jwb@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu (Jeff W. Brogden) (02/24/90)
I would like for everybody to take a step back, think carefully about the
problem and reply with an intelligent, sound response. I *DON'T* want to
see a bunch of fanatical replies that simple play the Amiga up better than
it really is.
About two years ago, I bought my Amiga after much soul (and pocket)
searching. My biggest concern was with the stability of Commodore as a
business. I didn't want to buy an A2000 with my hard earned cash, only to
have it orphened(sp?) out from under my by Commodore. As is evident, I
took the plung, and have never regreted it since.
Today, I was talking to a faculty member over in the Journalism Department.
The have a lab full of Mac's for their students to use. Somehow it came up
that I owned an Amiga. His response was as follow:
"You know, the Amiga offers a lot for what it costs. I could
have filled the lab with Amiga's at half the cost of the Mac's
and would have had money left over for other things. I came
real close to doing it, but the thing that held me back was
Commodore. I just didn't know if I would wake up tomorrow, and
still find Commodore in business. We can't afford to have
a bunch of machines with no support."
This was not the first time I have heard people say things like this. This
is a real shame, since they bought about 25 Mac's with assorted
ImageWriters and LaserWriters.
So, the question is, how stable is Commodore? This question has inevitably
been discussed before, so please e-mail me your responses. Are we going to
wake up only to find our beloved Ami cast into the black hole of
unsupported machines? Also, how do you convice someone that the Amiga is a
"safe" investment? IBM and Apple have a reputation that is VERY hard to
beat. People feel safe with them, and that's how they sell computers at
the prices they do, IMHO.
Again, please e-mail me your discussions to the address below. Send me any
and all advise on how to convince people the Amiga is "safe". Most people
recognize that the machine has a lot to offer nowdays, but they are not
willing to "take-the-plung".
Thanks,
===============================================================================
Jeff Brogden | Kansas State University
Internet: jwb@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu | Manhattan, KS. 66506
BITNET: jwb@ksuvm | Office phone: (913)532-6350
UUCP: {rutgers,texbell,atanasoff}!ksuvax1!jwb | Home phone: (913)776-5798
===============================================================================walrus@wam.umd.edu (Udo K Schuermann) (02/26/90)
I was going to send this as a reply to Jeff Brogden request for ways of
making people trust Commodore, but thought it might be a good counterpoint
to those bits like `oh C= such and such stinks'.
Sadly, there are too many flames and not enough help. So here I am
with my two CONSTRUCTIVE cents.
-> If your flame-thrower is lit, or you want to discuss my points,
please e-mail me. I don't want to start yet another flame war
wasting bandwidth.
-> All of this stuff is pretty much common sense. It just seems that
no time has there been a posting that sums up the various points
IMHO, the following things could be done to improve the Amiga's image and
make people trust both the machine and (more importantly) Commodore:
DEALERS:
- Dealers should advertise the Amiga in some form or another. After
all, how many pictures of Macs and IBMs do you see when you flip
through the Computers section of the Yellow Pages? How about the news
paper? Very often it is _little_ things like these that people will
recognize and remember.
- Have a full time Amiga knowledgable person in the store; make sure that
Amiga questions are directed to that person to reduce fumbles and bad
publicity. Bad publicity ("the Amiga doesn't have any software",
"doesn't it crash all the time?", etc) hurt sales, your business, and
Commodore. Above all, the customer won't buy an Amiga.
- Prominently display Amiga magazines, software, hardware, and advertising
in the store. A display of confidence is a MUST. Hide it, and people
will think it has no software or that it can't be expanded, or that it
doesn't have any support.
- Do not hide the Amiga in a backseat position in the store. Present it,
let it advertise itself (run animation demos) to catch peoples' eyes
and draw them in -- then show them that it can do word processing and
databases and spreadsheets and such things, too. Make sure a customer
knows that there is more software available than they are ever likely
to fit on any harddisk. Tell them that there is lots and lots of
inexpensive titles available (such as from Fred Fish). Don't swamp
a customer with concepts such as multitasking if they don't understand
its usefulness. Give them examples from messy-dos: Terminate-Stay-
Resident (TSR) programs which conflict or can't be unloaded, which
can't be called up while you're downloading something, etc.
Example:
NewAge Computers in College Park, MD does a _very_ good job at all of these.
Anyone who walks into the store, sees Amigas everywhere, the walls are full
of Amiga titles, posters on the walls, GVP hardware under glass, etc, and
the people working there own Amigas themselves and know the machine in and
out.
The image is: hey, the Amiga is noteworthy, and these guys put everything
they've got behind it! These guys aren't scared that Commodore will go
under! They trust Commodore.
C= COMMODORE:
- Commodore should offer a longer warrantee period. Some dealers
extend the warrantee to one year by themselves to improve the Amiga's
image. At least it should be possible to purchase one or two year
warrantees at reasonable prices. The idea is if Commodore only
offers you a 90 day warrantee, are they trying to push some shaky
junk on you? Do they believe in their own product? This is, above
all, an image issue. My A1000 has worked from day one and show no
signs of wear (except for stains and scratches :^) ). I figure that
the the cost overhead of a longer warrantee period would be worth the
improvement in image.
- Commodore did a nice job last fall, giving the Amiga better visibility.
Hey, advertisement addresses a particular audience. These weren't meant
for you and me. I've heard people here and there ask, "Oh, you have an
Amiga? I heard it's a really nice machine." More and more people _do_
recognize the machine by name.
- Commodore should continue advertising. Maybe not as big as fall '89
but it is worse, IMHO to advertise once and never again, than to
advertise a little on a semi-continual basis. Avoid the scenario where
a year or two down the line someone asks "What ever happened to the
Amiga? Is Commodore still around?"
MISCELLANEOUS:
- Users like you and me can talk about our machine, demo it when the
opportunity arises, and else get people to go to a store that we
think represents the machine well.
- Bad advertising is far, far worse than no advertising. Preventing
people from meeting the Amiga in a setting of indifference or even
incompetence should be avoided at all costs.
- Although most of us bought our Amiga for what it can do, most people
will first and foremost examine the IMAGE of the machine and how
others react to it (baaaa). A machine that basks in the glow of
a dealer's enthusiastic (and competent) support is sure to make
people feel it is safe.
- Dealers should perhaps offer small services at no cost. Things like
that could include installation of software, access to the Fish
library, installing a memory board, controller card, or perhaps a
floppy or hard disk. At the _very_ least, service should be quick
and suffer no excuses that drag on for weeks and months. Such things
really undermine the support image.
Well that's it for my two (maybe three) cents. If you disagree or have
things to add, please do it through e-mail. DO NOT start an opinionated
war on the net, please. We need a better s/n ratio.
Thank you,
Thank you!
Udo Schuermanndixon@cs.nps.navy.mil (Roger Dixon) (02/26/90)
In article <1990Feb25.190708.5203@wam.umd.edu> walrus@wam.umd.edu (Udo K Schuermann) writes: > - Commodore should continue advertising. Maybe not as big as fall '89 > but it is worse, IMHO to advertise once and never again, than to > advertise a little on a semi-continual basis. Avoid the scenario where > a year or two down the line someone asks "What ever happened to the > Amiga? Is Commodore still around?" Speaking of which, where did all those ads go anyway? After the commericals last fall, (which I only saw 5 times instead of the projected 20, and that only because I intentionally went searching for them on an independent station) and the magazine articles which only were shown in a couple of issues of each mag (Time, NewsWeek, etc)., I have not seen or heard another Amiga ad. Is there any advertising going on now? What happened to that business campaign? Also, the government market campaign that last July C= said would start Jan '90, and turn a lot of heads in the government world? ******************************************************************************* // // Roger Dixon Standard Disclaimer \\ // \X/ ARPAnet (Defense Data Network): dixon@cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
watters@penguin.cis.ohio-state.edu (david r watters) (02/26/90)
Let's talk a bit about dealers shall we. Most of the Amiga Dealers are old CBM 64 dealers, not a good way to start off. My local dealer, which is the only around, sells Epsons and Panasonic clones. When ever he has a big customer comein, like a big college, he personally shows them around the store. While I worked there for 4 monts, I heard him say all to often... "Over here on this side of the store, are my IBM compatibles, my trucks... these are my work computers. Oh, that over there is the Amiga... it's my sports car, it is a fun computer for playing games and making home videos... these clones are what you want to do all your work on." He actualy says this about once a week. Then, he has the nerve to charge $60 dollars to even look at a 500 in service, let alone fix it. I had a 2000 that had a power supply go bad, and the new power supply was going to cost me $200. When I got the bill it was over $300!!!!! I had to pay $90 in labor charges, 9 hours@$10/hr. plus a $50 "look at it" fee, that has since increased to over $60. And I was an employee I may be wrong, but this seems a bit pricy to me. I could have put the damn power supply in myself, I have taken it out/put it in maybe 5 times installing different drives into the bay, and the newAgnus. Nothing makes me want to bail out more than a 90 day warrenty and a dealer that is always looking to corn-hole you up the whazooo!
jbeckley@ics.uci.edu (Jeff D. Beckley) (02/26/90)
I can tell you why there arn't a lot of good Amiga dealers out there. I
work for a very upscale dealer that carry IBM/Apple/HP/Sun/etc... and
Amiga. We are owned by Inacomp (a very large west coast chain) and
Mitsubishi. Guess what? All the Amiga vendors and distributors are
set up to deal with C-64 Mom & Pop stores that could vanish from the
face of the earth tomorow. Most just don't have the resources/desire or
profesionalism to deal with anything else. Many vendors insist on COD
only terms (for Mitsubishi?, come on...), most of the distributors I have
dealt with have made all kinds of negative commets about their vendors and
competion as well as racial/ethnic slurs while dealing with me. None,
reliable provide Evals of products. Call the vendor they try to steal
your account from the distributor and the whole thing starts all over
again.
-Jason-
--
Gumby
____
______ / )
____/ /bn@attcc.UUCP (02/27/90)
ok, my 2 cents worth... We keep hearing about how the Amiga is being surpassed by the low cost PCs on the market, etc, etc... To be perfectly honest, I think that now is finally the right time for the Amiga. Back in '85 it was too far ahead, and too expensive for the average Joe User. I agree with the arguments that a 256 color mode is definately nicer than the fringes that we get in the HAM mode, and that the new '386 machines outperform the Amiga in computing power, however, let's look at things from a realistic poit of view. The REAL driving force behind the MS/DOS market are still the cheap XT clones, and the Amiga is way ahead of those machines in every aspect. I see a proof of this everyday, as I work as a sales associate in an electronics dept. in a national chain store. We sell anything from a twin floppy CGA XT clone to a VGA '386 machine. The XTs still outsell the AT machines 3 to 1 (at least). It makes me angry to see all those people throwing money away for those XT clones. The only reason they buy them is because they don't know any better, and their friend recommends that they "get something that is IBM compatible." As far as Commodore is concerned... I think that they are heading in the right dirrection. Two years ago was a good time for pessimism, however since then, we've seen the whole staff at Westchester replaced, and we've seen some attempts at really trying to actually sell the machine. I am confident that Commodore will finally establish them selves as a viable business computer company with the introduction of the A3000/UNIX. I firmly believe that UNIX will be the OS that will replace MS/DOS and Commodore seems to think that also. Of course, this all depends on the way the machine is marketed. If they just release it, and then let it be, I'd hate to see what will happen to the company. Perhaps with Harry Copperman, comming from Apple, we will see some aggresive advertizing. I think that Apple's MAC commercials are very effective in the way they present the machine. Commodore should approach the A3000 marketing in the same way. Show a few boring executives discussing some computer related task, etc, etc.... This is not to say that they should present the computer as another boring run-of-the-mill 'puter but I tend to think that that sort of advertizing seems to catch the eye of the corporate types. The Amiga has already captured the Video production market, so why not go after something different. I'm not going to repeat the same old stuff about how the dealer network needs to improve, since we all aready know that. (I live in Oklahoma City, and we have only two "dealers" - one being Software ETC, and the other I don't even want to mention) To sum it all up, I see a bright future for the Amiga. I see the MS/DOS slowly start fading away as UNIX machines become more common. Remember CP/M???? my December '82 issue of Popular Computing states that "CP/M is the most popular OS, and is used on over 80% of all personal Computers." HA! that was only 8 years ago. where is CP/M now. I see the same future for MS/DOS. I believe that with just a little bit of marketing, Commodore could make the Amiga one of the most popular computers on the market just like it did with the ol' C= 64. So, how about it Commodore? [Soapbox mode off] Bo Najdrovsky UUCP: att!mwood!attcc!bn INET: mwood!attcc!bn@ATT.ATT.COM
pritchaj@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (John Pritchard) (02/27/90)
It sounds interesting (and typical) about the problems C= has with their machines playing "game machine" in multi-vendor stores. Amiga owners in this area are lucky to have a very good dealer in town. They carry only C= computers and software. I also found it interesting when I looked into what it would take to get a C= franchise and was told that the first requirement was that you must be an existing owner of a retail store. Will this not make it difficult to get stores out there that support the Amiga as their primary machine?
ghewes@bbn.com (Gerald Hewes) (03/02/90)
Speaking of ads, there was a small < 1/4 page C= add in the BOSTON Globe buissness section this week. I beleive it was tuesday 27th. So there some follow up on last year add campaign.
psu@mtuni.ATT.COM (Paul Siu) (03/03/90)
According to survey (I think it was Infoworld), DOS may fade away in the future, but OS/2 is probably going to be the next dominate operating system in business. Unix will probably be second. I suppose Unix will always be #1 in the scientific community. I personally like Unix better, but right now OS/2 has a standard interface, while AT&T and OSF is still arguing over graphics interface standard. The present OS/2 (1.1) is junk, though 2.0 promises to be better. In any case, OS/2 may surpass Unix, but it's hard to tell at the moment, but corporation seems to have a preference for OS/2 over Unix.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/03/90)
In article <52884@bbn.COM> ghewes@spca.bbn.com (Gerald Hewes) writes: > > Speaking of ads, there was a small < 1/4 page C= add in the >BOSTON Globe buissness section this week. I beleive it was >tuesday 27th. So there some follow up on last year add campaign. I can confirm that being true in NYC as well. For two weeks now Commodore has advertised in the Tuesday New York Times, i.e. the Science Times. It was an advertisement about the business promotional offer. I would imagine that the video and music offers are being promoted in their respective trade papers. Just because there was no big press conference doesn't mean that CBM isn't advertising! -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu Compu$erve : 70137,3271 Anyone giving away Amigas or Sharp Scanners???
doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (03/04/90)
In article <2840@mtuni.ATT.COM> psu@mtuni.ATT.COM (Paul Siu) writes: >According to survey (I think it was Infoworld), DOS may fade away in the >future, but OS/2 is probably going to be the next dominate operating system >in business. Unix will probably be second. I suppose Unix will always be #1 >in the scientific community. Depends purely on which surveys you want to believe. I think it's far more telling to note that there are 1) far more packages available for (various) Unix than for OS/2 at the moment, and 2) major s/w vendors are not putting very much $$ into developing for OS/2 at the moment, much to the chagrin of IBM & Microsoft. But that's simply according to Yet Another Survey that I saw recently, believe what you like. Nonetheless the Conventional Conservative Wisdom is (and has always been) that IBM Will Always Win Bigtime. Problem is that such aphorisms are a poor substitute for true thinking. Anyway, you'll always find lots of pundits who will say "Unix will always be #2 behind OS/2". That doesn't make them right; they're just quoting the standard line. You know the old saying, "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". Same sort of thing. Personally I'm pretty tired of hearing the same old BS year after year. For ten years now I've been hearing the Sacred Marketing Wisdom that Unix will never make it in the commercial marketplace. Well, now it has, so they've modified their phrasing, saying it'll never get beyond number two. They also say it'll never make it in the mainframe world. "I told Wilbur, and I told Orville, and now I'm telling *you*...that danged contraption will never work!" Anyone out there wanna put a little money on OS/2? I've got a sporting proposition for you...[ offer void where prohibited by law ]. >I personally like Unix better, but right now OS/2 has a standard interface, >while AT&T and OSF is still arguing over graphics interface standard. This is really just one of many important issues, not the thing that'll make or break either Unix or OS/2. Still, I disagree. Motif has already won. It's just that it'll take a while for the dust to settle. You should also consider the issues of open systems. Aside from the hype on the subject, it's getting to be an important issue for more and more companies when they need to decide where to commit their money. Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary
dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) (03/04/90)
Point in case is that as micro-computers and desktops become more powerful,
a better operating system would be needed... OS/2 is much too system
specific to really become popular... Unix easily portable and with some mods
can be installed on just about any system with the capabilities to do so...
Another thing is, OS/2 is not a fairly programmer friendly environment...
MS-DOS will inevitably fall away because of it's incapability to multi-task.
As long as CBM keeps coming out with improvements on there OS, it would be
a great OS for a computer with it's power. As far as the Machintosh is
concerned... well... we won't get into that.
-Dino Khoe
dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu
root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Systems Staff) (03/05/90)
In article <3881@nmtsun.nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes: >As long as CBM keeps coming out with improvements on there OS, it would be >a great OS for a computer with it's power. As far as the Machintosh is >concerned... well... we won't get into that. Agreed that AmigaDOS is about the right level for the lower end of what Commodore sells. The question is whether it can, in the architectural sense, add the few missing items that handicap the system and still be AmigaDOS: memory protection resource tracking virtual memory As we move forward in time, and the the 68030 becomes what the 68000 is today in cost then trading away the aforementioned capabilities for memory consumption/speed doesn't make as much sense as it did in 1984/1985. And at some point the obvious question needs an answer: is it easier or a better investment of time to provide an AmigaDOS compatible environment under eg Mach than it is to re-invent the parts of Mach we want under AmigaDOS? > -Dino Khoe Rick Spanbauer State U of NY/Stony Brook
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) (03/05/90)
In article <3881@nmtsun.nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes: >a better operating system would be needed... OS/2 is much too system >specific to really become popular... Unix easily portable and with some mods >can be installed on just about any system with the capabilities to do so... True, but the rumors are that OS/2 will be ported to platforms other than Intel 80x86...I do not know the time frame for such an endeavor... >Another thing is, OS/2 is not a fairly programmer friendly environment... OS/2 is a very programmer-friendly environment. The only thing that isn't friendly is the CLI, and that's because it mimcs the DOS CLI. The OS/2 kernel and PM are both very powerful and ratheer easy to use. >MS-DOS will inevitably fall away because of it's incapability to multi-task. >As long as CBM keeps coming out with improvements on there OS, it would be >a great OS for a computer with it's power. As far as the Machintosh is AmigaDOS is a far superior operating system to OS/2, IMHO. Intuition is not as polished as Presentation Manager, but it could get to that point with a bit of hard work (which I hope we will see in 1.4). The programmer's interface to the system is not as clean as it is in OS/2, but I believe the programmer ultimately has more power under AmigaDOS. (By the same token, it is more difficult to achieve similar results under AmigaDOS, at least for simple tasks.) So, the real question is...why do I always seem to end up defending OS/2 here, and the Amiga to IBM fanatics?? -Chris ----- Chris Lang University of Michigan, College of Engineering home: 4622 Bursley work: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences Ann Arbor, MI 48109 900 Victors Way, Suite 226 (313) 763-1832 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (313) 995-0300 "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
ypcazabon@rose.waterloo.edu (Yvan Cazabon) (03/05/90)
Why is everbody talking OS/2? As much as I prefer my Amiga to any old (or new) IBM, I would like to see AIX, the new IBM unix (as opposed to XENIX) take over. To tie this in to true c.s.a talk, if we could get an A2500/30 with Unix with and AT bridgeboard running AIX, could we finally see true parallel processing on the Amiga? -------- Regards, Yvan Cazabon I've always been dependent on the kindness of NET-strangers.
dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) (03/05/90)
In article <48ffd21f.db93@edsel.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: > >OS/2 is a very programmer-friendly environment. The only thing that isn't >friendly is the CLI, and that's because it mimcs the DOS CLI. The OS/2 kernel >and PM are both very powerful and ratheer easy to use. > >AmigaDOS is a far superior operating system to OS/2, IMHO. Intuition is not >as polished as Presentation Manager, but it could get to that point with a bit >of hard work (which I hope we will see in 1.4). The programmer's interface to >the system is not as clean as it is in OS/2, but I believe the programmer >ultimately has more power under AmigaDOS. (By the same token, it is more >difficult to achieve similar results under AmigaDOS, at least for simple tasks.) I don't know if I could say OS/2 is more programmer friendly, as far as memory management goes, it is more organized since OS/2 uses contiguous spaces of memory compared to the chunks that Amiga's Exec does... but that is not necessarily an advantage either... -Dino Khoe
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) (03/05/90)
In article <21565@watdragon.waterloo.edu> ypcazabon@rose.waterloo.edu (Yvan Cazabon) writes: >Why is everbody talking OS/2? As much as I prefer my Amiga to any old (or new) >IBM, I would like to see AIX, the new IBM unix (as opposed to XENIX) take over. I wouldn't mind seeing AIX, or any Unix variant, take over. But the people in Redmond have decreed that OS/2 is the future for business computing....whether we agree or whether we like it, it means OS/2 is what we will be forced to make comparisons with... >To tie this in to true c.s.a talk, if we could get an A2500/30 with Unix with >and AT bridgeboard running AIX, could we finally see true parallel processing >on the Amiga? -------- Would the AT Bridgeboard still work if Unix replaced AmigaDOS on the Amiga side? Amix DOES take over the machine, right? I don't have a Bridgeboard (yet) and I obviously don't have Amix...but I would be interested to hear about this. I would also be interested in hearing about the odds of getting OS/2 to run on a Bridgeboard...I know it would be slow, but if I could get some OS/2 stuff done at home, it'd mean more time for playing with the Amiga! :) -Chris ----- Chris Lang University of Michigan, College of Engineering home: 4622 Bursley work: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences Ann Arbor, MI 48109 900 Victors Way, Suite 226 (313) 763-1832 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (313) 995-0300 "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
consp11@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Brett L. Kessler) (03/06/90)
In article <3883@nmtsun.nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes: >I don't know if I could say OS/2 is more programmer friendly, as far as >memory management goes, it is more organized since OS/2 uses contiguous >spaces of memory compared to the chunks that Amiga's Exec does... but that >is not necessarily an advantage either... IMHO, contiguous memory is not the way to go. If I have a 300k program on a contiguos-memory-based machine (ie: Mac) that has a 290k area free and a 50k area free, the program still cannot be loaded, becuase the areas are not contiguous. Linked lists (and related structures) are a much more efficient way of allocating memory. True, it incurs a bit of overhead and requires some work by he programmer (of the OS, that is), but the 300k program example from before would load just fine into an Amiga - it doesn't require contiguous blocks to know what it's doing. +------///-+------------------| BRETT KESSLER |------------------+-\\\------+ | /// | consp11@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu | \\\ | | \\\/// | consp11@bingvaxa.BITNET | \\\/// | | \XX/ | (PeopleLink) B.KESSLER | \XX/ | +----------+-----------------------------------------------------+----------+
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/06/90)
In article <3093@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> consp11@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu.cc.binghamton.edu (Brett L. Kessler) writes: >In article <3883@nmtsun.nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes: >IMHO, contiguous memory is not the way to go. If I have a 300k >program on a contiguos-memory-based machine (ie: Mac) that has a 290k >area free and a 50k area free, the program still cannot be loaded, >becuase the areas are not contiguous. > >Linked lists (and related structures) are a much more efficient way of >allocating memory. True, it incurs a bit of overhead and requires >some work by he programmer (of the OS, that is), but the 300k program >example from before would load just fine into an Amiga - it doesn't >require contiguous blocks to know what it's doing. > >+------///-+------------------| BRETT KESSLER |------------------+-\\\------+ >| /// | consp11@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu | \\\ | >| \\\/// | consp11@bingvaxa.BITNET | \\\/// | >| \XX/ | (PeopleLink) B.KESSLER | \XX/ | >+----------+-----------------------------------------------------+----------+ As you say, the program has to be designed in such a way as to load in pieces. If it attempts to load as one large 300K alloc, it will fail. What I was wondering was is there a way to transparently have the OS deal with that. Perhaps it would require an MMU, but is it possible? -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu Compu$erve : 70137,3271 Anyone giving away Amigas or Sharp Scanners???
psu@mtuni.ATT.COM (Paul Siu) (03/06/90)
In article <3881@nmtsun.nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes: > >Point in case is that as micro-computers and desktops become more powerful, >a better operating system would be needed... OS/2 is much too system >specific to really become popular... Unix easily portable and with some mods >can be installed on just about any system with the capabilities to do so... >Another thing is, OS/2 is not a fairly programmer friendly environment... >MS-DOS will inevitably fall away because of it's incapability to multi-task. >As long as CBM keeps coming out with improvements on there OS, it would be >a great OS for a computer with it's power. As far as the Machintosh is >concerned... well... we won't get into that. > You'll be surprise that OS/2 is predicted to be more popular in corporation than Unix. OS/2 is a single standard. Unix is presently still struggling to standardize on its graphics interface. Microsoft is also planning to make OS/2 portable, so it could be implemented on the RISC machines. I hate the present version of OS/2, but latter version may be better. Both Unix and OS/2 requires powerful hardware, people will still be using DOS for many years to come. I imagine that it will fall away, but not any time soon. Many sort of multi-tasking add-on helps keep DOS alive, but they can only go so far. In any case, it's impossible to predict which operating system will become dominate in the future. OS/2 or Unix, who knows. There are too many variables. It depends on whether Microsoft can deliver its OS/2 on time, and whether AT&T and OSF will agree on a graphics standard. I personally prefer Unix over OS/2.
psu@mtuni.ATT.COM (Paul Siu) (03/06/90)
In the past, AT&T sets the standard for Unix, at least it becomes the benchmark that other Unix is compared to. Motif seems to have the advantage, but I wouldn't say that it has already won. Until Openlook loses influence, the Unix graphics standard will be scattered. IBM's announcement of endorsement of the NEXT interface doesn't help either.
psu@mtuni.ATT.COM (Paul Siu) (03/06/90)
The advantage of OS/2 over the Amiga is better memory protection. If one of your program crash, it is less likely to crash the whole machine than the Amiga, which has no hardware memory management as far as I know.
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) (03/06/90)
In article <3883@nmtsun.nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes: >In article <48ffd21f.db93@edsel.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: >>OS/2 is a very programmer-friendly environment. The only thing that isn't >>friendly is the CLI, and that's because it mimcs the DOS CLI. The OS/2 kernel >>and PM are both very powerful and ratheer easy to use. > >I don't know if I could say OS/2 is more programmer friendly, as far as >memory management goes, it is more organized since OS/2 uses contiguous >spaces of memory compared to the chunks that Amiga's Exec does... but that >is not necessarily an advantage either... Well, memory management on any Intel 80x86 chip is bound to be less than friendly, due to the retarded segment scheme we all love to hate. But, the fact remains that I can write a program in 15 minutes for OS/2 to do basic windowing with some very powerful capabilities...the same program on the Amiga could take (???). On the other hand, if I want to squeeze every last bit of performance out of my machine, I can do that with AmigaDOS. Fat chance with OS/2. -Chris ----- Chris Lang University of Michigan, College of Engineering home: 4622 Bursley work: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences Ann Arbor, MI 48109 900 Victors Way, Suite 226 (313) 763-1832 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (313) 995-0300 "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) (03/06/90)
In article <10016@cbmvax.commodore.com> ken@cbmvax (Ken Farinsky - CATS) writes: >How about a bit more information! What are these "powerful capabilities" >that you get from OS/2 in 15 minutes? What would you need on the Amiga >to do the same thing? > >Try not to Flame (too much), hard information is what I am looking for. >Please be brief. OK, to give a simple example, in 15 minutes I could open up a window that will automatically iconify itself or expand to fill the entire screen (standard PM frame controls). I could then create a number of child windows, each of which is a fully-functional frame window that can iconify as well. In fact, if I iconify the children, their icons will appear in the parent's client area, rather like a desktop-within-a-desktop. (Similar to Workbench, only it can happen automatically for any parent-child window combination.) Then I'd define a menu that lists each window, that when chosen would send a message to the proper child and make it paint itself a nice big Boing! ball... (OK, so the last would take longer than 15 minutes, unless I'd already defined it as a bitmap on disk, in which case it would take just a couple of lines of code.) The parts of this admittedly silly scenario that display OS/2's advantages are basically the fact that I can have fully-functional child windows automatically, install and act on menus with incredible ease, and send messages among windows with a single function call. Having said all that, let me say that, given a choice between OS/2 and AmigaDOS, I would pick AmigaDOS every time. OS/2 makes things SO easy one occasionally gets the feeling that Microsoft and IBM think developers haven't the slightest amount of originality and that Horrible Things will happen if they are given any lower-level access to the system. Disclaimer: I have never seen 1.4. I imagine that many of the things I just mentioned will be much easier and even more powerful than they are now, and I certainly hope that is the case. -Chris ----- Chris Lang University of Michigan, College of Engineering home: 4622 Bursley work: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences Ann Arbor, MI 48109 900 Victors Way, Suite 226 (313) 763-1832 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (313) 995-0300 "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) (03/06/90)
In article <49055ed8.1a5bf@moth.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: >In article <3883@nmtsun.nmt.edu> dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Dr. Mosh) writes: >Well, memory management on any Intel 80x86 chip is bound to be less than >friendly, due to the retarded segment scheme we all love to hate. But, the >fact remains that I can write a program in 15 minutes for OS/2 to do basic >windowing with some very powerful capabilities...the same program on the >Amiga could take (???). On the other hand, if I want to squeeze every last >bit of performance out of my machine, I can do that with AmigaDOS. Fat chance >with OS/2. > > -Chris >----- True, Intuition in itself is very in depth and programming it can be somewhat a not so trivial task... plus the Intuition structures get awefully big... Another thing is the devices... wow... MsgPorts and everything, even if you wanted to do something fairly small and simple. But then the Amiga OS can be programmed to the machines performance. Yes, Intel memory management is definitely less than friendly. Kinda reminds you of the Commodore 128 aye? Imagine all the volumes of references you would have if you had one for every aspect of the OS... The functions documentation is big enough... -Dino Khoe dksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu
ken@cbmvax.commodore.com (Ken Farinsky - CATS) (03/06/90)
In article <49055ed8.1a5bf@moth.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: > >...the >fact remains that I can write a program in 15 minutes for OS/2 to do basic >windowing with some very powerful capabilities...the same program on the >Amiga could take (???). How about a bit more information! What are these "powerful capabilities" that you get from OS/2 in 15 minutes? What would you need on the Amiga to do the same thing? Try not to Flame (too much), hard information is what I am looking for. Please be brief. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Farinsky -- CATS Commodore Business Machines PHONE 215-431-9421 UUCP ...{uunet,rutgers}!cbmvax!ken --------------------------------------------------------------
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (03/08/90)
In article <10016@cbmvax.commodore.com> ken@cbmvax (Ken Farinsky - CATS) writes: >In article <49055ed8.1a5bf@moth.engin.umich.edu> chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) writes: >> >>...the >>fact remains that I can write a program in 15 minutes for OS/2 to do basic >>windowing with some very powerful capabilities...the same program on the >>Amiga could take (???). > >How about a bit more information! What are these "powerful capabilities" >that you get from OS/2 in 15 minutes? What would you need on the Amiga >to do the same thing? Hmm, well I have no information about OS/2 besides having seen the voluminous manuals. Here is what I *need* in order to build a reasonable program: 1) An integrated compiler environment -- integrated via ARexx would be nice. 2) A 'C' interpretor would be nice, lacking that I want a well written debugger with real-time updates of values/memory accessed [particularly low-memory]. One of the hardest bugs I ever had to find was one where I wrote *one-byte*!! past allocated memory -- which didn't cause a failure until much later... 3) Some kind of menu wrapping functions. Right now the stuff is too complicated. Right now, barring Gadgets, Menus are *the* hardest thing to code, in my opinion. Even some of the examples aren't written strictly to design criteria. I want to be able to say: Add this text under this menu header, have the operating system stick it in, verifying length and width criteria of the screen, and have my code *called* when the menu is selected. Much like the new stuff in 1.4 4) Access to window rendering functions and menu-rendering functions so that I can pretty things up. I guess in the end I want to be able to do is this: default = OpenWindow(NULL); MenuHeaderAdd(default, "Print"); MenuItemAdd(default, "Print", "HelloWorld", myfunctionptr); myfunctionptr() { WriteWindow(default, "Hello World"); } And have the right things happen -- even if memory was low and something wasn't allocated correctly -- system error check for NULL would save me, the programmer, a lot of headaches. > >Try not to Flame (too much), hard information is what I am looking for. >Please be brief. > >-- >-------------------------------------------------------------- >Ken Farinsky -- CATS Commodore Business Machines >PHONE 215-431-9421 UUCP ...{uunet,rutgers}!cbmvax!ken >-------------------------------------------------------------- David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu "Think you can, think you can't -- either way it's true." Henry Ford
chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (Chris Lang) (03/08/90)
In article <2854@mtuni.ATT.COM> psu@mtuni.ATT.COM (Paul Siu) writes: >The advantage of OS/2 over the Amiga is better memory protection. If one of >your program crash, it is less likely to crash the whole machine than the Amiga, >which has no hardware memory management as far as I know. OS/2's memory protection is mainly in software - device drivers, for instance, can crash the machine in an instant because they operate at a low level where the system can not trap protection violations. -Chris ----- Chris Lang University of Michigan, College of Engineering home: 4622 Bursley work: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences Ann Arbor, MI 48109 900 Victors Way, Suite 226 (313) 763-1832 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 chrisl@caen.engin.umich.edu (313) 995-0300 "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (03/09/90)
In article <2840@mtuni.ATT.COM> psu@mtuni.ATT.COM (Paul Siu) writes: >...DOS... OS/2... Unix... Unix... >...OS/2... AT&T... OSF... ...OS/2 (1.1)... 2.0... OS/2... >Unix... OS/2... Unix... Am I in the wrong place? Hmm... Nope, this is comp.sys.amiga, and the article quoted above isn't even cross-posted to any other groups. May I suggest moving this thread somewhere else? -- -- 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
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (03/09/90)
In article <2854@mtuni.ATT.COM> psu@mtuni.ATT.COM (Paul Siu) writes: >The advantage of OS/2 over the Amiga is better memory protection. If one of >your program crash, it is less likely to crash the whole machine than the Amiga, >which has no hardware memory management as far as I know. ...and the disadvantage is that PM performance is glacial and it requires $3500+ worth of hardware to run, minimum, and more like $7000 for the configurations most people have. A usable, color, multitasking Amiga can be had for $850. Does that difference mean anything to you? Yes, yes, we are all aware that the Amiga doesn't have hardware memory protection and that there are disadvantages, specifically that rogue programs can crash the system. Nonetheless, the Amiga is for the most part a superbly architected machine that continues to put its contemporaries (PCs under DOS & the Mac, and even in many ways your beloved OS/2) to shame. We have also developed ways for dealing with living in an unprotected environment and, for the most part, Amigas don't crash -- mine doesn't unless I'm developing and doing something weird. I know quite a few Mac and hardcore DOS people, and they seem to think it's quite normal for their machines to lock up and require resetting or power-cycling. Ever since 1.2 came out, I *never* have crashes that I can't attribute to a specific activity or program. I wonder, Mr. Siu, if you're not over here to "stimulate conversation." In other words, make trouble. You've been writing a lot of articles like <2854@mtuni.ATT.COM> lately. Do you have an Amiga? Are you thinking about getting one? Are you a missionary here to convert us to OS/2? Or are you just committed to "Volume! Volume! Volume!"? Enquiring minds sort of want to know. -- -- 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
usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (03/14/90)
In article <5362@sugar.hackercorp.com> karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >In article <2854@mtuni.ATT.COM> psu@mtuni.ATT.COM (Paul Siu) writes: [...] >Nonetheless, the Amiga is for the most part a superbly architected machine >that continues to put its contemporaries (PCs under DOS & the Mac, and even >in many ways your beloved OS/2) to shame. Agreed. >We have also developed ways for dealing with living in an unprotected >environment and, for the most part, Amigas don't crash -- mine doesn't >unless I'm developing and doing something weird. I know quite a few Mac and Mine does. Sorry, but some of us live by PD. And some of us are not perfect programmers, either. >hardcore DOS people, and they seem to think it's quite normal for their >machines to lock up and require resetting or power-cycling. Ever since 1.2 >came out, I *never* have crashes that I can't attribute to a specific activity >or program. > >I wonder, Mr. Siu, if you're not over here to "stimulate conversation." >In other words, make trouble. You've been writing a lot of articles >like <2854@mtuni.ATT.COM> lately. Do you have an Amiga? Are you thinking (How do people actually remember article numbers, anyway?) >about getting one? Are you a missionary here to convert us to OS/2? Or are >you just committed to "Volume! Volume! Volume!"? Enquiring minds sort of >want to know. [...] >-- uunet!sugar!karl "As long as there is a legion of superheros, all else It sounds to me like Mr. Siu merely wants, as many of us, the Amiga to be the best it could be. Some people have things running in the background like a BBS or maybe some other application and would like to feel free to play around and do other things with their computer safe in the knowledge that the other tasks won't be trashed along with the one that they are working with. The fact of the matter is (at least in my mind) with memory protection it would be easier to track down the 'rotten egg' programs because it would be obvious which program is misbehaved. Also with a core dump (or just freezing things for a debugger to take over) it would be easier to debug a program because you would be able to look at it right where you left off. Here's a question: is there an MMU available for the 68000? If so, why doesn't Commodore make it part of the ECS? It doesn't have to be supported in 1.4, but maybe in 1.5? That would make it so there would be only one chip update that (supposedly) everyone would go through instead of two that only some people would do for the MMU. Just the ramblings of _ /| \`o.O' Chris Dailey, Amiga Enthusiast =(___)= dailey@cpsin1.cps.msu.edu U - "Meow." (Bill the Cat not original--imitation intended as a form of flattery.)