91_bickingd@GAR.UNION.EDU ("Bicking, David") (12/04/90)
Date sent: 3-DEC-1990 20:56:41 > >Several people have mentioned the Byte article which compared the Amiga >favorably to the NeXT in terms of performance. I chatted with Ben Smith, >the author of the article, on BIX and he admits that he was comparing the >yet-to-be-released Amiga 3000ux with the out-of-production 030 NeXTs. >The article was very misleading in that it gave the impression that he >was talking about the 030 and 040 NeXTs. But he was not. > >At any rate, the new 040 NeXTs have started shipping and the machine is >damn fast. It is in an entirely different class, performance-wise, than >the Amiga 3000ux. I figured as much. I would not have expected him to compare two different cpu speeds. After all, he did say *equivalent* NeXT (I assumed that meant an '030). Also, don't forget that the A3000UX can easilly accomodate an '040 expansion board, which would put it back up in the same category. I think it is a clear analogy that if the '030 Amiga is faster than the '030 NeXT that an '040 Amiga will also be faster than an '040 NeXT, right? On a similar idea, I believe the ultimate test of how well a program is written is to run it on a 7Mhz 68000 amiga :) I would think it would be standard practice to optimize a program on such a platform, as the speed difference is most noticable at that level! -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=- Dave Bicking Single Tasking????? Just say NO!!!! Union College Box 152 91_bickingd@union.bitnet // Schenectady, NY 12308 91_bickingd@gar.union.edu \X/ Amiga -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (12/05/90)
In article <9012040257.AA10743@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, 91_bickingd@GAR.UNION.EDU ("Bicking, David") writes: > I > think it is a clear analogy that if the '030 Amiga is faster than the '030 > NeXT that an '040 Amiga will also be faster than an '040 NeXT, right? First, I haven't actually seen any objective benchmarks on 68030 NeXT vs. Amiga A3000 (UX). Second, there is no such thing as a '040 Amiga. And even if there would soon be a '040 card for Amiga it wouldn't do the job as well. The motherboards of the new NeXT is designed to take all out of the 68040. I doubt the current Amiga motherboard is designed for the 68040. Jouni
yoo@well.sf.ca.us (Young-Kyu Yoo) (12/05/90)
>I think it is a clear analogy that if the '030 is faster than the '030 >NeXT that an '040 Amiga will also be faster than an '040 NeXT, right? Run OpenLook on a 030 Amiga, and then tell me that it is faster than NeXTStep on an 030 NeXT. At any rate, anything concerning the 040 Amigas is pure conjecture. The 040 NeXTs are real. The 040 Amigas are pre-vaporware. Here's a clearer analogy: An '030 Amiga is more expensive than an '040 NeXT ($4000 educational as opposed to $3000-#3500 for the NeXT), so the '040 will be even more expensive than the NeXT, right?
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (12/06/90)
In <4144.275c29f5@cc.helsinki.fi>, jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >In article <9012040257.AA10743@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, 91_bickingd@GAR.UNION.EDU ("Bicking, David") writes: > >> I >> think it is a clear analogy that if the '030 Amiga is faster than the '030 >> NeXT that an '040 Amiga will also be faster than an '040 NeXT, right? > >First, I haven't actually seen any objective benchmarks on 68030 NeXT >vs. Amiga A3000 (UX). > >Second, there is no such thing as a '040 Amiga. And even if there would >soon be a '040 card for Amiga it wouldn't do the job as well. The >motherboards of the new NeXT is designed to take all out of the 68040. >I doubt the current Amiga motherboard is designed for the 68040. Wrongo, Jobs breath. The motherboard was specifically designed to be efficient with the 68040, including provision of a pair of high density connectors with sufficient pins to allow a full implementation of a 68040 board. Additionally, the circuitry exists on the motherboard to allow for a processor 'takeover'. -larry -- The only things to survive a nuclear war will be cockroaches and IBM PCs. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (12/06/90)
In article <4144.275c29f5@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >Second, there is no such thing as a '040 Amiga. And even if there would >soon be a '040 card for Amiga it wouldn't do the job as well. The >motherboards of the new NeXT is designed to take all out of the 68040. >I doubt the current Amiga motherboard is designed for the 68040. > > Jouni You may doubt it. That doesn't mean its true. In fact, it isn't true. The A3000 is designed to take advantage of the 68040. -- Ethan Woody Allen on Los Angeles: "I mean, who would want to live in a place where the only cultural advantage is that you can turn right on a red light?"
eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) (12/06/90)
In article <4144.275c29f5@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > I doubt the current Amiga motherboard is designed for the 68040. Don't bet on it, you would lose. If you read Dave Haynie's posts (mostly in .tech, I think) you would find that, among other things, the FAST memory on the motherboard can be accessed faster by a master in the coprocessor slot than by the 25MHz 68030 on the motherboard! The 68030 is a very nice machine as sold, but it was designed with an upgrade path in mind just as the 2000 was. The 2000 was designed with a syncronous 68020 board in mind, the 2620, but Dave Haynie (and GVP) only had to do a little magic to put 25 (and 33 and 50 and 60) MHz asynchronous processor boards in the same slot. The 3000 is designed to support both asynch and synchronous boards in its COprocessor slot. I'll be in my office for only a day here and there in the few weeks so send any interesting comments via email (and flames to /dev/null). -- Robert I. Eachus with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...
MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (12/06/90)
In article <4144.275c29f5@cc.helsinki.fi>, jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi says: > >In article <9012040257.AA10743@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, 91_bickingd@GAR.UNION.EDU >("Bicking, David") writes: > > >> I >> think it is a clear analogy that if the '030 Amiga is faster than the '030 >> NeXT that an '040 Amiga will also be faster than an '040 NeXT, right? > >First, I haven't actually seen any objective benchmarks on 68030 NeXT >vs. Amiga A3000 (UX). Check out the Byte article that has been abundantly commented on. Actually, to be truthful I'd like to see the results of another benchmark. Seems that it would be no trick at all for someone with access to a 3000 and a NeXT cube to try the benchmarks on it. Anyone? >Second, there is no such thing as a '040 Amiga. And even if there would >soon be a '040 card for Amiga it wouldn't do the job as well. The >motherboards of the new NeXT is designed to take all out of the 68040. >I doubt the current Amiga motherboard is designed for the 68040. Er, wrong. The 3000 WAS expressly designed to take advantage of the 68040 once it is shipping. It will be relatively easy to just drop in an '040 and run. And, with identical processors, the NeXT's speed advantage will vanish. /Mark "Remixed for Common Household Appliances" Sachs - MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu\ |DISCLAIMER? You've GOT to be kidding, right? || // AMIGA || | | "Haven't they heard we won the war? || \X/ Power || | \== "What do they keep on fighting for?" -- B. Joel, LENINGRAD =============/
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) (12/07/90)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > In article <4144.275c29f5@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > >Second, there is no such thing as a '040 Amiga. And even if there would > >soon be a '040 card for Amiga it wouldn't do the job as well. The > >motherboards of the new NeXT is designed to take all out of the 68040. > >I doubt the current Amiga motherboard is designed for the 68040. > > > > Jouni > > You may doubt it. That doesn't mean its true. In fact, it > isn't true. The A3000 is designed to take advantage of the 68040. > -- Ethan You can get an '040 in any Amiga, but it'll be a while before we see any '040 boards for the A500. Of course, I do know fo '040 boards in the works for all mahcines _execpt_ the 500. And yes, the Amiga motherboard _is_ designed for to be able to accept the '040 in the sense that (we're talking A2000-a and above, here) there are dedicated CPU slots in each one for future CPU's. Drop an '040 in an A3000, and watch the NeXT eat it's dust. > > Woody Allen on Los Angeles: > > "I mean, who would want to live in a place where the only > cultural advantage is that you can turn right on a red light?" -jph joseph@valnet.UUCP or ...!iuvax!valnet!joseph IMHO: The "H" means "honest"!
cy0q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chad O. Yoshikawa) (12/08/90)
YKY, You keep on stating the fact that the 040 next is 3000-3500--its 3170.00 This NeXT has 104 mb drive, 040, 8mb ram, 1 floppy, bw display. (Correct me if I am wrong, which it seems you are fond of doing since you have all of the answers--If you didn't detect the sarcasm--look again) In order to compare the 040 to the 030, at least make sure most of the specs match up. Use the price of the NeXT color (NeXTstation Color) which can display 12 bit color (like the Amiga) --$5500 'FOR EDUCATIONAL BUYERS'. compared to the 3000UX for educational buyers. The 040, if released would be the AMI4000 which would utilize the 040 on the motherboard, as compared to a conceivable 040 add-on Ami3500 which would not. I realize you are defending your computer (which you don't even have yet), but please don't be an a** about it. We can all read the facts from several magazines. The last time I checked, this was comp.sys.amiga not comp.sys.next.vs.amiga. So lets quit the system wars and go on about the Amiga discussion. Thankyou, Chad
garnett@cs.utexas.edu (John William Garnett) (12/08/90)
In article <9012040257.AA10743@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 91_bickingd@GAR.UNION.EDU ("Bicking, David") writes: >Date sent: 3-DEC-1990 20:56:41 >an '030). Also, don't forget that the A3000UX can easilly accomodate an >'040 expansion board, which would put it back up in the same category. I >think it is a clear analogy that if the '030 Amiga is faster than the '030 >NeXT that an '040 Amiga will also be faster than an '040 NeXT, right? > Not necessarily. Users who have the new NeXT 2.0 operating system installed on 030 NeXT's claim almost twice the perceived performance [I haven't seen any benchmarks to confirm this]. This just goes to show that the operating system plays a non-trivial role in the performance of a machine. Out of curiousity have there been any postings comparing the performance of an A3000 running AmigaDos to an A3000UX (running SYSVR4)? -- John Garnett University of Texas at Austin garnett@cs.utexas.edu Department of Computer Science Austin, Texas
torrie@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie) (12/08/90)
garnett@cs.utexas.edu (John William Garnett) writes: >[I haven't seen any benchmarks to confirm this]. This just goes to >show that the operating system plays a non-trivial role in the >performance of a machine. Out of curiousity have there been any >postings comparing the performance of an A3000 running AmigaDos to >an A3000UX (running SYSVR4)? More importantly perhaps, have there been any postings comparing the performance of an A3000 running AmigaDos to an A3000UX (running SVR4 AND X)? ^^^^^^ Until people have actually come back with real-life reports about the responsiveness of A3000UX with X, I can't see how they can compare it to something like the NeXT... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "And remember, whatever you do, DON'T MENTION THE WAR!"
sam@ms.uky.edu (Mike Mills) (12/08/90)
As far as price differences between the 3000UX and the NeXtStation is concerned, bear in mind that the A3000 is SVR4, whereas the Next runs Mach. This is a big difference. Matter of fact, its the only thing that I dislike about the new NeXTs (well, that and the user interface...) -- | Mike Mills (aka "Sam") | sam@ms.uky.edu mike@ukpr.uky.edu | | (606) 255-3583 | BIX: mike... | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | "There is always an alternative." --Spock |
yoo@well.sf.ca.us (Young-Kyu Yoo) (12/09/90)
cy0q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chad O. Yoshikawa) writes: >You keep stating the fact that the 040 next is 3000-3500--its >3170. This next has 104 mb drive, 8 mb ram, 1 floppy, bw display >(Correct me if I'm wrong .... I guess I will. The educational price of the NeXT varies from school to school. Arizona initially offered its NeXTstations for $2995 (I've heard though they've since jacked up the price to $3200). Many schools offer prices between $3200-$3300. Some have prices around $3500. If you can't find a local or regional educational NeXT dealer, you can buy directly from NeXT (if you're a student) for $3995. By the way, developers pay $3500 for the NeXTstations. To nitpick, it's 105 MB, not 104. The bw display has 1120x832 resolution and has 4 true graytones and is, thus, not actually "bw." It also has a 17" screen and comes with a built in microphone AND microphone jack. Color apps will run fine on a monochrome NeXT and vice versa, thanks to PostScript.
jsd@spotted.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) (12/10/90)
In article <UbLwvdO00WoBQCPWZ4@andrew.cmu.edu>, cy0q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chad O. Yoshikawa) writes: |> |> In order to compare the 040 to the 030, at least make sure most of the |> specs match up. Use the price of the NeXT color (NeXTstation Color) |> which can display 12 bit color (like the Amiga) --$5500 'FOR |> EDUCATIONAL BUYERS'. compared to the 3000UX for educational buyers. |> So, how much does a 3000UX cost???????? $6000????? In comparing the machines, you want the specs to match up. But what about the non-specs like the user interface. The NeXT's environment is much more professionally done than the Amiga. I feel that the NeXT's interface makes the Amiga's look like sh*t. If you want everything to be the same, how much more does the 3000UX cost with a 2.88 meg disk drive (or does it exsist???). Why don't you buy a Cray so won't have to defend your machine??? :-) PS. I don't own an Amiga or a NeXT (and not even an IBM) -- rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r ___ _ "...but then there was the r r /__ | \ possibility that they were r r ___/hawn |__\ube LaRouche democrats which, of r r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu course, were better off dead." r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (12/10/90)
In article <1990Dec9.224705.24123@rice.edu> jsd@spotted.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >In article <UbLwvdO00WoBQCPWZ4@andrew.cmu.edu>, cy0q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chad O. Yoshikawa) writes: >|> >|> In order to compare the 040 to the 030, at least make sure most of the >|> specs match up. Use the price of the NeXT color (NeXTstation Color) >|> which can display 12 bit color (like the Amiga) --$5500 'FOR >|> EDUCATIONAL BUYERS'. compared to the 3000UX for educational buyers. >|> > >So, how much does a 3000UX cost???????? $6000????? The point he was trying to make was. To bring the Amiga up to an 040 it will cost about $1000. To bring the NeXT up to Color, it costs $5000. Not to mention the fact, that Display Postscript wastes most of that CPU power away. The NeXT could have been a vector/ray-tracing powerhouse with that i860. BTW, wasn't it Jobs, or some NeXT engineer who said 'We beleive 90% of the CPU should be dedicated to the User Interface.' >In comparing the machines, you want the specs to match up. But >what about the non-specs like the user interface. The NeXT's environment >is much more professionally done than the Amiga. I feel that the >NeXT's interface makes the Amiga's look like sh*t. That's a matter of opionion. I think ADOS 2.0 looks great. Of course, on the A3000 you have a choice between ADOS2.0, or Xwindows/Openlook. >If you want everything to be the same, how much more does the 3000UX >cost with a 2.88 meg disk drive (or does it exsist???). Who cares. How does Foobar cost with Xx meg floppy? May I remind you that 10 and 20 meg floppies are just around the corner. >Why don't you buy a Cray so won't have to defend your machine??? :-) The problem is, we shouldn't have to defend our machine. I remember when Amiga users used to attack Ibm users when we didn't have our large installed base (2 million). Now NeXT users keep coming into csa starting wars. This NeXT war has been started up atleast 4 times already. I don't care if the NeXT had 500 MIPs and costs 10 cents. The point of having my Amiga is because I LIKE IT, its FUN. Unix is boring. >PS. I don't own an Amiga or a NeXT (and not even an IBM) Since you don't own any of those, why not buy a NeXT, or a Vic 20? >-- >rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr >r ___ _ "...but then there was the r >r /__ | \ possibility that they were r >r ___/hawn |__\ube LaRouche democrats which, of r >r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu course, were better off dead." r >rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr This thread keeps harping on the same old stuff, 040 vs 030, NextDimension, Display postscript,BSD vs ATT. DO NeXT users somehoe think that their motherboard is so superior, that a NexT running with Unix and Display Postscript will beat an AMiga with an 040 running AmigaDOS or SYSV? The simple answer is, when you pop an 040 into the Amiga at the same clock speed, the Amiga will run just as fast. (probably faster since the Amiga user interface doesn't hog as much CPU as the NeXT) But whats the point? If the Amiga or NeXT are +/- .5 MIPS of each other, is that going to make any noticable speed improvement? The NeXT isn't the ultimate computer workstation on the face of the earth. Its finally up the performance of the other workstations that have been around forawhile. (Like Sun Sparc,etc) In todays computer market where most computers are around the same performance, purchases are made based on PERSONAL taste, not 'Hey this computer squeezes .3 more mips out thru XX bus design, and is YY dollars cheaper.' And how long can Job's keep these prices? They aren't going to last long. All he's trying to do is get the computer OUT QUICK so it has a fairly sized user base. Then he will jack the price back up. Even if the A3000 UX doesn't sell all that well, Commodore isn't going to go bankrupt, they still have the rest of their computer line. (C64, PC compats, A500/2000/2500) But if the NeXT doesn't sell, the company is going to go down the drain.
lron@easy.UUCP (Dwight Hubbard) (12/11/90)
In article <1990Dec10.165612.20747@engin.umich.edu>, Ralph Seguin writes: > trying to maintain compatability. Personally, I think that the should create > a new line of machines, and port the OS to it. Also, I think that they should > do several things to the OS: > > -virtual memory support (I know that it's coming) I hope not, I can just see the disk swaping making AmigaDos useless for Multimedia. I still think it would be better to make AmigaDos apps run under Unix, then the VM support becomes a moot point. Either that or an option to turn it off. > -device independence (so you can plop in that 24 bit graphics board :) Me too. > -multi-processing/parallel processing support. Yeah, I think a motherboard with several CPU sockets would be nice. Just by another CPU to speed it up. Besides which it always strikes me as a real waste to stick a 68040 board in an A3000 and disable the 68030. Wonder if CBM will port Unix System VR4MP over to the Amiga. > I think that Amiga OS is very beautiful. Small, fast, elegant kernel. Me too, I still wish it had some of the features from Unix systems though.---------------------------------------------------------- -Dwight Hubbard, |-Kaneohe, HI - -USENET: uunet.uu.net!easy!lron |-GT-Power: 029/004- ----------------------------------------------------------
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (12/12/90)
In article <90339.181031MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > In article <4144.275c29f5@cc.helsinki.fi>, jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi says: >> >>In article <9012040257.AA10743@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, 91_bickingd@GAR.UNION.EDU >>("Bicking, David") writes: >> >> >>> I >>> think it is a clear analogy that if the '030 Amiga is faster than the '030 >>> NeXT that an '040 Amiga will also be faster than an '040 NeXT, right? >> >>First, I haven't actually seen any objective benchmarks on 68030 NeXT >>vs. Amiga A3000 (UX). > > Check out the Byte article that has been abundantly commented on. I just read it. DKo you think there was any BECHMARKS in it? I didn't see any. But somebody just posted here some benchmarks suggesting that a 68030 Amiga (25Mhz) is actually SLOWER than a 68030 NeXT (25Mhz). I think that seems more reliable. Maybe that guy writing the Byte article was just a bit too enthusiastic and sneaked some misinformation in his story. I wouldn't suggest framing that article and putting it on the wall... :-) But well, I wouldn't actually care if the 68030 Amiga were a bit faster than NeXT, since I will get a 68040 NeXT anyway, 68030 NeXTs aren't even available anymore. > > Actually, to be truthful I'd like to see the results of another benchmark. > Seems that it would be no trick at all for someone with access to a 3000 > and a NeXT cube to try the benchmarks on it. Anyone? > >>Second, there is no such thing as a '040 Amiga. And even if there would >>soon be a '040 card for Amiga it wouldn't do the job as well. The >>motherboards of the new NeXT is designed to take all out of the 68040. >>I doubt the current Amiga motherboard is designed for the 68040. > > Er, wrong. The 3000 WAS expressly designed to take advantage of the > 68040 once it is shipping. It will be relatively easy to just drop > in an '040 and run. And, with identical processors, the NeXT's speed > advantage will vanish. > Yeah. I have heard this about 100 times since I wrote that doubt of mine. I was wrong - I said it already once. But let's compare the systems when you know the prices for 68040 Amigas... Jouni
mwm@raven.relay.pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (12/12/90)
>Who cares. How does Foobar cost with Xx meg floppy? May I remind you >that 10 and 20 meg floppies are just around the corner. But I tend to doubt those will come standard with the new Amigas, as the 2.88 MB drive comes standard with the new NeXTs. Insite has announced availability of their 20Meg 3" floppy drive for April. It reads & writes DD & HD 3" floppies. CBM has publicly announced they are getting the first large shipment of drives (or so Insite tells me). Sure _sounds_ like they're going to come standard with the next generation Amiga. It would be of little comfort to an Amiga 3000UX buyer if the line died but Commodore lived on. Actually, it would be quite a bit of comfort. The A3000UX is a stock Amiga. The buyer may not be able to get software fixes & upgrades (though I'd be surprised if some third party didn't pick the product up as a software offering), but they'd still be able to get hardware fixes & upgrades. And it's the hardware that's usually the problem with an orphan. The software doesn't break, it just gets obsolete. Coming to you from an old NeXT. But eagerly awaiting our upgrades. Probably a state you'll be in for a while, if you believe the numbers Jobs has been quoting. <mike --
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (12/13/90)
In article <22081@well.sf.ca.us> yoo@well.sf.ca.us (Young-Kyu Yoo) writes: >rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> The point he was trying to make was. To bring the Amiga up to an 040 >>it will cost about $1000. To bring the NeXT up to Color, it costs $5000. > >Nope. You can get a NeXTStation Color for about $2000 more, bringing your >total purchase to about $5500 (educational and developer pricing). For this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There is one thing about this thread that has bothered me all along; Why does everyone qoute educational/developers prices when they compare MAC/NEXT/AMIGA??????? Do you people out there really think every one on this net is a student/faculty/developer? Try comparing retail or "street" prices when you compare these machines. The business community will be paying these prices and that is where the sales for all are centered (I hope). I myself am a developer but the company I work for definitly is not. What price do I take to my manager? some artifically reduced educational price ? We all tend to forget the big picture in our fever over our favorite machine. Monty Saine
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (12/13/90)
In article <4211.27653c06@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >In article <90339.181031MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >> In article <4144.275c29f5@cc.helsinki.fi>, jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi says: >>> >>>In article <9012040257.AA10743@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, 91_bickingd@GAR.UNION.EDU >>>("Bicking, David") writes: >>>> I think it is a clear analogy that if the '030 Amiga is faster than the >>>> '030 NeXT that an '040 Amiga will also be faster than an '040 NeXT, right? >>>First, I haven't actually seen any objective benchmarks on 68030 NeXT >>>vs. Amiga A3000 (UX). >But somebody just posted here some benchmarks suggesting that a 68030 >Amiga (25Mhz) is actually SLOWER than a 68030 NeXT (25Mhz). A 25Mhz 68030 Amiga (the A2500/30) is somewhat slower than THE 25Mhz 68030 NeXT, though if I recall the benchmark posted (Dhrystone 2.1), you couldn't tell that from the difference in benchmarks, they were close enough to be the same with a change or two of compiler options. The A2500/30 doesn't support burst mode, where the NeXT does, and it also has a slower hard disk interface (fast enough for asynchronous SCSI, but not quite for synchronous SCSI, and at that eating most of the bandwidth). There are other A2000 plug in boards, like the one from GVP, that are faster at 25MHz than that NeXT machine, if you want to spend a little more than the cost of an A2500/30. But the A2500/30 is an old machine; the A3000 is as fast as the original NeXT in CPU/memory and at least as fast in hard disk. You'll probably find the same results with 68040 boards for the A3000; some may be slower than the NeXT machines, some may be faster. Who cares? When someone make a 68040 board for the A3000 that makes it as fast or faster than a 68040 system from HP, then we'll have something to brag about. > Jouni -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "I can't drive 55" -Sammy Hagar
v092mgp5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) (12/13/90)
In article <4211.27653c06@cc.helsinki.fi>, jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes... [deleted lots of NeXT praising info that doesn't belong here in the 1st place] >Yeah. I have heard this about 100 times since I wrote that doubt of >mine. I was wrong - I said it already once. But let's compare the >systems when you know the prices for 68040 Amigas... > Considering the latest outcry against NeXT postings in the group, I would seriously doubt if anyone would be mildly interested in reading MORE comparisons! Please, do your comparing in the comp.sys.next group. Speaking of these "computer vs. computer" threads that seem to find their home in this newsgroup, why is it that since day one, Amiga owners have always been on the defensive? Ever since the days of the ST, Amiga owners have been given the job of clearing up TONS of mistruths and blatent lies. While the Amiga seems to have finally disposed of the ST line, we have a new rivalry, the MAC and the NEXT. What gives here folks? NO COMPUTER IS THE BEST FOR EVERYTHING. The Amiga, Mac, IBM, NEXT etc. all have their good and bad points, and neither of them is suited for ALL types of work! If it hadn't been for the Amiga though, cheap desktop video and multitasking would still be a fantasy. Scott BITNET : v092mgp5@ubvms.bitnet INTERNET : v092mgp5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) (12/13/90)
In article <50884@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> v092mgp5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >If it hadn't been >for the Amiga though, cheap desktop video and multitasking would >still be a fantasy. > > Scott > BITNET : v092mgp5@ubvms.bitnet > INTERNET : v092mgp5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu For most of the computer industry it may not be fantasy bu it sure is sf. ;-) /Jorgen -- ******************************************************************************* email dvljhg@cs.umu.se - other ways to communicate are a waste of time. Everything I say is always true, just apply it to the right reality. "Credo, quia absurdum est."
martin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Martin Hunt) (12/13/90)
In article <1858548b.ARN07ad@easy.UUCP> lron@easy.UUCP writes: >In article <1990Dec10.165612.20747@engin.umich.edu>, Ralph Seguin writes: > >> trying to maintain compatability. Personally, I think that the should create >> a new line of machines, and port the OS to it. Also, I think that they should >> do several things to the OS: >> >> -virtual memory support (I know that it's coming) > >I hope not, I can just see the disk swaping making AmigaDos useless for >Multimedia. I still think it would be better to make AmigaDos apps run >under Unix, then the VM support becomes a moot point. Either that or >an option to turn it off. > You can't have a real-time OS without control over exactly what data can be in VM. Same with programs swapping out. And running AmigaDOS apps under Unix would kill the real-time response of AmigaDOS and force everyone to buy 100+ Meg harddrives to do anything useful.
lron@easy.UUCP (Dwight Hubbard) (12/13/90)
In article <16492@cbmvax.commodore.com>, Martin Hunt writes: [Previous stuff deleted] > >> -virtual memory support (I know that it's coming) > > > >I hope not, I can just see the disk swaping making AmigaDos useless for > >Multimedia. I still think it would be better to make AmigaDos apps run > >under Unix, then the VM support becomes a moot point. Either that or > >an option to turn it off. > > > You can't have a real-time OS without control over exactly what data > can be in VM. Same with programs swapping out. Correct, I'm basically have this point of view because I've yet to see an OS with VM that could offer the kind of performance needed for mulitmedia without running on hardware costing more than a new car. Besides which even if the multimedia program was not allowed to swap. Unless it keeps it's data in memory or there are multiple hard drives wouldn't the swaping kill the disk access speed to get the images and sounds a multimedia application is going to need. > And running AmigaDOS apps under Unix would kill the real-time response Yes, but the question is would VM kill the real time response of AmigaDos if it was added? Real time response is not important for applications like Desktop Publishing, CAD, Word Processing, ect... and programs like PageStream really could use VM. Also, it would give Amiga Unix users working software to run until the developers get around to porting the stuff over for Unix specifically. > of AmigaDOS and force everyone to buy 100+ Meg harddrives to do anything > useful. Finally, if VM were added to the Amiga a 40Meg hard drive is going to be real small (40 megs isn't enough now) if 5 or 10 megs is set aside for swap space. ---------------------------------------------------------- -Dwight Hubbard, |-Kaneohe, HI - -USENET: uunet.uu.net!easy!lron |-GT-Power: 029/004- ----------------------------------------------------------
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (12/13/90)
In article <50884@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> v092mgp5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu writes: >In article <4211.27653c06@cc.helsinki.fi>, jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes... > > Speaking of these "computer vs. computer" threads that seem to >find their home in this newsgroup, why is it that since day one, Amiga >owners have always been on the defensive? Ever since the days of the I guess its the old Axiom 'When your on top, there are always people trying to knock you down.' ST & NEXT users try to knock the Amiga down, while we as Amiga users are trying to knock the IBM down. (because its on top quantity wise, not quality) >ST, Amiga owners have been given the job of clearing up TONS of >mistruths and blatent lies. While the Amiga seems to have finally >disposed of the ST line, we have a new rivalry, the MAC and the NEXT. >What gives here folks? NO COMPUTER IS THE BEST FOR EVERYTHING. The >Amiga, Mac, IBM, NEXT etc. all have their good and bad points, and >neither of them is suited for ALL types of work! If it hadn't been ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >for the Amiga though, cheap desktop video and multitasking would ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >still be a fantasy. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Shhh! It still is a fantasy. Seriously, while we Amigan's know its not fantasy ,I see quotes all the time from people like Bill Gates. Such as "Gates says Multimedia computer may be built for under $2000 and be ready in 2 years." Its a laugh to read quotes from the industry that talk about developing Multimedia and state 'the technology is still 3-4 years away' Its been here for 5 years already...AMIGA. > > Scott > BITNET : v092mgp5@ubvms.bitnet > INTERNET : v092mgp5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Moriland) (12/13/90)
Just thought I'd mention the fact that a recent article in Byte mag about the A3000UX said it would cost around $4000. It also went on to say that the Amiga 3000UX was better than Unix on a 80386, Macintrash, or NeXT. Page 132 of the December issue, I believe.... -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ "As if things weren't bad enough already...."| Founder of: "Young Evil Please excuse my ramblings as they come from | Mutants For A Better Tommorow. a diseased mind. -Moriland | hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu
skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com (Skipper Smith) (12/14/90)
In article <16492@cbmvax.commodore.com> martin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Martin Hunt) writes: <deleted> >You can't have a real-time OS without control over exactly what data >can be in VM. Same with programs swapping out. > >And running AmigaDOS apps under Unix would kill the real-time response >of AmigaDOS and force everyone to buy 100+ Meg harddrives to do anything >useful. So for those of us that currently have 100+ MB drives (just as a guess, how many people that own Amiga's have 100+ MB drives? I am strongly considering moving up to the 500+ MB drive from Maxtor) could we hope to have something like this? The only thing I like about A/UX is its ability to run Apple apps underneath it (I sure don't like it for its "industry standard O/S" claims that the marketers at FOSE keep talking about. -- Skipper Smith | skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com Motorola Technical Training | 8945 Guilford Rd Ste 145 All opinions are my own, not my employers | Columbia, MD 21046
fhwri%CONNCOLL.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (12/14/90)
It's by far the nicest things I've ever seen BYTE say about the Amiga...about ti
--Rick Wrigley
fhwri@conncoll.edun368bq@tamuts.tamu.edu (Raoul Rodriguez) (12/15/90)
All right, these are the prices that the NeXT computer dealer on campus quoted me for the non-educational-discount prices.... NeXTStation - 105 HD $4995 - 340 HD $7995 NeXTStation w/color (non expandable as is the regular NeXTStation) (4032 colors) - 105 HD $7995 - 340 HD $9995 The NeXT Cube (no color, but it does have slots, but the dealer wan't 100% sure on the price, so, we went for a "safe" lower guess... - 105 HD $7995 - 340 HD $10,000+ (uncertain) The NeXT Cube w/color - 105 HD $15,000+ - 340 HD $17,000+ hope this helps.... it anyone is certain about the cube prices... lemme know Raoul Rodriguez "Several errant electrons jumped when they shouldn't have at a place they shouldn't have, resulting in what shouldn't have. In short, a short." -Bloom County
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (12/16/90)
G'day,
Scott K Wood (v092mgp5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) writes:
[...Scott's suggestions that the NeXT discussions not be held in this...]
[...group any more. {I agree, in that, I think the time has come for...]
[...a respite from all of this. I'm sure we all want that...} ...]
* Speaking of these "computer vs. computer" threads that seem to
* find their home in this newsgroup, why is it that since day one, Amiga
* owners have always been on the defensive? Ever since the days of the
* ST, Amiga owners have been given the job of clearing up TONS of
* mistruths and blatent lies. While the Amiga seems to have finally
* disposed of the ST line, we have a new rivalry, the MAC and the NEXT.
Perhaps that is true but I would like to say that in the time I've been
a comp.sys.amiga reader (I'd say I've read for about 2-3 yrs) I've seen
very little Amiga bashing in this group by ST fans. The opposite I am
sad to say has not been the case...in that attacks by Amiga fans on the
ST in the comp.sys.atari.st group have occurred too often.
There are those in the Amiga camp that were/are as guilty of Amiga vs X
type stirring as those who've trespassed in this group.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that we are equally as
guilty as others. I think most of us are INNOCENT as are most other of
the NeXT/Mac/IBM/ST/etc readers. It is only a few in each circle that
start these PUBLIC brawls but we ALL have to try to stop them.
* What gives here folks? NO COMPUTER IS THE BEST FOR EVERYTHING. The
* Amiga, Mac, IBM, NEXT etc. all have their good and bad points, and
* neither of them is suited for ALL types of work! If it hadn't been
Correctly said to Scott. In previous iterations of these never ending
stories of X vs Y vs ... whenever they've related to computers the end
(temporary) of the line for the involved parties is just as you say.
* for the Amiga though, cheap desktop video and multitasking would
* still be a fantasy.
Truly said, but the desire to say this sort of truth to non Amigans is
what can lead to trouble in the first place, no?
And the converse holds true for other PC's and their "truths".
* Scott
Sorry for the philosophising Scott. Moreover, I'm not flaming you but
I felt your article served a good spring-board for me to add a balance
to the debate.
yours truly,
Lou Cavallo.