640KB, nuf said...

wbahnassi wrote on 2024-07-17, 02:21:

640KB, nuf said...

Sure, but note that that limit got imposed in 1981, when it wasn't possible to do better.

The only viable CPU had 1 MB of address space, and it had to be divided between RAM, and ROM+video+others, eg.:
512 : 512
640 : 384
768 : 256

The problem was that the 640KB-limited DOS survived even past 2000, instead of being replaced by "32-bit DOS" since 1987.

Even though IBM's focus was on the business side, PCs could have been a lot better for gaming during the 80s. PC speaker sound and CGA graphics (especially the palette) were a big setback. Would it have been that costly to have gone with something like Tandy sound instead? The Covox was a really simple device. While it used up CPU resources, PCs could have had way better sound if something like it had more widespread adoption.

Trident TGUI9400 PCI - that wretched card, what genius thought a default display rate of 75HZ in 640x480x256 colors in 1995 was a GOOD idea? C'mon, basic SVGA resolutions people - 640x480 @256 and 60Hz please. It made me think a perfectly good SVGA monitor was bad and caused a lot of "misinformation" through personal experience in my early days working with vintage PC's (2001-2004).

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-07-17, 02:48:

Would it have been that costly to have gone with something like Tandy sound instead?

Note that Tandy cloned the IBM PCjr - which indeed *was* costly.

The Covox was a really simple device. While it used up CPU resources, PCs could have had way better sound if something like it had more widespread adoption.

The problem with Covox is that it doesn't fit well with PCs of any era:
- machines from the 80s are usually too slow for the CPU-intensive Covox
- in the 90s, there was already plenty of real sound cards, no need for that poor substitute...

The regression to 16:9 monitors in the PC world. It's atrocious. Even worse: curved monitors and ARs > 2:1. Just horrible abmoninations. 4:3 is best and should come back. CRT is also superior to everything but OLED (because of vibrant colors, blacks (infinite contrast) and low power consumption).

The switch to ridiculous keyboards, ie non-mechanical, cheap, no travel in the keys, etc. The dwindling space bar. With all the crap around it, it's shrunk to less than 1/2 its orginal typewriter length back in the day.

Another: the denuding of *cords*. I like cords. They ensure a constant, unlimited power source, and no fumbling with batteries or range. Need more distance? Just get a longer cord.

Vista killing DirectSound3D and EAX.

Say goodbye to almost 10 years of hardware accelerated audio in games. And just when EAX 5.0 was getting really good with stuff like "pure path" for better sound positioning and improved subwoofer use. Play Battlefield 2 with and without EAX 5.0 and tell me it's the same experience.

Grzyb wrote on 2024-07-17, 02:13:

I think everybody encountered a product of great potential, but somehow broken - not by technology limitations, not by cost cutt […]
Show full quote

I think everybody encountered a product of great potential, but somehow broken - not by technology limitations, not by cost cutting... just by bad design choices.
A good product in general, but with certain flaws that were annoying back in the era, and you still find annoying whenever you go back to playing with that piece of hardware or software.

So, let's write some alternative histories - what would you have done better?
Of course, can't use technology that didn't exist at that time, and can't noticably increase the cost.

OS/2
In 1987, IBM released their first 32-bit PC, based on 386.
At the same time, they released the next generation operating system, intended to replace DOS.
But... the new OS was still 16-bit, designed for 286.
And so heavy that it was impossible to run on brand-new 286 machines in stock configuration, and even on many 386 machines.

In short: doomed to fail.

I still dream about a lightweight 386 system instead, a "32-bit DOS", possible to run even on entry-level 386 machines.
Just imagine: no need to worry about the 640 KB limit, XMS, EMS, UMB, DOS extenders...

GUS
A great card, but the lack of proper SB compatibility was painful.
It was perfectly possible to provide the SB option as daughterboard - compare the sizes of Thunderboard (1991), and the 16-bit record DB:
MediaVision Thunderboard
My Gravis Ultrasound and 16 bit daughter board
Of course, a "GUS-and-SB-in-one" card of the size of GUS MAX was possible as well.

Windows ME
Windows NT = good stability + poor compatibility
Windows 9x = good compatibility + poor stability
Windows ME = stability of 9x + compatibility of NT 🤣

Seriously, the artificial disabling of DOS was utterly retarded.
And I think there was something more screwed up in that product - it often felt less stable than 98SE.

I still could use a "Windows 98 Third Edition" instead: 98SE, only with bug fixes, and built-in drivers for newer hardware - especially for USB storage.
And with factory-applied "98lite" - the internals of 98SE are pretty good, but it's unnecessarily bloated by the always-loaded Internet Explorer.

No disagreements from my perspective.

zyzzle wrote on 2024-07-17, 03:29:

The regression to 16:9 monitors in the PC world. It's atrocious. Even worse: curved monitors and ARs > 2:1. Just horrible abmoninations. 4:3 is best and should come back. CRT is also superior to everything but OLED (because of vibrant colors, blacks (infinite contrast) and low power consumption).

The switch to ridiculous keyboards, ie non-mechanical, cheap, no travel in the keys, etc. The dwindling space bar. With all the crap around it, it's shrunk to less than 1/2 its orginal typewriter length back in the day.

Another: the denuding of *cords*. I like cords. They ensure a constant, unlimited power source, and no fumbling with batteries or range. Need more distance? Just get a longer cord.

I despise curved LCD screens about as much as I hate HIV/AIDS and Ebola .

Creative Labs not being able to implement a proper MPU 401 via midi port via the gameport connector and leaving a legacy of headaches for retro hobbyist people that had to then scratch their heads and figure out just which sound blaster was worth getting because midi did actually work. I got around this by getting a genuine Roland MPU 401 so now I can use whatever sound blaster card I want but when I got into midi with this hobby and only had the midi port at the time it was incredibly annoying to have games like Duke Nukem 3D straight up stutter or crash because creative couldn't do the job right.

Like yes Sound Blasters have their flaws but they mostly worked and were pretty compatible but the one thing they really screwed up with was the midi port.

zyzzle wrote on 2024-07-17, 03:29:

The dwindling space bar. With all the crap around it, it's shrunk to less than 1/2 its orginal typewriter length back in the day.

You need the Japanese keyboard 🤣

But seriously, the 101-key layout - with clearances between Ctrl, Alt, and Shift - still remains my favourite.

The clearances are there for purpose - the keys around them are modifiers, intended to be pressed blindly while looking at some other key, and the clearances make it much easier to blindly press the right modifier.
But at certain point it got ruined, because some marketroid at Microsoft wanted to have the "Windows" keys there 😜

Locked multipliers because greed.

The Windows button. Where's the DOS button?

CGA, EGA and the IBM TTL monitors?

CGA was too low-res for business use and didn't feature an 640x200 4 colour mode, even.

EGA was guilty for not featuring a 32 colour, despite being necessary in IT.
(My country's national online service BTX did require it to be displayed in full colour.)

Amiga had the ability to do 32 colours, at least.

And that's especially sad since true EGA monitors could display 64 simultaneous colours.

CGA TTL monitors. They shouldn't have existed. A composite monitor was more feature complete and less of a hassle.

EGA's backwards compatibility with CGA monitors.
Because, it held back adoption of EGA graphics modes with full resolutions.

Game designers rarely used anything past 640x200 16c, but this was inferior to 640x350 16c.
The aspect ration in 640x200 so good, either.

It wasn't until VGA was around when EGA could be fully used (all modes accessible on a VGA).
But by this time, games had moved on from 16c to 256c already.

Mode 13h (320x200 256c) had dominated industry, with mode 12h (640x480 16c) being neglected.

Too bad there was no 640x480 256c mode right from the start, before VBE was around.
Or an 640x480 32c/64c mode, at the very least.

Edit: The bit about CGA was worded badly, maybe. I'm didn't mean to say RGB was unnecessary as a whole.
A lot of home computers had optional analogue RGB output pins, after all.

What I meant was the overly complex TTL RGB (RGBI), considering how modest CGA was quality wise..
It was sort of overkill, I think. Too many individual signal pins. The TTL/digital interface also imposed unnecessary limitations to EGA monitors.

A good monitor built with off-the-shelf television parts (those which supported av or s-video) wouldn't have done any worse.
But if IBM wanted to avoid using TV standards like NTSC/SECAM/PAL, then normal RGB would still have been an option.

Because if RGB had been analogue (like on SCART TVs), only EGA's additional 350 line resolution and ~21 KHz sync rate would have been an issue to basic CGA monitors.
EGA boards could have had displayed full 64 colours on either monitor type - if analogue RGB had been used. Or S-Video/Composite, respectively.

creepingnet wrote on 2024-07-17, 02:58:

Trident TGUI9400 PCI - that wretched card, what genius thought a default display rate of 75HZ in 640x480x256 colors in 1995 was a GOOD idea?

That sounds quite pleasant actually. 60hz is a refresh rate I wanted to *avoid* for a desktop then.

leileilol wrote on 2024-07-17, 14:55:

creepingnet wrote on 2024-07-17, 02:58:

Trident TGUI9400 PCI - that wretched card, what genius thought a default display rate of 75HZ in 640x480x256 colors in 1995 was a GOOD idea?

That sounds quite pleasant actually. 60hz is a refresh rate I wanted to *avoid* for a desktop then.

It wasn't for me. Back in 2001 I was running old 486 machines as my main computer and funding a monitor above VGA (640x480 @60hz) was out of my budget at the time. I was doing this on a homeless guys budget at the time, 🤣. In 2001, SVGA 15" CRTs were more than useful on a new P4 budget build, but put that card on a 14" VGA monitor expecting 60Hz....forgetaboutit.

Grzyb wrote on 2024-07-17, 03:15:

Note that Tandy cloned the IBM PCjr - which indeed *was* costly. […]
Show full quote

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-07-17, 02:48:

Would it have been that costly to have gone with something like Tandy sound instead?

Note that Tandy cloned the IBM PCjr - which indeed *was* costly.

The Covox was a really simple device. While it used up CPU resources, PCs could have had way better sound if something like it had more widespread adoption.

The problem with Covox is that it doesn't fit well with PCs of any era:
- machines from the 80s are usually too slow for the CPU-intensive Covox
- in the 90s, there was already plenty of real sound cards, no need for that poor substitute...

You don't think a 386 could handle a Covox?

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-07-17, 18:21:

Grzyb wrote on 2024-07-17, 03:15:

Note that Tandy cloned the IBM PCjr - which indeed *was* costly. […]
Show full quote

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-07-17, 02:48:

Would it have been that costly to have gone with something like Tandy sound instead?

Note that Tandy cloned the IBM PCjr - which indeed *was* costly.

The Covox was a really simple device. While it used up CPU resources, PCs could have had way better sound if something like it had more widespread adoption.

The problem with Covox is that it doesn't fit well with PCs of any era:
- machines from the 80s are usually too slow for the CPU-intensive Covox
- in the 90s, there was already plenty of real sound cards, no need for that poor substitute...

You don't think a 386 could handle a Covox?

Covox Speech Thing was interesting, because due to its simplicity (resistor ladder) wasn't being limited to PCs.
It also worked with 8-Bit computers. Sharp MZ-800 users had Covoxes, I believe.

The Covox plug also was like an "open" alternative to a proprietary Soumd Blaster.

Some AdLib Clones contained a primitive parallel port with a Covox Speech Thing clone.
Some games had supported Covox soundcards, too.

Likewise, the Aztech Sound Galaxy 16 Pro and similar cards had supported Disney Sound Source & Covox Speech Thing emulation,
as a means to support another alternative sound standard.

In former eastern block, Sound Blaster was a luxury item, I read.
Here, in early to mid-90s, a Covox was an affordable alternative to 286/386 users.
That's why Temu and Covoxer utilities had beed written.

http://www.deep-shadows.com/hax/wordpress/?page_id=364

Edit: I wonder if the Covox Speech Thing ever was meant for games in place, though.
It looks more like being an item of a voice recognition/speech synthesis kit.
Something that's meant to playback recorded voice and little sound effects, rather than game music/fx.

Ensign Nemo wrote on 2024-07-17, 18:21:

You don't think a 386 could handle a Covox?

386 is good enough for tracker music playback via Covox - at least for 4-channel modules.
But it's still hard to do anything else at the same time - hence the lack of good games with Covox support.

I can only recall one game with proper Covox support - Pinball Fantasies.

Anyway, when the 386 became mainstream, the Sound Blaster was already there as well...