jons@islenet.UUCP (Jonathan Spangler) (11/27/85)
I understand through people who went to COMDEX in Las Vegas
that Commordore didn't even show up with the Amiga.
Seems a bit odd considering the money put into their advertising scheme...
Instead, people at COMDEX saw an absolutely fantastic display
of the same bouncing ball demo running -- SIDE-BY-SIDE, mind you -- three
machines: 520ST, Amiga, and Mac. All three were running the same ball demo.
Because of the speed difference, the ST was the clear winner, but not only
becaue of the speed, but also the color which was much more brilliant.
What do you think about this? Why didn't Commordore take the Amiga to
Comdex? Why am I not reading anything about it in December PC magazines?
How is the $124 million loss for 3rd quarter going to affect them?
Please direct answers to the net as I'm sure all are interested.
Puzzled, but with aloha,
--
Jonathan Spangler
{ihnp4,vortex,dual}!islenet!jonswarren@ssc-vax.UUCP (Warren Kring) (12/02/85)
> I understand through people who went to COMDEX in Las Vegas > that Commordore didn't even show up with the Amiga. > > Seems a bit odd considering the money put into their advertising scheme... I have also heard similar rumors... including one that commodore has filed for chapter 11... IS THIS TRUE??? Being a new Amiga owner, I am somewhat interested in having this rumor discussed and cleared. Perhaps Commodore Amiga would have some interesting and informative comments to make? Does anyone over at Amiga know when the DOS user's guide (and the other "mentioned" documentation) will be available? The hints posted to the net as well as simple experimentation have revealed a lot, but it would be nice to know what I'm doing/missing. Will the clock on version 1.1 keep time??? Will the "real" version of Textcraft allow you to change directories/disks with the "open" command (rather than selecting the drawer the files are in along with Textcraft)? Will the V 1.1 Notepad allow you to print out the fonts without doing a screen dump??? If you have answers to any of these questions, please post them, as I'm sure many of us would be curious to know the answer. Thanks in advance... Warren Kring Boeing Aerospace Co. Seattle, Wa "The questions above are not to be confused with me or my employer... my cat made me do it..."
farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) (12/04/85)
In article <1886@islenet.UUCP>, jons@islenet.UUCP (Jonathan Spangler) writes: > > Instead, people at COMDEX saw an absolutely fantastic display > of the same bouncing ball demo running -- SIDE-BY-SIDE, mind you -- three > machines: 520ST, Amiga, and Mac. All three were running the same ball demo. > Because of the speed difference, the ST was the clear winner, but not only > becaue of the speed, but also the color which was much more brilliant. One (of the many) things ATARI didn't mention in their bouncing ball display was that this is an EASY, EASY, EASY demo to do! I'm pretty sure (and don't you DARE call this bluff!!) that I could produce an acceptable version of it to run on the Apple II! Instead, ask Atari if 1) there's enough processor bandwidth left while it's running to do a LOT of processing, 2) if there was sound to go with it, synchronized with the ball, and 3) How long it took them to GET that display - I'd be willing to bet that they had several of their hottest-shot programmers working on those, and do you really think that they would bother to make the Mac version as pretty? The impression I get of Atari lately (and don't get me wrong, I basically like Atari's stuff) is that they will stop at NOTHING to get the public to believe in their superiority, and if this includes providing insufficient information for a true, objective comparison, well, thats the way it goes. Personally, I find this kind of marketing scheme insulting not only to the technically competent people like us, but even more to those who can't know any better. -- Mike Farren uucp: {dual, hplabs}!well!farren Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667 USnail: 390 Alcatraz Ave., Oakland, CA 94618
ln63fkn@sdcc7.UUCP (Paul van de Graaf) (12/05/85)
In article <320@well.UUCP> farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes: > The impression I get of Atari lately (and don't get me wrong, I basically >like Atari's stuff) is that they will stop at NOTHING to get the public to >believe in their superiority, and if this includes providing insufficient >information for a true, objective comparison, well, thats the way it goes. Atari is not pushing superiority, only price/performance ratio. If price is your only concern, then clearly the ST is superior. Having a mac/amiga/ST side-by-side demonstration lets the buyer decide. Atari's strong point is a price around half the competition's. Even if their comparisons are "unfair", are they $1000.00 worth unfair? No! Amiga and Apple should stop pandering "yuppie ads" and offer some substantive ads of their own if they feel mistreated. Apple could stress their "superior" user interface, and Amiga could stress its superior graphics hardware and multitasking software. Paul van de Graaf sdcsvax!sdcc7!ln63fkn U. C. San Diego
Felton.PA@Xerox.ARPA (12/06/85)
From: Felton.PA@Xerox.ARPA Some people seem to think that Atari was wrong to write its own version of Boing and compare it to the Amiga version. Two months ago it seemed like the Amigas stongest selling point was that it could produce graphics like those in Boing. Every one was saying how fantastic it was. Now that Atari has a version all you hear from the Amiga people is how simplistic the program is and just wait until you see what the Amiga can really do. As far as I am concerned all that Atari was doing was saying "Hey, whats the big deal about a bouncing ball demo. We can do one that looks just as good." It seems to me that they were doing a service to the general public by showing people that one bouncing ball program does not a computer make. I am not saying that this means that the Atari ST has the graphics capabilities that the Amiga has. It doesn't. On the other hand, I have yet to be convinced that the Amiga has enough special graphics to make up for the additional price ($1000 vs. $2000). Though it may seem that I am biased in Atari's favor, actually I like both machines very much. I just wish that people wouldn't get so indignant about a little healthy competitive marketing hype. So, Atari put the monocrome price on the color monitor in their magazine ads, and Commidore shows light streaming out of their monitor during the birth of a star child in their TV ads. The two companies alone will produce more than enough hype. I don't think that we need alot of "my computer is better than your computer" fanatics fanning the flames. John
drforsey@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Forsey) (12/06/85)
In article <320@well.UUCP> farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes: >> ... same bouncing ball demo running -- SIDE-BY-SIDE, mind you -- three >> machines: 520ST, Amiga, and Mac. All three were running the same ball demo. >> Because of the speed difference, the ST was the clear winner, but not only >> becaue of the speed, but also the color which was much more brilliant. > > One (of the many) things ATARI didn't mention in their bouncing ball >display was that this is an EASY, EASY, EASY demo to do! I'm pretty sure >(and don't you DARE call this bluff!!) that I could produce an acceptable >version of it to run on the Apple II! Instead, ask Atari if 1) there's >enough processor bandwidth left while it's running to do a LOT of processing, >2) if there was sound to go with it, synchronized with the ball, and 3) How >long it took them to GET that display - I'd be willing to bet that they had >several of their hottest-shot programmers working on those, Funny how Commodore never mentioned how easy the bouncing ball is to do, the major problem being the actual data to do the colour table animation on (and that's not really a problem). Since the animation just involves changing a few registers every few frame times there is plenty of processing power left over. Synchronising sound is just a matter of saying "well gee I'm on frame X, lets make a noise". Note that the fact that the ST was doing it faster implies nothing about the power of the machine Let's stop the demo war discussion, at least at the level of "well yes you can do it but you had to work harder to get it done". Marketing hype is marketing hype, the ST and the Amiga are different, each with their own advantages and disadvantages depending on what your needs/budget are. If you want real graphics power, buy an Adage/Ikonas. Personally I own an ST, but believe that GEM sucks and that TOS should be tossed (a 200K OS - good grief!) but it provides me with a cheap bit-mapped display, a 68000 and lots of support hardware which can be used for other purposes (like a real-time, message-based OS). Dave Forsey Computer Graphics Laboratory University of Waterloo, Waterloo Canada.
hr@uicsl.UUCP (12/12/85)
RE: My computer can beat your mother's combat boots.
" Now that Atari has a version [of BOING] all you hear
from the Amiga people is how simplistic the program is ...."
Lets be careful of what we mean by "Amiga people". We who have been going
ga ga over the Amiga have been the ones raving about the demo. It really
IS (or was) a good demo. Lots of flash. Way back when the Amiga was being
shown at SIGGRAPH, the crowds were staring at BOING. The people with the Amiga
T shirts were saying that it was one of their oldest demos, yes it looked
good, but that IT WASN'T THAT HARD TO DO. While I am not fond of what
Commodore's marketing people have done, the TV ad seemed like a stupid
parody of the MAC ads, the technical people have been fairly straight
with us.
"On the other hand, I have yet to be convinced that the Amiga
has enough special graphics to make up for the additional price
($1000 vs. $2000)."
I am afraid that a lot of people will feel the same way. Unless the
Amiga can find a market niche, it will have problems. Personally, I'm
hoping that it becomes a low end engineering workstation. If the 68020
board succeeds, the Amiga could be a fairly nice under $5,000 computer.
----
harold ravlin {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!uicsl!hr