dillon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (02/03/86)
>Just a quick thought: > >How many lines of Unix code does it take to do any of the following: >1. open a window with any of the standard Unix gadgets? >2. translate and narrate a block of text? >3. animate and move objects around on the screen? >4. birth a new cli (shell) task in it's own window? >5. any Intuition function (icons, drawers, etc.)? >6. generate fonts on the screen? > >The point I am trying to make is that it probably takes as much code to >implement the Amiga OS as it does Unix. Unix has had many years and many >programmers to develop it to the point of refinement (that's the best I >can say for it, text only is boring to me). OS-9 may have been a better >choice than AmigaDos (or TRIPOS or whatever), but it was not chosen and it's >too bad. If OS-9 ever makes it to the Amiga, it better work with all the >programs everyone has been writing, or I (and maybe a few others) won't >go near it. I like intuition a lot, and I am glad that Amiga chose to give >us primitive routines to build libraries around instead of some real high- >level limited-function interface. > Assuming were on a comparable UNIX machine... say a Micro-Vax 2 with a .. what was it? oh yeh, somewhere around 880 vertical and many more than 1024 across (I forgot the exact numbers). Each pixel having 8 bits in depth. Pick any 256 of a 256x256x256 = 16million color Palette. Were talking about a grayscale photo of reagan in one corner of the screen looking as good as a 35mm print. Now please stop raving about the Amiga's graphics. On such a machine, it would probably take about the same number of lines for everything ASSUMING YOU USED AMIGA DOS DRIVER'S IN THE AMIGA CODE. Otherwise, if you had to open the device manually on the Amiga, the UNIX code would be about 5x SHORTER. We could heave counter examples back and forth forever. >Have any of you Unix freaks ever seen the AT&T Unix PC? It seems to me that >it is all you have been asking for. I think it is remarkably like the Amiga, >with it's windows and C-Shells running in them. And it uses the mouse, and >has hi-res screen and has a few gadgets, etc. It also runs UNIX native, >connects to mainframes well, runs all the Unix programs you have become >comfortable with over the years. It has a 68000 and comes with a hard disk. >It is VERY IMPRESSIVE to me, to say the least, although I still like the >Amiga better because of the software. Don't be silly that's SYS III/V ! ... I'm a 4.2 Hacker! Besides, havent you seen SUN's? ? albeit, not exactly compact, but they are desktop machines. -Matt P.S. For those of you who didn't bother to count, the hi-res color video device on the MV-II requires about 1 MEG byte of storage for the video image. lezee.. 1/60sec, 63 Meg/sec = 15ns per bit, or 250ns per word.
mykes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Schwartz) (02/04/86)
In article <11694@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> dillon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > Assuming were on a comparable UNIX machine... say a Micro-Vax 2 >with a .. what was it? oh yeh, somewhere around 880 vertical and many >more than 1024 across (I forgot the exact numbers). Each pixel having >8 bits in depth. Pick any 256 of a 256x256x256 = 16million color Palette. >Were talking about a grayscale photo of reagan in one corner of the screen >looking as good as a 35mm print. Now please stop raving about the Amiga's >graphics. On such a machine, it would probably take about the same number >of lines for everything ASSUMING YOU USED AMIGA DOS DRIVER'S IN THE AMIGA >CODE. Otherwise, if you had to open the device manually on the Amiga, >the UNIX code would be about 5x SHORTER. > Gimme a break. A micro-vax 2 comparable to an Amiga? That is real flattering considering that the micro-vax costs 10x the price of the Amiga. I would hardly call that a comparable machine, except in power. Do you wanna talk Crays vs. Amigas next? What percentage of the Unix terminals out there are this great graphics terminal you describe? Sounds like it costs more than the Amiga by itself, too. You seem to want to ignore the fact that everyone who uses unix does not use the same terminal - ergo ZERO STANDARDIZATION. Only vertical market-type applications that require all this graphics power you describe will use graphics, etc. The Amiga's graphics are certainly not the greatest ever, but I know there is no other computer under $5000 that has even the Amiga's graphics abilities. The best thing about the Amiga's graphics is that it's standard - which means that every amiga can do the same graphics - compared to Unix which requires a costly terminal and which features no standard graphics (S-T-A-N-D-A-R-D). Again I reiterate my feelings. Amiga gives us all the tools we need to make our own custom libraries, which when used across many programs makes these sources smaller and easier to develop. I prefer to have lower level primitives than some higher level interface that is less flexible. Amiga has a simple interface called the CLI, which allows all that Unix trash (make, ls, grep, etc.) to be ported nearly unmodified from unix. Unlike the Mac, you are not forced to use the intuition interface - nobody has a gun to your head. To summarize, not only is the Amiga OS just as easy to implement unix-style programs for, but it has features like intuition that can greatly enhance the boring unix-style of program - and these features are global across some 50,000 machines now (all the Amigas - see 1/25 issue of InfoWorld), instead of requiring some environment like a microvax 2 and an expensive terminal that very few will have. BTW, I have little doubt that Amiga could have been much higher in resolution, without flicker even, but the cost would have been NTSC compatibility, a higher cost for monitors, and the exclusion of the ability to add things like Laser Disk Players and VCRs as peripherals. I am more than satisfied that Amiga did about as well as anyone can do with NTSC.
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (02/07/86)
These Amiga vs. Unix wars are getting a bit silly. If you want UNIX, get
something like the Torch Triple X, not the Amiga. The Torch was shown at
UniForum this week, and from what I have been told, it sounds real nice:
68010, 68451 MMU, 68450 4 channel DMA, Ethernet controller,
SCSI controller, 1 meg ram ( expandable to 7 meg ), 20 meg
internal hard disk, 720k 5.25" floppy ( capable of reading
IBM PC disks ), Bit mapped colour display ( 800x512 in high
res mode ).
It has a windowing interface built on top of Unix:
Windows, icons, menus, etc, all accessable from any Unix program.
Complete System V + vi, csh.
Price is going to be under $5000 in the U.S. for the configuration mentioned
above. If you want more info, try
Torch Computers Limited
Abberley House, Great Shelford,
Cambridge, CB2 5LQ.
Telephone (0223) 841000
Telex: 818841
The brochure I have mentioned no U.S. address.
--
Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!timfnf@unisoft.UUCP (Fred Fish) (02/08/86)
In article <451@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >These Amiga vs. Unix wars are getting a bit silly. If you want UNIX, get >something like the Torch Triple X, not the Amiga. The Torch was shown at >UniForum this week, and from what I have been told, it sounds real nice: I saw the Torch machine at UniForum last week. It is a really neat machine. I spent as much time at their booth as I did the Sun booth. If they can actually produce the machines at the $5000 retail price it is going to be a real winner (particularly if we put our SVR2 Unix with NFS on it :-). The only negative things are the small screen (Mac size), the keyboard has a slightly braindamaged layout (at least in my option), and it uses a 68451 (needs wait states, but at least it has an MMU). All in all, a very interesting machine!!! I want one so I can retire my aging, orphaned Callan box. -Fred =========================================================================== Fred Fish UniSoft Systems Inc, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,dual}!unisoft!fnf (415) 644 1230 TWX 11 910 366-2145 ===========================================================================