daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (07/27/90)
In article <27770@athertn.Atherton.COM> paul@Atherton.COM (Paul Sander) writes: >I compared comparable machines. The Mac IIci is second from the top, right >below the Mac IIfx, really shouldn't be compared with the Amiga. The memory >is comparable, the processor speed is the same, disk is comparable. The IIci and the 3000, unexpanded, do compare favorably. I would compare a IIci with an A3000@25Mhz and a IIx with an A3000@16MHz, as these are the closest comparisons you can draw, however flawed. >Actually, it appears to be the market's perception. Everyone I've talked to >believes the number and quality of applications available for the Mac is >higher than for the Amiga. Don't know about quality, but maybe I'm biased -- the one program for the Mac I use (because it's only on a Mac, not Amiga or PC) is by far the buggiest program of any kind I have ever used. In general, there are indeed more programs available for the Mac. And even more for the PC. This is likely to imply more variety, which except for certain markets (video/animation for one) is true. It doesn't mean the Amiga is necessarily lacking in any particular area. >Certain electronic CAD packages, for example. If you're looking for a specific, brand name program, and that's your reason for buying a computer, by all means, pick the program and then buy the platform that runs it which best fits your needs. If you're looking for a specific type of program, there are only a few I haven't found for the Amiga. >Something I've looked for and haven't found yet is support for PLD >programmers. If you're programming PLDs, you better have a PC. All the best PLD programming software is on the PCs, and occasionally one other platform. We use CUPL and occasionally Amaze here, and despite it's flaws, a PClone can serve as a perfectly good PAL programmer. >The stuff I do is CPU intensive; compiles and debugging sessions mainly, with >just enough video support to show me what I'm doing. Debugging is rarely CPU intensive, it's brain intensive. Compiling is about 1/2 CPU and 1/2 disk intensive. Unless you have lots of memory, or an Amiga, at which point it's all CPU intensive. In other words, Amigas have about the fastest hard disk interfaces you can get on a desktop computer. The A2091 controller from Commodore easily shows you the difference between the fastest SCSI drives on the market, and the A3000's internal SCSI interface is yet again faster. And it's not just disk speed; the difference between the A3000's FIFOed 32 bit DMA and the Mac IIci's CPU polled 8 bit port read is eated out of the Mac IIci's CPU time. You may not notice this on the single-tasking Mac, but you will under UNIX should that be important to you. >Do you really think an A/UX buyer will be "stuck" with rel 2? Surely Apple >updates their software like everyone else. Sure, Apple updates their software. However, not like everyone else, near as I can tell. Apple has JUST released A/UX 2.0, and it's still release 2. They seem to have done a fine job, this time, of integrating UNIX and MacOS. You can even write UNIX applications that use the Mac GUI. But who cares? UNIX V.4 has a standard GUI that's NOT the Mac GUI; the last thing UNIX needs is Yet Another GUI. So, it's anyone's guess as to whether Apple will update their software _like everyone else_. >If they don't need it, the Amiga will force upon them the added overhead of >a preemptive task scheduler which will slow them down slightly. Not true. The Amiga system itself uses multitasking, so even if you're just running a single program, you're winning more than losing. Multitasking is the main reason the system is still responsive even when you're saving a file or doing some terribly long calculation. You can still move windows, etc. You don't just lock up like a Mac or PC does, and supporting this kind of thing in the OS makes it all that much more efficient. >Paul Sander (408) 734-9822 | "Passwords are like underwear," she said, >paul@Atherton.COM | "Both should be changed often." >{decwrl,pyramid,sun}!athertn!paul | -- Bennett Falk in "Mom Meets Unix" -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy The Dave Haynie branch of the New Zealand Fan Club
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (07/27/90)
While I'm flame-baiting here, I figured I would start another war by asking,
for real, for an answer to the long established belief that seem pretty
prevalent these days that you can get a PC Clone, roughly equivalent to
the A3000, for less money. I'm think whole machine here, not one particular
feature, and I think that may tend to make this comparison more difficult
for the PC fan. But what do I know about PCs. Let's find out; here's the
system I'm looking for:
PC Equivalent for A3000:
- 80386DX @ 25MHz
- 80387DX @ 25MHz
- 2 Megs basic, 16 Megs total 32 bit memory
- On board 32 bit DMA-driven hard disk controller
- 31kHz Video (plain VGA will do)
- EISA bus with at least four slots
- Slot for low cost 80486 add-in
- Unoccupied serial and parallel ports
- Microsoft or similar mouse
- Microsoft Windows 3.0
Well, that's the best equivalent I can cook up. It's far from perfect,
but then, an exact equivalent is impossible. I don't think anything's way
off base here; if so, flame away. Anyway, does such a beast exist? What
would it cost? Around $3000, or can you get a Taiwan Special with all this
stuff for $1500 as lots of people seem to think. Me, I really don't know,
and wouldn't want the PC for myself anyway, but it's an interesting
challenge.
--
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
{uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy
The Dave Haynie branch of the New Zealand Fan Clubmwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (07/28/90)
In article <13466@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
While I'm flame-baiting here, I figured I would start another war by asking,
for real, for an answer to the long established belief that seem pretty
prevalent these days that you can get a IBM clone, roughly equivalent to
the A3000, for less money.
PC Equivalent for A3000:
- 80386DX @ 25MHz
- 80387DX @ 25MHz
- 2 Megs basic, 16 Megs total 32 bit memory
- On board 32 bit DMA-driven hard disk controller
- 31kHz Video (plain VGA will do)
- EISA bus with at least four slots
- Slot for low cost 80486 add-in
- Unoccupied serial and parallel ports
- Microsoft or similar mouse
- Microsoft Windows 3.0
Dave, you forgot one critical feature that both should have: Unix
available today. Hmm, I think the Amiga just lost out, didn't it?
The point is that very few people buy machines for bragging rights
(though a lot get used that way :-), but buy them for some specific
purpose. The machines can't be equivalent for all purposes, so the
best you can do is equivalent for some purposes; I recommend the
buyers.
For example, given the memory & onboard HD, I don't want or need that
many slots. I could probably get by with one, and ISA would do fine.
I may never even use that. The cost just fell. Likewise, I don't do
much (if any) math-intensive stuff. I was willing to buy an A2000
accelerater sans 6888x, why shouldn't I give the same break to the IBM
clone? The price falls again. Also, trying to build into the high end
is takes away some of the IBM clone's edge. Let's look at the low end.
Calling the local Amiga dealer that I've found to have lowest prices
on things as a general rule, I get a quote on a stock 2000 of $1439.
Calling a local IBM clone dealer recommended by a friend, for $1500 I
get a 386-20/0 with a 1.4Meg floppy, VGA, 1Meg of ram and 40Meg of
hard disk.
I was attempting to buy as much hardware as I could get for the price.
I didn't ask about x87 chips, and forgot that I needed to leave room
for windows 3.0. List on windows is $200 or $300; I can save $250 on
that IBM clone system by going to a 286-12/0, and still have enough
cash left over to upgrade to a 100 meg disk.
While neither is your "equivalent" system, for my purposes either one
is closer to a 3000 than a 2000. The 286 system needs more memory, but
even adding that leaves it cheaper than my 2000, and competitive with
it.
I expect you're right - if you throw in all the hardware you
specified, and add that it must come from a manufacturer at least as
stable as CBM, the IBM clone will probably cost nearly as much as the
3000. However, there probably aren't many people who need or want
everything the 3000 has to offer (which is lots), and many people are
willing to buy something that may be an orphan or need repair a little
more often, neither of which is as catastrophic with an IBM clone as
with an Amiga. With the Amiga, you get two choices at that price or
performance level (2500 or 3000). With the IBM clone, you get many
choices, which allows the buyer to shave the corners they don't care
about. The net result is that many people can buy a system that is as
good as the 3000 for their purposes, while spending a lot fewer bucks.
<mike
--
The weather is here, I wish you were beautiful. Mike Meyer
My thoughts aren't too clear, but don't run away. mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
My girlfriend's a bore, my job is too dutiful. decwrl!mwm
Hell nobody's perfect, would you like to play?joonsong@monsoon.Berkeley.EDU (Suk-Hyun Song) (07/29/90)
In article <13466@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes: > PC Equivalent for A3000: > > - 80386DX @ 25MHz > - 80387DX @ 25MHz > - 2 Megs basic, 16 Megs total 32 bit memory > - On board 32 bit DMA-driven hard disk controller > - 31kHz Video (plain VGA will do) > - EISA bus with at least four slots > - Slot for low cost 80486 add-in > - Unoccupied serial and parallel ports > - Microsoft or similar mouse > - Microsoft Windows 3.0 This is a highly specific configuration. Putting together such a system may take some doing. But how about a PC system comparable in power to the A3000. I flipped through a copy of Microtimes, and here is what I came up with: - 80386DX @33Mhz /w 64K cache \ 1 meg RAM \ 1.44 meg floppy > $1448 1:1 hard disk controller / keyboard, power supply, case / 2 serial and 1 parallel / - 14" VGA color monitor & card $390 - 40Mb Hard Disk $220 - 387 @33Mhz $495 - 4 1megx9 80ns (4 megabytes) $244 - Windows 3.0 /w Microsoft Mouse $149 The total for this 386-33Mhz 5 meg system is $2946. The same configuration at 25Mhs is $2397. The 40meg hard disk and VGA is a bit too confining for me. I would probably go for a 120meg hard disk and Super VGA, adding about $600 to the price tag. Joon Song send replys to joonsong@ocf.berkeley.edu
greg@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (07/30/90)
In article <13466@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes: >While I'm flame-baiting here, I figured I would start another war by asking, >for real, for an answer to the long established belief that seem pretty >prevalent these days that you can get a PC Clone, roughly equivalent to >the A3000, for less money. I'm think whole machine here, not one particular >feature, and I think that may tend to make this comparison more difficult >for the PC fan. But what do I know about PCs. Let's find out; here's the >system I'm looking for: [Description deleted.] Dave, if you've got your asbestos suit on, why don't you post this over on C.S.IBM and see what response you get? Surely these guys could give you _real_ prices on this stuff. However, if I may suggest a something, the on-board SCSI should be moved to a card, since I doubt there's not many (if any) PClones with the interfaces on the motherboard. --Just keep the bit about 4 slots still open! :-) >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > The Dave Haynie branch of the New Zealand Fan Club Good Luck! ..greg... ___ Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are not my own, but AMIGA! //// the property of some higher-up power, to which I am only a tool. //// "Welcome, my son. Welcome to the machine." -- Pink Floyd ___ //// "Reality is only a simulation, and it's still in beta testing." -- Me \\\\//// \\XX// Greg Harp greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) (07/31/90)
Dave you forgot the most important difference in pricing between
the two systems: software! How much are the IBMer's going to have to
pay for:
Amiga
Multitasking OS Included
Unix-like Shell Included
Several useable Text Editors Included*
Sort Program Included
Disk Maintenance Utilities Included
Application Independant Printer Drivers Included
Database/Multimedia Authoring System AmigaVision**
Interprocess communication utility ARexx**
Not to mention:
Paint program w/Animation support DPaint III
Desk-Top Publishing w/color you choose
C Compiler you choose
etc.
The point is often made that software for the Amiga is less
expensive than for Mac or IBM. But a more important difference in
cost is that to get a minimally functional IBM system can cost over
$1000 for software that the Amiga has out of the box. And even then
the equivalent of some of the standard Amiga software is not available
at any price for the IBM.
--
Robert I. Eachus
with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER;
function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) (08/01/90)
In article <EACHUS.90Jul30151024@aries.linus.mitre.org> eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: > > Dave you forgot the most important difference in pricing between >the two systems: software! How much are the IBMer's going to have to >pay for: > Amiga > Multitasking OS Included ... > Sort Program Included Aha! I got you there! MSDOS includes a sort utility, called, interestingly enough, sort! It's right here in this MSDOS manual. Hmmm, what's this under the Comments section for sort? '... cannot sort files larger than 63 Kb.' Uh, oh, well ... nevermind!!! :-) Now, to get serious for a moment, it seems that the people who say that you can get a 386 PC compatible for only 1500 dollars (or so) are always quoting the price for some clone from a company that; no one has ever heard of, has not existed for very long, and most likely will not exist very long. Also, equipment from these companies can be of VERY poor quality, according to a friend of mine who runs a business selling and repairing PC's. Many of those low-end prices are obtained by cutting all sorts of corners, like putting in power supplies far too weak to reliably run a hard drive and monitors with HORRIBLE dot-pitches. One company's low-cost VGA monitor listed a dot-pitch of .52mm. That's very, very bad, and that's from a company that at least some people have heard of, Packard Bell. I thought dot pitch was a typo at first! Also, there are often software and hardware compatibility problems. I wouldn't recommend these bare-bones, no-name brand PC's to a friend. Why? 1) Because I like to KEEP my friends. 2) Because I don't want to have to run around helping them when the thing breaks down, and the company leaves them with no visible means of support. One more thing. I call them no-name PC's because people always list their prices and an often long list of features, and almost never list the name. In many cases, they've probably forgotten the name. Of course, all of those things still don't make it an Amiga. You could offer me a choice between a 486 Compaq system at 25Mhz, Windows 3.0, a mouse, and "comparable" amounts of everything else, and I'd still take the Amiga 3000 system. Assuming its sort command can sort files larger than 63 Kb... > Robert I. Eachus > >with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; >use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; >function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is... Hey, that's COBOL, isn't it?!?!? :-) :-) :-) --- Disclaimer: The 63Kb sort is from the user's guide of MSDOS version 3.2 for AT&T PC's (I'm working for the DeathStar this summer). The limit may have been removed in a later version, but I doubt it. --- Rodney Ricks -- "We may have come over here in different ships, but we're all in the same boat now." -- Jesse Jackson // \\ // Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College \/
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (08/07/90)
In article <EACHUS.90Jul30151024@aries.linus.mitre.org> eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
[ list deleted ]
The point is often made that software for the Amiga is less
expensive than for Mac or IBM.
I think you've got that backwards. Then again, it could depend on what
you're pricing. I've noticed that C compilers are much cheaper on the
IBM PC. But I haven't used them, so that to get the same quality you
may need to spend the same or more money.
But a more important difference in
cost is that to get a minimally functional IBM system can cost over
$1000 for software that the Amiga has out of the box.
Then again, you can get a lot of that software for free; in fact, you
can get a lot more than you can on an Amiga.
And even then the equivalent of some of the standard Amiga software is
not available at any price for the IBM.
The only reason the reverse isn't true is because the Amiga can have
an IBM PC plugged into it.
While paging through MicroTimes this week, I watched the types of
systems you got for > $3000. Most of them are 486 or 33MHz 386
systems, though there are a few 25MHz 386 systems for that price.
However, Dave's system probably doesn't exist, for two reasons:
1) The standard disk interface for high-end IBM PCs is ESDI, not SCSI.
While I'm willing to accept those as substitutes for each other, there
are still some people who think that SCSI doesn't belong in a "real
computer."
2) EISA slots - systems with more than a couple of EISA slots tend to
be '486 based, not '386 based.
Allowing for those two changes, then Dave's "equivalent" systems start
showing up around $3300 or so. Methinks calling the A3000 and said
"equivalent" IBM clone "the same price for the same quality" is about
right. Except that the "equivalent" Amiga to that clone would be:
25MHz 68040
6 Zorro III slots
space & power supply sufficient for 5 drives.
socket for Wietek 4167 or equivalent
32K of 25ns cache, expandable to 512K.
HD floppy
2 serial ports, 1 parallel port, 1 game port.
And the 3000 just doesn't stack up.
The point of all this is that (as I said before) price comparisons of
arbitrarily defined "equivalent" hardware is pretty meaningless. You
have to look at what you want to use the system _for_.
If your application only runs on one of the two boxes, then there
isn't an "equivalent" other box. This is only slightly less true if
the application is "unreleased" on one of the boxes and released on
the other.
If your purpose needs a set of IO interfaces that one system comes
with and the other doesn't - well, one is going to have an advantage
over the other.
If your purpose calls for raw CPU or FPU power, and little else (i.e.
- all you do is spreadsheet recalcs), then the IBM boxes provide more
bang - either for the buck, or total (I think - anyone want to comment
on that Wietek chip?).
If you need animations and NTSC-compatable images, then the Amiga is
going to provide a lot more bang for the buck, if not total.
They're hard to call as C development environments. On the other hand,
the IBM PC doesn't have a mature multitasking OS with the features and
support the Amiga does.
<mike
--
How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer
While people stand there gawking? mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
How many times do you have to fall decwrl!mwm
Before you end up walking?<LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (08/07/90)
In article <MWM.90Aug6155608@raven.pa.dec.com>, mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) says: > >1) The standard disk interface for high-end IBM PCs is ESDI, not SCSI. >While I'm willing to accept those as substitutes for each other, there >are still some people who think that SCSI doesn't belong in a "real >computer." > Please check up on the ISA SCSI adaptor thread (recent) on comp.pc.hardware (something like that.) The availability of some high performance (up to 10M bytes/sec with the adaptor as the bus master (like in Amiga)) seems to indicate that there is a market for the high end machines using SCSI as a storage device. As always, PC hardware are market driven... > <mike >-- >How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer >While people stand there gawking? mwm@relay.pa.dec.com >How many times do you have to fall decwrl!mwm >Before you end up walking? K. C. Lee (Just the facts. No disclaimers required.)
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (08/07/90)
In article <13678@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: In article <MWM.90Aug6155608@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >1) The standard disk interface for high-end IBM PCs is ESDI, not SCSI. IBM themselves are moving to SCSI. They are (were?) also moving to the microchannel. I was looking at what was being advertised. It's all ESDI, no SCSI to be found. >2) EISA slots - systems with more than a couple of EISA slots tend to >be '486 based, not '386 based. You only need a system with 4 empty EISA slots to stack up to the A3000. >Allowing for those two changes, then Dave's "equivalent" systems start >showing up around $3300 or so. Neither are acceptible changes, performance-wise. ESDI, ok. But why can't I use a 486 system instead of a 386 system with a socket for a 486? >Except that the "equivalent" Amiga to that clone would be: [...] > socket for Wietek 4167 or equivalent That's silly. The 68040 floating point performance is supposed to be in the same ballpark as the 4167. Fair enough. That seemed to be a standard option, so I tacked it on. I'm willing to drop it. >And the 3000 just doesn't stack up. You can pay $10,000 for a machine like that. Probably more. You can also get the IBM-PC flavored 486 for between $3500 and $4000. At least, those were the prices I saw advertised. I'm not looking for a server, just a desktop PC that's roughly equivalent to the A3000 for the same price. Or a different price, for that matter. And I'm trying to say that the machine you specified doesn't appear to be advertised. I detailed what looked like the closest machine I could find, which happened to be a 486 system with lots of room for disks. The real problems, as I pointed out, where that there were no SCSI controllers - everything was ESDI or ST506; and that 386 systems had 1 or 2 EISA slots, and then a mixture of 16 & 8 bit slots. Systems with more than 2 EISA slots tended to be 486 systems with 6 or more. The point of mapping it back to an Amiga configuration was to show that writing specs for "equivalent" systems doesn't work very well. You wind up asking for hardware that just isn't available on both ends. >The point of all this is that (as I said before) price comparisons of >arbitrarily defined "equivalent" hardware is pretty meaningless. You >have to look at what you want to use the system _for_. Of course, if you need one specific application, you find the best system that'll run that one application. No, it isn't as specific as "application" (though I recommend that those not into roll-your-own software find applications first). A primary purpose - which may boil down to a single application or some small set of them - is enough. >This is only slightly less true if the application is "unreleased" on one of >the boxes and released on the other. If you need it TODAY. Of course, if you know the application WILL be on a system that's designed to handle it, it may be worth the wait, rather than getting that application now on a system that really isn't set up to run that applcation very well. You mean like waiting for A-live to come out, or Unix for the Amiga, or the video toaster, or etc. Sorry, but I can't in good faith recommend a product that I can't buy today. I've seen things not go out the door even after everything was boxed and ready to ship. <mike -- How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer While people stand there gawking? mwm@relay.pa.dec.com How many times do you have to fall decwrl!mwm Before you end up walking?
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (08/08/90)
In article <MWM.90Aug6155608@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >In article <EACHUS.90Jul30151024@aries.linus.mitre.org> eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: >1) The standard disk interface for high-end IBM PCs is ESDI, not SCSI. IBM themselves are moving to SCSI. >While I'm willing to accept those as substitutes for each other, there >are still some people who think that SCSI doesn't belong in a "real >computer." Considering that [a] SCSI is significantly faster than EDSI (5 MB/s for SCSI-1 vs. 1.5 MB/s for EDSI), and that [b] SCSI is the de-facto hard disk standard in every Amiga, Mac, NeXT, and a whole slew of Workstation class machines like Suns, I can only wonder what "real computers" are using these days. >2) EISA slots - systems with more than a couple of EISA slots tend to >be '486 based, not '386 based. You only need a system with 4 empty EISA slots to stack up to the A3000. >Allowing for those two changes, then Dave's "equivalent" systems start >showing up around $3300 or so. Neither are acceptible changes, performance-wise. Especially considering that most of the EDSI controllers are CPU-drive, not DMA with buffer/FIFO. That's not going to be an exceptionally big deal under MS-DOS, but once you go to OS/2, UNIX, or some other multitasking OS, the hit you take reading a slow, non-intelligent disk is significant. >Except that the "equivalent" Amiga to that clone would be: [...] > socket for Wietek 4167 or equivalent That's silly. The 68040 floating point performance is supposed to be in the same ballpark as the 4167. If you're dealing with a 1 MFLOPS math processor like the '486, maybe it does make sense. If you want something beyond 3.5 MFLOPS, get a 25 MFLOPS DSP chip or an i860. >And the 3000 just doesn't stack up. You can pay $10,000 for a machine like that. Probably more. I'm not looking for a server, just a desktop PC that's roughly equivalent to the A3000 for the same price. Or a different price, for that matter. The closest Mac is the IIci, which costs more, has a low performance SCSI interface, and one fewer 32 bit slot, but does support some kind of direct CPU bus slot and has a better on-board display than the A3000. >The point of all this is that (as I said before) price comparisons of >arbitrarily defined "equivalent" hardware is pretty meaningless. You >have to look at what you want to use the system _for_. Of course, if you need one specific application, you find the best system that'll run that one application. >This is only slightly less true if the application is "unreleased" on one of >the boxes and released on the other. If you need it TODAY. Of course, if you know the application WILL be on a system that's designed to handle it, it may be worth the wait, rather than getting that application now on a system that really isn't set up to run that applcation very well. >If your purpose calls for raw CPU or FPU power, and little else (i.e. >- all you do is spreadsheet recalcs), then the IBM boxes provide more >bang - either for the buck, or total (I think - anyone want to comment >on that Wietek chip?). The Weitek (pronounced "way-tek"; it's derived from the Chinese word for "micro" or something like that) chips make lots of sense in PCs. The WTL 3167 is a single chip containing a Weitek FPU core and glue logic to adapt it to the '386 bus (this used to be a circuit board, called the WTL 1167). It cranks out about 1.36 MFLOPS (handcoded Linpack, single precision), vs. about 0.3-0.4 for a '387, at 25MHz. The 3167 contains 32 single-precision registers which can be paired to all 16 double-precision registers, but it doesn't support extended precision. The numeric formats conform to the IEEE standard 754, Version 10.0. It supports data movements of constants, registers, and to/from the '386, and conversions to/from integers or between precisions. It supports the four basic arithmetic functions, multiply-accumulate, and square root. It also supports comparision functions. Being a memory mapped device, the 3167 op-codes map into a series of '386 MOV instructions, rather than following a coprocessor protocol like the '387 does. Weitek originally announced an '030 bus part, the WTL 3168, which they rated somewhat faster than the 3167, but they have since cancelled the part. There has been a 4167 announced for use with the '486 bus, though I don't have any information on that one. Since the 3167 was faster than the '486's math, I would expect the 4167 to be a bit faster than the '486 too, but the main point of a 4167 might just be compatibility, unless they've made significant tweaks to it. Motorola claims 3.5 MFLOPS on Linpack for the '040, so I'm sure there's no reason to consider a 4168 for the '040 bus. > <mike -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Get that coffee outta my face, put a Margarita in its place!
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (08/08/90)
In article <90219.131732LEEK@QUCDN.BITNET> LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes: >In article <MWM.90Aug6155608@raven.pa.dec.com>, mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real >Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) says: >>1) The standard disk interface for high-end IBM PCs is ESDI, not SCSI. >Please check up on the ISA SCSI adaptor thread (recent) on comp.pc.hardware >(something like that.) The availability of some high performance (up to 10M >bytes/sec with the adaptor as the bus master (like in Amiga)) seems to indicate >that there is a market for the high end machines using SCSI as a storage device. >As always, PC hardware are market driven... While SCSI-2 is supposed to be able to manage a high-speed 10 MB/s synchronous mode, ISA maxes out at 4 MB/s (at least the most accepted ISA, which runs at 8MHz). In any case, the appearance of high speed disk controllers on PCs other than Amigas is undoubtedly due to the repositioning of those systems. Both PCs and Macs (the Mac IIfx comes with a DMA-driven SCSI of some kind, and bus mastering NuBus SCSI boards are available) are now offering multitasking OSs, especially the rather largish UNIX OS. They find, as we knew all along, that a CPU driven controller wastes great amounts of system bandwidth even when its transfer speeds approach those of DMA-driven devices. And with a paging system like UNIX, heavy swapping starts making your computer's throughput move toware that of the backing hard disk rather than that of main memory (you never get there; you'd probably throw the thing through a window long before then, but you do notice the disk overhard much more than in small, vanilla, single-tasking systems like MS-DOS). >> <mike >K. C. Lee (Just the facts. No disclaimers required.) -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Get that coffee outta my face, put a Margarita in its place!
jimb@faatcrl.UUCP (Jim Burwell) (08/08/90)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>While I'm willing to accept those as substitutes for each other, there >>are still some people who think that SCSI doesn't belong in a "real >>computer." >Considering that [a] SCSI is significantly faster than EDSI (5 MB/s for SCSI-1 >vs. 1.5 MB/s for EDSI), and that [b] SCSI is the de-facto hard disk standard >in every Amiga, Mac, NeXT, and a whole slew of Workstation class machines like >Suns, I can only wonder what "real computers" are using these days. IPI with stripeing ? [ducking :*] C'ya, -- UUCP: ...!rutgers!faatcrl!jimb Internet: jimb@faatcrl.UUCP Under brooding skys and watchful eyes On convulsive seas of false urgency We walk empty corridors in vain - "No Exit", Fate's Warning
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (08/08/90)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>While I'm willing to accept those as substitutes for each other, there >>are still some people who think that SCSI doesn't belong in a "real >>computer." >Considering that [a] SCSI is significantly faster than EDSI (5 MB/s for >SCSI-1 vs. 1.5 MB/s for EDSI), and that [b] SCSI is the de-facto hard >disk standard in every Amiga, Mac, NeXT, and a whole slew of Workstation >class machines like Suns, I can only wonder what "real computers" are >using these days. Well, I went and asked those same people. The general tone of the answer was: We see at best 1.5 MB/sec out of async. Get twice that out of sync, and you might have something worth using. As for what these people are using, those Sun workstations generally talk to Sun servers with a pair of wren's, each wren on it's own controller. Having that second controller makes the difference between a sluggish server and a reasonable one. Adding something like the Legatto disk accelerator into the system can begin to make even SunOS 4 seem useable. Such systems (parallel disk paths to the backplane) have been the norm for Unix systems for over a decade. You might note that the ESDI controllers on these systems (and on many of the 486s I saw advertised) have lots of on-controller cache, allowing for full-track reads onto the controller, which along with a modern file system gives most of that 1.5MB/sec in actual throughput. On the other hand, the best I've seen quoted for actual SCSI throughput to the file system is 1.9MB/sec. As for "real computers", most of those people are coming from large systems backgrounds, where arranging to get disk data to a a hundred users (or more) is the norm, not providing blocks for the person sitting in front of the workstation. The way you view almost any component of a system (including documentation and maintenance) is radically different when you move from multiuser systems to workstations. I expect most of these people will catch up with the real world before to long. Of course, it'd also be nice if the workstation people could bring some of their components up to level acceptable for multiuser systems. <mike -- Es brillig war. Die schlichte Toven Mike Meyer Wirrten und wimmelten in Waben; mwm@relay.pa.dec.com Und aller-mumsige Burggoven decwrl!mwm Die mohmem Rath' ausgraben.
eeh@public.BTR.COM (Eduardo E. Horvath eeh@btr.com) (08/09/90)
In article <MWM.90Aug7121951@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >In article <13678@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > In article <MWM.90Aug6155608@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: > >1) The standard disk interface for high-end IBM PCs is ESDI, not SCSI. > IBM themselves are moving to SCSI. >They are (were?) also moving to the microchannel. I was looking at >what was being advertised. It's all ESDI, no SCSI to be found. >The point of mapping it back to an Amiga configuration was to show >that writing specs for "equivalent" systems doesn't work very well. >You wind up asking for hardware that just isn't available on both >ends. > >The point of all this is that (as I said before) price comparisons of > >arbitrarily defined "equivalent" hardware is pretty meaningless. You > >have to look at what you want to use the system _for_. > > Of course, if you need one specific application, you find the best system > that'll run that one application. That's not true. We bought a '386 20MHz over a year ago with a SCSI controller and a CDC WREN II drive. SCSI is available, and has been for several years. It is faster than ESDI and more expensive, thus the lower availability. SCSI is used almost exclusively for network servers in the IBM world, and may become dominant there in a year or two. Remember to add about $200 for the SCSI controller, and $500 for the 40M disk. ========================================================================= Eduardo Horvath eeh@btr.com ..!{decwrl,mips,fernwood}!btr!eeh "Trust me, I know what I'm doing." - Sledge Hammer =========================================================================
urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) (08/09/90)
Mr. Haynie
I have on several previous occasions requested real verifiable
performance comparisons between available AMIGA configurations
and various other machines especially IBM PC type clones,
on floating point problems of various kinds and sizes.
So far everybody flaming on this MSBYS topic has studiously avoided
publishing such results.
Machine, configuration, cost,
problem, system set-up
Compiler and options used to build executable, cost
running times, accuracy figures if available.
I have suggested that Spec mark numbers would be very nice
I have suggested the following problems: Linpack 300 x 300, 4096 point
fft, and a few other such problems.
You have asked for the street price of a hypothetical A3000 equivalent
machine configuration. Can you supply us with some real performance
figures that support your basis for claiming such equivalence.
Mr Joon Song answered your posting with his equivalent to your proposed
system and a price from Microtimes. Would that system in fact satisfy
your criteria? on the basis of performance? on the basis of quality?
or does it fail on these or other not previously stated criteria?
Your explanations of various hardware considerations are always very
informative, but I can not understand your reticence to defend your
creation with hard performance comparison results. Surely such
results exist?
-----------------------------------------------
Reply-To: Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj
urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP , urjlew@unc.bitnet
or urjlew@uncvm1.acs.unc.edu (ARPA,SURA,NSF etc. internet)
tel. (919)-962-6501urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) (08/09/90)
In the latest tangent of the MSBYS discussion (polite phrase),
both Mike Meyer and Dave Haynie expound theoretical considerations
on disk thruput.
How about measured timings on sample benchmark problems of real
machines. Who is willing to supply comparisons?
10 meg copy between two independant disks head assemblies,
where the source file(s) are fragmented in non contiguous segments
of say 10k each, and the disk drives are of the same kind on each
machine.
IBM PS/2 70 25Mhz vs A3000/25
or other specific available to the public machines.
-----------------------------------------------
Reply-To: Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj
urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP , urjlew@unc.bitnet
or urjlew@uncvm1.acs.unc.edu (ARPA,SURA,NSF etc. internet)
tel. (919)-962-6501mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (08/09/90)
In article <306@public.BTR.COM> eeh@public.BTR.COM (Eduardo E. Horvath eeh@btr.com) writes: >They are (were?) also moving to the microchannel. I was looking at >what was being advertised. It's all ESDI, no SCSI to be found. That's not true. We bought a '386 20MHz over a year ago with a SCSI controller and a CDC WREN II drive. SCSI is available, and has been for several years. It is faster than ESDI and more expensive, thus the lower availability. SCSI is used almost exclusively for network servers in the IBM world, and may become dominant there in a year or two. Remember to add about $200 for the SCSI controller, and $500 for the 40M disk. I'm willing to believe you bought the thing. I just didn't see any advertised. Wanna provide a pointer to someone who sells complete systems with the SCSI onboard (remember, that's what Dave required). <mike -- Come all you rolling minstrels, Mike Meyer And together we will try, mwm@relay.pa.dec.com To rouse the spirit of the air, decwrl!mwm And move the rolling sky.
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (08/09/90)
Ok, back to the original. I went out and got actual prices...
In article <13466@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
PC Equivalent for A3000:
- 80386DX @ 25MHz
- 80387DX @ 25MHz
- Slot for low cost 80486 add-in
At A3000 price levels, the 386 + 486 add-in is a waste. The problems
with EISA slots makes it worse. I blew it off, and went with a 486
system with a socket for the Wietek 4167
- 2 Megs basic, 16 Megs total 32 bit memory
- 31kHz Video (plain VGA will do)
- Unoccupied serial and parallel ports
All done. In fact, there are more serial ports than on the 3000.
- On board 32 bit DMA-driven hard disk controller
Well, Dave says that ESDI won't do for this, and nobody I talked to
had systems with on-board SCSI. I went with a SCSI card in the EISA
slot instead.
- EISA bus with at least four slots
Got 6, but the SCSI went into one.
The above system, quoted from MA Laboraties, Inc. in San Jose is
$3140, without the monitor. That includes the 40MB SCSI disk that CBM
insists you buy.
- Microsoft or similar mouse
$69 from Central Computer Systems in Santa Clara.
- Microsoft Windows 3.0
$95 from ditto.
That brings it to $3304, which is the configuration I'd buy if I went
that way. Of course, if I dropped the Amiga, I'd go with a DECStation,
but that's another story. Add in the Wietek chip for about $450
(couldn't find the quote) brings it up to A3000/25-40 price levels.
Except it's got about twice the CPU of the system you asked for.
Well, that's the best equivalent I can cook up. It's far from perfect,
but then, an exact equivalent is impossible. I don't think anything's way
off base here; if so, flame away.
Arbitrary flame: I think this is about as meangingful as measuring
MIPS (but it is entertaining!)
More meaningful flame: You're crippling the IBM clone by asking for a
386 upgradeable to a 486. If I were looking at buying a system and
considering the A3000, I'd be looking at '486 systems instead.
Anyway, does such a beast exist?
Apparently not. SCSI on the motherboard doesn't seem to exist, and
you've said ESDI won't do instead. Got any other suggestions?
What would it cost? Around $3000, or can you get a Taiwan Special
with all this stuff for $1500 as lots of people seem to think.
Well, I can get something that is identical to that system for _my_
purposes for between $1500 and $2000. Except that it's completely
unsuitable for my purposes for other reasons. For around $3000, I get
a system with more CPU punch, but otherwise comparable to what CBM
sells for $4000.
<mike
--
Il brilgue: les toves lubricilleux Mike Meyer
Se gyrent en vrillant dans le guave, mwm@relay.pa.dec.com
Enmimes sont les gougebosqueux, decwrl!mwm
Et le momerade horsgrave.daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (08/10/90)
In article <1990Aug9.000233.8928@uncecs.edu> urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: >I have suggested that Spec mark numbers would be very nice >I have suggested the following problems: Linpack 300 x 300, 4096 point >fft, and a few other such problems. An A3000 SPECmark set would be very nice. However, porting the SPEC benchmark suite to the A3000 would be something of a major undertaking. I don't know of anyone here who has that kind of free time, and Commodore isn't currently a member of the SPEC group. I would also like to see someone run the AIM workstation benchmark series on the A3000, since these stress multitasking performance more than other benchmarks. But again, other than to acquire bragging rights, that's a great deal of work that amounts to a great waste of time. The only people who can justify the work involved would be the Marketing group, since they are the only ones who can really get any true benefit from such magic numbers. And again, you're skipping over 3/4ths of the system when you ask for something like Linpack. I'm sure we could get someone around here to compile and run a Linpak, maybe someone already has. But that ignores many of the things that most PC designers tend to ignore, specifically hard disk throughput, video display buffer speed, and expansion bus speed. Since that last one is my area, I have mentioned here both theoretical and actual transfer rates on the Zorro III bus. I have yet to read anything but theoretical figures on MCA or EISA. So apparently a good number of people have been a big negligent in their benchmarking. >You have asked for the street price of a hypothetical A3000 equivalent >machine configuration. Can you supply us with some real performance >figures that support your basis for claiming such equivalence. We've had plenty of postings by various folks of simple performance benchmarks: Dhrystone 2.1, DiskSpeed, MFlops, Sieve, etc. A3000s run at least as fast on these things as other 25MHz 68030 computers, and 80386 machines tend to run similar results. If anything, these kind of tests bias things in the direction of 80386 machines, since most have at least 16K of external cache. Virtually all of the simple benchmarks will fit in 16K of external cache, large array manipulation tests being the exception. >Mr Joon Song answered your posting with his equivalent to your proposed >system and a price from Microtimes. Would that system in fact satisfy >your criteria? His system missed on two major points: EDSI vs. SCSI disk, and ISA vs. EISA expansion bus. I'm not in a position to judge the quality of a maker I've never heard of, and I'm not asking for that -- I'm simply looking for a valid comparison based only on technical merit. Caveat Emptor would certainly apply to anyone actually considering such a system in lieu of an A3000; there is more to a computer purchase than system performance in the real world. >... but I can not understand your reticence to defend your creation with hard >performance comparison results. Surely such results exist? As I said, I don't sit around all day running benchmarks, and to my knowledge, none of the very large benchmark suites have been ported to AmigaOS. The best Dhrystone 2.1 figure I've heard was something around 8000, other than that, I couldn't tell you. > Reply-To: Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Get that coffee outta my face, put a Margarita in its place!
urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) (08/10/90)
It is interesting to note what sections of my message you chose to comment on and which to ignore. The omitted beginning part stresses that verifiable benchmark figures of available machine configurations on floating point numerical problems of a real size have not been provided by either side of the MSBYS war. The PC clone side has been perhaps a little more forthcoming than the Amiga/680xx proponents. Actually on the Amiga side I feel an active avoidance of providing such results, as evidenced by more of the same below. In article <13723@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > In article <1990Aug9.000233.8928@uncecs.edu> urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: > >I have suggested that Spec mark numbers would be very nice > >I have suggested the following problems: Linpack 300 x 300, 4096 point > >fft, and a few other such problems. > > An A3000 SPECmark set would be very nice. However, porting the SPEC benchmark > suite to the A3000 would be something of a major undertaking. I don't know of > anyone here who has that kind of free time, and Commodore isn't currently a > member of the SPEC group. I would also like to see someone run the AIM > workstation benchmark series on the A3000, since these stress multitasking > performance more than other benchmarks. But again, other than to acquire > bragging rights, that's a great deal of work that amounts to a great waste > of time. The only people who can justify the work involved would be the > Marketing group, since they are the only ones who can really get any true > benefit from such magic numbers. > > And again, you're skipping over 3/4ths of the system when you ask for something > like Linpack. I'm sure we could get someone around here to compile and run a > Linpak, maybe someone already has. But that ignores many of the things that > most PC designers tend to ignore, specifically hard disk throughput, video > display buffer speed, and expansion bus speed. Since that last one is my area, > I have mentioned here both theoretical and actual transfer rates on the Zorro > III bus. I have yet to read anything but theoretical figures on MCA or EISA. > So apparently a good number of people have been a big negligent in their > benchmarking. > > >You have asked for the street price of a hypothetical A3000 equivalent > >machine configuration. Can you supply us with some real performance > >figures that support your basis for claiming such equivalence. > > We've had plenty of postings by various folks of simple performance benchmarks: > Dhrystone 2.1, DiskSpeed, MFlops, Sieve, etc. A3000s run at least as fast on > these things as other 25MHz 68030 computers, and 80386 machines tend to run > similar results. If anything, these kind of tests bias things in the direction > of 80386 machines, since most have at least 16K of external cache. Virtually > all of the simple benchmarks will fit in 16K of external cache, large array > manipulation tests being the exception. > > >Mr Joon Song answered your posting with his equivalent to your proposed > >system and a price from Microtimes. Would that system in fact satisfy > >your criteria? > > His system missed on two major points: EDSI vs. SCSI disk, and ISA vs. EISA > expansion bus. I'm not in a position to judge the quality of a maker I've > never heard of, and I'm not asking for that The paragraphs above have been included in the posting for illustration of the avoidance behaviour involved. =-=-=-=-=-=- This next sentence is worth some thought -=-=-=-=-= >-- I'm simply looking for a > valid comparison based only on technical merit. Caveat Emptor would certainly ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ????? :-) > apply to anyone actually considering such a system in lieu of an A3000; there ^^^^^^ > is more to a computer purchase than system performance in the real world. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ HMM ;-) =-=-=-=-=- lets quantify technical merit -=-=-=-= > > >... but I can not understand your reticence to defend your creation with hard > >performance comparison results. Surely such results exist? > > As I said, I don't sit around all day running benchmarks, and to my knowledge, > none of the very large benchmark suites have been ported to AmigaOS. The > best Dhrystone 2.1 figure I've heard was something around 8000, other than > that, I couldn't tell you. > And the above once more illustrates my point. You know very well that the Dhrystone benchmark is integer and character manipulation You have on occasion made this point yourself. Yet you post it here in response to an explicit request for floating point benchmark comparison results. ( the request is also somewhat more specific in that the comparisons are to be for *available* configurations, not ones in development ) ----------------------------------------------- Reply-To: Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP , urjlew@unc.bitnet or urjlew@uncvm1.acs.unc.edu (ARPA,SURA,NSF etc. internet) tel. (919)-962-6501
sdowdy@carina.unm.edu (Stephen Dowdy) (08/10/90)
In article <MWM.90Aug6155608@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: }In article <EACHUS.90Jul30151024@aries.linus.mitre.org> eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: } } The point is often made that software for the Amiga is less } expensive than for Mac or IBM. } }I think you've got that backwards. Then again, it could depend on what }you're pricing. I've noticed that C compilers are much cheaper on the }IBM PC. But I haven't used them, so that to get the same quality you }may need to spend the same or more money. It has been my impression that software for the Amiga *is* cheaper. However, i have not researched this very much. I would like to give you my belief as to why this is (or should be) true.... Anyone who has ever programmed the intel 80x8x architecture has been initiated, somewhat like a fraternity pledge being put through excrutiating and humiliating circumstances. I mean PROGRAMMING in native assembler. Remember back when you still saw: "... With up to 64K of data ..." on software documentation? That was what the 808x and 80x8x were supposed to overcome (while providing binary compatibility with the Z80 (or whatever it was)). However, if you've ever done assembly on this braindead segmented architecture, you quickly come to the conclusions: 1) limit my software to 64K and data to 64K 2) expend A LARGE AMOUNT of effort in program development 1 was only usable so long before people could take no more. #2 translates into, you guessed it, HIGHER PRICES. Noone is going to do all that extra work and eat the development costs. Okay, so you say, "But most things can be done on C Compilers that exert the extra effort for you". Well, those C Compilers were long in development (to get to where they are now). Also, As time went on, people began wanting more... Well, without running in protected/real mode on the Intel architecture, you are still effectively limited to 640K. Developers like WordPerfect, in their effort to add more features found themselves needing to "crunch" their packages down. Again, more development costs. (Unless it has changed, the BIOS call to enter "Protected Mode" was over 120 assembly instructions last time i looked. That's loony, just to get > 1M addressing?) A lot of the added burden of the software developer comes from having to do work that should be done in the OS. MS-DOS, to be blunt, is a pile of junk, as far as OS support is concerned. Niceties like shared (run time linkable) libraries such as on AmigaDos substantially reduce development time and effort for programs, by providing standardized interfaces and shared resources. In addition, the companies who have been buying PCs, have been used to paying big bucks for software. Just like the Oil companies, if the enduser is willing to pay, why keep the price down. }If your purpose calls for raw CPU or FPU power, and little else (i.e. }- all you do is spreadsheet recalcs), then the IBM boxes provide more }bang - either for the buck, or total (I think - anyone want to comment }on that Wietek chip?). } }If you need animations and NTSC-compatable images, then the Amiga is }going to provide a lot more bang for the buck, if not total. } }They're hard to call as C development environments. On the other hand, }the IBM PC doesn't have a mature multitasking OS with the features and }support the Amiga does. } } <mike Yes, if you only want to do Lotus 1-2-3, then you are perhaps best off with a PC/Clone. However, if you have a conscience about how best to further the cause of humanity/technology, and you can't morally abide by all the wasted effort in development on PC architecture, then try to find an alternative. I admit, it is really hard to make the "correct" choice (my version of correct may not be yours) since you may end up being "behind the times/restricted", though you will only further the quagmire of being caught in forever enhanced "schlock". I firmly believe we are 5 years behind where we *would* have been if IBM hadn't designed the PC the way they did. Everywhere you see a PC At/386 machine, imagine at least a BitMap graphics Work Station (ala Next/68040, Sun,DecStation/R3000) running something like unix, only better. This would be the minimal machine. Flame away, --stephen -- $!####################################################################### $! stephen dowdy (UNM CIRT) Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131 (505) 277-8044 $! Usenet: {convex,ucbvax,gatech,csu-cs,anl-mcs}!unmvax!charon!sdowdy $! BITNET: sdowdy@unmb
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (08/10/90)
In article <306@public.BTR.COM> eeh@public.BTR.COM (Eduardo E. Horvath eeh@btr.com) writes: >to add about $200 for the SCSI controller, and $500 for the 40M disk. ^^^^ A more realistic price is around $75.00 now. The price of many SCSI controllers for PC's have dropped way down. Shop around a little. Monty Saine
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (08/10/90)
In article <1990Aug10.005911.29763@uncecs.edu> urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: > =-=-=-=-=- lets quantify technical merit -=-=-=-= Technical merit is the information you get from reading spec sheets, benchmarks, what have you. Other factors are, for instance, what you do when the thing fails. Or when you need some technical information on it. Or an upgrade. And, of course, elements such as what add-on software or hardware is even available, and how much that software or hardware will cost you. >> The best Dhrystone 2.1 figure I've heard was something around 8000, other >> than that, I couldn't tell you. > And the above once more illustrates my point. You know very well > that the Dhrystone benchmark is integer and character manipulation. Of course it is. I'm telling you that's the only one I know about. You seem to believe otherwise, or maybe just feel like baiting for a flame war. You won't get one from me, I have better things to do. If, instead, you would rather do something constructive, send me some benchmark suites compiled for a 68030 Amiga, and I'll run them on the A3000. Or send me some benchmark source, and I'll see if I can convince someone else with a little more free hacking time to play around with them on the A3000. > (request is also somewhat more specific in that the comparisons are to be > for *available* configurations, not ones in development ) That Dhrystone number is the best I've heard on the the A3000, which was the exact *available* configuration under discussion, if you recall the original point of this argument. > Reply-To: Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Get that coffee outta my face, put a Margarita in its place!
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (08/11/90)
In article <1990Aug10.061056.15745@ariel.unm.edu> sdowdy@carina.unm.edu (Stephen Dowdy) writes: In article <MWM.90Aug6155608@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: }I think you've got that backwards. Then again, it could depend on what }you're pricing. I've noticed that C compilers are much cheaper on the }IBM PC. But I haven't used them, so that to get the same quality you }may need to spend the same or more money. It has been my impression that software for the Amiga *is* cheaper. However, i have not researched this very much. I would like to give you my belief as to why this is (or should be) true.... This is called a "rationalization". One uses them to explain why things are the way the are, or the way one wishes them to be. I can rationalize the PC/Mac prices being lower, based on number of units sold vs. support costs. However, I'd rather crack open a magazine, and quote prices. Fry's electronics, which has good - but not excellent - prices: Home budgeting and checking software (Quicken): $40 Procomm Plus: $60 Norton utilties, advanced edition: $99 file namange utility, ala CLIMate (PFS: Preface): $50 Hard disk optimizer/etc (SpinERit II): $65 personal DBM/WP/Spreadsheet/checkbook/etc (PFS: First Choice & Quicken): $90 PFS: First Publisher (desktop publishing package): $110 These aren't the "el cheapo" products - most of these have been around for a while (some longer than the Amiga). I've recently seen a new line of products at Fry's (not advertised, so I have no prices handy) called "MySoft" or some such, with "MyWriter", "MyLabeller" and the like. The prices are around $20-$30/package, if I recall correctly. The first list of prices is comparable to the Amiga "el cheapo" software. I've as yet to see anything similar to the MySoft line, or similar to it's prices. Yes, if you only want to do Lotus 1-2-3, then you are perhaps best off with a PC/Clone. However, if you have a conscience about how best to further the cause of humanity/technology, and you can't morally abide by all the wasted effort in development on PC architecture, then try to find an alternative. It looks like technophilia can be as obnoxious as technophobia. Lots of people probably find the joining of those two causes as offensive as I do. Even ignoring that, there are still problems with the argument. For example, you could argue that if you can't morally abide by the wasted effort in the development of non-standard, single-purpose custom chips, then you should try to find an alternative. In reality, people don't buy architechtures or chips - they buy solutions to problems. For a wide range of problems, the IBM PC market presents a much more cost-effective solution than anything the Amiga has to offer. Yes, buying a system near Dave Haynie's "IBM PC equivalent to the A3000" isn't a lot cheaper than the A3000 itself (but it does appear to be cheaper). However, for most people, the A3000 is overengineered. They don't need 4 EISA slots; the probably don't need 1 if they've got a couple of 16 bit slots and a couple of 8 bit slots, but it's not hard to find that one slot if you want it. Likewise, size is more important than speed for disks. If I were buying an IBM (instead of an Amiga), I wouldn't even consider anything configured like an A3000; I can save 50% buy giving up options _I_ don't need. That these alternatives exist make the IBM PC clone the cost-effective solution to lots of problems. In many ways, cost-effectiveness is a sign of technological advancement. The hi-tech solutions tend to be low-cost; that's what makes them attractive. If they aren't, then what's the point of using them, other than pure "gosh-wow"? And if they mean pouring more of a persons resources (in the form of money) into them, then they are a detriment to the cause of humanity, irregardless of how they affect the "cause of technology." I firmly believe we are 5 years behind where we *would* have been if IBM hadn't designed the PC the way they did. Everywhere you see a PC At/386 machine, imagine at least a BitMap graphics Work Station (ala Next/68040, Sun,DecStation/R3000) running something like unix, only better. This would be the minimal machine. Yes, if IBM had introduced something that was state-of-the-art when they introduced their PC (say a 68000 box running OS-9/68K), then that might have happened. Of course, if IBM hadn't designed their PC at all, we'd probably be right where we are now, except that most of the people using IBM-PC class machines would still be doing things by hand. That means they advanced the state of the art by much more than 5 years by designing their PC at all. But that's true for _lots_ of IBM products. You could make a bigger boost by turning the 360 into something closer to state-of-the-art for the time it was introduced. Unix might never have come into being, and everybody would have shared libraries and rings of security and dynamic linking. But if they hadn't introduced it at all, we'd probably still be stuck in a world of business applications and technological applications needing different hardware to run on. Of course, I'm not going to buy an IBM PC now. With the 3000, CBM has managed to design a machine that's I think is worth spending money on (that's a first for them). Even with the overengineering, it's still the most cost-effective path to a modern, multi-tasking OS that provides sufficient resources to meet my needs. Which is exactly the reason I bought a 1000 in the first place. <mike -- The weather is here, I wish you were beautiful. Mike Meyer My thoughts aren't too clear, but don't run away. mwm@relay.pa.dec.com My girlfriend's a bore, my job is too dutiful. decwrl!mwm Hell nobody's perfect, would you like to play?
uzun@pnet01.cts.com (Roger Uzun) (08/11/90)
If anyone is interested I use a MS DOS 3.3 based 20 Mhz PC clone
witrh cache and a 40MB IDE controller at work. I also have an Amiag
3000/25-100 I use at home/work. I use lattice C 5.10 on the Amiga and Turbo C
2.0 on the PC. Trubo C is set to compile for 80286 code (no 386 option with
that compiler) using word boundaries optimized for speed. The 386 has NO
match chip. In day to day work and system development type tests,
subjectively, the 3000 seems MUCH faster. Here are some benchmarks I have
run. Please note that the 68000 instruction set is VERY close to the 030
instruction set, but the 286 instrction set is MUCH WORSE than the 80386 set.
This skews this becnhmark for the amiga BUT all my DOS code is compiled for
the 286 or the 8086 (even worse) many of my amy applications, in fact most,
are compiled for the 68030/882 and even those compiled for the 68000 are still
close to the 030 in execution speed, so you can get MUCH more out of an amiga
running AmigaDOS than you can out of a PC running DOS. In any case here are
some CPU benchmarks, I ran no fp benchmarks on the pc since it has no math
chip and would be DOG slow.
Amiga 3000 20 Mhz 80386 cache
Qsort 4 secs 8 secs
sieve(100 iters) 2 secs 4 secs
drystone 1.1 12,500 5,000
Drystone2 10,000 ?????
savage(25,000 iters) 2 secs
whetstones 1,666,667 whets/sec ????
In any case looking through Personal Workstatin magaziine, using a highly opti
mized 386 compiler running under a 386 DOS extender, a 25Mhz Cache 386 system
gets 11,939 Drystone2's/sec vs the Amiga 3000's 10,000 this is within
measurement error, they are approx equal. So when you can get a 386 native
mode application it will perform about the same on a 25mhz 386 as on the amiga
3000, when you geta 286 compiled application it will perform about half as
fast as on the 3000. This is CPU dependent stuff (integer) only.
IN my disk tests the Amiga 3000 is MUCH faster, but I need someone to suggest
a quick and dirty C benchmark I can compile and run on each machine. In
psuedo code would be fine.
-Roger
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!uzun
ARPA: crash!pnet01!uzun@nosc.mil
INET: uzun@pnet01.cts.comgreg@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (08/11/90)
In article <898@sagpd1.UUCP> monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) writes: >In article <306@public.BTR.COM> eeh@public.BTR.COM (Eduardo E. Horvath eeh@btr.com) writes: >>to add about $200 for the SCSI controller, and $500 for the 40M disk. > ^^^^ >A more realistic price is around $75.00 now. The price of many SCSI controllers >for PC's have dropped way down. Shop around a little. I'm a bit skeptical about that. Please back up your claim. Also, you should verify that these are _SCSI_ controllers. These might also be something silly like very slow controllers or 8-bit wide communication, etc. >Monty Saine greg... _ _ Disclaimer: "What I _really_ meant was..." AMIGA! //// //// "Run to the bedroom, in the suitcase on the left you'll find my _ _ //// favorite axe." --Roger Waters, Pink Floyd's The Wall, One of My Turns \\\\//// \\XX// Greg Harp greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (08/13/90)
>>It has been my impression that software for the Amiga *is* cheaper , >>(than IBM.) However I have not researched this very much. I would >>like to give you my belief as to why this is (or should be) true... >> >>However, I'd rather crack open a magazine, and quote prices. Ok, we can do that too... Read on for a side-by-side comparison. >>Fry's electronics, which has good - but not excellent - prices: Software Support International, the first mail-order ad I came to: >>Home budgeting and checking software (Quicken): $40 Desktop Budget (Gold Disk): $42 (one of the few that's higher) >>Procomm Plus: $60 Baud Bandit (Progressive Peripherals): $30 >>Norton utilties, advanced edition: $99 No comparison, because half the things N.U. does are built into the Amiga's OS. >>File manange utility, ala CLIMate (PFS: Preface): $50 DiskMaster 1.3 (Progressive Peripherals): $30 >>Hard disk optimizer/etc (SpinERit II): $65 B.A.D. (Centaur): $30 >>Personal DBM/WP/Spreadsheet/checkbook/etc (PFS: First Choice & Quicken): $90 Office (Gold Disk): Price unavailable >>PFS: First Publisher (desktop publishing package): $110 PageStream 1.8 (Soft Logik): $120 >>This list of prices is comparable to the Amiga "el cheapo" software. The comparisons I've given you are HARDLY "El cheapo" software. As you can see, Amiga QUALITY software prices compare nicely with IBM middle-of-the-road software. If you want to look at QUALITY IBM software, let's compare WordPerfect, the single-most popular word processor on both systems. IBM's costs over $400 now while Amiga's is $120. Yes, I know IBM's is version 5.1, and Amiga's compares best to version 4.2, but how much did version 4.2 cost on IBM? $250 is what I'm told... >>I've recently seen a new line of products at Fry's called "MySoft" >>or some such, with "MyWriter", "MyLabeller" and the like. The prices >>are around $20-$30/package, if I recall correctly. >>I've as yet to see anything similar to the MySoft line, or >>similar to it's prices. I have - it's called the Fred Fish library, and it's a LOT cheaper than MySoft. Do not rule out public domain software just because it's free. There is a LOT of quality software in there, some that would compare favorably to your first list. Now, on to another topic... >>If IBM hadn't designed their PC at >>all, we'd probably be right where we are now, except that most of the >>people using IBM-PC class machines would still be doing things by >>hand. That means they advanced the state of the art by much more than >>5 years by designing their PC at all. Oh come on. You make it sound as if IBM invented the home computer. By the time the IBM PC was introduced, Commodore also had computers rolling off the assembly line, and Motorola had already introduced the 68000 chip. Commodore grew DESPITE the PC, so its sales would even have been better, and Motorola's CPU would still have had systems designed around it. Had IBM not introduced the PC when it did, we would indeed be better off. Graphic interfaces would truly be the norm instead of the add-on novelty Windows 3.0 makes them appear. This is only an example - many more hypothetical examples are possible. But it surely is not likely that all current PC owners would not have opted for one of the other machines available. >>But that's true for _lots_ of IBM products. >>Unix might never have come into being, and >>everybody would have shared libraries and rings of security and >>>dynamic linking. But if they hadn't introduced it at all, we'd >>probably still be stuck in a world of business applications and >>technological applications needing different hardware to run on. Huh? I hope you aren't trying to say that IBM had something to do with the development of UNIX. >>Of course, I'm not going to buy an IBM PC now. With the 3000, CBM has >>managed to design a machine that's I think is worth spending money on >>(that's a first for them). Even with the overengineering, it's still ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>the most cost-effective path to a modern, multi-tasking OS that >>provides sufficient resources to meet my needs. >> >> <mike I don't think you explained clearly enough what you meant by this. Do you mean you want to be stuck when you want to upgrade to a 68040 without being able to? Does it mean you don't want to be able to expand your 3000 at all? I have serious doubts you will only use one slot in your machine. Kurt -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- || Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || Amigas, Macs, IBM's, C-64's, NeXTs, || || 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. || Apple ]['s.... I use 'em all. || || Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || (and in that order too! ;-) || || jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------|| || jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || -----------------------------------------------------------------------
bgribble@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Bill Gribble) (08/13/90)
In article <1990Aug10.005911.29763@uncecs.edu> urjlew@uncecs.edu (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes: >Actually on the Amiga side I feel an >active avoidance of providing such results, as evidenced by more >of the same below. If you're so hot to see Amiga benchmarks (and I'm not saying I wouldn't like to as well) why don't you port them yourself? It's not Commodore-Amiga's (or anybody's) responsibility to satisfy your personal itch for stats on performance. Nobody's 'actively avoiding' giving you numbers; it's just that nobody seems to be as antsy about the whole thing as you are. Mr. Haynie was just saying he didn't have the time, and you jump on him like he was covering up funding for the Contras. Sheesh. > Reply-To: Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj Bill. ============================================================================= ===== Bill Gribble Internet: bgribble@jarthur.claremont.edu ===== ===== Harvey Mudd College wgribble@hmcvax.claremont.edu ===== ===== Claremont, CA 91711 Bitnet: wgribble@hmcvax.bitnet ===== ===== (714) 621-8000 x2045 UUCP: ..!uunet!jarthur!bgribble ===== =============================================================================
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (08/18/90)
In article <MWM.90Aug9110315@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >I'm willing to believe you bought the thing. I just didn't see any >advertised. Wanna provide a pointer to someone who sells complete >systems with the SCSI onboard (remember, that's what Dave required). Tandy. The Model 4000 has SCSI. There are other systems available, but they don't have SCSI onboard. Then again, most PC's don't have *any* hard-disk controller oboard: they just include a controller in the package. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "let's face it, finding yourself dead is one seanf@sco.COM | of life's more difficult moments." uunet!sco!seanf | -- Mark Leeper, reviewing _Ghost_ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
greg@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (08/19/90)
In article [...] seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) writes: In article <MWM.90Aug9110315@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >I'm willing to believe you bought the thing. I just didn't see any >advertised. Wanna provide a pointer to someone who sells complete >systems with the SCSI onboard (remember, that's what Dave required). Tandy. The Model 4000 has SCSI. Yeah, but the 4000 is EXPENSIVE. When I worked for The Shack, a 4000SX (using a 386SX) cost $2500 with one meg and NO HD. Also, my 1991 RS catalog doesn't list a machine higher than a 10Mhz 286. I haven't seen a 1991 Tandy Computer catalog, yet. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "let's face it, finding yourself dead is one seanf@sco.COM | of life's more difficult moments." uunet!sco!seanf | -- Mark Leeper, reviewing _Ghost_ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'. greg... _ _ Disclaimer: "What I _really_ meant was..." AMIGA! //// //// "Run to the bedroom, in the suitcase on the left you'll find my _ _ //// favorite axe." --Roger Waters, Pink Floyd's The Wall, One of My Turns \\\\//// \\XX// Greg Harp greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu