farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) (12/17/85)
In article <840@h-sc1.UUCP>, breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) writes: > It would be much more helpful if you stated WHY you believe that the > AMIGA is better than the ST. Since I may buy a new computer soon, I > would like to hear real information about the two machines. So far, the > main differences appear to be: > > (a) the ST is half the price of the AMIGA. Approximately true. Depends on whether you want color or not. > (b) the AMIGA has better special-purpose graphics capabilities than the > ST, but at the expense of main CPU speed. Absolutely false. The graphics capability is achieved with co-processors which tend to let the CPU run at full speed much more often than if the CPU were responsible for display updates. Note that the coprocessors also allow I/O to proceed independently of the CPU, as well. > (c) the AMIGA graphics is said to be not usable at a > resolution of 640x400 for text or serious graphics applications. Probably true, but only until monitors become available that address the special problems with 640 X 400 mode (using color - there are mono- chrome monitors which will work quite well at 640 X 400, and the ST, as I understand it, forces monochrome at that resolution anyway) > (d) the AMIGA is said to be more expandable than the ST. Yes. The AMIGA has the system bus available on a connector on the side of the machine, and expansion cards are already becoming available. > (e) the AMIGA has a multitasking operating system. Definitely a big plus, > but as soon as OS9 is available for either machine, this does not > matter anymore. Perhaps, perhaps not. The Amiga's OS ( NOT the AmigaDOS, but the under- lying kernal ) was specifically designed to take advantage of the large amount of intelligence held in the coprocessors. Unless the OS9 imple- mentation is done VERY well, it probably will lose in efficiency. Note that OS9 was probably not designed for a high-power graphics environment, and Amiga's EXEC was. -- Mike Farren uucp: {dual, hplabs}!well!farren Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667 USnail: 390 Alcatraz Ave., Oakland, CA 94618
freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) (12/18/85)
> > (b) the AMIGA has better special-purpose graphics capabilities than the > > ST, but at the expense of main CPU speed. > > Absolutely false. The graphics capability is achieved with co-processors > which tend to let the CPU run at full speed much more often than if the > CPU were responsible for display updates. Note that the coprocessors > also allow I/O to proceed independently of the CPU, as well. how do you explain the much better drystone results of the ST? (the compiler can not be the only thing responsible) > > (c) the AMIGA graphics is said to be not usable at a > > resolution of 640x400 for text or serious graphics applications. > > Probably true, but only until monitors become available that address > the special problems with 640 X 400 mode (using color - there are mono- > chrome monitors which will work quite well at 640 X 400, and the ST, as I > understand it, forces monochrome at that resolution anyway) A *BIG* point about the ST is that 640 x 400, non-interlaced monochrome creates a very good looking window environment that the AMIGA cannot match. > > (e) the AMIGA has a multitasking operating system. Definitely a big plus, > > but as soon as OS9 is available for either machine, this does not > > matter anymore. > > Perhaps, perhaps not. The Amiga's OS ( NOT the AmigaDOS, but the under- > lying kernal ) was specifically designed to take advantage of the large > amount of intelligence held in the coprocessors. Unless the OS9 imple- > mentation is done VERY well, it probably will lose in efficiency. Note > that OS9 was probably not designed for a high-power graphics environment, > and Amiga's EXEC was. I do not think that your argument here is complete. It seems that I could argue similarly in favor of the ST. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik James Freed Aurora Systems San Francisco, CA {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed
breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) (12/18/85)
Thank you very much for replying to my questions. Since I believe that other potential buyers might be intersted in this discussion, I am following up to the net. ||(b) the AMIGA has better special-purpose graphics capabilities than the || ST, but at the expense of main CPU speed. | | Absolutely false. The graphics capability is achieved with co-processors | which tend to let the CPU run at full speed much more often than if the | CPU were responsible for display updates. Note that the coprocessors | also allow I/O to proceed independently of the CPU, as well. Let me state the question more precisely: is there any difference in speed between the ST and the AMIGA when either machine is just displaying a bit image, without any active painting or sound production? ||(c) the AMIGA graphics is said to be not usable at a || resolution of 640x400 for text or serious graphics applications. | | Probably true, but only until monitors become available that address | the special problems with 640 X 400 mode (using color - there are mono- | chrome monitors which will work quite well at 640 X 400, and the ST, as I | understand it, forces monochrome at that resolution anyway) Again, let me state the question more precisely. I thought the problem with the AMIGA 640x400 display is that it is interlaced, and that therefore every line only gets re-freshed at a rate of 30Hz. The only way to 'fix' this would be to use high-persistence phosphors, clearly not a desirable solution. Is this true? How does the ST deal with this problem? And there are a few more questions that came to my mind in the meantime: -- are there MacWrite type word processors available for either machine? How easy are they to adapt to a specific printer? -- what terminal emulators are available for the two machines? Are they reliable? What protocols do they support for file transfer? -- what graphics design programs (in the style of MacDraw) are available for either machine? How usable are they? -- what is the scoop on the difference between disk capacity and disk speed between the ST and the AMIGA? -- are there versions of either machine which will work with BOTH 120/220V 50/60Hz? Thanks, Thomas.
perry@well.UUCP (Perry S. Kivolowitz) (12/19/85)
Some people wage religious wars over the silliest things. As in the case of which is better: a blazer from GMC or a blazer from Chevy. A friend at GM tells me there are only 12 differences in the parts list for either product - 7 of them are name plates. So you tell me - is this worth arguing about? The debate over which machine is better currently resurging yet again in this newsgroup is damned silly. Those poor folks who bought atari's have to justify their brain damage and will do so now matter what arguments from the AMIGA side are tendered. Leave them alone! It is beneath the dignity of owners of the AMIGA P.C. to respond to atari people's claim of machine supremacy. It's a waste of time: you bought your - they bought theirs lets say one side (even theirs) is right - are you going to go out and buy another machine lest ye be cast down by society? Neither are they. Just leave them alone. (as my firend dave (@heurikon) says: take a 520 st, put it in a dark closet and leave it alone. when it grows up it'll be an amiga).
bobh@pedsgd.UUCP (Bob Halloran) (12/19/85)
In article <352@well.UUCP> farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes: >In article <840@h-sc1.UUCP>, breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) writes: >> It would be much more helpful if you stated WHY you believe that the >> AMIGA is better than the ST. Since I may buy a new computer soon, I >> would like to hear real information about the two machines. So far, the >> main differences appear to be: >> >> (b) the AMIGA has better special-purpose graphics capabilities than the >> ST, but at the expense of main CPU speed. > > Absolutely false. The graphics capability is achieved with co-processors > which tend to let the CPU run at full speed much more often than if the > CPU were responsible for display updates. Note that the coprocessors > also allow I/O to proceed independently of the CPU, as well. Granted, the graphics chips relieve the 68000 from dealing with the display, as it must in the Mac, but the 68000 and the various co-processors must still contend for access to memory. YES, I/O can proceed independently, etc., but only ONE of the processors can use memory at a time. This HAS to impact the throughput of the 68000. BTW, the ST also has an I/O co-processor, so presence vs. non-presence arguments in favor of the Amiga are inappropriate. Bob Halloran ============================================================================= UUCP: {decvax, ucbvax, most Action Central}!vax135\ {pesnta, topaz, princeton}!petsd!pedsgd!bobh Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. Quote: "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..." -- Hunter Thompson
bruceb@amiga.UUCP (Bruce Barrett) (12/19/85)
In article <845@h-sc1.UUCP> breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) writes: >-- are there MacWrite type word processors available for either machine? (Answeres given for Amiga computer, note my bias) Textcraft is the only thing I am aware of. It is oriented toward "home" or "new small business" use. On a 256k machine it can handle about 6-10 pages of text. One font in many styles (bold, italics,...) is supported. > How easy are they to adapt to a specific printer? Trivial if you select one of the "standard" supported printers: Alphapro 101, Brother HR15xl, CBM MPS1000, Diablo (630, Advantage, C-150), Epson (fx series and JX80), HP laserjet (and plus), Okimate 20, Qume leterpro 20. If you do not select any of the above you can select "generic". NOTE: All "right-thinking" software uses standard Amiga (ISO, DEC, Amiga) escape sequences to the PRT: device. If the attached printer can do the requested operation the Amiga "translates" the command for the printer and issues it. Printer independent software is a snap! (The "generic" printer is assumed to have no features.) >-- what terminal emulators are available for the two machines? Are > they reliable? What protocols do they support for file transfer? Several available, see past postings. Companies posted include: Micro-Systems Software, IncModem7/Xmodem, XmodemCRC, and Hayes-Smartcomm file xfer protocols ELCom's ElTerm data communications package. both KERMIT and XMODEM built in. ansi terminal emulation Maxicorp, Maxicomm package. Commodore is marketing one also. >-- what graphics design programs (in the style of MacDraw) are available > for either machine? How usable are they? Graphicraft (Commodore Amiga) and Delux Paint from Electronic arts. Both seen to have the limitation the the painting cannot exceed the size of the screen. EA supports 640x400 (interlaced). You may want/need more than 512k of RAM. --BruceB Disclaimer: I work for Commodore-Amiga. I have played with TextCraft and Graphicraft alot, but not with Deluxe Paint or any of the Comm packages. Everything above is, undoubtedly TM or Registered. I hope all of the above companies prosper and continue to come out with new produces for the Amiga.
rj@amiga.UUCP (Robert J. Mical) (12/20/85)
In article <382@pedsgd.UUCP> bobh@pedsgd.UUCP (Bob Halloran) writes: >Granted, the graphics chips relieve the 68000 from dealing with the >display, as it must in the Mac, but the 68000 and the various co-processors >must still contend for access to memory. YES, I/O can proceed independently, >etc., but only ONE of the processors can use memory at a time. This >HAS to impact the throughput of the 68000. This is true. But don't forget that the Amiga interleaves its access to the bus, using every available cycle, even the odd ones, whenever possible. All of the DMA, including the display processors, use the odd cycles. This enormously cuts down the contention for the bus. The result of this is that the 68000 and other co-processors get to run at full speed regardless of display processing. Only when the display gets elaborate -- 640 across (either interlaced or not) and 4 bit-planes (16 colors onscreen) -- is there a significant lag in CPU performance. The same goes for the other DMA devices: sprite, disk, and audio. With a simple display, a few sprites and some simple tones playing, you can fill a disk buffer and still have truly minimal interference with the performance of the 68000. --------------------- - Greetings - - =Robert J. Mical= - - Commodore-Amiga - ---------------------
timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) (12/21/85)
Hi, For all you Amiga fans, here's something to flame about.... While all of you are busily discussing whether the Atari or Amiga is better, I am here using my Compaq Deskpro, with lots of off the shelf software, just watching.... Hope you all feel better. -- Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 tektronix!tekigm2!timothym @@ 'Who said that?' PO Box 3500 d/s C1-465 Vancouver, WA. 98665
mjg@ecsvax.UUCP (Michael Gingell) (12/21/85)
> > Granted, the graphics chips relieve the 68000 from dealing with the > display, as it must in the Mac, but the 68000 and the various co-processors > must still contend for access to memory. YES, I/O can proceed independently, > etc., but only ONE of the processors can use memory at a time. This > HAS to impact the throughput of the 68000. > > BTW, the ST also has an I/O co-processor, so presence vs. non-presence > arguments in favor of the Amiga are inappropriate. > > Bob Halloran Yes BUT the bus speed of the Amiga is 14.4 MHz as opposed to the ST which is 8MHz. The Amiga's 68000 runs at 7.2 MHz while the Co-processors use the other 7.2 MHz. Mike Gingell ...decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!mjg
freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) (12/22/85)
> In article <382@pedsgd.UUCP> bobh@pedsgd.UUCP (Bob Halloran) writes: > >Granted, the graphics chips relieve the 68000 from dealing with the > >display, as it must in the Mac, but the 68000 and the various co-processors > >must still contend for access to memory. YES, I/O can proceed independently, > >etc., but only ONE of the processors can use memory at a time. This > >HAS to impact the throughput of the 68000. > > This is true. But don't forget that the Amiga interleaves its access > to the bus, using every available cycle, even the odd ones, whenever > possible. All of the DMA, including the display processors, use the > odd cycles. This enormously cuts down the contention for the bus. > The result of this is that the 68000 and other co-processors get to run > at full speed regardless of display processing. Only when the > display gets elaborate -- 640 across (either interlaced or not) and > 4 bit-planes (16 colors onscreen) -- is there a significant lag > in CPU performance. > The same goes for the other DMA devices: sprite, disk, and audio. > With a simple display, a few sprites and some simple tones playing, > you can fill a disk buffer and still have truly minimal interference > with the performance of the 68000. I would still like to know why the Amiga even with a 68020 and fast memory still is *significantly* slower than the ST. Is their a hardware type out their who can look at the memory cycles and see why the current claims of "no cpu slowing due to graphics chips" seems to not be proved by the real world. If I had one I would do it myself. If possible could a Amiga hardware engineer explain this disparity? It seems very strange. P.S. I know that the clock is slightly slower. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik James Freed Aurora Systems San Francisco, CA {dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed
jxc@rayssd.UUCP (Jeffrey J. Clesius) (12/23/85)
> > Some people wage religious wars over the silliest things. > Which is better: a blazer from GMC or a blazer from Chevy. > Here's the REAL issue, folks! Which is better, the Amiga, the ST, OR the blazer?!? :-) Consider: The blazer has noticeable RAM (a.k.a. Dodge) contention.
IEEE-CS@SU-SIERRA.ARPA (12/24/85)
From: IEEE CS Students <IEEE-CS@SU-SIERRA.ARPA> Erik Freed writes: > I would still like to know why the Amiga even with a 68020 and fast memory > still is significantly slower than the ST. Is their a hardware type out their > who can look at the memory cycles and see why the current claims of "no cpu > slowing due to graphics chips" seems to not be proved by the real world. If > I had one I would do it myself. If possible could a Amiga hardware engineer > explain this disparity? It seems very strange. P.S. I know that the clock is > slightly slower. Well, as they say, there are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks. As far as I can tell, ALL of the benchmarks quoted on the net so far have been tests of the COMPILERS, rather than the machines -- and, since I program mostly in assembly language anyway, have little meaning as regards the code I'll produce. Still, if anyone would care to settle the issue once and for all, let's see if someone out in netland can get his/her hands on an ASSEMBLY-LANGUAGE version of these same benchmarks. Then, we would see a much better comparison of the power of the two machines. My educated guess is that the slightly slower clock speed of the Amiga, plus the overhead introduced by its multitasking executive, will make it come in at about 10% below the Atari in raw computational speed. On the other hand, for high-speed graphics work (does anyone have a realistic benchmark for this?), I would expect the Amiga to win by a factor of 10 or so. In any case, the current comparisons are comparing apples to oranges, and should be treated as such. Both machines are significantly faster than anything that has hit the consumer market before, so -- in the final analysis -- does it really matter, anyway? <Usual disclaimers apply> Brett Glass <IEEE-CS@SU-SIERRA.ARPA> <GLASS@SRI-CSL.ARPA> -------
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (12/24/85)
In article <414@aum.UUCP> freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) writes: > >I would still like to know why the Amiga even with a 68020 and fast memory >still is *significantly* slower than the ST. Because all the benchmarks are written in C. It appears that the ST has a better C compiler available then the Amiga. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
ec150fcy@sdcc13.UUCP (Joseph McCaughey{|stu) (12/28/85)
In article <322@tekigm2.UUCP>, timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (Timothy D Margeson) writes: > > Hi, > > For all you Amiga fans, here's something to flame about.... > > While all of you are busily discussing whether the Atari or Amiga is better, > I am here using my Compaq Deskpro, with lots of off the shelf software, just > watching.... Hope you all feel better. > > -- FLAME ON**** Did the IBM PC have an abundance of software when it was introduced??? NO!!!! Did the MACINTOSH have an abundance of software when it first came out??? NOOO!!!! In fact, as I recall, the macintosh didn't have an abundance (relative) of sotware for a whole year. A couple of friends of mine had nothing but macpain (the drawing program) for a long time. So give the Amiga a break and wait a year. I am sure the software base will grow exponentially (so sure in fact, that I bought one) I was over at my local computer store the other day, and they say that the IBM PC'S and the MAC'S are the Amiga's best friend. They told me an amusing story about how this one lady came in to buy a MAC and happened to see the Amiga, with it's limited software base, running some graphics program. So what happened??? She bought the Amiga. Larry J. MacCaughey (No relation to the MacIntosh)
kalpin@utecfc.UUCP (Jordan E Kalpin) (01/01/86)
>I was over at my local computer store the other day, and they >say that the IBM PC'S and the MAC'S are the Amiga's >best friend. They told me an amusing story about how >this one lady came in to buy a MAC and happened to see >the Amiga, with it's limited software base, running some graphics >program. So what happened??? She bought the Amiga. > Now isn't this an intelligent little story... The next time I go into a stereo store to buy a video recorder and see an RCA video disk player, I think I will buy the RCA unit. After all, it has much less of a selection of movies to worry about...I won't have to trouble my mind over overwhelming shelves of discontinued disks much less worry about the inconvenience of recording movies. I guess my New Year's eve has been ruined knowing that there is some lady out there with $3000 worth of computer and all she can do is follow the bouncing ball.... Do yourself a favour...bouncing balls are for kids....buy a Mac!!! Send E-Mail bombs to: Jordan Kalpin Mechanical Engineering University of Toronto kalpin@utecfc.UUCP
keith@ssc-vax.UUCP (Keith Nemitz) (01/03/86)
> > I am here using my Compaq Deskpro, with lots of off the shelf software, just ^ ^ I'm so terrirble sorry, (yawn). Hey, who told the 8-bit clowns where they could find us? Next thing you know we'll be told by those 4.55MHz guys that they have useful hardware. Here in, There out, Tell me when it's over. keith uw-beaver!ssc-vax!keith
sansom@trwrba.UUCP (Richard E. Sansom) (01/03/86)
In article <370@well.UUCP> perry@well.UUCP (Perry S. Kivolowitz) writes: >Some people wage religious wars over the silliest things... Yourself (and now, myself) included, obviously! >The debate over which machine is better currently resurging yet again in >this newsgroup is damned silly. Those poor folks who bought atari's have >to justify their brain damage and will do so now matter what arguments >from the AMIGA side are tendered. Leave them alone! Excuse me, I was unaware that buying a faster (yes, faster!!! 8 Mhz CPU, 16 Mhz memory - not just "fast memory", but the entire addressing range of the computer - 32 Mhz graphics chip) machine for less than 1/2 the price of the _amiga_ qualified one for brain damage! >It is beneath the dignity of owners of the AMIGA P.C. to respond to atari >people's claim of machine supremacy...It's a waste of time: > > you bought your - they bought theirs > lets say one side (even theirs) is right - are you going to go out > and buy another machine lest ye be cast down by society? Neither are > they. > >Just leave them alone. > >(as my firend dave (@heurikon) says: > >take a 520 st, put it in a dark closet and leave it alone. when it grows >up it'll be an amiga). So which is it? Leave_them_alone or sling_more_silly_insults? Make up your mind!!! Maybe the above quote should be re-stated: take an _amiga peecee_ owner, put them in a dark closet. when (if) they grow up they'll be more consistent in their arguments. I will agree that it is a waste of time to continue this debate over the two respective nets. Why don't we move the discussion to net.silly.insults where it belongs? Richard E. Sansom {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!trwrba!sansom