GHGAQBA@BLEKUL11.BITNET (Pottie Karl) (03/30/90)
No , I'm not about to participate in the discussion which computer is better: mac or amiga. I'd like to say a word or two about the mentality of mac users versus amiga users. Until recently i had an amiga, because i couldn't afford a mac, so I know about 10 persons who have an amiga. I bought a mac half a year ago, and since i noticed that i hardly ever used my amiga any more, so i sold it . I now know about 7 mac-users. Let me start off by an example: we had to write a paper for a university project, and we always gathered at the place of an amiga user. The paper involved mixing graphics and text. Prowrite was considered being too slow and having too poor font resolution to print on a 24-pin printer. So the amiga user reverted to this: all text was typed in an editor !!!, every paragraph was typed on one continuous horizontal line. After that, the text was transported to a (very powerful) DTP program, which uses vector-fonts for hires printer output. Another Amiga user claimed he would use the same procedure for writing his thesis. I think this example gives a pretty good idea of the mentality of an Amiga user: unprofessionalism. No PC or Mac user would ever think of using an editor for word processing. Another example: ergonomy. This means adapting the working situation to the Human being, and not adapting the Human to the situation. An ergonomic term for CRTs is often 'flicker free'. Most Amiga users consider this term to be equivalent for 'non-interlaced'. Actually ergonomics think of flicker being present in any computer screen, even if not visible for the naked eye. And of flicker free CRTs being very high frequency monitors. Most Amiga users put up with interlace, while other computer users consider using e.g. even a CGA display as being professionally unacceptable. O.K. except for the video display, the hardware concept of an Amiga is probably much more modern and efficient than that of a Mac. But Amiga users really seem to be fixed onto their hardware, while Mac users seem to be more concerned by a consistent software concept. A small example is the Clipboard Mechanism. This allows almost all software ever written on the mac, to behave as one large integrated system. If you program the Mac, you have to obey very strickt rules on interfacing to the user. As a consequence , Mac programmers will hardly ever 'hack' or program directly to the hardware. Amiga programmers will say 'that's no fun'. What are we concerned about: fun or hardware independant software ? When you criticize an Amiga, you often get a reply like this: * when you use the Flicker Fixer , you get a nice picture * Workbench 1.4 will fix that... * the new chip set will fix that ... .... Well, I've never even seen a flicker fixer live, so I certainly don't know anybody who uses one. And I have no time for vapourware-talk. Finally: Amiga users only seem to feel 'good' about their computer if they can put another computer down. Mac users don't have this urge, because the don't need to. Is it perhaps because Amiga users have a bit of an inferiority complex ? I think the Amiga is great for some purposes. I just can't stand to hear people who have no professional intentions, put down a professional computer. It would be the same for criticizing a formula 1 car for being too expensive, and saying that one should better buy a nice family car to drive to work.We're talking different catagories here. A lot of the money you pay for a Mac covers professional support by dealers. Amigas are sold in super-markets. Many commodore dealers over here simply refuse to sell Amiga, because they know nothing about it, and can't support it. Be careful: I don't claim that the Amiga can't be used as a professional computer. I just don't like Amiga mentality. Amiga people still think like CBM64 , Spectrum, Sinclair or MSX users. And that's what many of them used to be. I was 'raised' with an Apple //c . A teacher of mine once said it is your first computer that sticks to you. And I guess that's true. Sorry this document is very unstructured. I just typed what came to mind, and this IBM mainframe doesn't allow very extensive editing. ******************************************************************************* * disclaimer : Don't shoot me, I'm harmless *******************************************************************************
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (03/30/90)
In article <29Mar1990@BLEKUL11.BITNET>, (Potti Karl) says: > >No , I'm not about to participate in the discussion which computer is better: >mac or amiga. Funny - you did a pretty good job of Amiga bashing; mostly because you are horribly mis-informed. Before I go further, my response honestly isn't going to bash anyone (possibly except the previous poster)... I use both Macs and Amigas daily, and I happen to like them both. Thus endeth my credentials. >Let me start off by an example: we had to write a paper for a >university project, and we always gathered at the place of an amiga user. >The paper involved mixing graphics and text. ... The Amiga user >reverted to this: all text was typed in an editor !!!, every >paragraph was typed on one continuous horizontal line. After that, >the text was transported to a (very powerful) DTP program. >Another Amiga user claimed he would use the same procedure for writing >his thesis. Please don't assume all Amiga users do this... This person was really being very ignorant about how to enter text. His actions were silly enough to be compared to a Mac user typing an entire paper directly into the Clipboard or Scrapbook. He certainly did have other, much better options. By the way, it's a pretty poor editor that keeps all text on one long line - there are plenty to choose from that do better... Public domain too. >I think this example gives a pretty good idea of the mentality of an Amiga >user: unprofessionalism. No PC or Mac user would ever think of using an >editor for word processing. Nope. MANY MANY PC owners use KEDIT to enter their text. I'm talking professional writers here. (example: One of my English prof's wrote his articles in KEDIT. We're talking Popular Science cover articles here.) Some writers don't like to be burdened with formatting the text until the raw entry is complete. It's simply a matter of their personal preference. >O.K. except for the video display, the hardware concept of an Amiga is >probably much more modern and efficient than that of a Mac. But Amiga >users really seem to be fixed onto their hardware, while Mac users seem >to be more concerned by a consistent software concept. >A small example is the Clipboard Mechanism. This allows almost all software >ever written on the mac, to behave as one large integrated system. True. The Clipboard concept on the Mac is a joy. However, do not be fooled into thinking the Amiga can't transfer files between applications, because it most certainly can. All text files, for example, are saved in a standard IFF format and can be loaded into other applications without problem. >If you program the Mac, you have to obey very strickt rules on >interfacing to the user. >As a consequence , Mac programmers will hardly ever 'hack' or program >directly to the hardware. This is simply not true at all. Yes, MOST Mac programmers don't do direct hardware calls, but it's not that hard to find a program that does. >Amiga programmers will say 'that's no fun'. What >are we concerned about: fun or hardware independant software ? Oh come on now. I can easily prove you're off base here. If an Amiga programmer does an direct hardware call, the program either breaks under newer WB versions or CPU upgrades, or won't multitask. In the Amiga world, such programs are just as common as Mac programs with hardware calls -- They're few and far-between. By the way, how do I know which Mac software misbehaves? I own A-Max, the Mac emulator for Amiga, and it works beautifully...until an application does a naughty hardware call. Granted, this usually only happens with games, but the same applies to Amiga software too. >Well, I've never even seen a flicker fixer live, so I certainly don'tw >know anybody who uses one. And I have no time for vapourware-talk. Vaporware???? I assure you the flicker fixer most certainly does exist. We have one here in an A2500 in PSU's video lab. Nice picture too. >Finally: Amiga users only seem to feel 'good' about their computer if >they can put another computer down. Mac users don't have this urge, >because they don't need to. Is it perhaps because Amiga users have a >bit of an inferiority complex ? All I have to say is if this is true, then why are you Amiga bashing here? >A lot of the money you pay for a Mac covers professional support by >dealers. Amigas are sold in super-markets. Since when? This is a blatent lie. Amigas, just like Macs, are only sold by authorized Amiga Dealers and Service Centers. >Sorry this document is very unstructured. I just typed what came to mind, >and this IBM mainframe doesn't allow very extensive editing. Aha - I think this is the real point. You get out of a computer what you put into it. Your mainframe (just like ours) allows pretty decent editing...IF YOU LEARN HOW TO USE IT. The Mac is great because it is easy to use. It has a friendly interface and is wonderful for the introductory computer user who doesn't want to learn many commands and type everything in. I recommend Macs to folks who need a friendly machine. I use a Mac for most word processing applications. However, I find that the friendliness of the Mac gets in the way when I want raw power. I miss a CLI on the Mac for such things as unarcing, terminal emulation, file maintenance, raw text entry, etc. This is why I sometimes I'd like to "turn off" the GUI and get more into the guts of the machine. Every computer has its advantages and disadvantages. I see little need for posts like this that claim the Mac is the answer to all computer needs - it isn't. Neither is the Amiga, nor any PC, or the NeXT, or ANY computer. Ideally, we'd have access to many computers and be able to use whichever one suits specific needs best. This is why I own an Amiga and have A-Max ready for those applications which best befit a Mac. Kurt -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- || Kurt Tappe (814) 862-8630 || Japan has almost no lawyers. Is it || || 600 E. Pollock Rd., #5705 || any wonder we're getting beat out?? || || State College, PA 16801 --------------------------------------|| || jkt100@psuvm.bitnet or jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu || || or jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || ----------------------------------------------------------------------
gat@gator.cacs.usl.edu (Gary Thompson) (03/30/90)
GHGAQBA@BLEKUL11.BITNET writes: [ discussion about specific Mac and Amiga stuff deleted... ] >Finally: Amiga users only seem to feel 'good' about their computer if they >can put another computer down. Mac users don't have this urge, because they >don't need to. Is it perhaps because Amiga users have a bit of an >inferiority complex ? I wish the Mac users here were like the Mac users you know. :-) Just mentioning IBM or DOS around the local users group will elicit a lot of angry hisses. I know as I had the pleasure of demoing SoftPC to them ;-) I have seen Mac startup screens that put down the IBM, I have seen people use an IBM icon as their trash can, and I even remember a shareware game from years ago called 'Bash Big Blue' where you literally whacked the IBM corporate logo. While most of this *is* in fun, it does reveal insecurities that many Mac users still feel. I don't know many Amiga owners, but none of those I do know fit your description too well. In any case, I don't think that any one group of computer owners is particularly egregious in this way... sadly, I think we're all about the same ;-) Gary Thompson Perpetual Student University of Southwestern Louisiana gat@gator.cacs.usl.edu
matt@sapphire.jpl.nasa.gov (matt of ASTD) (03/30/90)
In article <29Mar1990202523130@BLEKUL11.BITNET> GHGAQBA@BLEKUL11.BITNET writes: >Let me start off by an example: we had to write a paper for a >university project, and we always gathered at the place of an amiga user. >The paper involved mixing graphics and text. Prowrite was considered being too >slow and having too poor font resolution to print on a 24-pin printer. So the >amiga user reverted to this: all text was typed in an editor !!!, every >paragraph was typed on one continuous horizontal line. After that, >the text was transported to a (very powerful) DTP program, which uses >vector-fonts for hires printer output. >Another Amiga user claimed he would use the same procedure for writing >his thesis. > >I think this example gives a pretty good idea of the mentality of an Amiga >user: unprofessionalism. No PC or Mac user would ever think of using an >editor for word processing. I believe that you are over-generalizing here. Just because a couple of people do really strange things to write papers does not mean that all Amiga users do this. >If you program the Mac, you have to obey very strickt rules on interfacing >to the user. >As a consequence , Mac programmers will hardly ever 'hack' or program directly >to the hardware. Amiga programmers will say 'that's no fun'. What >are we concerned about: fun or hardware independant software ? There is a lot of consistency between Amiga programs. For instance, IFF files are standard. >When you criticize an Amiga, you often get a reply like this: > * when you use the Flicker Fixer , you get a nice picture > * Workbench 1.4 will fix that... > * the new chip set will fix that ... > .... > >Well, I've never even seen a flicker fixer live, so I certainly don't know >anybody who uses one. And I have no time for vapourware-talk. So why bring it up if you don't know what you're talking about. >Finally: Amiga users only seem to feel 'good' about their computer if they can >put another computer down. Mac users don't have this urge, because the don't >need to. Is it perhaps because Amiga users have a bit of an >inferiority complex ? Another extreme over-generalization. By the way, I've meet many Mac users who consisten put down the Amiga (i.e. all those who ignorantly claim that the Amiga is only a game machine). You must not be a real Mac user because you obviously had the the urge to put down the Amiga AND EVERY AMIGA USER IN THE UNIVERSE. >I think the Amiga is great for some purposes. I just can't stand to hear >people who have no professional intentions, put down a professional computer. Poor baby. Why don't you stop reading this news group. >It would be the same for criticizing a formula 1 car for being too expensive, >and saying that one should better buy a nice family car to drive to work.We're >talking different catagories here. Anyone who buys a formula 1 car to drive to work I will criticize. I think you are intelligent enough to understand the analogy. >A lot of the money you pay for a Mac covers professional support by dealers. ...and Apple profit. >Amigas are sold in super-markets. This one sentance does two things: (1) It shows you do not know what you are talking about. You sound like a Mac user taking a cheap shot at Amigas, thus you have no credibility. (2) You prove to me that you are a jerk. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Presley send email to (presley.cs.ucla.edu)
meldal@ithink.Stanford.EDU (Sigurd Meldal) (03/30/90)
I shall not enter the fray of comparative computer bashing - to each his own. But I would like to add some meta comments to the writings of GHGAQBA@BLEKUL11.BITNET. He sketches in his impressions of how Amiga users differ negatively from Mac users. Like a good social sciences student he presents us with the sample upon which he draws his conclusions: In article <29Mar1990202523130@BLEKUL11.BITNET> GHGAQBA@BLEKUL11.BITNET writes: >I know about 10 persons who have an amiga. I bought a mac half a year ago, >and since i noticed that i hardly ever used my amiga any more, so i sold it . >I now know about 7 mac-users. So we have a total of 17 out of a population of hundreds of thousands. I guess I should have stopped there. but I read on. >Let me start off by an example: we had to write a paper for a >university project, and we always gathered at the place of an amiga user. >The paper involved mixing graphics and text. Prowrite was considered being too >slow and having too poor font resolution to print on a 24-pin printer. So the >amiga user reverted to this: all text was typed in an editor !!!, every >paragraph was typed on one continuous horizontal line. After that, >the text was transported to a (very powerful) DTP program, which uses >vector-fonts for hires printer output. >Another Amiga user claimed he would use the same procedure for writing >his thesis. > >I think this example gives a pretty good idea of the mentality of an Amiga >user: unprofessionalism. No PC or Mac user would ever think of using an >editor for word processing. Oh dear. You generalize from a sample of 7 to ALL Mac users? From a sample of 10 to ALL Amiga users? And then dare claim the word "professionalism" as part of his vocabulary? The Amiga users of the example seems very professional, given what was to be done. They recognized that the word processor did not do a satisfactory job. Analyzing the situation, they broke the job into two - text entering and formatting. Using two tools they achieved a superior (presumably?) result. Mac people do this all the time. Use an editor (and is that not a word processor - I split hairs) to enter text, then format/lay it out using a DTP program. Highly unprofessional?? He then goes on to put down the Amiga, praising the unified concept of the Macintosh, extolling the virtues of Human Orientedness (but forgets Apple Pie and Motherhood, tsk, tsk). The one paragraph that got me going was >Finally: Amiga users only seem to feel 'good' about their computer if they can >put another computer down. Mac users don't have this urge, because the don't >need to. Is it perhaps because Amiga users have a bit of an >inferiority complex ? I wonder: What urge made you devote all this typing to putting down the lowly Amiga user.Or maybe it was all tongue in cheek, and I have gotten royally pranked-upon.... You're happy with your Mac? Good. So am I. I don't really care to hear about the stupidity of people liking other machines (nor their views of me, as a Mac user). Enough. Enough I said! Begone!!!! From the desktop of Sigurd Meldal -- Hard mail: ERL 456 | Internet: meldal@anna.stanford.edu Computer Systems Lab.| Stanford University | BitNet: meldal%anna.stanford.edu@forsythe.bitnet Stanford CA 94305 | Uucp: ...decwrl!glacier!shasta!anna!meldal USA | phone: +1 415 723 6027 fax: +1 415 725 7398
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (04/08/90)
In-Reply-To: message from gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu I'd hate to see a Mac user try to use any other type of computer...give them some flexibility in the way you can accomplish something, and you confuse them... 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 | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (04/08/90)
In-Reply-To: message from daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com Why don't you go back and check your issue numbers, and see when they started using their Amiga...within the first year! This magazine has been out for about what, 3 years now? There still isn't a Mac magazine produced ENTIRELY on the Mac, without having to do color-seps the traditional way. Now that Adobe has their utility out, you'll see it start to happen. Regardless of quality, it was the first. My point is, if Apple was touting it as the DTP computer to have, why has it taken sooo long to be able to do this kind of stuff? 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 | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (04/08/90)
I tried folks , really , but I have to responde. (But I will be going to a rehab center soon.) > >Resp: 1 of 2 About: Re: Amiga mentality (with some questions) >Author: [Steve Green] (*Masked*@umd5.umd.edu) > >the Mac is the heavy role that Apple plays in software and espicially >hardware development. It keeps incompatabilities to a minimum. But , I cant count any incompatibilities in Amiga software (other than things that broke the rules, all software has worked from the earliest OS to now, on 4 different processors at all speeds!) >As well, the MacOS is becoming somewhat primative but System 7 is supposed >to take care of many common OS complaints. It is supposed to have many new I can accept this. But if you can point to "System 7" then I dont wanna hear any sh*t about it when I talk about 1.4 . >to take care of many common OS complaints. It is supposed to have many new >features to "the finder" and support for IPC (AppleEvents). That is the >biggest thing as it will allow for complete integration as well as >distributed/collective work. IPC .. define it. We have ALWAYS had >I<nter->P<rocess->C<-ommunication. It is a cornerstone of the Amiga OS. I can have any number of programs work together as much as I want. We have had AREXX for a while now, wich takes that communication spec and pushes it to new ground. But you need GOOD, stable multi-tasking before this matters. > What is commodore doing with hardware and OS?? I think the 25mhz '030 systems speak for themselves. the 1.4 version of the OS will bring new resolution modes to the recent Amiga's , and goive official sanction to some "de-facto" standards. Many other rumors. But it doesn't >NEED< to do much. The system is fine as is. > Is there any (plan for) IPC?? As stated above .. had it for all the history of the machine. > What is the current network standard protocol?? Cable?? Ethernet. With all the normal abilities. Between two amigas there is a PD seroial or parrallel network available. > What is the memory limitation? (If any) Hmm.. good question. > What size/style screens are available?? You need to define this .. are you talking resolution/colors ? > Does software have to "support" individual hard drives/screens/etc..? NO. Never had to. ALL device specific code is in the OS. ALL software will work with any printer/hardware. **************************************************************************** Linda Evans. Kenneth J. Jamieson: Xanadu Enterprises Inc. "Professional Amiga Software" {uunet , ddsw1}!tronsbox!tron1 origional text is Copryright 1990. Sysop, Romantic Encounters BBS - (201)759-8450 / (201)759-8568 ****************************************************************************
mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (04/09/90)
> I'd hate to see a Mac user try to use any other type of computer...give them > some flexibility in the way you can accomplish something, and you confuse > them... Luckily, I think this is humorous... Let's look at other systems from a Mac user's perspective: 1. MS-DOS. Programming is a breeze (partially due to the simplicity of the operating system). Maybe it isn't the prettiest in the world, but this computer would be my next choice if I didn't have a Mac. 2. VAX/VMS. My third-favorite. The power and completeness of the VMS operating system are excellent. The software development tools are good, but the prepackaged software for it is somewhat lacking. (There is Word Perfect, but all other VAX applications [not including DECwindows] drive me up a wall.) 3. IBM mainframes, any variety. Ick. I'd rather die than put up with these. (Maybe that's why I'm going to work for a company that prides itself on its 3090's...) 4. UNIX machines. Kind of gross and powerful until you put a nice pretty interface on it. But it takes one heck of a machine. And the prepackaged software is similar to that for VMS. (And yes, I hate vi.) 5. Atari ST. I have absolutely no idea. I've never seen one. 6. Amiga. Ditto. I have seen one, but I have no idea what the strong points of the machine are. (There has to be more than animation and music.) 7. Macintosh. The interface is consistant, but a pain to program. The great prepackaged software is what has me hooked. I live in MacWrite II, PageMaker, Persuasion, Think C, Think Pascal, MacDraw II, HyperCard, and Mac240. Originally, the cross-postings to comp.sys.mac raised my interest in the Amiga, because I realized that I knew about as much about the Amiga as Amiga users normally know about the Mac. But I have been reading this group for several weeks now, and have learned very little about the machine. So if anyone has made it this far into this article without hitting 'n', I'm looking for some constructive comments about the Amiga. Feel free to mail them directly to me. I'll put them together in one article and post it to comp.sys.mac and comp.sys.amiga. -Michael -- Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)
kosma%stc-sun@stc.lockheed.com (Monty Kosma) (04/10/90)
From: Michael Thomas Niehaus <mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> Date: 8 Apr 90 20:35:05 GMT > I'd hate to see a Mac user try to use any other type of computer...give them > some flexibility in the way you can accomplish something, and you confuse > them... Luckily, I think this is humorous... Let's look at other systems from a Mac user's perspective: ...stuff deleted... -- Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com) here's a BRIEF comment about the amiga, since I don't have time for more: I'm used to fast machines with fast interfaces that stay out of your way and at the same time help you get stuff done. I program the connection machine from symbolics lisp machines or sun sparcstations running X11. I've extensively used IBM PC's, macintosh, and amiga computers, and the amiga in my opinion is head and shoulders above the rest. The overall feel of the machine is fast and smooth and doesn't get in my way. It doesn't make me wait for stuff. This is not simply indicative of speed but of its multitasking ability. Like, I think nothing of telling the computer to start up a big file compression job in the background while I then go off and fire up my editor (or flip screens back to my midi program I'm running or to the TeX previewer or whatever...) anyway, there's basically no comparison. It's hard to understand why there's any competition. Monty Kosma Lockheed Advanced Research (still)
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (04/10/90)
>Resp: 1 of 2 About: Re: Amiga mentality >Author: [Ethan Solomita] (*Masked*@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu) > >In article <3Apr1990161552131@BLEKUL11.BITNET> GHGAPAO@BLEKUL11.BITNET writes: >>I am programming on my Mac, I just want to concentrate on the >>program and everything else like editing, compiling, linking,... >>must be made as easy as possible. Can you blame me if I prefer >>to click on 'GO' in the 'Project'-menu, instead of typing >> cc mainutilpart1.c >> ln +q mainutilipart1 -lm -lc >>all the time ? >> > I would like Turbo C, or some equivalent, as well. There are a >lot of Amiga owners complaining about exactly the same thing. Lattice >is working on such a thing for their next release, God knows when, >however. > Two comments .. I >LIKE< the flexibility that Make and command line compiles gives me. Second ... "God knows when" does not apply. The Lattice 5.0X environment (has been available for MONTHS!) does just that . ONE KEY will compile, link , and take you to the first error , then 1 key to the next error. **************************************************************************** "I spoke to Lana Turner through a Tostada" Reveals Brain Boff. Kenneth J. Jamieson: Xanadu Enterprises Inc. "Professional Amiga Software" {uunet , ddsw1}!tronsbox!tron1 origional text is Copryright 1990. Sysop, Romantic Encounters BBS - (201)759-8450 / (201)759-8568 ****************************************************************************
mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (04/10/90)
So the Amiga feels faster. Can anyone answer the question of "why"?
My guess would be that the Amiga is doing background processing (for
things such as screen updates, etc.). If so, this is great.
-Michael
--
Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (04/11/90)
In article <11059@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: >So the Amiga feels faster. Can anyone answer the question of "why"? >My guess would be that the Amiga is doing background processing (for >things such as screen updates, etc.). If so, this is great. > >-Michael Well, I am not the expert around here on how the Amiga kernal works, but I think I know some of the reasons that the user interface feels surprisingly snappy for a multitasking machine running on a 68000. 1) The kernal is very well-written (efficient algorithms are used). 2) Graphics coprocessors that are well-fitted for managing a window- oriented display. The 68000 does not need to physically move data in the display bitmaps. 3) Lack of virtual memory means that there is no page-swapping overhead for the OS. 4) Lack of memory protection allows faster message passing techniques. 5) The priority level of the user interface is set very high. Most of what I have written was gleaned from this very net. If I am wrong about something, please don't flame about it. Just correct me ;^). -- --Steve DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own (I don't speak for Convex) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/11/90)
In article <2129@crash.cts.com>, seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: > > Why don't you go back and check your issue numbers, and see when they started > using their Amiga...within the first year! This magazine has been out for > about what, 3 years now? There still isn't a Mac magazine produced ENTIRELY > on the Mac, without having to do color-seps the traditional way. Not true. The reason that separations are stripped in is because nobody can match the quality of traditional separations for any sort of reasonable price/time expenditure. Has nothing to do with Macs, Amigas or ... Just because it might be possible to do something (like abandoning traditional color separations, for instance) doesn't mean that it would be a good idea to do it. Other than proving that it could be done, maybe. A new tool may be a new tool, but it would be dumb to throw out the old tool if the new tool doesn't do at least as good a job, or have some powerful benefit, such as reduced cost or manpower requirements, with equivalent quality of final product. (As far as I'm concerned, traditional separations are just barely adequate anyway...but then, I'm used to 4x5 or larger view camera quality. Most magazine illustrations start out as 35mm transparencies. That's starting out with two strikes on you.) > Now that Adobe has their utility out, you'll see it start to happen. > Regardless of quality, it was the first. Adobe isn't the first, either. Not to mention *not* being the only one on the market. > My point is, if Apple was touting it as the DTP computer to have, why > has it taken sooo long to be able to do this kind of stuff? Because a lot of the technology needed to do these things are unconnected with Apple (or Amiga or...), except as being end users. Laser printers, for example, are just the first wave of *cheap*, fairly reliable printers with barely adequate output quality. Barely. (Compare 300dpi with 1270 or 2540dpi output for a serious effort. The 300 dpi is probably OK for comps...it won't cut it for high-quality publications or books.) Patience, though, we'll probably be seeing affordable, high-quality output devices within the decade. (There are already 400-1000dpi printers coming out at under $10,000. It's coming.) There's a lot more to publishing than DTP, by a long shot. Things like good design, proper font selection, and so on. (Content? What's that? :} ) There's also a lot of reinventing the wheel going on in DTP circles, along with a *lot* of really ugly stuff being produced. Things have come a long way since Herr Gutenberg, and DTP has a lot of catching up to do. ------------ "Up the airey mountain, down the rushy glen, we daren't go a-hunting for fear of little men..." ('cause Fish and Game has taken to hiring axe-carrying dwarves)
sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) (04/11/90)
In article <6647@wehi.dn.mu.oz> BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: >In article <11059@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: >> So the Amiga feels faster. Can anyone answer the question of "why"? >My guess is the blitter repairs the holes in uncovered windows a whole >lot faster than refreshing the whole screen. >Regards Alan Heh? I agree, the blitter is probably the reason. However, the mac does *not* refresh the entire screen when a window is uncovered. It updates only the portions of the window which were uncovered, even if that portion is oddly shaped (semi-circular, say). When windows are obscured on the Amiga, does the OS keep around a bitmap of the covered area, or is the program responsible for remembering what was there? The mac uses the latter technique which saves on memory, but loses on speed. -Sho -- sho@physics.purdue.edu <<-- the *whole* screen?
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz (04/11/90)
In article <11059@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: > So the Amiga feels faster. Can anyone answer the question of "why"? > My guess would be that the Amiga is doing background processing (for > things such as screen updates, etc.). If so, this is great. My guess is the blitter repairs the holes in uncovered windows a whole lot faster than refreshing the whole screen. Regards Alan > > -Michael > > -- > Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas > Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu > Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (04/11/90)
In article <3452@newton.physics.purdue.edu> sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (Sho Kuwamoto) writes: >In article <6647@wehi.dn.mu.oz> BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: >>In article <11059@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: >>> So the Amiga feels faster. Can anyone answer the question of "why"? >When windows are obscured on the Amiga, does the OS keep around a >bitmap of the covered area, or is the program responsible for >remembering what was there? The mac uses the latter technique which >saves on memory, but loses on speed. That depends on the window. There are three basic types. The simplest type works much like the Mac windows; the application gets a message when the OS thinks it should refresh the window. The next one up lets the OS stash away pieces that get covered and restore them when uncovered, so the application never needs to consider whether it has been uncovered. The third possibility allows the application to create it's own bitmap. The application then uses that bitmap for all it's drawing, and the OS will copy the displayed portions of the bitmap to the window. >-Sho >-- >sho@physics.purdue.edu <<-- the *whole* screen? -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (04/12/90)
In article <3452@newton.physics.purdue.edu> sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (Sho Kuwamoto) writes: >When windows are obscured on the Amiga, does the OS keep around a >bitmap of the covered area, or is the program responsible for >remembering what was there? Both. It depends on whether when you open the window you ask the graphics library to remember obscured portions or not. There is also "super-bitmap" windows where you keep your own bitmap and what is displayed on the screen is a portion (like out of the middle) of your bitmap. -- Darren
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (04/12/90)
In-Reply-To: message from kosma%stc-sun@stc.lockheed.com I'm just wondering, which model of the Amiga did you use? I'm still using a 68000 based Amiga (will be upgrading to '030 shortly), and I still like the performance of Intuition. I've also got access to an A2500/30, and it's even better...it screams. I've also got access to a 12MHz i286 clone with Windows 286 installed. I can't believe how bad it is. Just moving the mouse seems to make Windows huff-and-puff, it's slow at the beginning, and then the mouse kinda catches up to you...yuck. How do you like your Connection Machine?! Sounds like you have access to some *really* nice hardware. 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 | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
p554mve@mpirbn.UUCP (Michael van Elst) (04/12/90)
In article <3452@newton.physics.purdue.edu> sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (Sho Kuwamoto) writes: >When windows are obscured on the Amiga, does the OS keep around a >bitmap of the covered area, or is the program responsible for >remembering what was there? The mac uses the latter technique which >saves on memory, but loses on speed. Now, with the Amiga OS (ala, Intuition). You have both options. You can say, the OS should save the bitmap. Or you can say, the application should redraw the window. You can notice this with the workbench windows. They are much slower than shell windows since the workbench process has to redraw each icon. Or better, the workbench process is slow when refreshing these :-) An optimized refresh routine could be nearly as fast. -- Michael van Elst p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (04/12/90)
In article (Sho Kuwamoto) writes:
)Heh? I agree, the blitter is probably the reason. However, the mac
)does *not* refresh the entire screen when a window is uncovered. It
)updates only the portions of the window which were uncovered, even
)if that portion is oddly shaped (semi-circular, say).
Likewise, the Amiga window refresh, when required, is done through
the "damage region."
)When windows are obscured on the Amiga, does the OS keep around a
)bitmap of the covered area, or is the program responsible for
)remembering what was there? The mac uses the latter technique which
)saves on memory, but loses on speed.
Amiga lets the programmer pick the refresh method that best suits
the application: application refresh, offscreen bitmaps for just
the obscured portions ("Pike-style layers"), or contiguous offscreen
full-window buffering (which also supports bitmap scrolling and
optimizes the rendering to onscreen/offscreen pixels).
Apart from the blitter, I don't know exactly why Amiga windows look faster,
if they do. Saved offscreen bitmaps certainly help, and the Amiga
layers are optimized for front-back operations. The processor runs a
little faster in typical modes than Macs used to when going to the
memory-mapped display buffer. Of course, that has changed in recent
Macs ...
jimm
--
-------------------------------------------------- - opinions by me
"This voice console is a *must*. I press Execute.
`Hello, I know that you've been feeling tired.
I bring you love and deeper understanding.' " -lyrics by Kate Bushms0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Gordon Shapiro) (04/12/90)
And let's not forget STUPID_REFRESH, the window redraw algrorithm that's propetiary to AmigaBASIC's editor...
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz (04/12/90)
In article <3452@newton.physics.purdue.edu>, sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto) writes: > In article <6647@wehi.dn.mu.oz> BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: >>In article <11059@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: >>> So the Amiga feels faster. Can anyone answer the question of "why"? >>My guess is the blitter repairs the holes in uncovered windows a whole >>lot faster than refreshing the whole screen. >>Regards Alan > > Heh? I agree, the blitter is probably the reason. However, the mac > does *not* refresh the entire screen when a window is uncovered. It > updates only the portions of the window which were uncovered, even > if that portion is oddly shaped (semi-circular, say). > > When windows are obscured on the Amiga, does the OS keep around a > bitmap of the covered area, or is the program responsible for > remembering what was there? The mac uses the latter technique which > saves on memory, but loses on speed. > > -Sho > -- > sho@physics.purdue.edu <<-- the *whole* screen? Thanks for the info on the mac. The amiga os CAN manage the repair to screens, and does so if requested to by the program. The os DOES manage repair to the workbench screen ( which was what I meant in the orriginal post). Regards Alan
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (04/14/90)
I tried , I counted to 10 and everything and I can't help it. (so sue me) >sho@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP >(Sho Kuwamoto) writes: >>When windows are obscured on the Amiga, does the OS keep around a >>bitmap of the covered area, or is the program responsible for >>remembering what was there? The mac uses the latter technique which >>saves on memory, but loses on speed. This is a prime example of the Amiga mentality in this issue. IF there are two ways to solve a problem (damage repair in windows) -- and there are reason do do it both ways (speed/simplicity vs memory) .. The Mac chooses one and the OS forces you to live with it. (notice I am not commenting about the actual argument between the choices) .. The Amiga gives you the option to pick the one best for the occasion and will operate with either without breaking rules. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) **************************************************************************** The Shire Invaded! Residents Stunned As Aliens Demand Coke. -- Photographic Evidence Offers Proof. Kenneth J. Jamieson: Xanadu Enterprises Inc. "Professional Amiga Software" {uunet , ddsw1}!tronsbox!tron1 origional text is Copryright 1990. Sysop, Romantic Encounters BBS - (201)759-8450 / (201)759-8568 ****************************************************************************