91_bickingd@gar.union.edu (Bicking, David) (04/08/90)
>Subject: Amiga pessimism >From: bgribble@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Bill Gribble) >Date: 28 Mar 90 05:21:28 GMT > money to a starving college student. But I've been reading all this - > to put it mildly - pessimistic stuff about the Amiga's future, and > I'm beginning to wonder, too. Don't wonder. If you aren't sure, do what I did. Take a fresh, close look at the "competition" and compare it to the Amiga. I can't say I've been going to the nitty-gritty details, but I can say that just today, I read up on a few mags I don't normally read. And I don't find too many areas where the amiga is "dying". Take a look yourself! In Info World, IBM and Apple are coming out with "new" developments that have been a part of Amiga for quite some time. For example, IBM announced it's new "high-productivity" file system. Amongst the radical enhancements the article writer mentionned? - Long filenames - Path up to 256 characters long - saves names with caps, but ignores them for other purposes. ie: file named "ThisIsATest" can be called by entering "thisisatest" - A significant speed improvement Sound familiar? I've been using such a file system since I bought my Amiga in Dec 1987. And with WB 1.4, we will have a much faster speed too. >What *does* the future hold for Commodore and the Amiga? I see some... If C= continues down its current path, the future is "so bright I gotta wear shades". That is, if they continue to improve (accelerate) like they have recently, and don't drop the ball, they will be fine, but it might be bumpy, so hold on! >So what's the deal? Is 1.4 really going to make that big of a difference? Alright, I won't say _exactly_ what 1.4 has, since I probably shouldn't have seen it at all :) and I don't know if C= has purposefully hidden its development path. I will say this much from the 15 minutes I have spent on it. o It is in beta testing, and is 520K long now, probably because it is in disk form (rom is going to be 512K) o It looks different, and is MUCH more powerful, and professional looking. It is colorful too. Better mouse speed is controlled in preferences. o much more friendly, many more options on WB, the WB is a window. o The "insert WB disk" screen has been radically changed o Fonts can be changed at will, screen/window backdrops in prefs. There is much, much more, but I only touched on the surface when I used it myself, and I saw no docs. I only had one "lockup" but that was clearly a bug in the icon editor I fiddled with on the extras disk. I hope I haven't said anything I really shouldn't have, and I will accept any flames from C= humbly if I have, but I just couldn't resist saying SOMETHING. Besides, these are all cosmetic changes I described. Just don't SUE me :) > What's the state of development on upcoming goodies? My plan right > now is to stick with my Amiga for three more years - will there > be an up-to-date '030 or '040 C= machine to replace it? Or will we > still be waiting for the 3000? I understand the toaster has been shown in final form, but I read that on this digest a few days ago. The recent discussion of AmigaVision tells me that C= really has its act together, and I want to see it in action. I hope it uses the ECS for display (productivity resolution). >I'm writing this to spark some discussion, so flame away! Well, I've read Byte's review of the IIfx, and I find it a joke. First off, as I posted earlier, Apple is outright lying in its advertisements. There are several "innovations" "developed" by Apple that put it on a level with the Amiga 2000. It is "the first computer to use coprocessors" to relieve the 68030 of the "mundane" tasks. The SCSI/DMA, the "6 Nubus" ports etc, etc. The only things I've seen so far that puts it ahead of the A2500/30 is: 1. a 40mhz cpu (oooh, ahhh! like no one else will have that in about a month) 2. The 24 bit graphics accellerator card standard component. This is where I feel C= has dropped the ball. They too have such a card (according to rumor) but will be announced a little later. Apple won the headlines. in 1985, they released the mac a few months before C= released the Amiga... notice who has the lion's share of the market? I know C= can rebound and out-perform Apple, but only with strong leadership, and I feel they have it in Harry Copperman, Dr John Harrison, and Howard Diamond amongst many more. > Bill. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=- #DEFINE std.disclaimers "A.N.A.R.C.H.Y.:it isn't a belief, it's a way of life!" Dave Bicking Single Tasking????? Just say NO!!!! Union College Box 152 91_bickingd@union.bitnet Schenectady, NY 12308 91_bickingd@gar.union.edu // \X/ Amiga -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) (04/08/90)
In article <16192@snow-white.udel.EDU> 91_bickingd@gar.union.edu (Bicking, David) writes: > Well, I've read Byte's review of the IIfx, and I find it a joke. First >off, as I posted earlier, Apple is outright lying in its advertisements. There >are several "innovations" "developed" by Apple that put it on a level with the >Amiga 2000. It is "the first computer to use coprocessors" to relieve the >68030 of the "mundane" tasks. The SCSI/DMA, the "6 Nubus" ports etc, etc. > > The only things I've seen so far that puts it ahead of the A2500/30 is: > > 1. a 40mhz cpu (oooh, ahhh! like no one else will have that in about a month) Like Commodore is going to have a 40 Mhz Amiga out anytime soon? But that's beside the point. For years, 24 bit boards have been available for the Mac, for monitors of most any size. Ohhh, ahhh... > 2. The 24 bit graphics accellerator card standard component. > >[etc...etc...etc...] Please. Just stop it. These constant comlaints about how the 'Apple marketing geeks/nerds' have been creating elaborate lise to trick the public into buying a IIfx over an Amiga are geting really tiresome. Since you're so fond of quoting these 'outrageous' ads, you could at least quote properly. You say that the Apple ad for the IIfx claims to be the first computer to use coprocessors to help relieve the main processor. No. The actual quote is as follows: "...It is also the first personal computer to have two additional processors - with the power of two additional personal computers - to manage the flow of information inside." Now consider: Do the Amiga's blitter, copper, etc. themselves have the power of additional personal computers??? Nope, they don't. The IIfx uses, I believe, two 6502 to aid with i/o, and therein lies the difference. Next time, think before you post, especially when the posting has the potential to get so many people into a frenzied mob mentality (Look, there go those damn Apple Marketing Geeks, lets get 'em!!! - yes that's what you all sound like...ok, not all, but enough to make the entire Amiga community look stupid). The Amiga is a great machine with some great things going for it. Why is it that Amiga owners (yes, I used to be one, and I still like the machine a lot) look at the Mac as the anti-christ, and feel compelled to slander it whenever possible? If some of us would just calm down a little, the world would be a nicer place... -- Don DeVoe ddev@epsl.umd.edu So you wanna flame me? Good, it was getting cold in here anyway...
a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs) (04/09/90)
In article <1990Apr8.013940.12984@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >You say that the Apple ad for the IIfx claims to be the first computer to >use coprocessors to help relieve the main processor. No. The actual quote is >as follows: "...It is also the first personal computer to have two >additional processors - with the power of two additional personal computers - >to manage the flow of information inside." Now consider: Do the Amiga's >blitter, copper, etc. themselves have the power of additional personal >computers??? Nope, they don't. Agreed, the ad doesn't claim that the IIfx is the first computer to use coprocessors. But you have to read the copy very carefully to realize this. The phrase "with the power of two additional personal computers" was set within dashes; Strunk and White would no doubt call it a "non-restrictive clause," i.e. one which merely provides additional information rather than distinguishing the item under discussion from other similar items. Although any lawyer would have no trouble defending the ad copy, it's definitely slanted. Look at how many people have misinterpreted it. This doesn't prove an intention to deceive, but it wouldn't be the first time that an advertisement hasn't been completely honest. In any event, I'm sure Apple isn't complaining about the result. (I'll stay completely away from the issue of whether the Amiga's coprocessors have the power of personal computers - they might be as fast as the 8080 in my first personal computer, but they're definitely not as flexible. Whether that's important in a coprocessor is a different question entirely; channel programs on IBM mainframes aren't all that exciting either.) Peace, love, and all that hippie stuff... Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.UUCP For every vision there is an equal and opposite revision.
dixon@cs.nps.navy.mil (Roger Dixon) (04/09/90)
In article <1990Apr8.013940.12984@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >Please. Just stop it. These constant comlaints about how the 'Apple marketing >geeks/nerds' have been creating elaborate lise to trick the public into >buying a IIfx over an Amiga are geting really tiresome. Since you're so >fond of quoting these 'outrageous' ads, you could at least quote properly. >You say that the Apple ad for the IIfx claims to be the first computer to >use coprocessors to help relieve the main processor. No. The actual quote is >as follows: "...It is also the first personal computer to have two >additional processors - with the power of two additional personal computers - >to manage the flow of information inside." Now consider: Do the Amiga's >blitter, copper, etc. themselves have the power of additional personal >computers??? Nope, they don't. The IIfx uses, I believe, two 6502 to >aid with i/o, and therein lies the difference. Next time, think before you >post, especially when the posting has the potential to get so many people >into a frenzied mob mentality (Look, there go those damn Apple Marketing >Geeks, lets get 'em!!! - yes that's what you all sound like...ok, not all, >but enough to make the entire Amiga community look stupid). I think maybe you are the one that needs to go back to read the manuals my friend. If I recall correctly, the Amiga is (and has been) using the 6502 to aid with i/o. I believe you will find it as the heart of the 6500/1 microprocessor package that controls the keyboard, along with 2KB ROM with the control program, and 64 bytes of static RAM, among other stuff. Of course we also have two 8520's and Paula assisting in the handling of i/o. So, maybe we 'CAN' say that Apple is streching the truth just a little? ******************************************************************************* // // Roger Dixon Standard Disclaimer \\ // \X/ ARPAnet (Defense Data Network): dixon@cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (04/10/90)
In article <1990Apr8.013940.12984@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >use coprocessors to help relieve the main processor. No. The actual quote is >as follows: "...It is also the first personal computer to have two >additional processors - with the power of two additional personal computers - >to manage the flow of information inside." Now consider: Do the Amiga's >blitter, copper, etc. themselves have the power of additional personal >computers??? Nope, they don't. The IIfx uses, I believe, two 6502 to The Amiga 500, 1000 and 2000 each have a 6502 as well as a 68000. (the A2500 has a 6502, a 68000, and a 68020 or 68030; however, since the 68000 and 68020/030 are not active at the same time) To get a machine with two additional processors, we'd have to go back to the C128D, which its 6510, its Z80, and its 6502 running the disk drive. andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "Not everything worth doing is worth doing well." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
lucky@melmac.UMD.EDU (Lucky the Cat) (04/10/90)
In article <23851@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (David C. Navas) writes: > > >Don't forget, though, that on a MacIIfx (along with their gfx card) there is >an additional 88000... Actually the GFX uses a normal 30Mhz AMD29000, now if someone would just write a Un*x for it ;-) > >David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu >"Think you can, think you can't -- either way it's true." Henry Ford ------------------------------------------------------------ Lucky the Cat lucky@melmac.umd.edu "We plan ahead, so we don't have to do anything right now" -Kevin Bacon- -Tremors-
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (04/10/90)
In-Reply-To: message from 91_bickingd@gar.union.edu I've gotta agree... I can't feel too bad about the Amiga's future when Applied Engineering, a company that has hold of more than 60% of the entire Apple hardware aftermarket, starts making stuff for the Amiga. Can't wait to get ahold of one of those 1.76Mb High Density AUTOCONFIG floppies! 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^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu (Kent D. Polk) (04/10/90)
In article <10715@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax (Andy Finkel) writes: > >To get a machine with two additional processors, we'd have to >go back to the C128D, which its 6510, its Z80, and its 6502 running >the disk drive. > > andy Hey, don't forget the PET with an 8050 Disk Drive :^) 3 6502's - 2 in the disk drive if I remember correctly, but then that was almost 10 years ago. ==================================================================== Kent Polk - Southwest Research Institute - kent@swrinde.nde.swri.edu Motto : "Anything worth doing is worth overdoing" ====================================================================
mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (04/10/90)
[Kent Polk commented on the PET and the 8050 disk drive.]
That was an interesting disk drive. It was intelligent with its own
processors. (We had one networked to 10 SuperPETs; worked like a charm.
Have you ever networked a floppy drive?)
Here's another one for Commodore: SuperPET's language support. Has to
be the only machine I have ever seen that included support for an
interpreted COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC, APL...
-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)navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (04/10/90)
In article <10715@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax (Andy Finkel) writes: >>to manage the flow of information inside." Now consider: Do the Amiga's > >since the 68000 and 68020/030 are not active at the same time) > If I remember correctly the 2090 used to have a Z80. Is this my imagination??? Don't forget, though, that on a MacIIfx (along with their gfx card) there is an additional 88000... David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu "Think you can, think you can't -- either way it's true." Henry Ford
ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) (04/10/90)
In article <10715@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax (Andy Finkel) writes: >In article <1990Apr8.013940.12984@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >>use coprocessors to help relieve the main processor. No. The actual quote is >>as follows: "...It is also the first personal computer to have two >>additional processors - with the power of two additional personal computers - >>to manage the flow of information inside." Now consider: Do the Amiga's >>blitter, copper, etc. themselves have the power of additional personal >>computers??? Nope, they don't. The IIfx uses, I believe, two 6502 to > >The Amiga 500, 1000 and 2000 each have a 6502 as well as a 68000. > >(the A2500 has a 6502, a 68000, and a 68020 or 68030; however, >since the 68000 and 68020/030 are not active at the same time) > >To get a machine with two additional processors, we'd have to >go back to the C128D, which its 6510, its Z80, and its 6502 running >the disk drive. OK, in each of the above examples, I count only 1 additional processor which operates concurrently wrt i/o, and that meets the Apple ad's requirement:"two additional processors...with the power of two additional personal computers." After all, the Z80 in the C128 only runs under C/PM, during which time the 6510 does nothing wrt i/o, right? BTW, I'm not trying to cut on the Amiga or praise the Mac. I just wanted to point out that this thread started out with a misquote, and no evidence to back it up (other than 'we all know this is a lie...'). -- Don DeVoe ddev@epsl.umd.edu
ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) (04/10/90)
In article <1451@mindlink.UUCP> a218@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs) writes: > Agreed, the ad doesn't claim that the IIfx is the first computer >to use coprocessors. But you have to read the copy very carefully to >realize this. The phrase "with the power of two additional personal >computers" was set within dashes; Strunk and White would no doubt call >it a "non-restrictive clause," i.e. one which merely provides additional >information rather than distinguishing the item under discussion from >other similar items. True, the wording in the ad doesn't hold well againt 'The Elemnts of Style', but I think the meaning of the ad was reasonably clear with careful reading (and since when did an ad NOT require that :-) > Although any lawyer would have no trouble defending the ad copy, >it's definitely slanted. Look at how many people have misinterpreted >it. This doesn't prove an intention to deceive, but it wouldn't be >the first time that an advertisement hasn't been completely honest. >In any event, I'm sure Apple isn't complaining about the result. Somehow I doubt that claiming to be '...the first personal computer with two additional processors...' has given the IIfx that much extra business...but I see your point. > (I'll stay completely away from the issue of whether the Amiga's >coprocessors have the power of personal computers - they might be as >fast as the 8080 in my first personal computer, but they're definitely >not as flexible. Whether that's important in a coprocessor is a It's a fine line, and not one that I'm trying to defend. I just feel that the ad, as it appears, is nothing to get up in arms about... --- Don DeVoe ddev@epsl.umd.edu
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (04/10/90)
In article <23851@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (David C. Navas) writes: >Don't forget, though, that on a MacIIfx (along with their gfx card) there is >an additional 88000... Two points: the Mac IIfx graphics coprocessor is an AMD 29000, not an 88000. No big deal; they're both RISC and lots of people seem to just glom all RISCs together. (There were some messages a while back that said, in effect: "I'd like to se an 88000 card for the Amiga, so it could run Sparcstation software". 88000 and Sparc are also different.) The other point is that the coprocessor graphics card is a high end and expensive option that I figure very few Mac owners will enjoy.
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (04/11/90)
In article <1990Apr10.023937.8350@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >In article <10715@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax (Andy Finkel) writes: >OK, in each of the above examples, I count only 1 additional processor which >operates concurrently wrt i/o, and that meets the Apple ad's requirement:"two >additional processors...with the power of two additional personal computers." >After all, the Z80 in the C128 only runs under C/PM, during which time the >6510 does nothing wrt i/o, right? You're correct. (sorry, its been awhile). However, someone came up with another example... the A2000HD has a 68000, a Z80 running the ST506 hard disk interface, and a 6502 type running the keyboard, all active at the same time. andy >Don DeVoe -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "Not everything worth doing is worth doing well." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
kosma%stc-sun@stc.lockheed.com (Monty Kosma) (04/11/90)
From: Andy Finkel <andy@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 9 Apr 90 17:48:23 GMT In article <1990Apr8.013940.12984@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >use coprocessors to help relieve the main processor. No. The actual quote is >as follows: "...It is also the first personal computer to have two >additional processors - with the power of two additional personal computers - >to manage the flow of information inside." Now consider: Do the Amiga's >blitter, copper, etc. themselves have the power of additional personal >computers??? Nope, they don't. The IIfx uses, I believe, two 6502 to The Amiga 500, 1000 and 2000 each have a 6502 as well as a 68000. (the A2500 has a 6502, a 68000, and a 68020 or 68030; however, since the 68000 and 68020/030 are not active at the same time) To get a machine with two additional processors, we'd have to go back to the C128D, which its 6510, its Z80, and its 6502 running the disk drive. andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "Not everything worth doing is worth doing well." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors. what about the Z80 on my A2090? Doesn't that count for anything?
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/11/90)
In article <10715@cbmvax.commodore.com>, andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes: > In article <1990Apr8.013940.12984@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: > >use coprocessors to help relieve the main processor. No. The actual quote is > >computers??? Nope, they don't. The IIfx uses, I believe, two 6502 to > > The Amiga 500, 1000 and 2000 each have a 6502 as well as a 68000. > > (the A2500 has a 6502, a 68000, and a 68020 or 68030; however, > since the 68000 and 68020/030 are not active at the same time) > > To get a machine with two additional processors, we'd have to > go back to the C128D, which its 6510, its Z80, and its 6502 running > the disk drive. Anyone remember the Ohio Scientific machines with three processors, 8080, 6800, 6502? Cassette tape drives, etc. (But remember the prices...some things really have improved!) They used to produce some (relatively) hot machines. Wonder if they worked? ------------ "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)
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/11/90)
In article <23851@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) writes: > In article <10715@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax (Andy Finkel) writes: > >>to manage the flow of information inside." Now consider: Do the Amiga's > > If I remember correctly the 2090 used to have a Z80. > Is this my imagination??? > > Don't forget, though, that on a MacIIfx (along with their gfx card) there is > an additional 88000... No. Sigh. It does have an AMD 29000, though. ------------ "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)
jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) (04/11/90)
[ Feed Apple to the LineEater! ] seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >I can't feel too bad about the Amiga's future when Applied Engineering, a >company that has hold of more than 60% of the entire Apple hardware >aftermarket, starts making stuff for the Amiga. I used to have an Apple II+ (actually, I still have it.) It was a great computer way back then. Anyway, Applied Engineering produced many of the best and cheapest Apple II hardware expansions. In fact, when they first started the company, they used to advertise that they used their revenues ONLY to produce Apple II products. They promised that our hardware purchasing dollars would NOT be used to develop products for other computers! For many years they kept that promise. I suppose now that the Apple II series has become largely obsolete (PLEASE no IIgs flames), that it would be considered ok for them to branch out into a newer computer line. In any case, I never had any problems with their products. In fact, I never heard of anyone else having any problems with them either. I think that their entrance into the Amiga hardware market could be a good thing. Disclaimer: This post reflects my memory of events 5 to 10 years ago. If I have misquoted their advertisements, I'm sure that someone will correct me. -- Jim Pritchett UUCP: {attctc|texbell}!letni!dms3b1!caleb!jdp or texbell!rwsys!caleb!jdp
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (04/11/90)
In article <10715@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax (Andy Finkel) writes: >In article <1990Apr8.013940.12984@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >>use coprocessors to help relieve the main processor. No. The actual quote is >>as follows: "...It is also the first personal computer to have two >>additional processors - with the power of two additional personal computers - >>to manage the flow of information inside." That's an extremely silly statement, if you ask me. The 6502s in the Mac IIfx are certainly a good idea, and they are in fact faster than the 65816 in the Apple II GS. But speed alone does not a personal computer make. Those two 6502s are buried deep inside two ASICs, and can only be used as I/O processors. They don't have lots of memory or many other elements of a complete computer. >>Now consider: Do the Amiga's blitter, copper, etc. themselves have the >>power of additional personal computers??? Nope, they don't. They do, however, handle graphics operations faster than either an 8MHz 68000 or a 10MHz 6502 could ever hope to. You decide if that's the power of a personal computer, if that's how you now rate things after reading the Apple adds. You're comparing mangos with lobsters here. >The Amiga 500, 1000 and 2000 each have a 6502 as well as a 68000. >(the A2500 has a 6502, a 68000, and a 68020 or 68030; however, >since the 68000 and 68020/030 are not active at the same time) In fact, if you all really want to count CPUs, the original A2500/20 came with a 68000, a 68020, a Z-80, and a 6502 all buried inside. My current A2500/30 setup includes a 6502, a 4502, a 68030, a 68000, and an 80286. Some of the work once done by the Z-80 (in the hard disk controller) is handled by custom logic and smart hard drives. > andy -- 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
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (04/11/90)
In article <1990Apr10.023937.8350@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >In article <10715@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax (Andy Finkel) writes: >After all, the Z80 in the C128 only runs under C/PM, during which time the >6510 does nothing wrt i/o, right? Actually, the Z-80 does use the 8502 in the C128 for some processing under CP/M. But you can only have one on at a given time. Like most older systems, that's really not a loss, since you're only doing one thing in software at a time anyway. So if an I/O operation must be done, let the CPU best able to tackle it do the job. The other's going to have to hang around waiting anyway... In any Amiga, you can have 6502, 680x0, and blitter going at the same time. I'm sure Mac use some kind of CPU in their keyboards these days. The problem with older Macs was that they basically used the CPU to read keyboard and mouse at a really low level. An I/O processor does a real good job at reading things at this very low level. Instead of that, an I/O chip can take such low-level signals and cook them a bit before handing them off the the main processor. The Amiga's always done the latter, so it would benefit much less from an IOP for keyboard and mouse control. >Don DeVoe >ddev@epsl.umd.edu -- 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
dcr3567@ultb.isc.rit.edu (D.C. Richardson) (04/11/90)
>andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy >Commodore-Amiga, Inc. >"Not everything worth doing is worth doing well." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. >I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors. Andy, was that a joke or have you become disgruntled lately? (Notice that I, among most everyone else here, is reading into EVERYTHING posted from West Chester, so beware) I believe it shoud be said "Everything doing is worth overdoing", correct? Just wonderin' -Dan -- Daniel C. Richardson Rochester Institute Of Technology / Mechanical Engineering Dept. "Immaturity Is The Essence Of Humanity. Children Shall Be Our Saviors" -Red's Dream
ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) (04/11/90)
In article <10764@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <10715@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax (Andy Finkel) writes: >>In article <1990Apr8.013940.12984@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >>>as follows: "...It is also the first personal computer to have two >>>additional processors - with the power of two additional personal computers >>>to manage the flow of information inside." > >That's an extremely silly statement, if you ask me. The 6502s in the Mac IIfx >are certainly a good idea, and they are in fact faster than the 65816 in >the Apple II GS. But speed alone does not a personal computer make. Those > I'll agree, it is a pretty silly statement. But not clearly a false one. It all depends on interpretation. >>>Now consider: Do the Amiga's blitter, copper, etc. themselves have the >>>power of additional personal computers??? > >They do, however, handle graphics operations faster than either an 8MHz >68000 or a 10MHz 6502 could ever hope to. You decide if that's the >power of a personal computer, if that's how you now rate things after >reading the Apple adds. You're comparing mangos with lobsters here. I was not comparing anything, and neither was Apple's ad. The comparisons were all the work of people defending the Amiga against the evil Mac. The phrase 'with the power of a personal computer' can be interpreted most any way you like. And you're right, it's all in how you read the Apple adds. It certainly is not as black/white an issue as the original poster tried to make it into... >>The Amiga 500, 1000 and 2000 each have a 6502 as well as a 68000. >>(the A2500 has a 6502, a 68000, and a 68020 or 68030; however, >>since the 68000 and 68020/030 are not active at the same time) > >In fact, if you all really want to count CPUs, the original A2500/20OB came >with a 68000, a 68020, a Z-80, and a 6502 all buried inside. My current >A2500/30 setup includes a 6502, a 4502, a 68030, a 68000, and an 80286. Some >of the work once done by the Z-80 (in the hard disk controller) is handled >by custom logic and smart hard drives. I think that at this point, anyone with enough spare time (hi!) to follow this thread is tired of counting CPUs. Maybe it's time to let them process in peace... --- Don DeVoe ddev@epsl.umd.edu
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (04/12/90)
In article <10765@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > > In any Amiga, you can have 6502, 680x0, and blitter going at the same time. > I'm sure Mac use some kind of CPU in their keyboards these days. The problem > with older Macs was that they basically used the CPU to read keyboard and > mouse at a really low level. The original Mac's keyboard had a processor onboard. The current ADB keyboards, mice, trackballs, graphic tablest, etc. all have onboard processors. (ADB is used by Macs above the Plus and Apple//gs.) The original mouse was tracked by hardware in the interface, the processor reading off position/rate information from a couple of registers. The various Apple// mice worked the same way (using the same gate designs in their interface cards.) Otherwise, yes, they've not used I/O processors as much as they should have. ------------ "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)
phillips@foxtail.UUCP (Peter Phillips) (04/13/90)
In article <1990Apr10.023937.8350@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: > >OK, in each of the above examples, I count only 1 additional processor which >operates concurrently wrt i/o, and that meets the Apple ad's requirement:"two >additional processors...with the power of two additional personal computers." >After all, the Z80 in the C128 only runs under C/PM, during which time the >6510 does nothing wrt i/o, right? When the C128D is operating in CP/M mode, the Z-80 runs most of the stuff, but "The 8502 is responsible for most of the low-level I/O functions." Quote from Commodore 128 Programmer's Refernece Guide, page 500, in a section dealing with the interaction between the 8502, and the Z-80. >Don DeVoe >ddev@epsl.umd.edu Peter Phillips ucsd!foxtail!phillips
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz (04/13/90)
In article <2749@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, dcr3567@ultb.isc.rit.edu (D.C. Richardson) writes: >>andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy >>Commodore-Amiga, Inc. >>"Not everything worth doing is worth doing well." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. >>I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors. > > Andy, was that a joke or have you become disgruntled lately? (Notice > that I, among most everyone else here, is reading into EVERYTHING posted > from West Chester, so beware) I believe it shoud be said "Everything > doing is worth overdoing", correct? > No. I think I took it the way it was meant. A bit light hearted, but a truism. Some people get tight arsed trying to do some simple little thing in the most amazingly complex way so it is done "well" when all that is really needed, is a tool that does the job. I'll back Andy all the way. AlaN