After running the demo on my DX33 ISA ET4000
Tseng labs card (yes, rather old by gaming standards), I found it quite
satisfactory... even though I could NEVER force-run the SVGA combat screens
no matter what key I had pressed (and yes I had preloaded my Vesa driver).
Is it some kind of ALT key combo, or will the program NOT run it cause it
exceeds some kind of "minimum SVGA requirement" value?
	By the way, did anyone have problems with their SB type card?  I think
my volume chip on the card went haywire after running the demo for the 1st time.

	And my MOST sincerest thanks to the person who uploaded the demo.  Quite
readily the best demo I have ever downloaded. :-)

								- Falcon

>	Ok - can someone please clue me in here: is the Intel/HP baby going to
>be the 686 or 786?  If the answer is the latter (ie 786) then what on earth
>is the 686 supposed to improve on?

The P7 will be the first fruits of the Intel/HP alliance.

As for the P6, no one knows what it's supposed to improve upon.  However,
there are plenty of ways that they can improve upon the Pentium design,
believe it or not.


>	I'm beginning to wonder if they will EVER release the PowerPC... I mean
>if Intel releases its next generation chip (see above) supposed to be out end
>of '95, then it would be kinda useless of the blue giant to do it.  Why buy a
>Concorde now when a passenger stratospheric jet is going to come out any day
>now?

The big winner of the PowerPC market thus far is Apple.  IBM seems to enjoy
twiddling their thumbs on delaying "the next revolution in computing."


>	Ok... Q.#2: if that remains the case, which as I understand you wrote
>above as being "any kind of motherboard can handle a DX4 chip provided the chip
>socket has the right amount of pinholes in it...", why is it that there are
>motherboards out there which have, using the DX2 chip for example, been
>"optimised" to run a DX2?  Yes, I DO realise that all DX based chips run 33Mhz
>extrnally no matter what their internal speed is, so I guess what I am really
>asking is "why are there motherboards out there which say they can run a DX2
>chip for example?"  Is it just the amount of pinholes and that's it, or is
>there something more?

That's probably marketing hype.  As far as I know, there is no such board
that is "optimized" to run a DX2.  Any board that can support a 33 MHz bus
speed can take either a DX, DX2, or DX4.


>	And a general question: assuming Origin survives a year from now - and
>I guess this has to do with a lot of other soft. companies as well, including
>EA who have released a Pentium-only playable US Navy Fighters (or whatever) -
>will they still be releasing software for ye old 486s?  IF so, please give me
>reasons why you believe so.  Oh, and don't email me either - a post will do. :-)

Any game released "for the Pentium only" will also run on 486s.  But then,
that might be as meaningful as saying that WCIII will also run on 386s.

				- Allen "Ninja" Kim

gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (GM Enierga) writes:

>	Nope... and btw - is a DX-100 a dx-99 really (ie a DX4)?  In other
>words, is it based on the DX33 or the DX25?

It's based on the DX/33, meaning that it is a clock-tripler.  Intel chose the
name "DX4" instead of "DX3" so that they can play the name game.

Actually, a DX/33 is actually 33.33 MHz, so tripling the clock will give you
99.99 MHz, which is close enough to 100.


>> Local bus video card,

>	Nope... and again, for a 486 computer, WHICH is better? VLB or PCI?
>And is it likely that when the 686 will be released they will bring out a
>new chipset as they brought out the PCI for the Pentium chips?

I believe there is no difference between VLB and PCI, performance-wise, on
a 486.  If you have the choice, however, go for the PCI.

				- Allen "Ninja" Kim

I agree you should go for pci , but I beleieve you only get all the pci
beneits on the pentium. So iff the cost is less for vl and a 486 it might
be wiser to get vl. But if you are going for the pentium the pci seems to
be the way to go as of this month. Ya never know I hear rumors obout pci2
and vl2. 
-- 
Nigel Samuel 
nsa...@pipeline.com 
The search for the perfect game never ends! 

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure you write:

>	Ok - can someone please clue me in here: is the Intel/HP baby going to
>be the 686 or 786?  If the answer is the latter (ie 786) then what on earth
>is the 686 supposed to improve on?

According to previous posts, the Intel/HP chip is the 786.  There's an article
in Byte about AMD's 586 (I think) having a CISC->RISC design.  From what's been
posted I believe the Intel 686 will also go to this design.

>I'm beginning to wonder if they will EVER release the PowerPC... why buy it.

Because some people want the best of both Mac and PC.

>	Ok... Q.#2: if that remains the case, which as I understand you wrote
>above as being "any kind of motherboard can handle a DX4 chip provided the chip
>socket has the right amount of pinholes in it...", why is it that there are
>motherboards out there which have, using the DX2 chip for example, been
>"optimised" to run a DX2?  

They have?

>Yes, I DO realise that all DX based chips run 33Mhz
>extrnally no matter what their internal speed is, so I guess what I am really
>asking is "why are there motherboards out there which say they can run a DX2
>chip for example?"  Is it just the amount of pinholes and that's it, or is
>there something more?

Because it's comforting to a perspective buyer that this motherboard can
easily support a DX2, Pentium, or whatever upgrade.  It's probably more for
advertising purposes more than anything else.  For example, why mention that
a car has anti-lock brakes if every new car is moving towards including this
in their design?  Because it gives the user a "warm fuzzy feeling of getting
something extra" at no cost to them.  Simple psychology.

>	And a general question: assuming Origin survives a year from now - and

Assuming IBM survives a year from now ....

I've been waiting a long time for Big Blue and Intel to topple and they still
carry on.  Origin is likely to do the same.

>I guess this has to do with a lot of other soft. companies as well, including
>EA who have released a Pentium-only playable US Navy Fighters (or whatever) -
>will they still be releasing software for ye old 486s?  IF so, please give me
>reasons why you believe so. Oh, and don't email me either - a post will do. :-)

They'll do it for awhile yet, I think.  Why?  Most of the PCs out there are
still Pentiums.  It's like 3-4 years back when the common PC was a 386DX and
the low end being pulled off the market was a 386SX.

>							- Falcon

					Michael Lewchuk
					lew...@cs.UAlberta.CA

In article <3bcf6s$5...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
GM Enierga <gme...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:

>	Ok - can someone please clue me in here: is the Intel/HP baby going to
>be the 686 or 786?  If the answer is the latter (ie 786) then what on earth
>is the 686 supposed to improve on?

	The P6 will be a speed demon.  The slowest version will be clocked
at 170mHz (PC Week, November 16 issue).  It will also have 6 million 
transistors aboard, with improved superscalar and branch prediction, etc.
PC Week didn't print any details. 

>	I'm beginning to wonder if they will EVER release the PowerPC... I mean
>if Intel releases its next generation chip (see above) supposed to be out end
>of '95, then it would be kinda useless of the blue giant to do it.  Why buy a
>Concorde now when a passenger stratospheric jet is going to come out any day
>now?

	Well...  IBM wants to release a PowerPC platform optimized for
a native version of OS2.  Evidently someone at IBM said that talks have
broken off for IBM to license PowerMac OS, and thus the unified PowerPC
Reference Platform is officially vaporware.  (grin)  This also came from 
the Nov. 16 issue of PC Week.
 
>	Ok... Q.#2: if that remains the case, which as I understand you wrote
>above as being "any kind of motherboard can handle a DX4 chip provided the chi
>socket has the right amount of pinholes in it...", why is it that there are
>motherboards out there which have, using the DX2 chip for example, been
>"optimised" to run a DX2?  Yes, I DO realise that all DX based chips run 33Mhz
>extrnally no matter what their internal speed is, so I guess what I am really
>asking is "why are there motherboards out there which say they can run a DX2
>chip for example?"  Is it just the amount of pinholes and that's it, or is
>there something more?

	Ah yes I think I know what you mean.  Yep some motherboards out
there can be toted as being "optimized for DX2s" because they might have
a larger L2 cache or perhaps a fast ISA bus that is capable of 10mHz
speed in addition to the standard 8mHz speed (my DX2-66's AMI BIOS has
a setting for this.).  I don't put much stock in these features though,
because having upgraded some clients' DX-33 to a 66 I do not see much
difference between their systems and mine.

TRH Sends

j-h...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (James Hogan) writes:

>ak...@crux5.cit.cornell.edu (Allen Kim) writes:

>>I believe there is no difference between VLB and PCI, performance-wise, on
>>a 486.  If you have the choice, however, go for the PCI.

>Why?  :)  (Not trying to be a smart-ass, I'm just not extremely 
>knowledgable about video cards.)  Any reasons other than the fact that 
>you'll be able to keep the PCI if you upgrade to a Pentium?

Actually, that's it.

				- Allen "Ninja" Kim