Received: from relay7.UU.NET (relay7.UU.NET [192.48.96.17]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id OAA20922 for <dwarner@albany.net>; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 14:11:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from garcia.com by relay7.UU.NET with SMTP
id QQzzui29665; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 14:08:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost) by garcia.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA20419; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 12:59:59 -0500
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 12:59:59 -0500
Message-Id: <9601231256.AA00ebg@meta.burner.com>
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: jkrutz@meta.burner.com (Jamie Krutz) ()
To: Multiple recipients of list <lightwave@garcia.com>
Subject: Re: Slow LW 4.0/4.1 for Amiga
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
In article <199601220356.AA160923016@relay1.geis.com> j.follett@genie.com writes:
> Reply: Item #5785643 from LIGHTWAVE@GARCIA.COM@INET#
>
> LW for the Amiga renders slow due to the lack of a good C compiler.
>
> NewTek previously used the Manx compiler to generate fast efficient
> code. They can't use it any longer due to incompatibility problems
> with the latest OS.
That's curious, I've used LW 3.1 (Toaster version) on an AmigaOS
3.1 machine with no problems.
> They switched over to the SAS compiler, which
> generates slow fat code.
I had thought SAS won the speed war. Manx has been gone a long,
long time.
> So don't expect a patch to speed up the Amiga
> renders. It is going to take some major work to correct this, and it
> may be more work than NewTek will ever put into it.
I'd like to hear more details about this theory. NewTek is in a very
tough position here trying to sell an upgrade if actuallly performs
worse than the older software.
I understand from other posts the new Amiga version has support
for ASL requester, graphics cards and screamernet. With all the
work that went into supporting those things, plus the new LW
features, it would be a good idea for NewTek to put a little more
time into finding what parts of the code need optimization so the
final result is a usable 3D renderer.
Otherwise they'll lose Toaster sales, Toaster upgrade sales and Flyer
sales. They'll be compensated only partly by Intel LW sales. Some
customers will switch products with platforms (Truespace, 3DS/Max,
Real3D, etc.), and switch video hardware at the same time (Perception,
Targa, etc.).
> (On a sadder note, no one makes an Amiga C compiler that is optimized
> for the 060 chip. The best it can do is emulate an 040.)
I wonder if Amiga Technologies will do anything to remedy this?
Still, the 060 is inexpensive and does give you a faster Amiga than
an 040 machine even with current compilers.
> I want to buy a Flyer more than any other piece of hardware on the
> planet. (I'm saving for one now.) If it wasn't for the Flyer, I would
> have already switched to a Pentium. I'm not complaining about the
> current rendering speed of 3.5, I'm kind of used to it. It forces me
> to be efficient. Slowing speed DOWN by 2.5 times makes it simply
> un-useable. Purchasing 4.0 is a big waste of cash!
It seems hard to justify upgrading to a version that might require an 060
to run at the same speed as the old version runs on an 040.
> NewTek needs to address this speed problem. I may just use the cash
> put aside for the Flyer to switch to a Pentium. This would cost NewTek
> a Flyer sale, as I would get a PVR instead. Can NewTek afford the loss
