ragg0270@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (07/17/90)
Since we all seem interested in keeping up with the competition: Here's the scoop on the new low-end Mac (from McWeek mag.) (This is from memory, so I may be off on a slight detail) Name: Mac Classic (Apple paid $1M for the rights to the name) Processor: 68000 @ 8 Mhz Screen: 9 in monochrome External Ports: SCSI 2 serial Audio out (1 or 2 others, I can't recall, nothing dramatic) Drives: 1 1.44 Meg floppy Memory: 1 Meg ROM: enhanced SE Price: $1500 40 Meg Hard Drive Model: $2100
amhartma@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Andy Hartman - AmigaMan) (07/18/90)
In article <46200101@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> ragg0270@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >Since we all seem interested in keeping up with the competition: >Here's the scoop on the new low-end Mac (from McWeek mag.) >(This is from memory, so I may be off on a slight detail) > >Name: Mac Classic (Apple paid $1M for the rights to the name) To whom did they pay $1M to? McDonalds? When one registers a name (like Mac Classic or anything else) do they have to pay someone to keep the rights to the name? AMH * Andy Hartman | I'd deny half of this crap anyway!| "Somedays, you just * Indiana University |-----------------------------------| can't get rid of a * // Amiga Man | amhartma@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | bomb!" * \X/ At Large! | AMHARTMA@rose.ucs.indiana.edu | - Batman (original)
drxmann@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dustin Christmann) (07/18/90)
In article <46200101@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> ragg0270@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >Name: Mac Classic (Apple paid $1M for the rights to the name) >Processor: 68000 @ 8 Mhz >Screen: 9 in monochrome >External Ports: SCSI > 2 serial > Audio out > (1 or 2 others, I can't recall, nothing dramatic) >Drives: 1 1.44 Meg floppy >Memory: 1 Meg >ROM: enhanced SE Agreed. This equipment is _very_ low-end, especially when compared to the 500. It looks like a rehash of the Mac Plus. BTW, what idiot thought up that ridi- culous name? > >Price: $1500 > >40 Meg Hard Drive Model: $2100 This on the other hand is highway robbery. In CBM's next biennial ad campaign, they should bring this point up. Are we listening, Commodore? Thanx, Dustin Christmann Internet: drxmann@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Bitnet: drxmann@utxvm UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!drxmann "He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He is an idiot." -Groucho Marx
jnmoyne@lbl.gov (Jean-Noel MOYNE) (07/18/90)
In article <51217@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> amhartma@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Andy Hartman - AmigaMan) writes: > To whom did they pay $1M to? McDonalds? For me, it sounds like they paid it to the CocaCola company ! (-: The problem (or the good thing) is that for the Mac people, this is a really low price !!! Don't forget that Apple buyers have got the habit to pay 50% of the price just because there is written Apple somewhere on the machine. And I don't see anymore reasons to buy a Mac SE now, because this machines sounds like it have the same caracteristics, for a lower price. JNM
mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu (metlay) (07/18/90)
In article <46200101@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> ragg0270@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >Here's the scoop on the new low-end Mac (from McWeek mag.) >Name: Mac Classic (Apple paid $1M for the rights to the name) >Drives: 1 1.44 Meg floppy >ROM: enhanced SE >Price: $1500 >40 Meg Hard Drive Model: $2100 Oh, for crying out loud! This is the most obscenely stupid move on the part of a computer company I've had to swallow since, well, since IBM announced the PS/1. Who the hell do these people think they are, anyway? They're offering the barest smidgin of an improvement over the Mac Plus, and charging an arm and a leg for it-- and this is supposed to be the "low end"? Wake up, Commodore. If you're out there and you have any interest in cutting their heart out and eating it, you should stop laughing yourselves sick at this latest piece of narishkeit that Apple's committed, and start to capitalize on it. You guys can't tell me that you couldn't bring to market a low-LOW-end Amiga with capabilities exceeding the Mac's for less than half the price. Getting a share of the Mac's APPEAL, though.... Seriously, though, let's think about this. What's the Mac got that the Amiga doesn't? The Apple name and the megacorporate push behind it (and all of the third-party hangers-on as well), for starters. You aren't going to get that any time soon, so keep looking. An all-in-one construction with a small footprint, for people who want to save space more than they want to add slots. That's perfectly feasible for a machine like the 500, with a little thought. Hell, go them (and Atari) one better and make a laptop version. It's a sad statement that the STacy is the most cost-effective laptop going right now.... I envision a new case for the 500P that contains a built-in monitor, and a keyboard with the option of a trackball module attached to the left or right side for those who don't have room for mice, all in a smaller footprint than the old-style 500 has (considering the monitor). Make it simple to set up and simple to use, and offer it for half the cost of a Mac, and MARKET IT AS SUCH. Am I dreaming the impossible dream? I don't believe so, but if I am, I stand ready to be corrected. Apple's inertia won't let them shift gears away from producing the Mac Classic for a while; I'd like to see that time used in a profitable way by CBM to get a Real Mac Buster out where the public can see it. -- metlay | MYSTECH, P.O.Box 81175, Pittsburgh PA 15217-0675. | Home of Beamline Records, Atomic City Music, and metlay@vms.cis.pitt.edu | the Oberheim Xpander Users' Group. Write for data.
grx1042@uoft02.utoledo.edu (Steve Snodgrass) (07/18/90)
In article <25979@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, mpmst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu (metlay) writes: > This is the most obscenely stupid move on the part of a computer company > I've had to swallow since, well, since IBM announced the PS/1. Who the Agreed. But hey, it's Apple. > I envision a new case for the 500P that contains a built-in monitor, and Argh! No. That's one of the things that so stupid about the Mac. That builtin, 9" piece of junk. And you can't upgrade reasonably without having the thing sitting there, unless you saw off the top of the computer! Please don't urge C= to imitate this foolishness. BTW: If anyone decides this is a good reason to start a computer war, don't waste your breath, cause I won't waste mine (and bandwidth) replying. Steve Snodgrass - Ph'ran |SUBTEC - Student Union Board Technical Services| Green Rider of Telgar Weyr|Turbosound - the only way to fly. TMS-4 | --------------------------|-----------------------------------------------| GRX1042@uoft02.utoledo.edu|"It had limited capability, with a mere hundred| GRX1042@uoft02.BITNET | thousand gigabytes of RAM" -Jack L. Chalker | "Who explains the dreams we know/Carry us through from day to day" -me
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (07/18/90)
ragg0270@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: }Name: Mac Classic (Apple paid $1M for the rights to the name) }Processor: 68000 @ 8 Mhz }Screen: 9 in monochrome }External Ports: SCSI } 2 serial } Audio out } (1 or 2 others, I can't recall, nothing dramatic) }Drives: 1 1.44 Meg floppy }Memory: 1 Meg }ROM: enhanced SE }40 Meg Hard Drive Model: $2100 Whoopee... I'm real impressed. I just bought my wife a 16Mhz 386SX w super VGA interface, 13" VGA monitor, SCSI, 2 serial, 1 parallel, 1.2Meg floppy, 2megs of memory & 40meg hard disk. $2100. My only question/worry is whether I'm going to be much interested in my Amiga any more once I start fooling around with Lynn's new PC.... /Bernie\
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (07/19/90)
>}40 Meg Hard Drive Model: $2100 > >Whoopee... I'm real impressed. I just bought my wife a 16Mhz 386SX w >super VGA interface, 13" VGA monitor, SCSI, 2 serial, 1 parallel, >1.2Meg floppy, 2megs of memory & 40meg hard disk. $2100. My only Would everyone PLEASE stop a minute and realize that that is LIST price, NOT street price! Educational discount price will probably be under $1,000 for the 40MB version, they are already discounting by over 60% on some models. Did you know you can get a Mac Plus/1MB for $720? A Mac SE/40MB for $1,400? I'm hardly singing the praises of apple but we should realize that the Amiga isn't that much cheaper anymore. -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu "If Commodore had to market sushi they'd call it `raw cold fish'" -- The Bandito, inevitably stolen from someone else
unhd (Nick C Fitanides) (07/19/90)
$2100. w/a 40 Meg hard drive? They must be joking. That's the student discount price on a 16 MHz 3000. Ha ha ha ha ha ha (hit me please) OUCH! -- ............................................................................... . / . Nick Fitanides . UUNET: uunet!ncf@unhd.edu . . \/ Amiga users unite!. CIS Lead Vax Consultant . BITNET: N_FITANIDES@UNHH . ...............................................................................
ammrk@swbatl.sbc.com (Mike R. Kraml) (07/20/90)
In article <58277@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >ragg0270@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >Whoopee... I'm real impressed. I just bought my wife a 16Mhz 386SX w >super VGA interface, 13" VGA monitor, SCSI, 2 serial, 1 parallel, >1.2Meg floppy, 2megs of memory & 40meg hard disk. $2100. My only >question/worry is whether I'm going to be much interested in my Amiga >any more once I start fooling around with Lynn's new PC.... > > /Bernie\ Yeah, WOW, now you can play Lotus 1-2-3 all day, and all night!!! What could be more FUN!!! Oh well, just my 2 cents worth, Mike... -- ============================================================================= Mike Kraml - Manager-Separations MECHANIZATION - SWBT - (The Techies) UUCP: {uunet, bellcore, texbell}...!swbatl.sbc.com!ammrk =============================================================================
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (07/20/90)
In-Reply-To: message from cosell@bbn.com If that's the type of system that impresses you...the perhaps you never were really interested in the Amiga... Sean //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | " Fanatics have their INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | dreams, wherewith they | weave a paradise for RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | a sect. " Voice: (512) 994-1602 PLINK: ce3k* | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
paul@athertn.Atherton.COM (Paul Sander) (07/21/90)
In article <1990Jul19.133752.5611@uunet!unhd> ncf@unhd.UUCP (Nick C Fitanides) writes: >$2100. w/a 40 Meg hard drive? They must be joking. That's the student >discount price on a 16 MHz 3000. Ha ha ha ha ha ha (hit me please) OUCH! I've been shopping around for the past few months for a new machine, and I've been considering the A3000, comparing it with the Mac IIci. The current street prices (yes, some of us _do_ visit dealers to buy computers) for the A3000 (with 100 MB disk) is about $3500 (US), excluding monitor and any additional accessories and taxes. A stripped-down Mac IIci also goes for about $3500; the additional costs to make it "hardware-equivalent" to the A3000 are: $100 for 1MB RAM, $1200 for 160 MB disk, $180 for extended keyboard. Okay, the Mac is $1480 more expensive than the Amiga, but many people believe the extra cost is justified because of the increased availability of quality applications, widespread support, better-informed dealer staff, etc. etc. The lower-end Mac-compatible monitors seem to be competitive in price with those available for the Amiga. Note: This is not a flame for or against any machine. They're just my observations during my recent visits to the local stores. -- 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"
navas@sim.uucp (David C. Navas) (07/21/90)
In article <27545@athertn.Atherton.COM> paul@Atherton.COM (Paul Sander) writes: >Okay, the Mac is $1480 more expensive than the Amiga, but many >people believe the extra cost is justified because of the increased >availability of quality applications, widespread support, better-informed >dealer staff, etc. etc. The lower-end Mac-compatible monitors seem to be That's funny... The biggest beef my father has, dealing with Apple, is that he can't (as a business) direct order from Apple, and has to go to a local dealership for both purchases and repair. His complaint is that all Apple-carrying stores seem to be holes in the wall. But he can't do without those machines... BIG MONITORS. The only reason I'd pay another $1500 for a computer is if I needed a big monitor, or I liked being able to open up my machine a lot. For this extra $1500 I get -- AppleTalk, now ain't that special :) I also get -- a slower bus interface, less room for internal memory, multi-tasking-by-Apple, non-standard-Unix, etc, etc. I wonder if the MacIIci comes with a 68882, not an 881? I don't know -- just thought of that question... >Note: This is not a flame for or against any machine. They're just my >observations during my recent visits to the local stores. Neither is this a flame -- there just seems to be darn good reasons to buy an Amiga too, though I would personaly wait until the A3000 is shipping in volume with 2.0ROM's if I were a new user... Of course, in price, there are even better reasons to buy a '386 machine. The question is what you want to use it for, and what each machine is good at doing. Of course, I would suggest buying AMax... Wait until the new one, amd wait until the A3000 has ROMs. I don't think even the new AMax will be able to handle the way the 3000 uses the MMU to bootstrap its ROMs... >-- >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" David Navas navas@sim.berkeley.edu "Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (07/22/90)
In article <26401@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@sim.UUCP (David C. Navas) writes: >For this extra $1500 I get -- AppleTalk, now ain't that special :) >I also get -- a slower bus interface, less room for internal memory, >multi-tasking-by-Apple, non-standard-Unix, etc, etc. > >I wonder if the MacIIci comes with a 68882, not an 881? I don't know -- >just thought of that question... The MacIIci does come with a 68882, as well as built in video giving you either 256 colours in 640x480 or 16 shades in a portrait display. A/UX 2.0 is quite a nice implementation of UNIX, and is available now. What do you call "standard Unix". Appletalk is a very nice networking system. Note that the protocals can run at Ethernet speed(EtherTalk). But for a simple, and easy to use network, the Mac's Appletalk interface is great. It comes in quite handy on a Unix network. The A3000 is technically a nice computer. The software base is rather limited, so the extra $1500 is more than worth it for 90% of the users. Commodore could help the Amiga by cutting its price in half, bundling software for specific markets(eg. AmigaTeX,Maple, good terminal program,...for university types). At its current price, it simply will not sell well. There is not enough software to justify it. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
martin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Martin Hunt) (07/22/90)
In article <1990Jul22.011427.1065@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: > >Appletalk is a very nice networking system. Note that the protocals >can run at Ethernet speed(EtherTalk). But for a simple, and easy to >use network, the Mac's Appletalk interface is great. It comes in >quite handy on a Unix network. Except that UNIX networks don't speak Appletalk. > >The A3000 is technically a nice computer. The software base is rather >limited, so the extra $1500 is more than worth it for 90% of the >users. Commodore could help the Amiga by cutting its price in half, >bundling software for specific markets(eg. AmigaTeX,Maple, good terminal >program,...for university types). At its current price, it simply will >not sell well. There is not enough software to justify it. I like the bundling idea, but Commodores been doing that. The rest of your statement doesn't make any sense. Most people buy a computer to do a few specific tasks. If software is available to do those tasks, then who cares if there are more packages available for another computer. By your argument, everyone should only buy PCs because they are cheaper and have more software. -- Martin Hunt martin@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore-Amiga Engineering {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!martin
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (07/22/90)
In <1119@cs.nps.navy.mil>, schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes: >A 12.5 mips (MIPS - sometimes referred to as 'meaningless indicator of processor >speed' :-) ) Sparcstation 1 for less than $3039 (US) (price of A3000/25-40 >package on the US educational purchase program), this sounds interesting... >I know that the lower end Sparcstations (and Sparcstation clones) are getting >less expensive, but I hadn't heard it was that cheap. Well, they aren't, yet, that low cost, unless he's talking LIST for the 3000 and some educational pricing for the SLC. He would also be talking about a diskless desktopper. -larry -- Sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (07/23/90)
In article <13353@cbmvax.commodore.com> martin@cbmvax (Martin Hunt) writes: >In article <1990Jul22.011427.1065@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >> >>Appletalk is a very nice networking system. Note that the protocals >>can run at Ethernet speed(EtherTalk). But for a simple, and easy to >>use network, the Mac's Appletalk interface is great. It comes in >>quite handy on a Unix network. > >Except that UNIX networks don't speak Appletalk. Well tell that to the residence dorms that are equipped with Appletalk outlets. There are many good gateways between Unix and an Appletalk based network. One advantage is that this brings the Mac interface, way of printing,mail,etc...to Unix. We have such a setup at our university and to use it is a joy. > >> >>The A3000 is technically a nice computer. The software base is rather >>limited, so the extra $1500 is more than worth it for 90% of the >>users. Commodore could help the Amiga by cutting its price in half, >>bundling software for specific markets(eg. AmigaTeX,Maple, good terminal >>program,...for university types). At its current price, it simply will >>not sell well. There is not enough software to justify it. > >I like the bundling idea, but Commodores been doing that. The rest of >your statement doesn't make any sense. Most people buy a computer to do >a few specific tasks. If software is available to do those tasks, then >who cares if there are more packages available for another computer. >By your argument, everyone should only buy PCs because they are cheaper >and have more software. Well Commodore has not been bundling scientific software for the Amiga at the university where I work. The bundling that we see is games/video oriented. As for the price issue, you must realize that the Amiga must establish itself. It is trying to break into a very competitive market. The analogy to use is not the PC one, but Sun. Sun is virtually giving away its hardware in order to establish a leading marketshare for its OS. They have now largely succeeded(I can get a 12.5 mips Sparcstation-I for less than an A3000) and people are writing all kinds of software for it. The amount of scientific software for the Amiga is very limited. There are no major statistical programs for it, there is no WYSIWYG technical word processor for it, Maple is a good package but few Amiga users are aware of its existance. So when you tell me that only a few packages are typically used, I have to agree. But if I am a mathematician, those packages don't exist on the Amiga, and this is true for many other areas. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
klien@typhoon.Berkeley.EDU (Karen Lien) (07/23/90)
In article <1990Jul22.011427.1065@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >The MacIIci does come with a 68882, as well as built in video giving >you either 256 colours in 640x480 or 16 shades in a portrait display. Thanks -- I didn't know about the 68882. I thought that the original video setup was 16 colors, expandable to 256? Well, like I originally posted, the only reason I would buy a Mac is for the large screens (which for some funny reason is aliased in my mind with lots of colors too...) >A/UX 2.0 is quite a nice implementation of UNIX, and is available >now. What do you call "standard Unix". Simple, one that says Unix on it. That's simple, no? I've seen A/UX. I'm impresed with the interface, not necessarily the specific technology. >The A3000 is technically a nice computer. The software base is rather >limited, so the extra $1500 is more than worth it for 90% of the >users. Aha! So your argument is that its the installed base of software that makes a computer? So by your argument you ought to be buying an IBM, right? It's cheaper and comes with lots more software (well, IBM clones, really...) The point is that I can run Apple software on my Amiga with AMax for about $500. $1500 is not a justifiable expense to me, simply because its $1000 I don't need to spend unless I specifically need: 1. Huge display. 2. Appletalk. 3. Mac sound capability. With the new AMax, the last two advantages will disappear, but that's a meaningless discussion. >At its current price, it simply will >not sell well. There is not enough software to justify it. FOr whom? For the scientific type, those not willing to look into emulators, etc. -- that may be so. For video people its the machine of choice for exactly the opposite reason. What's more interesting is that the machine (from the accounts I've heard) are selling as fast as Cmdre can make them. Which is pretty good for a computer that doesn't have its operating system in ROM yet... > >Philip McDunnough >University of Toronto >philip@utstat.toronto.edu >[my opinions] And these are, of course, mine. I don't want to start a flamewar, it's not meant as a flame. It's just I hate to see people wasting $1000 when they can be giving it to me. Hmm, now there's an idea -- suppose I could bundle A3000 and AMax, and sell the combo for a $1000 profit? :) -- if you couldn't tell.
schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) (07/23/90)
In article <1990Jul23.000142.26294@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: |In article <13353@cbmvax.commodore.com> martin@cbmvax (Martin Hunt) writes: |>In article <1990Jul22.011427.1065@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: |>> |>>Appletalk is a very nice networking system. Note that the protocals |>>can run at Ethernet speed(EtherTalk). But for a simple, and easy to |>>use network, the Mac's Appletalk interface is great. It comes in |>>quite handy on a Unix network. ^^ |> |>Except that UNIX networks don't speak Appletalk. | |Well tell that to the residence dorms that are equipped with Appletalk |outlets. There are many good gateways between Unix and an Appletalk based |network. One advantage is that this brings the Mac interface, way of |printing,mail,etc...to Unix. We have such a setup at our university and |to use it is a joy. To me, at least, being on a Unix network and being gatewayed onto/interfaced with a Unix network are different issues. This might have been the cause of some confusion. Network connections/solutions for the Amiga are hardly lacking including Ethernet, Arcnet, Amiga Client for Novell Netware, TCP/IP, NFS, XWindows, TSSNet (DECNet), etc. Although I can't find it at the moment, I thought I had heard of an Amiga-Appletalk link also. |As for the price issue, you must realize that the Amiga must establish |itself. It is trying to break into a very competitive market. The analogy |to use is not the PC one, but Sun. Sun is virtually giving away its |hardware in order to establish a leading marketshare for its OS. They |have now largely succeeded(I can get a 12.5 mips Sparcstation-I for less |than an A3000) and people are writing all kinds of software for it. A 12.5 mips (MIPS - sometimes referred to as 'meaningless indicator of processor speed' :-) ) Sparcstation 1 for less than $3039 (US) (price of A3000/25-40 package on the US educational purchase program), this sounds interesting... I know that the lower end Sparcstations (and Sparcstation clones) are getting less expensive, but I hadn't heard it was that cheap. Jeff Schweiger -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
robin@sabre.austin.ibm.com (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) (07/23/90)
In article <27545@athertn.Atherton.COM> paul@Atherton.COM (Paul Sander) writes: >I've been shopping around for the past few months for a new machine, and I've >been considering the A3000, comparing it with the Mac IIci. The current >street prices (yes, some of us _do_ visit dealers to buy computers) for the >A3000 (with 100 MB disk) is about $3500 (US), excluding monitor and any >additional accessories and taxes. A stripped-down Mac IIci also goes for >about $3500; the additional costs to make it "hardware-equivalent" to the >A3000 are: $100 for 1MB RAM, $1200 for 160 MB disk, $180 for extended >keyboard. Okay, the Mac is $1480 more expensive than the Amiga, but many >people believe the extra cost is justified because of the increased >availability of quality applications, widespread support, better-informed >dealer staff, etc. etc. The lower-end Mac-compatible monitors seem to be >competitive in price with those available for the Amiga. > >Note: This is not a flame for or against any machine. They're just my >observations during my recent visits to the local stores. Ahhh,.. But you compare the "Top of the line" Amiga with a middle of the line Mac. Even so, the Amy out-performs the IIci by quite a bit in graphics, sound "raw power", and several other areas. And as for "increased availability of quality applications" that's just one person's opinion. I personally find that "most" Mac software is written to work on the lowely Mac Plus, so it usually is missing something onthe MacII line. Also, the stuff that isn't written for the lowest common denominator, is in the $400-800 range... not very pretty. (BTW, I grant that the Amiga software is all written to work on the "lowely" A500, but that machine is on par with the original MacII -- in terms of everything EXCEPT raw power.) In pure performance power, you should probably compare the A3000 -- 16Mhz. version, and then add an extra $1000 to the difference in price for "comparable" software. Oh yeah... don't forget, you still can't multitask, and if you opt for UNIX, your stuck with a Sys V rel 2. (plus Apple enhancements that make it more or less non-standard... kind of like IBM's AIX). +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |The views expressed herein, are the sole responsibility of the typist at hand| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |UUCP: cs.utexas.edu!ibmchs!auschs!sabre.austin.ibm.com!robin | |USNail: 701 Canyon Bend Dr. | | Pflugerville, TX 78660 | | Home: (512)251-6889 Work: (512)823-4526 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
bgribble@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Bill Gribble) (07/23/90)
In article <1119@cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes: >A 12.5 mips (MIPS - sometimes referred to as 'meaningless indicator of processor >speed' :-) ) Sparcstation 1 for less than $3039 (US) (price of A3000/25-40 >package on the US educational purchase program), this sounds interesting... >I know that the lower end Sparcstations (and Sparcstation clones) are getting >less expensive, but I hadn't heard it was that cheap. >Jeff Schweiger But, as has been mentioned before, try checking out a Sun software price list. Let's see - a nice raytrace package like Sculpt or Silver.. some math software like Maple.. a good DTP program.. how's $50k sound? Now that $3000 Amiga looks a little more attractive than that "$3000" Sparc, doesn't it? Of course, that price guess could be way out of line - I've never bought any Sun sware - but from what I've heard it's pretty ballpark. I still think an a3000 with Ethernet or something comparable and Unix looks like the most attractive X/Unix terminal for my poor-college-student dollar. 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 ===== =============================================================================
schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) (07/24/90)
In article <7904@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> bgribble@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Bill Gribble) writes: >In article <1119@cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes: > >>A 12.5 mips (MIPS - sometimes referred to as 'meaningless indicator of processor >>speed' :-) ) Sparcstation 1 for less than $3039 (US) (price of A3000/25-40 >>package on the US educational purchase program), this sounds interesting... >>I know that the lower end Sparcstations (and Sparcstation clones) are getting >>less expensive, but I hadn't heard it was that cheap. >But, as has been mentioned before, try checking out a Sun software price > list. Let's see - a nice raytrace package like Sculpt or Silver.. some > math software like Maple.. a good DTP program.. how's $50k sound? Now > that $3000 Amiga looks a little more attractive than that "$3000" Sparc, > doesn't it? Actually, I don't believe that Sun software is quite as expensive as you think. One contract I could possibly use as an ordering vehicle bundles SunOS 4.0.x with Sunview, NFS, Assembler, Open Windows (X11/NeWS), C and FORTRAN compilers for about $1100. The Ada compiler would be about $1600, Informix RDBMS for about $800, and the SunPHIGs graphics development package for about $1100. Framemaker licences appear to be available in the $300-$500 price range. Obviously, this is a bit more expensive than I would spend for Amiga software. >Of course, that price guess could be way out of line - I've never bought > any Sun sware - but from what I've heard it's pretty ballpark. I still > think an a3000 with Ethernet or something comparable and Unix looks > like the most attractive X/Unix terminal for my poor-college-student > dollar. > > Bill. Actually, I agree, and always did. My digression was out of curiosity. I certainly do not desire to compare Amigas to SPARCStations, and I don't think C= would either (at least with the currently released machines, I don't know about the future). The machines have different capabilities, and aren't really in the same market niche (IMHO). Jeff Schweiger -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (07/24/90)
In <13035@yunexus.YorkU.CA>, pmcd@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: >In article <1810@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >>In <1119@cs.nps.navy.mil>, schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes: >>>A 12.5 mips (MIPS - sometimes referred to as 'meaningless indicator of processor >>>speed' :-) ) Sparcstation 1 for less than $3039 (US) (price of A3000/25-40 >>>package on the US educational purchase program), this sounds interesting... >>>I know that the lower end Sparcstations (and Sparcstation clones) are getting >>>less expensive, but I hadn't heard it was that cheap. >> >>Well, they aren't, yet, that low cost, unless he's talking LIST for the 3000 >>and some educational pricing for the SLC. He would also be talking about a >>diskless desktopper. > >Well I suggest you talk to Sun. I do talk to Sun, fairly often in fact, since I work for them. > They are that low. No they aren't. List price of an SLC in Canada (in Cdn dollars) is over $7000. List price of a 3000 is about $5500 (with 40 meg HD). > Yes I am talking about >a SLC without a HD, but with the SunOS,SCSI,serial,Ethernet,large monitor. >SCSI hards disks are relatively cheap, and we have a source licence for >UNIX, as you do. I don't, personally, have a source licence for Unix (or SunOS), though it makes no difference to the matter at hand, which is price. Yes, if you want the source, it's going to cost, and cost plenty, whether it's SunOS or CBM's Unix. > Since we are talking educational pricing here, the Sun >will turn out to be less than an Amiga 3000 with a 100meg HD(that's not >large by the way). Sun's discounts to educational _institutions_ is indeed attractive, though that discount is not necessarily available to students. > Moreover you will have to add Ethernet, Unix( will you >get only the binaries?),etc...to the A3000. An Ethernet card and software to run it will cost in the order of $500 US. Brings the cost of the 3000 up to about $6000 list. If CBM's Unix comes in at over $1000, they will be about the same price. > In the end you end up with a >computer which may be more "fun" than a Sparc but one which doesn't >compare with the Sun powerwise. Try looking at the Mflops' rating. The >68882 is not the greatest floating point coprocessor around. In any case >it is an issue of software. The Amiga just doesn't have that at the moment, >except for very specialized cases. Yes, I have looked at performance. Sure, the SLC is a fast machine. It is also more expensive than the 3000. Period. This is what I was commenting on, not the relative value of the two machines in terms of price/performance, or how many packages are available for it. You say the Amiga just doesn't have the software available for it at the moment, yet you compare the Amiga with the SPARC as if they were both running Unix, and both needed to be networked. Make up your mind. CBM's Unix will be ABI compliant. Think about what that means in terms of software availability. -larry -- Sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (07/24/90)
In <2889@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes: > >Eh? $3000 SLC with a "large" monitor? Monochrome and non-graphics I presume. >You ARE neglecting the cost for a server are you not? I also do not believe >that it would come with a SCSI as it would be a real stripped system. Having a >SCSI on a diskless workstation is basically a waste and just extra cost to the >user if he never intends to upgrade. The SLC does not have a 'large' monitor, unless you count a 17" monitor as large. As Sun's go, it is a small monitor. It is also monochrome. SCSI is indeed included. The SLC consists of a monitor unit, a keyboard, and a mouse. The CPU is built in to the rear of the monitor, and contains the SCSI, Ethernet, and 2 serial ports. -larry -- Sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (07/24/90)
In article <1990Jul22.011427.1065@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >In article <26401@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@sim.UUCP (David C. Navas) writes: >>For this extra $1500 I get -- AppleTalk, now ain't that special :) >>I also get -- a slower bus interface, less room for internal memory, >>multi-tasking-by-Apple, non-standard-Unix, etc, etc. >The MacIIci does come with a 68882, as well as built in video giving >you either 256 colours in 640x480 or 16 shades in a portrait display. >A/UX 2.0 is quite a nice implementation of UNIX, and is available >now. What do you call "standard Unix". There are no standard UNIXs just yet, really. Ultimately, there will be one or two standard UNIXs, AT&T's System V Release 4 is the most likely winner in the 680x0 market. Open Software's OSF/1 may or may not become a second true standard. The idea of a standard UNIX is that you'll be able to buy shrinkwrapped UNIX software, not for "Apple" or "Amiga", but for "680x0 machine". A/UX 2.0 is probably a pretty nice UNIX, but it does not support the standard 680x0 ABI, and it's non-standard windowing environment (eg, the Mac toolbox, rather than X) is not going to have UNIX people flocking, now that they're finally getting things straightened out in that market. >Appletalk is a very nice networking system. Note that the protocals >can run at Ethernet speed(EtherTalk). But those software layers only hook Macs to Macs, don't they. And you'll need a NuBus Ethernet card to run at Ethernet speeds. And TCP/IP + NFS to talk to anything useful that's non-Mac. This stuff's all available for the Amiga systems, from Commodore. AppleTalk is nice for printer sharing, but doesn't cut it for filesharing or other high bandwidth applications. >The A3000 is technically a nice computer. Thank you. >The software base is rather limited, so the extra $1500 is more than worth >it for 90% of the users. I don't think you know that much about the A3000's software base. For those without a specific program in mind, you can please about 90% of the users with an Amiga just as easily as with a PC. There are certain niches that the Mac serves better than the Amiga, just as there's at least one niche (video) that the Amiga servers better than the Mac. If you have a certain program in mind that you can't live without, you pick that package and then find a machine that'll run it, be it Amiga, Mac, or PClone. >Philip McDunnough -- 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
pmcd@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) (07/24/90)
In article <1810@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >In <1119@cs.nps.navy.mil>, schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes: >>A 12.5 mips (MIPS - sometimes referred to as 'meaningless indicator of processor >>speed' :-) ) Sparcstation 1 for less than $3039 (US) (price of A3000/25-40 >>package on the US educational purchase program), this sounds interesting... >>I know that the lower end Sparcstations (and Sparcstation clones) are getting >>less expensive, but I hadn't heard it was that cheap. > >Well, they aren't, yet, that low cost, unless he's talking LIST for the 3000 >and some educational pricing for the SLC. He would also be talking about a >diskless desktopper. Well I suggest you talk to Sun. They are that low. Yes I am talking about a SLC without a HD, but with the SunOS,SCSI,serial,Ethernet,large monitor. SCSI hards disks are relatively cheap, and we have a source licence for UNIX, as you do. Since we are talking educational pricing here, the Sun will turn out to be less than an Amiga 3000 with a 100meg HD(that's not large by the way). Moreover you will have to add Ethernet, Unix( will you get only the binaries?),etc...to the A3000. In the end you end up with a computer which may be more "fun" than a Sparc but one which doesn't compare with the Sun powerwise. Try looking at the Mflops' rating. The 68882 is not the greatest floating point coprocessor around. In any case it is an issue of software. The Amiga just doesn't have that at the moment, except for very specialized cases. > Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (07/25/90)
In article <13035@yunexus.YorkU.CA>, pmcd@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes... ^In article <1810@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: ^>In <1119@cs.nps.navy.mil>, schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes: ^>>A 12.5 mips (MIPS - sometimes referred to as 'meaningless indicator of processor ^>>speed' :-) ) Sparcstation 1 for less than $3039 (US) (price of A3000/25-40 ^>>package on the US educational purchase program), this sounds interesting... ^>>I know that the lower end Sparcstations (and Sparcstation clones) are getting ^>>less expensive, but I hadn't heard it was that cheap. ^> ^>Well, they aren't, yet, that low cost, unless he's talking LIST for the 3000 ^>and some educational pricing for the SLC. He would also be talking about a ^>diskless desktopper. ^ ^Well I suggest you talk to Sun. They are that low. Yes I am talking about ^a SLC without a HD, but with the SunOS,SCSI,serial,Ethernet,large monitor. Eh? $3000 SLC with a "large" monitor? Monochrome and non-graphics I presume. You ARE neglecting the cost for a server are you not? I also do not believe that it would come with a SCSI as it would be a real stripped system. Having a SCSI on a diskless workstation is basically a waste and just extra cost to the user if he never intends to upgrade. I'd really like to see your price breakdown and order numbers. My GSA prices (presumably much higher than the ed discounts) don't come close. I don't have the GSA price book in front of me but I recall looking at them when I was pricing the SGI stuff. ^SCSI hards disks are relatively cheap, and we have a source licence for ^UNIX, as you do. Since we are talking educational pricing here, the Sun ^will turn out to be less than an Amiga 3000 with a 100meg HD(that's not ^large by the way). Moreover you will have to add Ethernet, Unix( will you ^get only the binaries?),etc...to the A3000. In the end you end up with a ^computer which may be more "fun" than a Sparc but one which doesn't ^compare with the Sun powerwise. Try looking at the Mflops' rating. The ^68882 is not the greatest floating point coprocessor around. In any case ^it is an issue of software. The Amiga just doesn't have that at the moment, ^except for very specialized cases. Excuse me but an Ami running S5R4 will have approximately the same software base as a diskless Sun (give some for Sun specific take some back for the Ami specific stuff). More considering that the Ami will have rudimentary color graphic capability (wimpy as workstations go but then the Ami isn't a workstation). ^> ^Philip McDunnough ^University of Toronto ^philip@utstat.toronto.edu ^[my opinions] Me thinks you exaggerate. I like Suns but somehow I doubt they are quite as cheap as you claim. $4000 for the diskless system you describe I can believe. $3000? Let's see the hard numbers instead of this vague handwaving. 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.
mjl@ut-emx.UUCP (Maurice LeBrun) (07/25/90)
Philip McDunnough writes: >>At its current price, it simply will >>not sell well. There is not enough software to justify it. Karen Lien replies: >FOr whom? For the scientific type, those not willing to look into emulators, >etc. -- that may be so. For video people its the machine of choice for >exactly the opposite reason. > >What's more interesting is that the machine (from the accounts I've heard) >are selling as fast as Cmdre can make them. Which is pretty good for a >computer that doesn't have its operating system in ROM yet... And I certainly wouldn't rule out capturing a fair amount of the scientific computing market. I for one have already ordered my A3000, and plan to shift my development of plasma simulation codes to it (it should be much faster than the Vaxstation I currently use) as well as for writing papers (using AmigaTeX), graphics display/output, and animations. It is true that the MacII has the edge in the number of high-priced software packages, but the Amiga has the edge in good inexpensive (or free) software -- which is just as important (or more) to someone on a limited budget, as most scientists are. Maurice LeBrun Institute for Fusion Studies mjl@fusion.ph.utexas.edu University of Texas at Austin
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (07/26/90)
In <13128@yunexus.YorkU.CA>, pmcd@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: >In article <1816@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >>Sun's discounts to educational _institutions_ is indeed attractive, though that >>discount is not necessarily available to students. > >Well, as you know that may change. But in any case, I was talking from >the point of view of a faculty member, as I still consider the A3000 >beyond the means of most students. If it isn't, then I should be paid >more and tuitions raised! The list price of around $7000(FST in) and the >SCSI port make the SLC far` less expensive to univers{ties than an Amiga. Are you forgetting the SCSI port on the 3000? That $7000 (actually more like $7400) is without a hard drive. Current pricing on 100 meg HDs will put that a fair amount over $8000 (external drives only, on the SLC, requiring case and power supply). >>An Ethernet card and software to run it will cost in the order of $500 US. >>Brings the cost of the 3000 up to about $6000 list. If CBM's Unix comes in at >>over $1000, they will be about the same price. > >Think about it. $6000 for an Amiga with a small 100 meg HD, and a very poor >math coprocessor. The MFLOPS' rating from the 030/882 combination is not high. >This $6000 price is not aimed at students, and you know it. I am thinking about it. Sounds like $2000 less for the A3000. Yes, as I said before, the SLC will outperform the 3000, but that wasn't what I was talking about. I was referring to the statement that an SLC was less money than a 3000. >The A3000 has a niche market(video) under the Amiga OS. So I was comparing >the typical faculty setup. No major companies have committed to the Amiga >to my knowledge. As such, they won't make it in the corporate world( which >may be a blessing in disguise). System V release 4.0 of Unix is still unstable >and even if it weren't, people would still have to port their software to >the Amiga. As a simply example, try seeing if Statsci( a commercial vendor >of S+-> a research statistical graphics package) will be having S+ running >on the A3000. If they say yes, then I will take back every negative comment >I have said about software availabilty for the Amiga. Yes, under the Amiga OS, it is strong in video. I wouldn't say that's all it does, though. When sVr4 is available on the Amiga, and when SunOS 5.0 is available on the SLC, the comparison will be more meaningful, since we will be talking about two Unix machines, running eseentially the same OS, _complete with ABI compliance_. If the vendor you speak of has done things 'right', it will run on _ALL_ ABI compliant sVr4 implementations. What you will have then is a base from which to judge the relative merits of the two machines vs. their price. Meanwhile, the 3000 is lower cost than Sun's lowest cost workstation. -larry -- Sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
pmcd@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) (07/26/90)
In article <1816@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >Sun's discounts to educational _institutions_ is indeed attractive, though that >discount is not necessarily available to students. Well, as you know that may change. But in any case, I was talking from the point of view of a faculty member, as I still consider the A3000 beyond the means of most students. If it isn't, then I should be paid more and tuitions raised! The list price of around $7000(FST in) and the SCSI port make the SLC far` less expensive to univers{ties than an Amiga. > >An Ethernet card and software to run it will cost in the order of $500 US. >Brings the cost of the 3000 up to about $6000 list. If CBM's Unix comes in at >over $1000, they will be about the same price. Think about it. $6000 for an Amiga with a small 100 meg HD, and a very poor math coprocessor. The MFLOPS' rating from the 030/882 combination is not high. This $6000 price is not aimed at students, and you know it. > You say the Amiga just doesn't have the software >available for it at the moment, yet you compare the Amiga with the SPARC as if >they were both running Unix, and both needed to be networked. Make up your >mind. CBM's Unix will be ABI compliant. Think about what that means in terms of >software availability. The A3000 has a niche market(video) under the Amiga OS. So I was comparing the typical faculty setup. No major companies have committed to the Amiga to my knowledge. As such, they won't make it in the corporate world( which may be a blessing in disguise). System V release 4.0 of Unix is still unstable and even if it weren't, people would still have to port their software to the Amiga. As a simply example, try seeing if Statsci( a commercial vendor of S+-> a research statistical graphics package) will be having S+ running on the A3000. If they say yes, then I will take back every negative comment I have said about software availabilty for the Amiga. Philip McDunnough University of Toronto philip@utstat.toronto.edu [my opinions]
spear@locus.com (Brad Spear) (07/27/90)
In article (murfle) daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) wrote: >In article <...> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: > >>Appletalk is a very nice networking system. Note that the protocals >>can run at Ethernet speed(EtherTalk). > >But those software layers only hook Macs to Macs, don't they. And you'll >need a NuBus Ethernet card to run at Ethernet speeds. And TCP/IP + NFS >to talk to anything useful that's non-Mac. This stuff's all available for >the Amiga systems, from Commodore. AppleTalk is nice for printer sharing, >but doesn't cut it for filesharing or other high bandwidth applications. This doesn't really change the argument much, but I've seen a couple of letters now that say the same thing. AppleTalk is a set of software protocols (as Dave implies here -- another letter seemed to confuse it with LocalTalk, which is the standard *hardware* driver, that has been supplied with every Macintosh, since day 1). And there is an Ethernet card for the Mac-SE. I seem to recall that it isn't a NuBus -- but this is nit-picking. Maybe the SE can't keep up at standard Ethernet speeds for more than short bursts? Yes, you do need to run Ethernet software (it can be had in either Ethernet standard or EtherTalk forms) and TCP/IP software, but these are availble, in costware and/or freeware forms. I have used one version to talk from a Mac to several UNIX hosts here. The need for NFS is a personal choice, it isn't *necessary*. And AppleTalk does support file as well as printer sharing. Just how well is a matter of opinion. :-> I've only read the protocol, I've never actually used it. Is it really slower than, say, FTP over TCP/IP and Ethernet? Any 'direct' service like NFS will have problems between machine architectures. I've worked on two such products, for UNIX <-> MS-DOS. What a pain. And the real kicker that no one seems to know: At least one company, (I forget the name -- Interactive Presentation Technologies, or something like that) sells an AppleTalk protocol stack for a few UNIX machines. This provides direct AppleTalk on said host. This is of course, over the Ethernet or EtherTalk hardware protocols. However, they also sell hardware cards for a few machines (I'm sure that the EISA bus is included in this), that allows the UNIX host to talk on the LocalTalk hardware. The situation with this sort of stuff, is like the Amiga and DTP or music, a few years ago. No one knew about it. Maybe Commodore should think about adding an AppleTalk stack to its network offerings? ... Naaahhh! :-> But then, since so many people want AMAX or Mac-2-Dos ... Brad P.S. Isn't this enough about the Mac? How about talking about the AppleTalk stack in Amiga terms? At least then it will be correct for this newsgroup. (Joke, Mongo, ... Joke!) -- Brad Spear Locus Computing Corporation spear@locus.com Inglewood, CA, USA Disclaimer: I speak for no one but myself. This line intentionally left blank.
pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) (07/27/90)
In article <1990Jul22.011427.1065@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >The A3000 is technically a nice computer. The software base is rather >limited, so the extra $1500 is more than worth it for 90% of the >users. Commodore could help the Amiga by cutting its price in half, >bundling software for specific markets I think Commodore could help the Amiga a lot more by getting a few of the better word processors and spreadsheets ported to the Amiga. I believe that would negate most of the Mac's advantages over the Amiga. Of course, for specialized domains, programs will always appear on the PC first. I think Commodore should concede those markets (but stick with desktop video and other markets where the Amiga has a natural advantage). But for a general/business market, it'd be a lot harder to justify $1500 extra for a Mac if the Amiga had as good a word processor and spreadsheet. -- -Peter Schachte pds@quintus.uucp ...!sun!quintus!pds
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (07/27/90)
In article <13128@yunexus.YorkU.CA> pmcd@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: >System V release 4.0 of Unix is still unstable and even if it weren't, >people would still have to port their software to the Amiga. System VR4 isn't released yet, true. That doesn't imply that it's unstable, it simply means that you don't have it yet unless you're beta testing it. As for porting, you don't port to Amiga UNIX, Apple UNIX, etc. You port to 680x0 UNIX, and all compliant 680x0 ports run the same binary. That's one of the most important goals of the new UNIX implementation -- shrinkwrapped UNIX software. >Philip McDunnough -- 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)
In article <13736@oolong.la.locus.com> spear@locus.com (Brad Spear) writes: >In article (murfle) daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) wrote: >>In article <...> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes: >>But those software layers only hook Macs to Macs, don't they. And you'll >>need a NuBus Ethernet card to run at Ethernet speeds. >This doesn't really change the argument much, but I've seen a couple of >letters now that say the same thing. The original letter seemed to be trying to imply that Localtalk, the built-in Mac lan port, whatever you call it, would be willing to run at Ethernet speeds, rather than the 250k baud or so they actually handle. True, you do get the network support with the Mac. Amiga has defined standard network support too, though this is a much more recent development. >And there is an Ethernet card for the Mac-SE. I seem to recall that it >isn't a NuBus -- but this is nit-picking. Maybe the SE can't keep up at >standard Ethernet speeds for more than short bursts? The SE doesn't have a NuBus port, but the internal slot, which is basically the raw 68000 bus, goes plenty fast for Ethernet support. Basically, while Ethernet is a reasonably fast network (round about 10megabits/second), it's hardly a problem for the computer, given proper buffering; hard disks go several times faster. >The need for NFS is a personal choice, it isn't *necessary*. Until you get used to it, then it is. Much in the same way a 68030 machine isn't *necessary*. But give one to someone who's used to a 68000 system for about a month, then try to get it back. I lived without NFS for 28 years, but now I get downright nervous if I don't see that "VAX" icon up on my system here. >And AppleTalk does support file as well as printer sharing. Just how well >is a matter of opinion. :-> Sure it supports it. I could also share files via SLIP and NFS and 19,200 baud, I suppose. But there are limits to human endurance. Ethernet is usually nice, Arcnet (read Novell) is passable, but I can't endure Mac speeds. But even plug and chug printer sharing has it's merits; after all, that port must have cost Apple all of $8.00 or so to put into ever Mac. >Is it really slower than, say, FTP over TCP/IP and Ethernet? Never having used the software layers over Ethernet, I can't say. In terms of data rates, Ethernet is about 40 times faster than LocalTalk. >'direct' service like NFS will have problems between machine architectures. >I've worked on two such products, for UNIX <-> MS-DOS. What a pain. Amiga and UNIX system Ethernet fabulously. Of course, they have similar naming conventions for files (only difference being UNIX cares about case, Amiga preserves it but doesn't care), similar text conventions (both use line feeds), etc. I ftp from MS-DOS machines occasionally (can't go to them, since there's no server around), and that takes care of most of the uglies; I wouldn't really want NFS there. >Brad Spear Locus Computing Corporation -- 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
mjl@ut-emx.UUCP (Maurice LeBrun) (07/27/90)
In article <13128@yunexus.YorkU.CA> pmcd@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: > >Well, as you know that may change. But in any case, I was talking from >the point of view of a faculty member, as I still consider the A3000 Yes Phil, let's not forget the direction you are coming from. Let's see, you don't actually pay for any of the hardware in your department out of pocket, do you? Not the software, either? Hmm... do you do any actual _programming_ on any of these machines, or do you just run high-priced applications? Are these just rhetorical questions? :-) Given your rather, shall I say, "niche" occupation, it may be just a _bit_ inappropriate to be arguing your case against Amiga 3000's to the entire world. To be sure, if I were on the department computer committee with you, it would make for some "interesting" meetings :-). I for one am enthralled at the prospect of owning an Amiga 3000 (please ship mine soon, Commodore). It is _not_ destined for my desk at work, but rather my home office. Even so, it will exceed (in some cases, substantially so) the computing power of many of my colleagues' desk-top computational resources. And it will be MINE, ALL MINE! (hideous laughter in background...) Cheers, Maurice LeBrun Institute for Fusion Studies mjl@fusion.ph.utexas.edu University of Texas at Austin
ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Ian ROWLANDS) (07/30/90)
There is nothing I like more than Mac-Amiga flame wars. Keep it up guys, you're doing a MARVELLOUS job! :-( Ian Ian Rowlands | ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (main) Dept. of Electrical Engineering, | ianr@gondwana.ecr.mu.oz.au (including Computer Science) | ianr@munmurra.cs.mu.oz.au (to 7/90) University of Melbourne | (How can you have a funny quote in only 4 li