Stephen Champion wrote:
> 
>         I hate disinformation.  

Great! Me too! And I really mean it...


>         Two, This isn't really the place to discuss general Amiga stuff.
> I'm violating this myself only to correct an incomplete and misleading
> post.  Try redirectiong anything else on this subject to either
> comp.sys.amiga.* or /dev/null (or NIL:, as the case might be).

You are absolutely right that: "This isn't really the place to discuss
general Amiga stuff"!

I apologize to the Amiga NetBSD community for discussing the "general 
Amiga stuff" here.

But... 

1. The question was more about that "stuff" than NetBSD.
2. Since You are: "Workstation and Network Consultant" and not a moderator of 
this (as far as I know) non-moderated mailing list You would be a more polite, 
wouldn't You?

> > YU SONG wrote:
> > >
> > > I am very curiuos. Since every Amiga comes default with some kind of
> > > chip memory for graphic and sound data. If I add a graphic card, what
> > > will these default chip ram go? Because the graphic data is now handled
> > > by add-on graphic card, does that mean chip ram is now shared by sound
> > > and processor which increases available mem for processor? Can processor
> > > still utilize mem on add-on graphic card while it runs out of mem?
> >
> >
> > The Amiga's ChipRAM is one of the Amiga's unique features. It's a memory
> > that is normally used for storing display or sound data where the
> > Amiga's custom chips can access it. Although if You don't have any other
> > (fast) memory, It still can be used by the processor (CPU) as well if it
> > rans out of "normal" FastRAM. But be warned! There is no point adding a
> > gfx card without having FastRAM. In that case You would end up with a
> > much slower display than without the card. With 2megs of RAM on the
> > board You can work with 800x600 resolution in 24bit (16.7mio colours).
> > It depends on Your display what resolution will You be using. Having 14"
> > display ther is no common sense to switch to any higher resolution than
> > 640x480 (512). In that case a lot of the board's RAM will never be used.
> > There are some patches that allow the CPU to utilize the gfx board's
> > memory but I've heard only about patches for Retina card. Still I'd
> > rather recommend adding a REAL FastRAM and forgetting about the hacks of
> > that kind.
> 
>         OK - the deal with CHIP on a Amiga with a GFX board.
> 
>         Basically - the Amiga's custom chipset uses CHIP memory for fun stuff
> like graphics, sound, and a couple of buffers.  AmigaDOS (but not NetBSD) also
> uses it for FAST RAM spillover.  Now here's the real bummer under AmigaDOS:
> 
>         AmigaDOS has special routines for allocating memory for data that
> will be used by the custom chips - these routines will get CHIP or fail.
> So, even when you have a graphics board, under AmigaDOS, software that wasn't
> written specifically to take advantage of the fact the GFX board can access
> FAST RAM will still require the use of CHIP.  I believe that things like
> Cybervision and that wierd software the Spectrum came with take care of this
> when software is written for their libraries, but I'm not sure - I've only
> got an old Retina Z2 with the dead minimal RetinaEMU software, and have never
> used any of the other RTG software.


Well... And You called  that: "to correct an incomplete and misleading post"

You should probably know that the most CHIP-RAM consuming feature are the 
screens. Yes, the unique (multiple, draggable etc.) screens opened by the 
_Intuition_ part of AmigaOS (_not_AmigaDOS_) and next time before You try "to 
correct an incomplete and misleading post" You should take a look at some more 
modern GFXboard soft than "an old Retina Z2 with the dead minimal RetinaEMU 
software". All modern Intuition-emulation packages including vilintuisup, EGS and 
actual de-facto standard: CyberGrafX no longer use CHIP-RAM for their screens!

On the other hand there ARE still routines like _DrawImage and similar that count 
on having its data in CHIP. You scored a point here! :-)

>         End result - often your chip memory will still be eaten up by software
> not designed to take advantage of the board and the software controlling it.
> This really sucks, as a 800x600x24 and 1280x1024x8, and other such higher-than-
> native-amiga-modes will make that 2M CHIP disappear pretty fast.


Concerning what I just wrote, I can only add that I have really no problem in 
opening four screens in 1152x870x8 what is my usual working setup under AmigaOS. 
Under NetBSD I usually open a 1152x870x16 with 2x2.


>         And, of course, CHIP is still used by anything requiring access to the
> native sound hardware in the chipset or the chipset's other functions (serial
> falls into this category, I believe).

Faith makes miracles... :-) Yes! You got another point...


>         Patryk is right in that having a GFX board is useless without a decent
> bit of FAST memory though - of course, you can't even boot NetBSD without
> some FAST, so I assume that's not a worry.  I'd say you should put yourself
> up to 8Mb FAST before investing in a GFX board.  I still run out occasionally
> with 8, but can do most of what I want to.

I would rather ask what _he_ (YU SONG) wants to do since I wouldn't do _anything_ 
of what _I_ want to do with 8MB...


>         I have a slightly different problem myself - since RetinaEMU doesn't
> have any facilities for using FAST instead of CHIP for GFX data, I tend to run
> out of CHIP first - with better RTG software this shouldn't be as much of a
> problem, but will consume more FAST memory.
> 
>         Under NetBSD, however, CHIP memory, FAST memory, and the memory on a
> graphics board are all held separate.  Your FAST memory is your primary
> memory, anything needing the custom chips is bounced into CHIP by the kernel
> drivers, and your GFX board memory is used only for the current display (what's
> on screen at the moment).

I am rather newbie under NetBSD, so I will not try to "correct" anything here...


> 
>         Now what really eats me about what patryck is saying is the bit about
> there being no sense in going beyond 640x400 on a 14" display.  In the bad old
> days before I got my current monitor, I was quite happy with 1024x768 with
> my crappy old 14"

Hmm... I also had some friends doing similar things on their machines especially 
under ms-windows. Most serious Amiga users are more responsible.

But since You are: "Workstation and Network Consultant", You probably can do a 
simple math, can't You?

Alright! Let's assume that Your 14" wasn't a crappy one but quite decent one with 
let's say 0.28mm pitch. Now let's start the math. The 14 inchers usually have the 
usable visible area of about 13" with about 4:3 XY aspect. That gives not more 
than about 330mm measured diagonally and about 264mm horizontally. And please 
don't tell me that Yours has 300mm. I wrote "usable" and read it as "having low 
distortions"

264/0.28=942.85.....

This horizontal resolution would Your decent (not crappy) 14" monitor display if 
it had a 100% focusing abilities and a 0% convergency errors! You probably know 
that with a CRT display it never happens...

Now let's subtract _ONLY_ 15% of resolution due to focusing and convergency 
errors and we have:

942*0.85=800.7

And this 800 (800x600) is the highest resolution You can work on a 0.28mm 14 inch 
monitor. Of course You _CAN_ drive it with 1280x1024 (if it stands the sync 
frequencies) and then use 24pts big fonts instead of 8pts to be able to _read_ 
anything and waste the CPU for rendering the fonts and, and, etc...


> I now have a really sweet little 15" monitor that'll
> crank it up to 1280x1024 before becoming interlaced, I also barely run AmigaDOS
> these days, so conserving CHIP memory isn't a worry - I normally run X at
> 1152x900x8 and am quite happy with it (well, the Retina Z2 is slow as a dog,
> but everything is slow as a dog an on '030-25, so I'm pretty much used to it).

I also run X at similar (1152x870x16) resolution but I do it on a 20" inch 
display...

> 
>         There's no real need to waste the extra 400 bucks(US) on a spiffy
> 17" monitor - a _good_ 15" monitor will do the job, and if you can stand for
> 1024x768, even a 14" will do.  Of course, if spending the money isn't really a
> problem, or you are easily susceptible to eye strain, then go for the 17".

Thanks God You are not "Workstation and Network Consultant" in my company or I 
would end-up with glasses on my nose pretty soon!


> > > Does graphic add-on card with 2 mega enough for normal usage? I usually
> > > sue some business software, not a video or graphic professional, even
> > > semi. is 2 mega enough for X11R6 on NetBSD-Amiga? Price of 4 mega card
> > > is really steep.
> >
> > As I've written before it mainly depends not on the kind of work You do,
> > but on the kind of display you attach to it. And the kind of display
> > should be chosen with the work in mind. If You don't do proffesional
> > graphics, The 17" multiscan should be pretty enough on one side and
> > wouldn't waste too much of the board's potential on the other.
> 
>         A 17" will cost an arm and a leg - if you buy anything bigger, don't
> expect to have any body parts left to use it.  With good eyesight and good 15",
> you should be able to handle up to 1280x1024.  The extra money is better spent
> on more memory, CPU, and disk.

And the cheap display will cost the eyes... I'd rather gave up an arm - using 
Your terminology.


>         Addmittedly, you really should try it before you buy - there are some
> people who think it strains the eyes at first, but most will get used to it.

... I would be wearing glasses _already_ if You worked for my company...


>         Oh - One thing about the graphics boards is that the memory on
> the board is only used for what is currently being displayed (unlike CHIP
> memory in the normal Amiga configuration), so you only have to have the
> memory for what's on screen.  2Mb will give 800x600x24, 1024x768x15, and
> 1280x1024x8, if I remember correctly (and the memory on the board is fast
> enough).
> 
>         While many people here are probably using 800x600x24, IMHO, with X,
> resolution is far more important that color depth - Xfun starts at 1024x768,
> and, unless you want some more shading in Tracy's breasts, you'll find that
> 8 bit is enough color depth for most purposes.  rxvt isn't exactly a color
> hog.
>         Being stuck with XamigaRetina, I've not looked at Xamiga24 in quite
> a while, but I'm pretty sure it supports 16 bit modes, and possibly 8 bit modes
> as well, so you should be able to get at least 1024x768x16 out of it, which is
> good enough when you can't get modes with higher resolution.
> 
>         One last thing - my definition of a good 15" monitor:
> .28 dot pitch
> 1280x1024

Can do the math? Or can read the adds only?

> maximum non-interlaced resolution, at at least 60Hz refresh
> digital controls (not necessarily onscreen)
>         I'm quite happy with my Amdek AM/815E - picked it up 2 years ago for
> $350 - so you can probably find one at a better price now.  The only drawback
> to it (or any decent SVGA monitor) is that it doesn't sync down to some of the
> Amiga's native modes (namely the 15Khz to 29kHz horizontal scan rate modes) -
> mine goes from 31kHz to 90Khz horizontal.

It has to be _really_ good 15 incher... Mine 20" SGI display - picked it up about 
2 years ago too for about $2000 syncs up to 85KHz only...

>         The A3000's display enhancer offsets this problem by bringing most
> modes up into the horizontal scan range of the monitor.  You'll lose a few,
> but you won't miss them with a good graphics card.
> 
>         Of course, the vast majority of this information, starting with patyck's

My name is a bit different but I don't really mind.

> response, assumes that you don't already have a decent monitor.  I hope that
> I've at least made the issues of CHIP ram with a GFX card a bit clearer.

I am afraid You didn't but only IMHO!

> --
> Stephen Champion                 Workstation and Network Consultant
> steve@onshore.com                Onshore, Inc.
> steve@onshore.com                Onshore, Inc.



P.S. If you have any more comments about my post then don't redirect it to:
     "/dev/null (or NIL:, as the case might be)" but You may use:

silverdr@inet.com.pl

instead. EOT.