21-Oct-2021 08:45 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 9 items in your selection
[News] Elbox answer for the hardware protection featureANN.lu
Posted on 21-Mar-2001 09:31 GMT by Christophe Decanini9 comments
View flat
View list
From vgr:Elbox posted and responded to a few questions over the Mediator hadware key and December 13th date on the Amiga-Mediator mailinglist
Elbox answer for the hardware protection feature : Comment 1 of 9ANN.lu
Posted by Christian Munk on 20-Mar-2001 23:00 GMT
Regardless of Elbox being right or wrong I find it unbelievable that someone
from a company's PRESS DEPARTMENT can sit down and phrase "answers" to user
comments from a mailing list in such an aggressive and amateurish tone... the
only thing such replies can generate is more bad will towards the company.
Very unprofessional.
Elbox answer for the hardware protection feature : Comment 2 of 9ANN.lu
Posted by Chris on 20-Mar-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Christian Munk):
Can`t say I expect much else from most of the remaining Amiga companies.
Elbox answer for the hardware protection feature : Comment 3 of 9ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 20-Mar-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Christian Munk):
I think the tone of the press release is rather calm. If I had spent lots of money developing and DELIVERING a piece of hardware that the Amiga community needed years ago and the only thanks I got were a bunch of postings flaming the device because they don't like the features then I'd have added a few four letter words to my reply. It seems to me that Elbox have stated why there is line trashing, explained the workaround and are due to release the solution, but a noisy few don't like the answers and then sound off on a subject they know little about. These posters sound like the sort of people that if they won a blue Corvette sportscar in a competition they would tell the guy handing them they keys "I want a red one" instead of "Thanks". If these people think Elbox are lying then they must obviously know exactly how the Mediater hardware, firmware and drivers work, which begs the question "Why didn't they delvelop and make a PCI card themselves years ago?". I'll tell you why, it's because they don't have a %^&*ing clue.
Another interesting development in the world of e-space is a court ruling in the UK which now forces websites, newsgroups, service providers, etc to provide the actual name of the person behind anonymous posts so they can be sued for libel. This is a very interesting case as it now means if "Imnottellingmyname" posts on ANN that "Elbox have stolen a SDK for P96" and Elbox haven't then Elbox can demand the identity of the individual from any sources available and then take the guy to court and claim damages. The days of cowards being able to hide behind a virtual wall and spread slanderous untruths is coming to an end. Big Brother is listening :)
Elbox answer for the hardware protection feature : Comment 4 of 9ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 20-Mar-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Darrin):
ANN is afaik based in Luxembourg - not the UK. And given Luxembourgs stance on such laws I wouldn't be surprised if they opposed what occurs in the UK.
Besides it is fairly easy (logging IP address) to work out where the anonymous comments are comming from, as has been seen on ANN before.
Francois (and no, I'm not from Luxembourg)
Elbox answer for the hardware protection feature : Comment 5 of 9ANN.lu
Posted by Alan Watson on 20-Mar-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (Darrin):
I suppose you could call me one of those `people`.My reason for being a little
bit annoyed at Elbox is that they knew about this months ago,they read the
Yahoo Groups Mediator list,they`ve read all the posts about people complaining
about graphic trashing etc...,but they only decided to mention what was causing
the problem after somebody else posted a message about it being caused by a
`possible hardware bug`.If this hadn`t come to light,then I doubt Elbox would
have mentioned anything about the `problem/feature/hardware protection`.And
saying `set the mem jumper to 4mb` is not a good answer.Would you be happy if
you`d bought a 6 gear 150mph sports car,which,when using the 4/5/6 gears started
acting erratically and didn`t pass 100pmh?You ask the manufacturer why and they
tell you to `use only the first 3 gears and don`t go over 100mph`.
I doubt it....I know I wouldn`t be.
(okay I know that it`s a bad example,but I couldn`t think of anything else.And
if you haven`t guessed,I`m having a bad day......)
I know that it sound as though I don`t like the Mediator but I do.Gone are the
days of Zorro2.....
Alan Watson
Elbox answer for the hardware protection feature : Comment 6 of 9ANN.lu
Posted by Amifan on 21-Mar-2001 23:00 GMT
I'm curious why all those people are spitting on Elbox because of a little trashing in resolution which require more then 4 MB gfx memory, everthing else is there in the driver, hardware support little endian and big endian screenmodes...high DAC clockspeeds etc.....The only thing that support voodoo gfx cards on the G-REX are those crappy unaccelerated (or partial?) CGFX V3 drivers...No full accelerated CGFX 4 drivers.
How come that no-one is complaining about that??
All you can here is Elbox sucks bla bla bla, and pleople like me, who has to defend elbox everytime, because we are satsfied with the current state of the drivers in this timeframe...developing drivers need time. Look at the G-REX drivers....Frank Mariak started before Elbox and it was a lot easier for him because there's no need for bankswitching...still no cgfx4 drivers (hardware acceleration??) available.....
What about a Warp3D driver....they still have got problems because of faulty documentations....
Elbox knows what the problem is....just wait for the new drivers to arrive which will (according to elbox) cure the problem...
Elbox answer for the hardware protection feature : Comment 7 of 9ANN.lu
Posted by Darrin on 21-Mar-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Alan Watson):
I thought it was a good exaple - it made me laugh :)
Here's another: Elbox have stated that this problem will be corrected by the next software driver so that we will be able to you these "extra gears". What has happened is similar to the Ford Motor Card/Firestone problem in the US where a the tires are failing causing the cars to run off the road. All Ford had to do was recall the tires and ut a different brand on them - and all Elbox have to do is issue the correct software to sidestep the "protection". At least with Elbox, no-one has flippe their Amiga into a ditch and died... not yet anyway :)
PS. If the 8mb window isn't available AFTER the proposed "fix" then fair enough - let's spit!!!
Elbox answer for the hardware protection feature : Comment 8 of 9ANN.lu
Posted by Alan Watson on 21-Mar-2001 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Darrin):
>>I thought it was a good exaple - it made me laugh :)
:) Mabey I should have written the press release for Elbox..............
>>PS. If the 8mb window isn't available AFTER the proposed "fix" then fair >>enough - let's spit!!!
Fair enough.I`ll stop complaining......for the moment....:)
Regards,
Alan Watson
Elbox answer for the hardware protection feature : Comment 9 of 9ANN.lu
Posted by Christian Michael on 26-Mar-2001 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (Alan Watson):
The 8mb window issue is not "the issue" - what is needed is access to the entire 16 mb (32mb in the case of voodoo3+)
This will be accomplished by address multiplexing INDEPENDANTLY of the memory window setting (a qualified guess).
With the next software update arrives there will be no bank-switching problems at all, regardless of the memory window.
Don't you remember that elbox was accused of limiting the PCI address space to 8 mb chunks?
Elbox responded that address multiplexing ensures full speed access to the entire PCI address space.
From their latest reply it sounds like we will finally see this feature in action.
The size of the window really does not matter, be it 4 or 8mb, bankswitching is still the issue, but this will be fixed according to elbox.
Elbox has not mentioned anything about address multiplexing in their latest response, but what else could it be?
The issue is the efficiency of the address multiplexing built into mediator, which is not used in current voodoo driver (or is it the pci.library?)
We will know soon :)
regards,
Christian Michael
Anonymous, there are 9 items in your selection
Back to Top