JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (03/20/90)
*sigh* It looks like the A3000 has been outclassed even before it has been released: >Apple Introduces High-Performance Macintosh Products > >SAN JOSE, California--March 19, 1990--Macintosh personal computing reached >higher levels of power, breadth and usability today as Apple Computer, Inc. >unveiled a collection of new, high-performance Macintosh products. The >announcements include the following: Macintosh IIfx, the fastest and most >responsive Macintosh yet developed; A/UX 2.0, a ground-breaking version of >Apple's implementation of the UNIX operating system; and a new family >of powerful display cards that set new standards of image quality and >performance. >The Macintosh IIfx is the fastest Macintosh yet developed, running up to twice >as fast as the 25 MHz Macintosh IIci. This increase in performance derives >from the careful integration of powerful new technologies, including the >following: >- A faster processor/memory subsystem: The Macintosh IIfx incorporates a 40 >MHz 68030 processor/68882 coprocessor combination, a built-in, 32K Static RAM >Cache and a new design called "latched writes"; >- An intelligent input/output subsystem: The new system employs dedicated >input/output processors and a Small Computer System Interface/Direct Memory >Access Controller; >- Richer expansion capabilities: The Macintosh IIfx includes an expansion >slot tied directly to the processor in addition to its six industry-standard >NuBus slots. Of course, you pay for all this.... >Macintosh IIfx >- 4MB/SuperDrive version, $8,969 >- 4MB/80MB internal hard drive version, $9,869 >- 4MB/160MB internal hard drive version, $10,969 >A/UX 2.0 (Prices will be announced at a later date.) >- A/UX 2.0 on Apple CD-ROM disk >- A/UX 2.0 on 800K floppy disks >- A/UX 2.0 on a 40MB Apple Tape Cartridge > >Macintosh Display Cards >- Macintosh Display Card 4.8, $648 >- Macintosh Display Card 8.24, $899 >- Macintosh Display Card 8.24 GC, $1,999 It just looks as if this thing with Multifinder really could go faster than any 25 MHz Amiga with an '030 on the board ... 40 MHz is nothing to sneeze at. I think Apple has taken the wind out of any sail Commodore was to be riding on with an A3000 announcement. UNLESS Commodore responds by announcing the 3000 as a machine that rivals the IIfx for a lower price, then there could be trouble.... These opinions are mine and nobody else's. Period. No if's, and's, or but's. Kurt -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- || Kurt Tappe (814) 862-8630 || "This town needs an enema." || || 600 E. Pollock Rd., #5705 || - Joker, "Batman" || || State College, PA 16801 --------------------------------------|| || jkt100@psuvm.bitnet or jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu || || or jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || ----------------------------------------------------------------------
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/20/90)
In article <90078.164636JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >*sigh* It looks like the A3000 has been outclassed even before it >has been released: > >>Apple Introduces High-Performance Macintosh Products Truthfully, that doesn't sound like such a huge advance, at least not from that description. I don't know if that was the full press release or some watered-down news paper interpretation. 40MHz 68030 will be available from GVP very soon and I am hard pressed to believe that Commodore is not working on something faster than a 25MHz 68030. As to the DMA I/O through SCSI and custom I/O chips, I think that sounds awfully familiar, don't you? 8^> > > >Of course, you pay for all this.... > Of course you pay for it: this is Apple we're talking about. That is what gives the Amiga the advantage. Perhaps it will be somewhat faster than the 3000, but the price/performance ratio will probably still favor the Amiga, as always. > >It just looks as if this thing with Multifinder really could go faster than >any 25 MHz Amiga with an '030 on the board ... 40 MHz is nothing to sneeze >at. I think Apple has taken the wind out of any sail Commodore was to be >riding on with an A3000 announcement. UNLESS Commodore responds by announcing >the 3000 as a machine that rivals the IIfx for a lower price, then there could >be trouble.... I wonder what the speed comparison is with the GVP 40MHz board? Probably not that much of an improvement, if any. Note that I don't have benchmarks for either but they both appear to incorporate very nice technology. > >These opinions are mine and nobody else's. Period. No if's, and's, or but's. I think that goes for everything I've said as well! 8^> > > Kurt >-- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >|| Kurt Tappe (814) 862-8630 || "This town needs an enema." || >|| 600 E. Pollock Rd., #5705 || - Joker, "Batman" || >|| State College, PA 16801 --------------------------------------|| >|| jkt100@psuvm.bitnet or jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu || >|| or jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu Compu$erve : 70137,3271 Anyone giving away Amigas or Sharp Scanners??? "If Commodore had to market sushi they'd call it `raw cold fish'" -- The Bandito, inevitably stolen from someone else NewTek says, "if you are waiting for the toaster, get your bread ready." Well, I say my bread is now stale so they'd better be making a microwave!
Michael.Witbrock@CS.CMU.EDU (03/21/90)
If I had 12 000 dollars to spend on a macintosh, I'd spend it on one of the IBM power 6000 series workstations instead.
chad@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (darknight) (03/21/90)
In article <90078.164636JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >*sigh* It looks like the A3000 has been outclassed even before it >has been released: > >>Apple Introduces High-Performance Macintosh Products >> >>SAN JOSE, California--March 19, 1990--Macintosh personal computing reached >>higher levels of power, breadth and usability today as Apple Computer, Inc. >>unveiled a collection of new, high-performance Macintosh products. The > >>The Macintosh IIfx is the fastest Macintosh yet developed, running up >>to twice ^^^^^ >>as fast as the 25 MHz Macintosh IIci. Hmmmm, so now they have made something that WAS a slow as a slug go twice as fast, maybe even as fast as a snail... As my grandma always said, "You can't shine sh*t"... :-) PS. I'm one of those people people who think the Mac II is a an overpriced machine with severe design deficiencies, whereas a normal Mac is just overpriced... -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INTERNET: chad@slugmail.ucsc.edu Chad 'The_Walrus' Netzer->AmigaManiac++ "Never piss off a guy who understands technology." ------====== "Life is a Strange Attractor." ======-------
perley@trub (Donald P Perley) (03/21/90)
In article <90078.164636JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu>, JKT100@psuvm (JKT) writes: >*sigh* It looks like the A3000 has been outclassed even before it >has been released: > A/UX 2.0, a ground-breaking version of >>Apple's implementation of the UNIX operating system; So they are saying that the original A/UX didn't break any ground? >>- A faster processor/memory subsystem: The Macintosh IIfx incorporates a 40 >>MHz 68030 processor/68882 coprocessor combination, a built-in, 32K Static RAM >>Cache and a new design called "latched writes"; Gee, sort of like the 40mhz GVP card... >>- An intelligent input/output subsystem: The new system employs dedicated >>input/output processors and a Small Computer System Interface/Direct Memory >>Access Controller; Gee, sort of like the amiga... >>- Richer expansion capabilities: The Macintosh IIfx includes an expansion >>slot tied directly to the processor in addition to its six industry-standard >>NuBus slots. It's not clear what they mean here... like a piggy back board on the '030? >It just looks as if this thing with Multifinder really could go faster than >any 25 MHz Amiga with an '030 on the board ... It sound to me that a lot of it is apple introducing things that are already available on the amiga. On the plus side they actually have unix and some new display cards. On the other hand, they still sound a little light on the coprocessors. -don perley perley@trub.crd.ge.com
jac@muslix.llnl.gov (James Crotinger) (03/22/90)
I saw a demonstration of the new Macs and A/UX 2.0 yesterday. The new Mac IIfx was impressive, but I'll keep my SparcStation, thank you. A/UX 2.0 was sort of a good-news/bad-news thing. Being an Amiga lover I thought that this just might be a combination that I could like--UNIX which would run virtually all Mac applications (even non- 32 bit clean ones). As has probably been mentioned, what they did was to port Multifinder to run as an A/UX kernal task. When you log in you are presented with what looks basically like an ordinary Mac running multifinder, except that you can now fire up a shell window! This all sounds wonderful. Now for the bad news. Mac applications running under Multifinder are, well, Mac applications running under Multifinder. They are not UNIX tasks. They don't do pre-emptive multitasking amongst themselves. Multifinder itself is a UNIX task and as such it, and applications running under it, do multitask with other UNIX tasks. But unfriendly Mac applications can still bring the Multifinder interface to its knees. Furthermore, Mac applications aren't protected from eachother. I asked what happens if a Mac application crashes. They hemmed and hawed a bit and said that it would crash multifinder and throw you back to the login prompt. However someone in the audience said that in practice this can actually cause a reboot! So, an A/UX mac does manage to add a CLI (and a UNIX one at that) to the Mac system. This certainly is one of the big gripes us Amigans have had with the Mac in the past. However you still do not get true multitasking. The lack of memory protection would, for me, rule it out as an alternative to another UNIX workstation. However when viewed as an alternative to the Amiga (albeit a very expensive alternative) this is simply the status quo. BTW, I was very impressed with the speed of the windowing interface (ie Multifinder). It appeared to be much more responsive than X11R4 running on my SparcStation. They were running it on a IIfx, but that is still probably a factor of 2 less horsepower than the sparc. They ran a spirograph line drawing demo and it was blazingly fast. Jim
glin@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU (George Lin [900116]) (03/22/90)
What's all this "dream-machine" stuff about the Amiga running at 40 MHZ with zillions of graphics and stuff????? Commodore still haven't capture the lower end of the PC market or the educational market yet. With the new ECS chips out and WB1.4, the Multi-sync Monitor is going to hike up the price even more! Do any of you know how much more hardware (memory+storage) will be required to run the Amiga version of UNIX?!?!? With increase performance, the price will also increase. How many of you college/high school students have the money to get let's say an Amiga with a 680xx0 chip and a Multi-sync, a hard drive, 2 additional meg., plus software?!?! Nuff of this.... P.S. I read in Compute! (April issue) today that Commodore showed a machine based on the Amiga technology w/CD ROM to play games with a price tag of $600 (ouch!) I wish they use that research and development and make a CD drive for the Amiga instead.... (which again, will cost more and more $).
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/22/90)
In article <11886@vdsvax.crd.ge.com> perley@trub (Donald P Perley) writes: >In article <90078.164636JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu>, JKT100@psuvm (JKT) writes: >>>- An intelligent input/output subsystem: The new system employs dedicated >>>input/output processors and a Small Computer System Interface/Direct Memory >>>Access Controller; >Gee, sort of like the amiga... Well, at least they didn't call their DMA controller a "mainframe on a chip". At least now there's a chance that a 40MHz, 32-bit Mac will have a faster hard disk than an A500. I'm interested in seeing just how clever this is -- if it's not a high speed, full 32 bit controller with buffer/FIFO, they can go back to the drawing board. >>>- Richer expansion capabilities: The Macintosh IIfx includes an expansion >>>slot tied directly to the processor in addition to its six industry-standard >>>NuBus slots. >It's not clear what they mean here... like a piggy back board on the '030? Same basic idea as the A2000 -- a machine-specific CPU slot thingy for processor expansion (works only on Mac IIfx), and an Apple-standard expansion bus that can support I/O, graphics, coprocessors, etc. >>It just looks as if this thing with Multifinder really could go faster than >>any 25 MHz Amiga with an '030 on the board ... >It sound to me that a lot of it is apple introducing things that are already >available on the amiga. It sounds like they're catching up with much of the rest of the world, HW wise. Competing with PClones in the mid 80's didn't require any amazing hardware performance -- folks bought Macs for the software only. But now every machine out there is using a GUI, and the competition in both the Clone and Workstation markets has exaggerated the relatively low CPU-bag/buck on the older Mac IIs. >-don perley >perley@trub.crd.ge.com -- 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) (03/22/90)
In article <53218@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> jac@muslix.llnl.gov.UUCP (James Crotinger) writes: > BTW, I was very impressed with the speed of the windowing interface >(ie Multifinder). It appeared to be much more responsive than X11R4 >running on my SparcStation. Most versions of UNIX aren't really set up very well for a single user on a GUI based workstation. They just aren't responsive enough. Add to that the client/server nature of X (one of its best features, by the way, but a bottleneck) vs. the Mac's quickdraw (a series of subroutines) and it's really no surprise the Mac appears more responsive. >They were running it on a IIfx, but that is still probably a factor of >2 less horsepower than the sparc. I wouldn't bet on a factor of two difference, if Apple did their job on the 40MHz '030 and support hardware. At least for integer operations, the '030 won't be all that much slower. For floating point, I'd expect the SparcStation to be 3x-5x the '030/'882 speed. >They ran a spirograph line drawing demo and it was blazingly fast. If they're using the smart display card, they may be running a CPU with MORE integer performance than the SparcStation's SPARC. That 29K is a little weird, but it's plenty fast. Also a register-window machine, like the SPARC. > Jim -- 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
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (03/23/90)
Re: "AMIGA Outclassed" (by new Apple announcements), hmmmm. Well, a 40MHz 68030 would be "nice", and it seems Apple finally learned of the existence of something called DMA (for the SCSI bus), but let's look a bit further into just WHAT was announced. And for that look, let's read from the journal of Apple's "friend", DEC; specifically, DIGITAL REVIEW, the March 19, 1990 edition, pages 1 and 6 (extracted): " APPLE UNLEASHES FX and A/UX Unix (sic) V2.0" Apple Computer this week will attempt to expand its position into the workstation arena with a high-end offering for Macintosh devotees called the Macintosh IIfx. In addition, Apple is bolstering its A/UX Unix (sic) offering with version 2.0, which provides a full implementation of AT&T's Unix (sic) System V 2.2, support for X windows, and the ability to run existing Max applications alongside A/UX applications. The Macintosh IIfx uses a 40MHz 68030 microprocessor, a 32KB static RAM cache and a 68882 floating-point co-processor for mathematical functions, Apple officials said. Also included are dedicated I/O processors that company officials said increase the efficiency of the system by managing low-level I/O tasks, such as the Apple Desktop Bus, floppy disk drives and serial ports, which previously were handled by the 68030. A dedicated SCSI/DMA controller improves SCSI performance with this Apple offering. ... Apple's release 2.0 of A/UX considerably strengthens the company's Unix (sic) offering. Although it does not yet support the popular AT&T Unix System V 3.0, A/UX does offer full support for AT&T Unix System V 2.2, Posix 1003.1, Berkeley File System, NFS version 3.2 enhancements, shared libraries, X windows and relevant Unix standards, so users can port existing Unix applications to A/UX with minimal effort, company officials say. ... Industry analysts said ... (the new Mac) will not be overly competitive in the Unix workstation arena ... it's several revisions behind the current AT&T Unix release .... [the IIfx] doesn't have the power and price/performance to successfully compete ... at about $13,000, the price of the new Mac with a color monitor, 8MB of memory and 160MB hard disk is not competitive ... Apple's priced themselves out of the market with this one. " Gee, has the love-affair between DEC and Apple reached the 7-year itch point in just 2 years? :-) BTW, the A/UX V2.0 won't even be available 'til Summer '90. For the record, CBM is (has) porting (ported) AT&T UNIX System V 4.0 as its UNIX offering, and "rumor" suggests it (CBM's UNIX) will be available BEFORE Apple's; it (CBM's UNIX SV4.0) was already demo'd at Uniforum. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (03/25/90)
In-Reply-To: message from glin@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU A multisync moniter won't be mandatory unless you want to access the extended modes...if not, make due with what you have. You have to expect that better features will cost you more...TANSTAAFL! And nobody's twisting your arm to run UNIX as well...in fact, most Amiga owners probubly won't, and will have little use for it. Alot of the users I've dealt with have a hard time understanding AmigaDOS...they'd DIE trying to set up UNIX. But I swear...all this bitchin' about price...Amiga owners have got to be some of the cheapest computer users in the world... Sean
sysop@tlvx.UUCP (SysOp) (03/26/90)
In article <1955@crash.cts.com>, seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: > In-Reply-To: message from glin@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU > > A multisync moniter won't be mandatory unless you want to access the extended > modes...if not, make due with what you have. You have to expect that better > features will cost you more...TANSTAAFL! Say, do we really know what all the new features will be in the new chipset? Will any multisync do? (TANSTAAFL?) I missed the original message... pay more than what? > [comments abou UNIX deleted...] I would hate to force people to use UNIX, even though I use it a lot. It's often a lot of work to keep up and running... not to mention complicated.... all of which I don't mind, but then I'm interested in technical computer things... > > But I swear...all this bitchin' about price...Amiga owners have got to be some > of the cheapest computer users in the world... How much should this stuff cost? Apparently you can get a 386SX with a VGA card and floppy for around $1000 or so. It seems to me that an Amiga 2000 should have trouble selling for $2000. Seems to me if price was your primary concern, you'd be buying a clone, not an Amiga. But if you want something really pricey, just look at some Mac magazines. (No flames, I like the Mac, what I've seen of it.) Is it wrong for me to try to get the price of a color Amiga system, color PC clone system, and a color Amiga system? Aside from the fact that it's comparing apples and oranges (or Apples and Amigas, heh heh). Ok, so why am I rambling on about this? Well, in the latest Byte, there were a couple of comments in the Mac column. Notably, the comment, "...the halls of copmuting obscurity now occupied by the likes of the Amiga and the Atari ST." It got me thinking about the new state of computers. In the grand scheme of things, the Amiga does all *I* want it to. When you look at buying a computer, you're interested in not just price, but also this "security" of having a lot of software and hardware support. But when I look at the other systems, I prefer the Amiga. If nothing else mattered, I like Amiga the most. For some reason I didn't really think of the Amiga as "obscure"; for business use I guess it is. Please, someone tell me how this article is flawed! Tell me how well Amiga is doing! Seriously, I'm not going to replace my Amiga any time soon. Anyway, I've been pricing hardware for the A1000 for some time now, and am toying with the idea of just buying another machine to upgrade. I think I'll wait for the new Amiga(s?) before buying anything. I'm impatiently awaiting.... Say is there any chance for an Amiga laptop? (I know, color LCD screens are probably too expensive, never mind!) I think I will look at the "A3000" or whatever that will be; I'd like a hard drive, and a multisynch, and.... > > Sean (I know this has been terribly long, but I feel much better now, heh. I have more thoughts on this, but I'll spare you. :-)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/26/90)
In article <259@tlvx.UUCP> sysop@tlvx.UUCP (SysOp) writes: >In article <1955@crash.cts.com>, seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >Ok, so why am I rambling on about this? Well, in the latest Byte, there >were a couple of comments in the Mac column. Notably, the comment, "...the >halls of copmuting obscurity now occupied by the likes of the Amiga and the >Atari ST." It got me thinking about the new state of computers. In the >grand scheme of things, the Amiga does all *I* want it to. When you look >at buying a computer, you're interested in not just price, but also this >"security" of having a lot of software and hardware support. But when I >look at the other systems, I prefer the Amiga. If nothing else mattered, >I like Amiga the most. For some reason I didn't really think of the Amiga >as "obscure"; for business use I guess it is. Please, someone tell me >how this article is flawed! Tell me how well Amiga is doing! Seriously, >I'm not going to replace my Amiga any time soon. There are currently over 1,500,000 Amigas in the world, selling at a rate of around 500,000 per year. Every quarter for the past year, sales of the Amiga were greater than the year-ago quarter. Most of those sales are, admittedly, in Europe. However, there is no possibility of the Amiga being an orphan in the next few years. > >Anyway, I've been pricing hardware for the A1000 for some time now, and am >toying with the idea of just buying another machine to upgrade. I think >I'll wait for the new Amiga(s?) before buying anything. I'm impatiently >awaiting.... Say is there any chance for an Amiga laptop? (I know, >color LCD screens are probably too expensive, never mind!) I think I >will look at the "A3000" or whatever that will be; I'd like a hard drive, >and a multisynch, and.... Don't buy an A1000 unless price is really an issue. The hardware can't be brought with you, it is an orphan, and probably won't run the next OS fully, if at all. There IS a laptop Amiga on the way from a Germany company called Gigatronic. Supposedly they are working with Commodore somewhat, although I don't know that for a fact. You might want to wait for the new Amigas. They will probably be announced in the next month, but you never know. It could be 3-4 months before they ship. -- 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
dwatts@ki.UUCP (Dan Watts) (03/27/90)
In article <259@tlvx.UUCP> sysop@tlvx.UUCP (SysOp) writes: >In article <1955@crash.cts.com>, seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >> In-Reply-To: message from glin@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU >> >> A multisync moniter won't be mandatory unless you want to access the extended >> modes...if not, make due with what you have. You have to expect that better >> features will cost you more...TANSTAAFL! > >Say, do we really know what all the new features will be in the new chipset? >Will any multisync do? >(TANSTAAFL?) I missed the original message... pay more than what? TANSTAAFL is from Robert A Heinlein's Sci-Fic novels. If I recall correctly, its "There Are No Such Things As A Free Lunch".
wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne C Knapp) (03/27/90)
In article <1990Mar25.235816.15660@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > There are currently over 1,500,000 Amigas in the world, > selling at a rate of around 500,000 per year. Every quarter for the > past year, sales of the Amiga were greater than the year-ago quarter. > Most of those sales are, admittedly, in Europe. However, there is no > possibility of the Amiga being an orphan in the next few years. *** Warning Mild Flame below *** This is from one of the guys upset with people spreading rumors. I don't know what the actual sales figures are, but I really doult that the rate is anywhere near 500,000 a year. I would bet that is more like a goal of Commodore's. If there were that much growth you wouldn't be seeing the shake-out of so many Amiga companies and the wouldn't be so many changes taking place in Commodore. Prehaps Commodore is selling 500,000 computers a year, but I would be really impressed if more that 300,000 Amigas are being sold a year now. PC clones and C64 series computer are bound to account for a fair amount of the sales. 1,500,000 and 500,000 a year would be outstanding and very exciting. Clearly, considering all the recent problems these numbers are likely inflated. So Ethan what is your source of numbers? If you know some real hard facts that the rest of us missed please share them with us, Amiga developers could use some good news right now. Wayne Knapp P.S. My guess would be 1.2 million world wide with a growth of 200,000 a year. Plus I would beat that at least 25,000 are year being retired. However, these are based on my feelings of fuzzy facts. This is not intended as a rumor just my opinion.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/27/90)
In article <5896@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne C Knapp) writes: >In article <1990Mar25.235816.15660@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > >> There are currently over 1,500,000 Amigas in the world, >> selling at a rate of around 500,000 per year. Every quarter for the >> past year, sales of the Amiga were greater than the year-ago quarter. >> Most of those sales are, admittedly, in Europe. However, there is no >> possibility of the Amiga being an orphan in the next few years. > >*** Warning Mild Flame below *** > >This is from one of the guys upset with people spreading rumors. I don't >know what the actual sales figures are, but I really doult that the rate >is anywhere near 500,000 a year. I would bet that is more like a goal of >Commodore's. If there were that much growth you wouldn't be seeing the >shake-out of so many Amiga companies and the wouldn't be so many changes >taking place in Commodore. Prehaps Commodore is selling 500,000 computers >a year, but I would be really impressed if more that 300,000 Amigas are >being sold a year now. PC clones and C64 series computer are bound to account >for a fair amount of the sales. > >1,500,000 and 500,000 a year would be outstanding and very exciting. Clearly, >considering all the recent problems these numbers are likely inflated. So >Ethan what is your source of numbers? If you know some real hard facts that >the rest of us missed please share them with us, Amiga developers could use >some good news right now. > > Wayne Knapp > >P.S. My guess would be 1.2 million world wide with a growth of 200,000 a year. >Plus I would beat that at least 25,000 are year being retired. However, these >are based on my feelings of fuzzy facts. This is not intended as a rumor just >my opinion. Wayne, you have always had a very pessimistic view of the Amiga and Commodore and now when I present facts you assume I am rumor mongering. FACT: March 1989, at AmiExpo Gail Wellington announced sales of around 800,000 Amigas total, most people were estimating around 1,000,000 at that time. FACT: April 1990, at AmiExpo Gail Wellington announced sales of over 1,500,000 Amigas. I can do basic subtraction, can you? Also, Wayne, Commodore sells 1,000,000 C-64s a year, even now with the sales in a huge slump. That comes straight from the annual reports and several Commodorian mouths. Are these facts clear enough? -- 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
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (03/27/90)
In article <90078.164636JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >*sigh* It looks like the A3000 has been outclassed even before it >has been released Look, the 2FX is a $13,000 machine, minimum, plus you can't get one yet. Don't write off the A3000 until you see one and find out how much it costs. -- -- uunet!sugar!karl "As long as there is a legion of superheros, all else -- can surely be made right." -- Sensor Girl -- Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
robin@sabre.austin.ibm.com (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) (03/28/90)
In article <5459@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >In article <90078.164636JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >>*sigh* It looks like the A3000 has been outclassed even before it >>has been released >Look, the 2FX is a $13,000 machine, minimum, plus you can't get one yet. >Don't write off the A3000 until you see one and find out how much it costs. Yeah, and a CRAY-2 just blows the 2FX out of the water. And its already out. Let's compare Apples to $#it and leave it at that. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |The views expressed herein, are the sole responsibility of the typist at hand| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |USNail: UUCP: | |2323 Wells Branch Pkwy., #G107 cs.utexas.edu!romp!ibmchs!auschs\ | |Austin, TX 78728 !sabre.austin.ibm.com!robin | |Home: (512)251-6889 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<-MUST BE INCLUDED| +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (03/28/90)
In-Reply-To: message from thad@cup.portal.com I just read the preview in BYTE about the new Apple...seems as though they did borrow a few Amiga ideas...I'm not really talking about the SCSI DMA, but the coprocessors to take the I/O burden off of the main CPU. Did you catch what they were using? 6502 chips! And please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I heard somewhere that 6502s are produced by Commodore. I also found it amusing that Apple saw the need for a Video/Coprocessor slot, even though I t seems wierd that the two functions are combined...one or the other I guess. For the cost of this sucker, add a 24-bit display card, and a nice moniter...you could buy a Silicon Graphics Personal Iris! GVP should be releasing their 33MHz '030 boards shortly...and they've already shown 40MHz versions in Europe. I wonder how many software applications won't be compatable with THIS Mac? Sean // \X/
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (03/28/90)
In-Reply-To: message from sysop@tlvx.UUCP Well, I think all the new graphics modes have been known for some time now...640 x 400 nonINT, 640 x 960 INT, 1280 x 200 nonINT, 1280 x 400 INT, and the ability to change to PAL resolutions... It'd be REALLY nice if Commodore saw fit to upgrade the pallette to a full 24bits, regardless of what the ECS will actually display. Price isn't my only concern...I'm not a bottom line type of guy...Sure, you can even buy full 386 systems for under $3000...but you're not getting something from a reputable, established clone maker (Compaq, Epson, etc.) In fact, the FCC has been cracking down on alot of these el cheapo clones...these are piece jobs, put together with whatever the dealers could get the cheapest...I don't really even want to think of Macs...I didn't spend as much money on my CAR as a full color Mac would cost...and that's the only area that I really envy Mac owners...their ablility to work with 24-bit graphics, albeit slowly. Hopefully the Toaster will remedy this situation, even though it probubly won't have much beyond video resolution (764 x 484 +or- a few). I wasn't bad-mouthing UNIX...I'm looking forward to diving right into it. I think it's a chance for the Amiga to get abit more respect... Gimme Unix Gimme atleast 1024 x 768 resolution, and Gimme 16.7M colors while your at it...and I'll be happy. I don't ask for much do I, hehe. Sean
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (03/28/90)
Just thought that I would add... The Amiga alone accounted for something like 51% of Commodore's income. This is from Commodore's own stockholder report. Don't quote me on the exact percentage, as I dont have that document handy right now. But it was surprising none the less. - Doug - Doug_B_Erdely@Cup.Portal.Com
wayneck@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Wayne C Knapp) (03/28/90)
In article <1990Mar27.005538.7179@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > > FACT: March 1989, at AmiExpo Gail Wellington announced sales of around > 800,000 Amigas total, most people were estimating around 1,000,000 at > that time. > > FACT: April 1990, at AmiExpo Gail Wellington announced sales of over > 1,500,000 Amigas. > Considering it is March 27, 1990, knowing what Gail Wellington said in April is a pretty good trick.
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (03/28/90)
In article <8735@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> wayneck@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Wayne C Knapp) writes: > Considering it is March 27, 1990, knowing what Gail Wellington said in > April is a pretty good trick. It's in there! [*] -Tom * -- TimeTravel: Another feature of AmigaDOS 1.4. ...of course, in 5 years IBM will claim they invented it. -- tlimonce@drew.edu Tom Limoncelli As seen in USA Today & tlimonce@drew.uucp +1 201 408 5389 Rec.Humor.Funny! tlimonce@drew.Bitnet Stock quote: Commodore stock closed limonce@pilot.njin.net at $8.13 (-.13) on 3-23-1990.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/28/90)
In article <8735@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> wayneck@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Wayne C Knapp) writes: > Considering it is March 27, 1990, knowing what Gail Wellington said in > April is a pretty good trick. Come on! Give me a little slack! I meant March, not April. I'm thinking of the World of Amiga show coming up. However, those numbers are all directly quoted from Gail Wellington. -- 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
admiral@m-5.Sun.COM (Michael Limprecht SUN Microsystems Mt. View Ca.) (03/29/90)
In article <10298@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > In article <53218@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> jac@muslix.llnl.gov.UUCP (James Crotinger) writes: > > > BTW, I was very impressed with the speed of the windowing interface > >(ie Multifinder). It appeared to be much more responsive than X11R4 > >running on my SparcStation. > > Most versions of UNIX aren't really set up very well for a single user > on a GUI based workstation. They just aren't responsive enough. Add > to that the client/server nature of X (one of its best features, by the > way, but a bottleneck) vs. the Mac's quickdraw (a series of subroutines) > and it's really no surprise the Mac appears more responsive. Very True, X still need work for a sigle user system. > > >They were running it on a IIfx, but that is still probably a factor of > >2 less horsepower than the sparc. > > I wouldn't bet on a factor of two difference, if Apple did their job on > the 40MHz '030 and support hardware. At least for integer operations, > the '030 won't be all that much slower. For floating point, I'd expect > the SparcStation to be 3x-5x the '030/'882 speed. > > >They ran a spirograph line drawing demo and it was blazingly fast. > > If they're using the smart display card, they may be running a CPU with > MORE integer performance than the SparcStation's SPARC. That 29K is > a little weird, but it's plenty fast. Also a register-window machine, > like the SPARC. > I'm not so sure. Let's stop the hype and conjecture and see the Specmarks on th FX. If their UNIX can run them. My guess is they won't try, because they know as well as the rest of us that a brand new FX doesn't keep up with a year old SS-1. But you know I'm a little biased on this matter. BTW, I wonder what the Amiga/030/UNIX box peaks at?? How about it CBM? Join the Specmark crew if your serious about UNIX. Apple too, then we can have a common ground for comparison. -Mick ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I think there's a world market for about 5 computers." - Thomas J. Watson, Chairman of the Board, IBM (around 1948) ------------------------------------------------------------------- uucp: {anywhere}!sun!admiral -------------------------------------------------------------------
unhd (Jason W Nyberg) (03/29/90)
In article <Ea1mhSW00XNIQDgH5y@cs.cmu.edu> Michael.Witbrock@CS.CMU.EDU writes: >If I had 12 000 dollars to spend on a macintosh, I'd spend it on one of >the IBM power 6000 series >workstations instead. Why? (not sarcasm, just curiosity) With the student discount, I could get 4 '030 A2500's with that money. if i had $12,000 i'd get an '030 Amiga with a transputer board, and learn to program it myself (depending on how much software is available. I have no idea how much is out for it/them.) --jason nyberg
coxc0010@ucselx.sdsu.edu (David Tse) (03/29/90)
In article <1980@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from thad@cup.portal.com > > >I just read the preview in BYTE about the new Apple...seems as though they did >borrow a few Amiga ideas...I'm not really talking about the SCSI DMA, but the >coprocessors to take the I/O burden off of the main CPU. Did you catch what >they were using? 6502 chips! And please correct me if I'm wrong, but I >believe I heard somewhere that 6502s are produced by Commodore. I also found >it amusing that Apple saw the need for a Video/Coprocessor slot, even though I >t seems wierd that the two functions are combined...one or the other I guess. > >For the cost of this sucker, add a 24-bit display card, and a nice >moniter...you could buy a Silicon Graphics Personal Iris! > >GVP should be releasing their 33MHz '030 boards shortly...and they've already >shown 40MHz versions in Europe. > >I wonder how many software applications won't be compatable with THIS Mac? > >Sean // > \X/ a little flame applied here: don't we wish none of the Mac software works on THIS Mac? but I did run a few and it is just like other Macs. What a disappointment! Don't we wish the IIfx will blow up and release radioactive waste? finally, are some of us jealous and want to KILL the Mac? let's blow up the Apple plant , man! I am seeing a lot of sour messages on s.c.a and am sick of it, if you see others better, just work harder yourself. saying things like using 6502 is stupid, they copied our ideas, they are too over- price etc, is not going to make an Amiga better! David Tse
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (03/30/90)
In article <1990Mar29.050339.15964@uunet!unhd> jwn712@uunet!unhd (Jason W Nyberg) writes: In article <Ea1mhSW00XNIQDgH5y@cs.cmu.edu> Michael.Witbrock@CS.CMU.EDU writes: >If I had 12 000 dollars to spend on a macintosh, I'd spend it on one of >the IBM power 6000 series >workstations instead. Why? (not sarcasm, just curiosity) With the student discount, I could get 4 '030 A2500's with that money. You should compare apples to apples. Not everybody can get the student discount, so what you'd do with it doesn't matter much to someone who can't get it (I left the academic environment just a few months before CBM woke up and started those discounts; to bad for me, but I'm glad they did it). After all, I could by significantly better hardware (by my criteria, which may not be yours!) than either of those two alternatives using my DEC employee discount. Likewise, you can probably get a nice discount on the RIOS box (or a DEC box). The net result is about the same - you only get three 2500/30's for the cost of the RIOS. With only one machine, you only have to buy 1/3rd the support hardware (monitors, disks, keyboard, etc), but the cheap (NTSC) options aren't available for the RIOS box, so that may not be such a win. The RIOS box comes with an ethernet, which you may or may not want. Of course, that RIOS is also twice as fast as the Amiga (27 MIPS vs. 13 give or take a little from both sides), which can go a long way towards not having three machines. if i had $12,000 i'd get an '030 Amiga with a transputer board, and learn to program it myself (depending on how much software is available. I have no idea how much is out for it/them.) Sounds like an interesting idea - but I'm not that interested in the transputer. Me, i'd either use that DEC discount to wind up with [CENSORED] and a 2500/30, or wait until the A3000 shows up. I've heard good things about it. <mike -- It's been a hard day's night, Mike Meyer And I been working like a dog. mwm@relay.pa.dec.com It's been a hard day's night, decwrl!mwm I should be sleeping like a log.
mjl@ut-emx.UUCP (Maurice LeBrun) (04/10/90)
No flames follow, honest! :-) In article <11025@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mseidle@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Mike Seidle) writes: [...] > My 6-10 experiences using the amiga have left me with mixed feelings: > [...] > Second, I was very, very disapointed with the operating system. You probably mean AmigaDos. The OS Kernel ("Exec") is pretty uniformly praised hereabouts. > It was better than MS-DOS (what isn't ?)-but PC **ix it cannot touch > It had the "look and feel" of a toy. It also seemed to be > slow w/ disk IO. Judging by the NeXT's OS, CBM could have a > legit. PROFESSIONAL system if their port of UNIX is decent. Mostly (but not all) "out-of-box" syndrome. Commodore ships the machine in a rather ho-hum standard configuration. Equip it with a decent shell (plenty of options there..), complete with pipes, aliasing, memory resident commands, multiple shells at low cost (shared resident lists, internal functions in a shared library), ARexx interface, a powerful console handler (conman or newcon) and you've got a very powerful command environment. VMS doesn't come close to matching it (IMHO). Unix doesn't have that "real-time" feel. Neither are as easy to customize to your tastes. There are many more ways to beef up the basic configuration, using mostly public domain software (which tends to be very good). The ho-hum state of the shipped machine is a common complaint. Also, the Amiga doesn't really shine until you stick a hard disk on it. 'Course, few micros do, these days. Maurice LeBrun Institute for Fusion Studies mjl@fusion.ph.utexas.edu University of Texas at Austin
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (04/10/90)
In article <11025@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mseidle@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Mike Seidle) writes: > It was better than MS-DOS (what isn't ?)-but PC **ix it cannot touch > It had the "look and feel" of a toy. It also seemed to be > slow w/ disk IO. Judging by the NeXT's OS, CBM could have a > legit. PROFESSIONAL system if their port of UNIX is decent. Most professional users of Amigas own flicker-fixers and operate the workbench in interlace mode (with a 400 vertical resolution). Granted it isn't SunView, but it is definitely not a toy. I look at it this way: it isn't visually beautiful or perfectly clean but it is very flexible and EXTREMELY responsive. There is very little waiting or sluggishness to be seen. -- 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
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (04/11/90)
In article <1671@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >robin@sabre.austin.ibm.com (Robin D. Wilson/1000000) writes: >>>"For the first time, hardware assisted sound generation in a personal >Amiga was by no means the first to have a sound chip. They were quite >common in almost all of the 8bit PC's that were out long before Amiga. Sure; anyone remember the C64? But, far as I know, the Amiga was the personal computer out with true digital sound, DMA-driven sound output, and multichannel stereo. If you like buzzwords. The others generally used a sound effects chip, like the SID in the C64, that could do some rather simple sounds once set up by the CPU, but nothing similar to what Amigas are capable of. That's hardly the first hardware-assisted sound, but it was a first. >They probably did invent it, when they released their Apple //. In a sense, the Apple II was the first personal computer. Before that, home computers were really hobby machines, to a degree at least. So they may have had the first PC with hardware sound simply because they had the first PC. And I believe the early Macs make sound by forcing the CPU to pump bytes into a D-A converter -- digital sound for sure, but very CPU intensive. >[BTW their Apple // GS has a very awesome sound chip. Much like the amiga's >but with 16 voices, instead of 4] That's the old Ensoniq chip, kind of like a VIC chip for audio. The main problem with that one is the Apple II GS implementation; limited memory, all channels tied together, etc. >John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) >sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK >Help fight continental drift. -- 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
mek4_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mark Kern) (04/11/90)
In article <10753@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes: >>[BTW their Apple // GS has a very awesome sound chip. Much like the amiga's >>but with 16 voices, instead of 4] > >That's the old Ensoniq chip, kind of like a VIC chip for audio. The main >problem with that one is the Apple II GS implementation; limited memory, >all channels tied together, etc. I've heard both. It seems to me that although the Amiga has a higher sampling rate, the IIGS's 16 voices (32 occilators playing back digitized waveforms) makes up for it in terms of complexety of music. Yes, you are right about the memory limitations (64K of dedicated sound ram, not enough to effectively use all 16 voices at once), but I wonder what you mean by "...all channels tied together..." Do you mean the way the 32 occilators are paired up to produce the voices? In any case, both machines sound great. It is hard to say which sounds better. Mark E. Kern -- ========================================================================= Mark Edward Kern, mek4_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu A.Online: Markus Quagmire Studios U.S.A. "We not only hear you, we feel you !" =========================================================================