Dennis_Grant@CMR001.BITNET (10/17/90)
(And, in his first post to c.s.a, he ventures out into the storm) :)
I have been reading (silently) the various c.s.a groups for some time
now, and I kept hearing about this guy named -MB-. Curiousity aroused, I
kept an eye out for his posts to see just why he was one of the best-loved
people on the net. I saw a few last week, and they weren't too bad - a
little emotional perhaps, but he raised a few good points.
Until today, that is. Once again, Mark raises a good point, but his
method of delivery is akin to that of a sledgehammer. Wow.
So I am now in the difficult position of defending his position, while
trying to remain inoffensive. Here goes: :)
With the release of these new, low-cost Macs, Commodore has a problem.
"How so?", you may ask, "as when you examine the fine print, the
same price level Amiga is almost an order of magnatude faster?"
Because: 1) Nobody knows about the Amiga.
2) Everybody knows about Macs.
3) People tend to believe salesmen, and it is possible in a
side by side comparison test, to make the Mac look much
better than the Amiga.
You see, looks count for a lot when you sell things. For example, the
Mazda Miata is really not all that different from a Chevette, mechanically
speaking. Even so, they sell very well (and at a higher price!) because
they look better.
The Mac OS looks much better than Workbench. 256 color icons? Useless,
I agree, but damn they look cool. Even MS windows looks better (read -
more professional) than poor old WB. It is difficult to look at WB and take
it seriously.
Mark is right about Amiga video displays. We have lost the lead in
both color and resolution, and our biggest advantage (the blitter) is now
a serious obstical in improving it. To be fair, I have not seen a A3000 yet
and the ECS will help in the resolution department, but more color will
help sell computers. And that, after all, is the name of the game.
What we need here is a better display, at least industry standard a la
VGA, a better looking WB, and above all else, ADVERTISING. Lots of it.
Build the machine beyond what the competition has and then let the world
know that you can buy it for less. That is what is needed, or things will
only get worse.
To the Commodore crew who may read this: You probably already know all
this, and don't need another person riding you, so I won't make this a
habit. As I understand it, work is being done right now to address this
very problem. Great. That's perfect. But unfortunately, your time is rather
short. It needs to be done quickly - and established deadlines must be met.
I told a bunch of IBM VGA dweebs that in mid September I was going to blow
them into the weeds with my new OS/chipset, and, quite frankly, they're
laughing at me now. Perhaps (and I mean this seriously, not sarcasticly)
you could let us know what is going on? Murphy strikes the best of us, and
a delay announcement would be fine, but the silence surrounding the fate
of the ECS smacks too closely of the Vapourware offered by the people who
are your biggest competitor, and is only causing harm to the Amiga's rep.
I love my Amiga, and I don't want too see it fail.
There. That's my $0.02 (CAN) Please feel free to reply in an
intelligent manner to either myself or the net. Mindless personal flames
please keep to yourself, and if I somehow have managed to offend someone,
I apologize in advance. (Gee, this ran rather long, didn't it?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dennis Grant DETUD595@CMR001.BITNET | There ain't no replacement |
| Computer Science (Systems) student | for cubic displacement. |
| at CMR. (The "other" MilCol) | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| All standard disclaimers apply |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|jbn35564@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson) (10/17/90)
Dennis_Grant@CMR001.BITNET writes: > You see, looks count for a lot when you sell things. > [...] > The Mac OS looks much better than Workbench. 256 color icons? Useless, >I agree, but damn they look cool. Even MS windows looks better (read - >more professional) than poor old WB. It is difficult to look at WB and take >it seriously. I totally agree. I think the 2.0 WB looks a little more professional, but the Mac, with all it's problems, I think still has a much better LOOKING display (and the NeXT is the ultimate in good looks, that I've seen). > To the Commodore crew who may read this: You probably already know all >this, and don't need another person riding you, so I won't make this a >habit. I don't know about this one...I'm sure we all have dreams of what we would have liked the Amiga 3000 to be, and dreams of what we think the 4000 should be, and I don't think that Commodore has different dreams, but from what they are selling, I seriously doubt if the Amiga can hold on in the light of the new NeXTs and Macs coming out. I can only hope that the competition will provide a well-needed kick-in-the-pants for Commodore. > As I understand it, work is being done right now to address this >very problem. Great. That's perfect. But unfortunately, your time is rather >short. It needs to be done quickly - and established deadlines must be met. >I told a bunch of IBM VGA dweebs that in mid September I was going to blow >them into the weeds with my new OS/chipset, and, quite frankly, they're >laughing at me now. Perhaps (and I mean this seriously, not sarcasticly) >you could let us know what is going on? I'm all for letting the public in on what's going on especially at a somewhat early stage because then the public can say, "Yeah, that's good - go with it," or, "No! We need <blah...>" >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >| Dennis Grant DETUD595@CMR001.BITNET | There ain't no replacement | >| Computer Science (Systems) student | for cubic displacement. | >| at CMR. (The "other" MilCol) | | >|--------------------------------------------------------------------| >| All standard disclaimers apply | >|--------------------------------------------------------------------| -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "Earth destroyed by solar flare. Film at eleven" - The last nightly news.| +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | jeffo@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu These opinions are mine, that's all.| +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (10/17/90)
In article <901016.15214734.033391@CMR.CP6> Dennis_Grant@CMR001.BITNET writes: > You see, looks count for a lot when you sell things. For example, the >Mazda Miata is really not all that different from a Chevette, mechanically >speaking. Even so, they sell very well (and at a higher price!) because >they look better. No! No! Bad, wicked, evil analogy. A Miata and a Chevette are day and night different. Drive with me from my house in Jersey to West Chester one day along these twisty Pennsylvania back roads at my preferred speed. We'll take the Miata the first day, because we won't make it in the Chevette, and you need a treat before you die. Certainly packaging plays a part, and you can attract people with a pretty wrapper. But if the allure extends throughout the machine, you get extra money from people who are not fools. > The Mac OS looks much better than Workbench. 256 color icons? Useless, >I agree, but damn they look cool. Even MS windows looks better (read - >more professional) than poor old WB. It is difficult to look at WB and take >it seriously. Which is of course why there's a shiny new Workbench to look at. > Mark is right about Amiga video displays. We have lost the lead in >both color and resolution, The A3000, as shipped, supports higher resolution than any Mac straight from Apple. There are a number of high resolution boards for the Mac, which is an advantage to those who need them. And they do support more colors. But they have no resolution advantage. >and above all else, ADVERTISING. Lots of it. There I agree. Advertising is what made the world think the Apple II was a business computer. If it could do that, it's capable of just about anything. >| Dennis Grant DETUD595@CMR001.BITNET | There ain't no replacement | -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold -REM
fhwri%CONNCOLL.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (10/17/90)
Just so you know, the WB 2.0 can hold its head up QUITE proudly next to
the Mac's interface. The clunkiness if 1.3 (which we all love if we're
true Amigoids, even if we wince when we see the admittedly elegant Mac...)
is gone, replaced by something VERY nice-looking, and VERY powerful.
--rw
fhwri@conncoll.bitnetgreg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (10/17/90)
In article <33695@nigel.ee.udel.edu> fhwri%CONNCOLL.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu writes: >Just so you know, the WB 2.0 can hold its head up QUITE proudly next to >the Mac's interface. The clunkiness if 1.3 (which we all love if we're >true Amigoids, even if we wince when we see the admittedly elegant Mac...) ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ >is gone, replaced by something VERY nice-looking, and VERY powerful. > --rw > fhwri@conncoll.bitnet Speak for yourself. I've always disliked the cutesy Mac OS. It's TOO detached from the machine. There's user-friendly OS's and then there's absurd OS's. If there ever was a condescending OS, it's the Mac's OS. It feels too much like a toy to be a computer. And finally, there's NO SHELL! ARG!!!!!!!!!!!! [I like shells, ok? :-) ] Greg ---------------Greg-Harp---------------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu---------------- AMIGA! // // Don't you just hate those long signature files? I mean, there oughta \X/ be a law. If I were in control, .sigs would get cut off if they were
rwm@atronx.UUCP (Russell McOrmond) (10/17/90)
In a message posted on 16 Oct 90 22:34:58 GMT,
jbn35564@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson) wrote:
JN>I totally agree. I think the 2.0 WB looks a little more professional, but
JN>the Mac, with all it's problems, I think still has a much better LOOKING
JN>display (and the NeXT is the ultimate in good looks, that I've seen).
I'd have to totally disagree with the Above. I have used Mac systems(
Carleton University is ran by Mac/Smalltalk freaks), and I have used Next.
I OWN a machine that runs 2.0, and I believe that it's feel is quite a bit
better than eithor of the above.
but, then again, I'm a power user, and often need to get down to the nitty
gritty of the system to gain the power that I need. Maybe that power just
does not exist on the Mac, and that is why it does not allow you to get down
to the Nitty Gritty. The USERS think that the Interface is great, and the
programmers tend to blame the interface on their un-ability to get to the
'power' of the O.S. Sounds like perfect Deception.
I can't understand how anyone can justify the existance of ANY Uni-tasking
system in todays market. We are talking about an Ancient concept that some
manufacturers are Just Realizing Exist (OS/2 - Let's now that you know it
exists, attempt to do it right), or people who still don't know it exists
(MS-DOS, Mac, Atari). As far as I'm concerned, the Next is the ONLY possible
competition given the machines that seem to be discussed here (Mac, Ibm,
Next, St).
JN>are selling, I seriously doubt if the Amiga can hold on in the light of the
JN>new NeXTs and Macs coming out. I can only hope that the competition will
Wanna Buy a Mac? Naw, I think I'll join my other friends who are jumping off
a Bridge this weekend.... ;-)
JN>I'm all for letting the public in on what's going on especially at a
JN>somewhat early stage because then the public can say, "Yeah, that's good - go
JN>with it," or, "No! We need <blah...>"
Look at the Circus that the A3000 became about a year ago (When no REAL
information is out). I know people that have NOT bought the A3000 because it
was not what they were told it was going to be, and believe that Commodore is
producing VapourWare. In actual fact, it is USENET that is creating the
Vapour by Mis-understanding the information that is given. I am all for
Commodore keeping Closed mouthed on everything. It's the only way to protect
themselves from the networks.
--
Opinions expressed in this message are my Own. My Employer does not even
know what these networks ARE.
Russell McOrmond rwm@atronx.UUCP {fts1,alzabo}!atronx!rwm
FidoNet 1:163/109 Net Support: (613) 230-2282
Amiga-Fidonet Support 1:1/109Dennis_Grant@CMR001.BITNET (10/17/90)
(Wow! My first post to CSA generates mail from Marc and a post from Dave
Haynie! Two celebrities in one blow! Now I can die happy.)
:) :) :)
Please be patient with me when it comes to answering posts. This mega-
archaic MAIL program doesn't do quotes.
Dave Haynie writes:
>Bad,wicked,evil analogy. A Miata and a Chevette are day and night
>different. [stuff deleted]
Not really when you look at the mechanicals. Both are 4-cylinder, low
displacement, front-drive small cars. Even (if I recall correctly) the
suspension is comparable. (Although the Mazda has better tires) The biggest
difference, styling aside, is that the Chevette can carry two more people.
:)
(Mr. Haynie, take a look at my sig. There is a Chevelle Laguna behind that
motto. Wanna race? :) )
More seriously,
>The A3000, as shipped, supports higher resolution than any Mac straight
>from Apple.
Good point, and very true, but how many A3000's have been sold? I'd
love to have one, but I can't afford it. (yet) And as the A3000 is price
compareable to the Macs, wouldn't it be better to have that advantage in
the cheaper machines as well? (A500,2000)
Incidently, why didn't the A3000 add an extra bitplane? I seem to
recall an allowance for one in the OS. (no flame, just curiosity)
>Which is of course why there is a shiny new Workbench to look at.
I'm looking foward to seeing it.
As a footnote to this, this morning I was listening to CHOM FM,
and the morning show announcer was falling all over himself telling
Montreal just how good the new Apple computer TV commercial was.
Something to the effect of "it makes you want to jump out of your
chair and yell "Yeah!"" The power of advertising, what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dennis Grant DETUD595@CMR001.BITNET | There ain't no replacement |
| Computer Science (Systems) student | for cubic displacement. |
| at CMR. (The "other" MilCol) | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| All standard disclaimers apply |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (10/18/90)
In article <901016.15214734.033391@CMR.CP6> Dennis_Grant@CMR001.BITNET writes: >(And, in his first post to c.s.a, he ventures out into the storm) :) > > With the release of these new, low-cost Macs, Commodore has a problem. > > "How so?", you may ask, "as when you examine the fine print, the >same price level Amiga is almost an order of magnatude faster?" > > Because: 1) Nobody knows about the Amiga. > 2) Everybody knows about Macs. > 3) People tend to believe salesmen, and it is possible in a > side by side comparison test, to make the Mac look much > better than the Amiga. > > You see, looks count for a lot when you sell things. For example, the >Mazda Miata is really not all that different from a Chevette, mechanically >speaking. Even so, they sell very well (and at a higher price!) because >they look better. Well then, you have just proved my point, and lots of others. The new Macs are not a problem, and any other Mac is not the problem, its the MARKETING. Apple could slap a new case on Vic20's and sell them for $6000 if they wanted to. > The Mac OS looks much better than Workbench. 256 color icons? Useless, >I agree, but damn they look cool. Even MS windows looks better (read - >more professional) than poor old WB. It is difficult to look at WB and take >it seriously. Ahem. Windows is slow and looks like crap IMHO. Have you seen WB 2.0? If Amiga salesmen wanted to be sneaky like Apple, they could have demostration machines set up with Digitized sound, Video Toasters, and animated Icons. (something the Mac couldn't do fast enough) and then say 'This is what you get with the machine.' If you or Marc want to push the idea that 'Bells and Whistles' sell the machine, then you must agree that the Amiga has many more bells and whistles than the Mac has, built in. I have never seen a Mac demo compare to the European Amiga demos (Ala CryptoBurners Mega Demo). In fact, from what i've heard, that Mac can't have bitplanes located at any address (like the Bitplane vectors on the Amiga) instead they have 2 area's set aside for video mem,which makes it hard to do double buffering. Although this is hearsay. 256 color icons are 'Bells and Whistles', this is something the Amiga can easily do better than the Mac, even WITHOUT 16million colors. > Mark is right about Amiga video displays. We have lost the lead in >both color and resolution, and our biggest advantage (the blitter) is now >a serious obstical in improving it. To be fair, I have not seen a A3000 yet >and the ECS will help in the resolution department, but more color will >help sell computers. And that, after all, is the name of the game. Rubbish, the average home buyer doesn't say 'Gee, you have 24bit color? I know what that is.' In fact people who never owned computers before probably don't know what a 'bit' is. Its the SALEMAN who makes them think they need color. For instance the saleman could say,'Hmm, for your needs, I think your need this 24bit card, a CDROM drive, and 16 megs of ram. That will be $7000 please. We accept visa.' > What we need here is a better display, at least industry standard a la >VGA, a better looking WB, and above all else, ADVERTISING. Lots of it. ^^^^^^^^^^^ >Build the machine beyond what the competition has and then let the world >know that you can buy it for less. That is what is needed, or things will >only get worse. Finally we get to the real point. Don't make it look like the amiga has a HARDWARE problem. It all has to do with advertising and software. If we had retargetable graphics(not VGA, IBMs have no OS level windowing/interface support. You have to BUY Ms windows, OS/2, etc seperate.),the cards would come pooring in. There are already several graphic cards being built for the Amiga, ranging from hi powered transputer cards, to TI34020 boards that would beat any Mac/IBM VGA, except they have the bottle neck of the OS. > To the Commodore crew who may read this: You probably already know all >this, and don't need another person riding you, so I won't make this a >habit. As I understand it, work is being done right now to address this >very problem. Great. That's perfect. But unfortunately, your time is rather >short. It needs to be done quickly - and established deadlines must be met. >I told a bunch of IBM VGA dweebs that in mid September I was going to blow >them into the weeds with my new OS/chipset, and, quite frankly, they're >laughing at me now. Perhaps (and I mean this seriously, not sarcasticly) >you could let us know what is going on? Murphy strikes the best of us, and >a delay announcement would be fine, but the silence surrounding the fate >of the ECS smacks too closely of the Vapourware offered by the people who >are your biggest competitor, and is only causing harm to the Amiga's rep. I never expected to see the ECS have 24bit color, and I never do. It would take a lot of hacking on the CHIP bus. (7mhz, 16bit) This is too slow for 24bit graphics, 8bitplanes, animation, hires. You know, the Amiga is great, because is has a great expansion bus (Zorro III), I would rather have color cards go there, or the videoslot, instead of being welded on the Amiga motherboard. > I love my Amiga, and I don't want too see it fail. It won't. As long as people still own Amigas,it won't. There are still a LARGE number of C64 users out there who religously keep their machines. Just because Apple repackages old technology into a new case, with a better slogan, doesn't mean we will all sell our Amigas and buy Macs. I like the Amiga's environment better than the Mac. And if I ever get another machine, it won't be a Mac, it will be a UNIX (A3000 UX). Have you ever considered your motivations for 'screaming for color.' I think its because you want color. (no offense) Not everyone is sold on bells and whistles, if they were, Nitendo would be dead and Sega would easily take over the market. A large number of IBM users don't have a GUI like we do. So saying people are sold because of the Mac's GUI don't hold water to the majority of the market. Me personally? I don't use workbench at all, I stay in my shell where I have more power and freedom. > There. That's my $0.02 (CAN) Please feel free to reply in an >intelligent manner to either myself or the net. Mindless personal flames >please keep to yourself, and if I somehow have managed to offend someone, >I apologize in advance. (Gee, this ran rather long, didn't it?) > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >| Dennis Grant DETUD595@CMR001.BITNET | There ain't no replacement | >| Computer Science (Systems) student | for cubic displacement. | >| at CMR. (The "other" MilCol) | | >|--------------------------------------------------------------------| >| All standard disclaimers apply | >|--------------------------------------------------------------------| No doubt I have probably offended some people with opinions at one time or another. Don't worry, its because i'm an Amiga fanatic. (but I use Unix more of the time.) -- "NeXTs are useless... Mac's are irrelevent.. IBM's are futile. Amiga's,however, are quite nice!" -Capt Jeal-Luc Amiga | Flames to /dev/null Ray Cromwell rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu | // AMIGA! \\ "Your software will adapt to service ours!"| \X/ AMIGA! \X/
xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (10/18/90)
In article <901017.09584647.033595@CMR.CP6>, Dennis_Grant@CMR001.BITNET writes... ^(Wow! My first post to CSA generates mail from Marc and a post from Dave ^ Haynie! Two celebrities in one blow! Now I can die happy.) ^:) :) :) ^ ^ Please be patient with me when it comes to answering posts. This mega- ^archaic MAIL program doesn't do quotes. ^ ^ Dave Haynie writes: ^>Bad,wicked,evil analogy. A Miata and a Chevette are day and night ^>different. [stuff deleted] ^ ^ Not really when you look at the mechanicals. Both are 4-cylinder, low ^displacement, front-drive small cars. Even (if I recall correctly) the ^suspension is comparable. (Although the Mazda has better tires) The biggest ^difference, styling aside, is that the Chevette can carry two more people. ^:) Nope, sorry...the Miata is a rear wheel drive car. I don't recall if it is a mid-engined death cart or not. Handles much nicer than your typical econo-box but it still isn't a real sports car. Not enough power and a bit sluggish on the handling. ^ ^(Mr. Haynie, take a look at my sig. There is a Chevelle Laguna behind that ^ motto. Wanna race? :) ) ^ ^ More seriously, ^>The A3000, as shipped, supports higher resolution than any Mac straight ^>from Apple. ^ ^ Good point, and very true, but how many A3000's have been sold? I'd ^love to have one, but I can't afford it. (yet) And as the A3000 is price ^compareable to the Macs, wouldn't it be better to have that advantage in ^the cheaper machines as well? (A500,2000) ^ I thought that they were being sold as fast as they were made. I know people who have really gone bonkers in order to scrounge enough money to get one. Besides up until the release of the new Macs the A500/A2000 are cheaper than the comparable Macs. The arguement continues to rage over whether or not these new Macs are more bang for the buck than the A500/A2000 lines. [stuff deleted] ^ NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.
pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) (10/18/90)
In a previous article, Dennis_Grant@CMR001.BITNET () says: > > Dave Haynie writes: >>Bad,wicked,evil analogy. A Miata and a Chevette are day and night >>different. [stuff deleted] > > Not really when you look at the mechanicals. Both are 4-cylinder, low >displacement, front-drive small cars. Even (if I recall correctly) the >suspension is comparable. (Although the Mazda has better tires) The biggest >difference, styling aside, is that the Chevette can carry two more people. >:) Not really Dennis, the Chevette was a front engine, rear wheel drive car. It was based on an even older design from Opel (the Kadett I believe). It had a soft, mushy suspension, low grade brakes and tires, low grade interior, low tech engine, just about low grade everything. It was strictly a cheap econobox. The Mazda Miata is also front engine, rear wheel drive. That's where the similarity ends. The Miata has a DOHC fuel injected 4 cyl engine thats a very modern design, It has an unbeleivably quick, smooth 5 speed vs. the clunky 4sp. on the Chevette, its about 6-7 seconds faster from 0-60 then the Chevette, it has near perfect weight distribution and corners as if on rails. When driven with enthusiasm it gives a thrilling driving experience. Its a true sports car in my book. I wouldn't want to be buried in a Chevette, but I would be proud to drive a Miata anywhere. PS: Please cross-post to comp.sys.amiga.cars :) :) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >| Dennis Grant DETUD595@CMR001.BITNET | There ain't no replacement | >| Computer Science (Systems) student | for cubic displacement. | >| at CMR. (The "other" MilCol) | | >|--------------------------------------------------------------------| >| All standard disclaimers apply | >|--------------------------------------------------------------------| > -- /// Pete Babic - pab@po.cwru.edu | /// /\ Integrated Library Systems | \\\ /// /--\MIGA Case Western Reserve University | \\\/// The future is here now!
fhwri%CONNCOLL.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (10/18/90)
My head is hung in shame; I called the Mac's interface "admittedly elegant."
As a friend of mine sez about the Mac interface, "It insults my intel-
igence!" I agree. However, people have told me that WB 1.3 looks "clunky"
compared to the Mac. I also HATE a machine that has no shell. I promise
to not make such wide-sweepint statements. Having a 1000 (4 years old), I
need a Rejuvenator before I can feast my eyes on 2.0. It'd be worth it.
--rw
fhwri@conncoll.bitnetlsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (10/19/90)
rwm@atronx.UUCP (Russell McOrmond) writes: > but, then again, I'm a power user, and often need to get down to the nitty >gritty of the system to gain the power that I need. Maybe that power just >does not exist on the Mac, and that is why it does not allow you to get down The "power" is available where needed (in development systems, for example). >to the Nitty Gritty. The USERS think that the Interface is great, and the Horrors! Those USERS just get in the way of everything. (Too bad they're the ones spending the money.) -- Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 3-PK Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (10/19/90)
Hey, we've attracted some attention ;) Must be because we have such a great computer [couldn't be for the conversation...] Clark Anderson (anderson@apple.com) writes: >It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. A nice quote, but what if those tools are inadequate? My father once bought a grease gun from Sears. More grease came out the back end than the front. On the other hand, I don't think Mac's are inadequate writing tools -- look how many newspaper places are using them.... However: In article <10803@goofy.Apple.COM> lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes: >The "power" is available where needed (in development systems, for example). It's not just power, it's flexibility. GUI's have [at least] two different uses -- they allow a broader number of people to use them, and they allow a more gradual learning curve for people trying to use the system. But if I've got a 12 level directory, and I want some text out of that 12th directory -- I'll open a shell. To shame with the iconic interface, it just gets in my way. I have, in a sense, graduated from the need for the holding hand of <insert name of UI>. My father has a Mac IIci with Microsoft Word, and an old Xerox 820-II with Wordstar. You can bet if we could still get that old beast to boot, he'd be using Wordstar, not MWord. You may debate the logic, but there you have it. He's no programmer, his office buys Macs almost exclusively. But he's already graduated Wordstar, ya'see.... >Horrors! Those USERS just get in the way of everything. (Too bad they're >the ones spending the money.) Interesting -- and I thought businesses bought computers and that the home market was dead? Or have strategies already been changed? ;) ;) All meant in good humor, of course! David Navas navas@sim.berkeley.edu "Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me
p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) (10/22/90)
In article <28954@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: >But if I've got a 12 level directory, and I want some text out of that >12th directory -- I'll open a shell. To shame with the iconic interface, >it just gets in my way. I have, in a sense, graduated from the need for >the holding hand of <insert name of UI>. Not quite a good comparison. It's true when the common paradigm (file system tree) is used with the graphical user interface. But it the interface is designed well it would hide this, think of Hypermedia. Regards, -- Michael van Elst UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
planting@cs.pitt.edu (Professor Harry Plantinga) (10/22/90)
In article <15198@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > > The A3000, as shipped, supports higher resolution than any Mac straight > from Apple. There are a number of high resolution boards for the Mac, which > is an advantage to those who need them. And they do support more colors. > But they have no resolution advantage. > > Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" Ooo ooo, now the disinformation is coming straight from Commodore! Does the A3000, as shipped, come with better resolution than my Mac II, with an Apple 21" 1152x870x8-bit grayscale monitor and an Apple 13" 640x480x24-bit color monitor? It doesn't come cheap, though; the total educational price at my university for these two monitors and the associated video cards is $2546. ---------- Harry Plantinga planting@cs.pitt.edu
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (10/23/90)
In article <901017.09584647.033595@CMR.CP6> Dennis_Grant@CMR001.BITNET writes: > Dave Haynie writes: >>Bad,wicked,evil analogy. A Miata and a Chevette are day and night >>different. [stuff deleted] > Not really when you look at the mechanicals. Both are 4-cylinder, low >displacement, front-drive small cars. Even (if I recall correctly) the >suspension is comparable. The Miata is rear wheel drive. Front drive would not have made any sense. And while there are both 4-cylinder engines, the engines are very different. Both the VAX 11/780 and the MIPS R6000 based computers have 32 bit CPUs, but they are hardly equivalent in power. Similarly, there can be a world of difference between cars with the same basic kind of suspension, even if these are similar in basic design (don't really know what's in a Chevette, I only know that it prevents safe fast cornering at high speeds). Anyone who doesn't appreciate the difference shouldn't pay the extra money. > Good point, and very true, but how many A3000's have been sold? Probably about as many as Commodore could make since around May/June when they really started coming off the production lines. But you don't just stamp these things out like C64s. I have heard a number of complaints about waits to get A3000s; hopefully that's not the case any longer. >And as the A3000 is price compareable to the Macs, wouldn't it be better to >have that advantage in the cheaper machines as well? (A500,2000) You don't get color in any Mac similar in price to an A500. You can add this to an A2000. The A2000 has less of a bang/buck out of the box than an A500, since you have to pay for a 200Watt power supply vs. the 500's 35 or so Watts, lots of board and case space for expansion boards, etc. The A500 and the new Macs can cut down on system cost by disallowing much expansion. > Incidently, why didn't the A3000 add an extra bitplane? I seem to >recall an allowance for one in the OS. (no flame, just curiosity) The OS would probably allow several, but the A3000 still uses a version of the ECS Amiga chips, which don't support anything like that. >| Dennis Grant DETUD595@CMR001.BITNET | There ain't no replacement | -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold -REM
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (10/24/90)
In article <8934@pitt.UUCP> planting@cs.pitt.edu (Professor Harry Plantinga) writes: >In article <15198@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave >Haynie) writes: >> >> The A3000, as shipped, supports higher resolution than any Mac straight >> from Apple. There are a number of high resolution boards for the Mac, >which >> is an advantage to those who need them. And they do support more colors. >> But they have no resolution advantage. >> >> Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > >Ooo ooo, now the disinformation is coming straight from Commodore! Does >the A3000, as shipped, come with better resolution than my Mac II, with an >Apple 21" 1152x870x8-bit grayscale monitor and an Apple 13" 640x480x24-bit color monitor? > >It doesn't come cheap, though; the total educational price at my university for these two monitors and the associated video cards is $2546. > > >---------- >Harry Plantinga >planting@cs.pitt.edu I beleive Dave was talking about the fact that an A3000 can produce resolutions up to 1280x400 or greater when overscanned (also 640x960 this also can be overscanned) And with the A2024 monitor you get even a higher resolution. This isn't disinformation, its the truth. To get 1152x870 you said you need to buy a special CARD and MONITOR. Dave said, 'Higher resolution than comes with the Mac from apple.' Which is true. You need add on cards for the Mac to do better. (p.s. Resolution has nothing to do with the amount of colors. Its the horizontal and verticle divisions of the screen. So 640x400x4 colors is the same resolution as 640x400x8bit) -- "NeXTs are useless... Mac's are irrelevent.. IBM's are futile. Amiga's,however, are quite nice!" -Capt Jeal-Luc Amiga | Flames to /dev/null Ray Cromwell rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu | // AMIGA! \\ "Your software will adapt to service ours!"| \X/ AMIGA! \X/
ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) (10/24/90)
In article <1990Oct23.170305.26130@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <8934@pitt.UUCP> planting@cs.pitt.edu (Professor Harry Plantinga) writes: >>In article <15198@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave >>Haynie) writes: >>> >>> The A3000, as shipped, supports higher resolution than any Mac straight >>> from Apple. There are a number of high resolution boards for the Mac,which >>> is an advantage to those who need them. And they do support more colors. >>> But they have no resolution advantage. >>Ooo ooo, now the disinformation is coming straight from Commodore! Does >>the A3000, as shipped, come with better resolution than my Mac II, with an >>Apple 21" 1152x870x8-bit grayscale monitor and an Apple 13" 640x480x24-bit color monitor? > I beleive Dave was talking about the fact that an A3000 can produce >resolutions up to 1280x400 or greater when overscanned (also 640x960 this >also can be overscanned) And with the A2024 monitor you get even a higher >resolution. This isn't disinformation, its the truth. To get 1152x870 >you said you need to buy a special CARD and MONITOR. Dave said, >'Higher resolution than comes with the Mac from apple.' Which is true. >You need add on cards for the Mac to do better. Yes, you need add-on cards...*from Apple*. In fact, Mr. Haynie's statement is false, since you can buy a mac *straight from apple* that will support higher resolutions than the A3000. I am not aware of all graphics modes currently supported on the 3000, but please note that the resolutions which you specified are below the resolution noted by Mr. Plantinga on his Apple-supplied system. >(p.s. Resolution has nothing to do with the amount of colors. Its the >horizontal and verticle divisions of the screen. So 640x400x4 colors >is the same resolution as 640x400x8bit) Did anyone claim otherwise? -- Don DeVoe \"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders ddev@wam.umd.edu \ what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of" -TMBG
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (10/24/90)
In article <8934@pitt.UUCP> planting@cs.pitt.edu (Professor Harry Plantinga) writes: >In article <15198@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave >Haynie) writes: >> The A3000, as shipped, supports higher resolution than any Mac straight >> from Apple. .... >Ooo ooo, now the disinformation is coming straight from Commodore! Does >the A3000, as shipped, come with better resolution than my Mac II, with an >Apple 21" 1152x870x8-bit grayscale monitor and an Apple 13" 640x480x24-bit color monitor? OK, so I didn't know about the Apple greyscale or monochrome monitor. I actually have a Commodore greyscale monitor hooked directly to my A2500/30, which does 1008x1024, but only in 2 bitplanes. Same applies to the 3000. The basic machine only does around 720x530x4 bitplanes or 1300x530x2 if you get ambitious with overscan, in color. You need different monitors for the hires monochrome vs. the color, but no change of graphics board or anything. I wasn't claiming a color depth advantage, which I knew has been there for awhile. >It doesn't come cheap, though; the total educational price at my university >for these two monitors and the associated video cards is $2546. I think you'd pay about $1200, retail price, for both of these monitors. >Harry Plantinga -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Standing on the shoulders of giants leaves me cold -REM
xwm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Alexei Rodriguez) (10/24/90)
[quotes about mac-graphics not included] What Mr Haynie was saying about factory-direct Mac graphics was that your Mac-out-of-the-box will not have the same graphics capabilities that a A3000 has. Yes, you can ask (and pay more) for better graphics cards and monitors but your base mac does not. Please, lets stop the bickering about "disinformation". SOme people obviously jumped the gun and posted without having thought about what Mr Haynie was saying. I for one highly repect the opinions of Dave Haynie. People should read posts more carefully and put more thought into what they say. C-ya-later! Alexei Rodriguez
geff@iastate.edu (Underwood Geoffrey Dale) (10/24/90)
In article <1990Oct23.170305.26130@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <8934@pitt.UUCP> planting@cs.pitt.edu (Professor Harry Plantinga) writes: >>In article <15198@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave >>Haynie) writes: >>> >>> The A3000, as shipped, supports higher resolution than any Mac straight >>> from Apple. >>> >>> Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" >> >>Ooo ooo, now the disinformation is coming straight from Commodore! Does >>the A3000, as shipped, come with better resolution than my Mac II, with an >>Apple 21" 1152x870x8-bit grayscale monitor and an Apple 13" 640x480x24-bit >> color monitor? >> >>---------- >>Harry Plantinga >>planting@cs.pitt.edu > > I beleive Dave was talking about the fact that an A3000 can produce >resolutions up to 1280x400 or greater when overscanned (also 640x960 this >also can be overscanned) And with the A2024 monitor you get even a higher >resolution. This isn't disinformation, its the truth. To get 1152x870 >you said you need to buy a special CARD and MONITOR. Dave said, >'Higher resolution than comes with the Mac from apple.' Which is true. >You need add on cards for the Mac to do better. > >-- >"NeXTs are useless... Mac's are irrelevent.. IBM's are futile. Amiga's,however, >are quite nice!" -Capt Jeal-Luc Amiga | Flames to /dev/null >Ray Cromwell rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu | // AMIGA! \\ >"Your software will adapt to service ours!"| \X/ AMIGA! \X/ A Mac // needs a CARD and MONITOR to have any video at all. This is also true of the //x and the //cx. Apple sells such cards and monitors. If somebody really wanted to, they could buy a //fx with six 8*24GC cards (each of which has a RISC processor) and large monitors, all straight from Apple. I don't know what application would recommend this over a fast UNIX workstation with a few X terminals (or cheap UNIX workstations), but Apple will be happy to sell every component that would be required. Geff Underwood geff@iastate.edu
joseph@valnet.UUCP (Joseph P. Hillenburg) (10/25/90)
planting@cs.pitt.edu (Professor Harry Plantinga) writes: > <901016.15214734.033391@CMR.CP6> <15198@cbmvax.commodore.com> > > In article <15198@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave > Haynie) writes: > > > > The A3000, as shipped, supports higher resolution than any Mac straight > > from Apple. There are a number of high resolution boards for the Mac, > which > > is an advantage to those who need them. And they do support more colors. > > But they have no resolution advantage. > > > > Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > > Ooo ooo, now the disinformation is coming straight from Commodore! Does > the A3000, as shipped, come with better resolution than my Mac II, with an > Apple 21" 1152x870x8-bit grayscale monitor and an Apple 13" 640x480x24-bit co > > It doesn't come cheap, though; the total educational price at my university f > > > ---------- > Harry Plantinga > planting@cs.pitt.edu > > However, 2.2 can be made to ignore the math co-processor (and thus will > not fail if one isn't present) if you hold down the Command, Option, > and Shift keys during the program's startup. > > > Excel 2.2a, which has been shipping since shortly after Apple informed > developers this s ARGH! You should have read Dave's post more carefully! He said "straight from Apple" which means just any Mac with the standard monitor. You need video cards to get a higher resolution than the A3000. Just remember: It's not nice to flame a net.god. -Joseph Hillenburg UUCP: ...iuvax!valnet!joseph ARPA: valnet!joseph@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu INET: joseph@valnet.UUCP
Dave@avignon.gbdt.oz.au (Dave Moore) (10/25/90)
(I'm going to hate myself in the morning for this)
Look, I've tried to stayt out of this flame-fest, but one point has been
raised that I would like to address.
Now I admit, when it comes to Macs I'm not your typical user, you see I'm
currently programming them for a living. It's from this viewpoint I'd like to
make a few small points. The point in question is that Mac software is more
proffesional than the Amiga counterpart.
(1) I have yet to see ANY mac C compiler (and believe me, i've looked at a
few) that produces code anywhere up to the standard of Lattice 5.05. I've
compiled the SAME routines on both and Lattice is streets ahead in speed and
size)
(2) The RKM's are much better organised and contain more useful data/details
than the Mac equivs. Strange really, AmigaDos has a lot more to speak
about and does it better and with less tree-wastage (:-).
The amiga enviroment (even if you avoid task switching like the plague)
is a lot easier to work with, and provides far more options. A lot of mac
editors will only read THEIR files. So you can find yourself using two almost
identical (but not enough to ignore) editors. On my amiga the only question
is if the editor can produce an ascii file.
If you REALLY HAVE TO, you can make a self booting disk that takes
over the entire machine on the amiga. Commodore even tell you how to do this
and what you SHOULDN'T do. Whilst it's not impossible to do this on the Mac,
it's harder, and Apple don't bother giving any guidelines that I've found..
Last point. PD (in particular Fred Fish). I have yet to see anything
of this scope for the Mac. (It may exist, but not so I've noticed yet) This
means that the average programmer doesn't need to re-invent a heap of wheels
to do a task.
Like I said, these are definitely just IMHO, but thats how it strikes
me. And I agree these points are a totally different kettle of sea-life from
the standard "why hasn't Word(tm) been ported to the amiga" argument.
Dave.
============================================================================
Dave Moore |
|shift it to the left, shift it to the right
EMail: Dave@avignon.gbdt.oz.au | push down, pop up, byte byte byte!
Disclaimer: Of course these are just my opinions, whose else should I post?waw5805@isc.rit.edu (W.A. Willis ) (10/27/90)
>Article 2162 of comp.sys.amiga: >Path: nowhere!ritcsh!cci632!uupsi!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!dsinc!bagate!cbmvax!daveh >From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) >Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga >Subject: Re: Macs etc. >Message-ID: <15321@cbmvax.commodore.com> >Date: 22 Oct 90 19:20:06 GMT >References: <901017.09584647.033595@CMR.CP6> >Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) >Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA >Lines: 46 >>In article <901017.09584647.033595@CMR.CP6> Dennis_Grant@CMR001.BITNET writes: >> Incidently, why didn't the A3000 add an extra bitplane? I seem to >>recall an allowance for one in the OS. (no flame, just curiosity) >The OS would probably allow several, but the A3000 still uses a version of the >ECS Amiga chips, which don't support anything like that. Ahh. Am I the only one that detects an implication of a future feature of ECS?