WDV91@ccvax.iastate.edu (NetMonster) (11/13/89)
Like it or not, the Amiga is fading, and fading fast. The Amiga's main competition -- cheap IBM clones -- have largely caught up to the Amiga in multitasking capability and ease-of-use. The gap between the Amiga and its closest rival in features i
The following article is from the October 1989 issue of TIME (P. 72):
"The twin fetes had all the glitz and hoopla of a Hollywood premiere. Champagne flowed freely, and soft jazz whispered in the background. Guests nibbled on caviar and smoked-salmon quiche. The big bashes, which took place on the same day this mont
"In this case, the focus of attention was the Amiga, a personal computer introduced by Commodore four years ago, whose sagging sales and fading image the company is trying to repair."
Yes, the Amiga's image is fading. But Commodore can resurrect the Amiga's image very easily. Here is what Commodore needs to do: IT IS TIME FOR COMMODORE TO TOTALLY ABANDON THE 68000 MICROPROCESSOR, FOR ALL MODELS OF THE AMIGA.
The OEM price of the 68020 and 68881 chips has fallen to the price of the 68000 when the Amiga 1000 was first introduced. It is now possible for Commodore to get these chips in large quantities from Motorola or Hitachi for less than $50 each.
Commodore should start immediate development of machines to replace the Amiga 500 and Amiga 2000 when the O.S. 1.4 is finished. These models should be improved with the following features:
(1) 512K of ROM, containing all of Workbench and AmigaDOS, as well as all the system libraries and devices. This should be done to compete with Commodore's closest competition -- Tandy and Headstart -- which also produce computers with their operating
(2) 1.76MB floppy drive, to upgrade the Amiga's storage capabilities and also allow the Amiga to read IBM 1.44MB disks.
(3)68020 running at 14Mhz. The replacement for the A500 should include a socket for the 68881. The replacement for the B2000 should include the 68881.
(4) The memory should be configured such that all memory is 32-bit RAM, but the custom chips would access the first 1M as 16-bit RAM. I have looked at the architecture, and I don't see any reason why this isn't possible.
(5) Use the new Enhanced Chip Set (of course).
(6) The Amiga 500 replacement should have 1M of RAM. The B2000 replacement should have 2M of RAM.
(7) The B2000 replacement should have 32-bit ZORRO-III slots. The replacement for the A500 should have a 32-bit side expansion port.
I don't want anyone to tell me that it isn't possible for CBM to sell a complete 68020 system for less than $1500, and still make a very substantiale profit on it. Hell, if an engineer friend of mine can turn an Amiga 1000 into a 68020 system (using
Commodore has no choice about this. They can put it off until the last minute -- until 486 systems are available cheap, and such an introduction of 68020-based systems would get absolutely no attention anywhere -- or they can do it now, when such s
-MB-EJANDERS@MTUS5.BITNET (11/13/89)
(* low power flame on *) What marvelously interesting opinions. You would never know that the amiga was 'fading' around here. Our user group's membership is up, interest is high, and there are more and more people who actually know what an amiga is! Every year there are more and more amigas on our campus and there are rumors of the university taking an interest in them. (* low power flame off *) I do agree in one regard, that Commodore should back the Amiga with everything it has. We have seen a lot of positive activity recently, and it would be a shame to see it end... Ernie Anderson EJANDERS@MTUS5.BITNET
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (11/14/89)
In article <3932@nigel.udel.EDU> WDV91@ccvax.iastate.edu (NetMonster) writes: > The Amiga's main competition -- cheap IBM clones -- have largely > caught up to the Amiga in multitasking capability and ease-of-use. I agree with your main point but the above statement is pure bullshit. You *cannot* buy a PC clone with a '286 and OS/2 with a window based operating system for less than the comparably equipped A500. What you can buy is a 16 bit machine with a CP/M-80 ripoff but who cares? Just to run OS/2 + Presentation Manager you need 6MB of memory. And as far as I know there isn't a version of MINIXView or something equivalent for MINIX so that is right out. Hell you can't even *run* OS/2 off floppies. Stick with the "what it needs to get better.." stuff and you will do a lot better. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "If it didn't have bones in it, it wouldn't be crunchy now would it?!"
cpp@calmasd.Prime.COM (Chuck Peterson) (11/14/89)
> "In this case, the focus of attention was the Amiga, a personal computer > introduced by Commodore four years ago, whose sagging sales and fading > image the company is trying to repair." The real point here is that it has taken the other personal computers 4 years to catch up, if they have even caught up yet. (Sorry Mac, still no multitasking.) Remember how long it took for OS/2 to be produced? The Amiga is unique in that it was introduced with all the essential features: (1) graphical interface, (2) mouse, (3) multitasking, (4) hi-res color graphics, (6) stereo sound, (7) optional CLI (for power users). > Yes, the Amiga's image is fading. But Commodore can resurrect the > Amiga's image very easily. Here is what Commodore needs to do: IT IS TIME > FOR COMMODORE TO TOTALLY ABANDON THE 68000 MICROPROCESSOR, FOR ALL MODELS > OF THE AMIGA. I agree, because of the low cost, but I'd like to point out that many experts consider a 68000 to be equivalent to a 286 in power, 68020 equivalent to a 386, and so on. (The x86 has to be faster to make up for its poorer architecture.) Then, when you add in the special chips, the Amiga is no slouch. Comparable (or better than) 68020 processors in other systems, if the software uses it properly. Commodore got a head start on the rest of the industry with the Amiga. They didn't have to deal with costly redesign and compatibility issues which have stalled IBM and Apple in introducing systems having the same essential features. Remember that a lot of old IBM and Mac systems are now obsolete (i.e. unuseable with newest OS), and still lack essential features. Amiga 1000 owners have been very lucky. I'd like to see higher quality hardware, slicker packaging, more reliable monitors, quieter fans, all at the lowest prices. Ordinary people are impressed by the FEEL of equipment by Apple and IBM. Commodore made lots of money on the 64. Physically it was solid (I dropped a speaker on one and it didn't break) even if the system was dated, and the price was 1/5 what Apple wanted for about the same power.
33014-18@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Eduardo Horvath) (11/15/89)
In article <127836@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >In article <3932@nigel.udel.EDU> WDV91@ccvax.iastate.edu (NetMonster) writes: >> The Amiga's main competition -- cheap IBM clones -- have largely >> caught up to the Amiga in multitasking capability and ease-of-use. > >I agree with your main point but the above statement is pure bullshit. You >*cannot* buy a PC clone with a '286 and OS/2 with a window based operating >system for less than the comparably equipped A500. What you can buy is a >16 bit machine with a CP/M-80 ripoff but who cares? > >Just to run OS/2 + Presentation Manager you need 6MB of memory. And as >far as I know there isn't a version of MINIXView or something equivalent >for MINIX so that is right out. Hell you can't even *run* OS/2 off floppies. > >Stick with the "what it needs to get better.." stuff and you will do a >lot better. > >--Chuck McManis >uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM >These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. >"If it didn't have bones in it, it wouldn't be crunchy now would it?!" The people these cheap clones are being pushed to wouldn't know a good computer from a hole in the ground. They look "user friendly", they have a larger selection of software, and they're cheaper. Why buy an Amiga? C='s add campaign pushing the A500 is educating these people about the difference between what an Amiga can do and some of the limitations of Messy DOS, but it would be easier to convince people who the possibilites.. =============================================================================== //x = /// \ Try: 33014-18@sjsumcs.SJSU.EDU = Early to bet /// \ = And early to raise /// \ Eduardo Horvath = Makes a man poor \\\ ///=======\ = In a gamling craze! \\\/// \ = -me \xxx \miga. The computer for the corruptive mind. ===============================================================================
rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) (11/15/89)
In article <3932@nigel.udel.EDU> WDV91@ccvax.iastate.edu (NetMonster) writes: > > Like it or not, the Amiga is fading, and fading fast. How do you come to that conclusion? > ... The Amiga's main competition -- cheap IBM clones -- have largely > caught up to the Amiga in multitasking capability and ease-of-use. True, there are cheap IBM clones, and true, some PCs can multitask as well and be as easy to use as an Amiga, but the statement as a whole is not true. An IBM PC Compatible with multitasking, ease-of-use, and the performance and capabilities of an Amiga is still an expensive system, much more expensive than a comparable Amiga system. > The gap between the Amiga and its closest rival in features i (The above was probably chopped off because the line was longer than 256 characters long) The gap is large, in terms of price. It's shrinking, but it's still large. > > The following article is from the October 1989 issue of TIME (P. 72): > > "The twin fetes had all the glitz and hoopla of a Hollywood premiere. [glitz deleted] > > "In this case, the focus of attention was the Amiga, a personal computer > introduced by Commodore four years ago, whose sagging sales and fading > image the company is trying to repair." SAGGING sales? FADING image??? Where does this guy get his information from? Why do you believe it just because it's in Time Magazine??? From what I've heard, the Amiga's sales having been RISING recently, not sagging. They have been lagging behind the Mac and the PC Clones in sales, but that's not what was said. The Mac's sales have been lagging behind those of PC Clones. Should we say that the Mac's future is in trouble becuase of this? > Yes, the Amiga's image is fading. No, the Amiga's image is NOT fading. In fact, it is rising dramatically. It is being used by graphic artists, for titling movies, by medical students at UCLA, by scientists and secretaries at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and in many other places for many different things. More and more, I run into people who have heard about the Amiga, and know that it is not just a game machine. Even Atari ST fans seem to see the Amiga in a better light! :-) > Yes, the Amiga's image is fading. But Commodore can resurrect the Amiga's > image very easily. Here is what Commodore needs to do: IT IS TIME FOR > COMMODORE TO TOTALLY ABANDON THE 68000 MICROPROCESSOR, FOR ALL MODELS > OF THE AMIGA. Yeah, right. Watch most games break, and many other programs, and prices shoot throught the ceiling. Great move. Then people will be talking about about how buggy it is ("look at all of these programs that don't work!"). > The OEM price of the 68020 and 68881 chips has fallen to the price of the > 68000 when the Amiga 1000 was first introduced. What about the price of the support chips needed to make a 68020 look enough like a 68000 to work with the rest of the system? Also remember that the Amiga 1000 came out at $1200 dollars. With 256K. The low-end system needs to be priced lower than that. > ... It is now possible for Commodore to get these chips in large quantities > from Motorola or Hitachi for less than $50 each. They'd have to either include all of the circuitry to make the 68020 look like a 68000, or design a new board. How much would that cost? To get any speed increase, they would either have to have some memory besides chip RAM in the system, and make that extra memory 32-bit RAM. If they increase the clock rate, they would have to use faster RAM chips to get a proportional speed increase, at a greatly increased cost. > Commodore should start immediate development of machines to replace the Amiga 500 and Amiga 2000 when the O.S. 1.4 is finished. These models should be improved with the following features: > >(1) 512K of ROM, containing all of Workbench and AmigaDOS, as well as all the system libraries and devices. This should be done to compete with Commodore's closest competition -- Tandy and Headstart -- which also produce computers with their operating > >(2) 1.76MB floppy drive, to upgrade the Amiga's storage capabilities and > also allow the Amiga to read IBM 1.44MB disks. This is a GOOD idea. Of course, I think it would be a good idea to include a (suitably debugged) CrossDOS with the OS. >(3)68020 running at 14Mhz. Doubling the clock rate requires faster RAM chips to double system speed. The '020 would STILL have to slow down to access Chip RAM, unless you're going to make the Graphics chip run at twice the speed. >(4) The memory should be configured such that all memory is 32-bit RAM, >but the custom chips would access the first 1M as 16-bit RAM. I have looked >at the architecture, and I don't see any reason why this isn't possible. I don't know enough about the hardware to argue that point, so I won't. >(6) The Amiga 500 replacement should have 1M of RAM. I think 1 Mb standard for the 500 would be a good idea. Someone should at LEAST run a cost-benfit analysis of it. > I don't want anyone to tell me that it isn't possible for CBM to sell >a complete 68020 system for less than $1500, and still make a very >substantiale profit on it. Hell, if an engineer friend of mine can turn >an Amiga 1000 into a 68020 system (using I'll let Commodore handle this one. Are you there, Dave? What I think would be better is this: A 500-level machine with a seperate keyboard, an Agnus chip that stays in place, and A GOOD POWER SUPPLY, and a 2000-level machine (in terms of price) running off a 68020. The '020 based 2500 would do nicely (although that would be a difficult feat, price-wise). One more thing, *Bring on the '030 machines!!!* In summary, I don't think the Amiga's image (or sales) can be said to be fading at all. The competition is gaining on us, but that doesn't mean that the Amiga is fading image-wise. > -MB- Rodney -- "We may have come over here in different ships, but we're all in the same boat now." -- Jesse Jackson Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College
brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM (Brandon G. Lovested) (11/15/89)
I was trying to completely read t article, but some of it was missi Could you please repost it so eve can read it? BTW, from what I did read, I agree. This lolly-gagging by a company that retains so many creative people is absolutely ridiculous. 68020's are cheap, so soon shall be 030's when the 040's begin to trickle in. Now is not the time to bring a cheap 030 machine in, due to cost, but now is the time to begin cheap 020 production. The 68K is just too damn slow, especially on a machine that: 1. Multi-tasks. 2. Is supposed to be highly interactive. 3. Is used in animation. It takes beaucoup time to render anything at 7.16 MHz. One small glitch, though. Some programs, oddly enough, do NOT run under a 68020 AT ALL. Some programmers weren't too careful, apparently. ================================================================================ | Brandon G. Lovested | "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, | indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! brandonl@amadeus.WR.TEK.COM | My life is my own." | ================================================================================
WDV91@ccvax.iastate.edu (NetMonster) (11/15/89)
Like it or not, the Amiga is fading, and fading fast. The
Amiga's main competition -- cheap IBM clones -- have largely
caught up to the Amiga in multitasking capability and
ease-of-use. The gap between the Amiga and its closest rival in
features is getting closer and closer.
The following article is from the October 1989 issue of TIME
(P. 72):
"The twin fetes had all the glitz and hoopla of a Hollywood
premiere. Champagne flowed freely, and soft jazz whispered in
the background. Guests nibbled on caviar and smoked-salmon
quiche. The big bashes, which took place on the same day this
month in New York City and Los Angeles, were staged by Commodore
Business Machines to kick off a $15 million advertizing compaign,
]tarring celebrities ranging from the Pointer Sisters to Tommy
Lasorda, manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers. But instead of
coming off as a preview, the even seemed more like a benefit for
an aging star.
"In this case, the focus of attention was the Amiga, a personal
computer introduced by Commodore four years ago, whose sagging
sales and fading image the company is trying to repair."
Yes, the Amiga's image is fading. But Commodore can resurrect
the Amiga's image very easily. Here is what Commodore needs to
do: IT IS TIME FOR COMMODORE TO TOTALLY ABANDON THE 68000
MICROPROCESSOR, FOR ALL MODELS OF THE AMIGA.
The OEM price of the 68020 and 68881 chips has fallen to the
price of the 68000 when the Amiga 1000 was first introduced. It
]s now possible for Commodore to get these chips in large
quantities from Motorola or Hitachi for less than $50 each.
Commodore should start immediate development of machines to
replace the Amiga 500 and Amiga 2000 when the O.S. 1.4 is
finished. These models should be improved with the following
features:
(1) 512K of ROM, containing all of Workbench and AmigaDOS, as
well as all the system libraries and devices. This should be
done to compete with Commodore's closest competition -- Tandy and
Headstart -- which also produce computers with their operating
systems entirely in ROM.
(2) 1.76MB floppy drive, to upgrade the Amiga's storage
capabilities and also allow the Amiga to read IBM 1.44MB disks.
(3)68020 running at 14Mhz. The replacement for the A500 should
include a socket for the 68881. The replacement for the B2000
should include the 68881.
(4) The memory should be configured such that all memory is
32-bit RAM, but the custom chips would access the first 1M as
16-bit RAM. I have looked at the architecture, and I don't see
any reason why this isn't possible.
(5) Use the new Enhanced Chip Set (of course).
(6) The Amiga 500 replacement should have 1M of RAM. The B2000
replacement should have 2M of RAM.
(7) The B2000 replacement should have 32-bit ZORRO-III slots.
The replacement for the A500 should have a 32-bit side expansion
port.
I don't want anyone to tell me that it isn't possible for CBM
to sell a complete 68020 system for less than $1500, and still
make a very substantiale profit on it. Hell, if an engineer
friend of mine can turn an Amiga 1000 into a 68020 system (using
the LUCAS system) -- complete with 68881 and 32-bit RAM -- for
$350, Commodore can do it to the Amiga 500 for much less. For
one thing, the CPU and memory chips don't cost Commdore as much.
Second, they would eliminate the PC boards and PAL chips that
make up most of the cost of a LUCAS system.
Commodore has no choice about this. They can put it off until
the last minute -- until 486 systems are available cheap, and
such an introduction of 68020-based systems would get absolutely
no attention anywhere -- or they can do it now, when such systems
would get lots of attention, propel the Amiga back into the
limelight, and strengthen the Amiga's fading image.
-MB-swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) (11/16/89)
In article <32321@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: >In article <3932@nigel.udel.EDU> WDV91@ccvax.iastate.edu (NetMonster) writes: >> >> Like it or not, the Amiga is fading, and fading fast. > >How do you come to that conclusion? > [...discussion of how close the clone-heads are getting...] I don't think the Amiga is fading, but other PCs *are* starting to encroach on the features of the Amiga. I love the Amiga, but if everyone else duplicates the features that make it great, that's excellent. It means more choices for everyone. Competition drives development and puts a fervency in it. Nothing like the old survival instinct to motivate people! I do think the existing 500 has a lot of life left in it. Get real, NM, Commodore is still selling C64s, and that's pretty far down the technology scale from the 500. Besides, they need a solid bottom line right now, and the 500 means profits. Trying to redo it at this point would mean a big hit on NRE, which I would guess they are already taking on the 3000. I know some other companies are spending more on R&D, but they are fat & happy, while Commodore is pretty lean right now. They just have to develop smart. >> >> The following article is from the October 1989 issue of TIME (P. 72): >> >> "The twin fetes had all the glitz and hoopla of a Hollywood premiere. >[glitz deleted] >> >> "In this case, the focus of attention was the Amiga, a personal computer >> introduced by Commodore four years ago, whose sagging sales and fading >> image the company is trying to repair." > >SAGGING sales? FADING image??? Where does this guy get his information from? >Why do you believe it just because it's in Time Magazine??? Yes, I agree, this was a typical low-blow dishonest/ignorant/disinformed (take your pick) swipe at Commodore from Time, which is particularly confusing considering the fact that Commodore was one of the biggest advertisers in the issue. One would think they might check to see if such a comment were really accurate before publishing it. If I were a conspiracy-oriented type I might be tempted to speculate about IBM/MAC/CLONE advertising dollars in Time, and what interest Time might have in trying to lessen the impact of Commodore's ad campaign. Oh well... >> Yes, the Amiga's image is fading. But Commodore can resurrect the Amiga's >> image very easily. Here is what Commodore needs to do: IT IS TIME FOR >> COMMODORE TO TOTALLY ABANDON THE 68000 MICROPROCESSOR, FOR ALL MODELS >> OF THE AMIGA. > >Yeah, right. Watch most games break, and many other programs, and prices >shoot throught the ceiling. I'll bet they *could* redesign the 2500, pulling the CPU card onto the mother- board and moving all ram (except chip) into the 32-bit space, without *major* trauma. Also provide dual mode 16/32-bit slots. Make it more like the (rumored) 3000, only slower. >>(3)68020 running at 14Mhz. > >Doubling the clock rate requires faster RAM chips to double system speed. >The '020 would STILL have to slow down to access Chip RAM, unless you're >going to make the Graphics chip run at twice the speed. This clock speed is not fast enough to require anything more exotic than cheap commodity DRAMs. Two thoughts - 1) could the chip ram have a 32-bit path to the processor while maintaining 16-bit paths for the custom chips? (significant change - I know...) 2) It is no problem to generate wait states for slower chip ram. This is not a disadvantage. So what if you have to slow down? It still beats running at the slower speed through- out the whole system. >>(4) The memory should be configured such that all memory is 32-bit RAM, >>but the custom chips would access the first 1M as 16-bit RAM. I have looked >>at the architecture, and I don't see any reason why this isn't possible. > >I don't know enough about the hardware to argue that point, so I won't. Nearly anything is possible if you throw enough gates at it ;^) ;^) ;^). >>(6) The Amiga 500 replacement should have 1M of RAM. > >I think 1 Mb standard for the 500 would be a good idea. Someone should >at LEAST run a cost-benfit analysis of it. I would be surprised if this didn't happen soon. Memory chips are less than $100 per Megabyte, and 256Kx4 bit chips let you expand cheaply in 500 Kbyte increments. If nothing else, design the motherboard to take 256Kx4s and ship it with the sockets for the other 500K already soldered in. That way the expansion to 1 MEG would only cost $40-50. >> I don't want anyone to tell me that it isn't possible for CBM to sell >>a complete 68020 system for less than $1500, and still make a very >>substantiale profit on it. Hell, if an engineer friend of mine can turn >>an Amiga 1000 into a 68020 system (using > >I'll let Commodore handle this one. Are you there, Dave? Lucas is a great project, it works nice, and it's cheap. But Commodore already has an '020 coprocessor board designed, they don't need to steal Lucas ;^). The fact that 99% of the engineering is already done on the hypothetical enhanced 2500 I was talking about (except for the chip-ram mod) means that they really could do it pretty economically, if they thought it was worth it. I think they could sell a "2500XL" for less than the current 2500 and make more money, in addition to selling more of them (because of the lower price). They could keep the 2000 and the 500 as the low end commodity machines. >What I think would be better is this: > > A 500-level machine with a seperate keyboard, an Agnus chip that stays > in place, and A GOOD POWER SUPPLY, I think the one-piece construction of the 500 is integral to its low price. It would be nice to see a better power supply, maybe just 10% more oomph for reliability. > and a 2000-level machine (in terms of price) running off a 68020. The > '020 based 2500 would do nicely (although that would be a difficult feat, > price-wise). The 68000 isn't so bad. And a 16-bit machine is still significantly cheaper to manufacture. You know, all those data lines to duplicate, they add up. I think the 2000 will be around for a long time with a 16-bit cpu. But it would be nice to have a slick machine halfway between the 2000 and the 3000, yet a little less money than the 2500. > One more thing, *Bring on the '030 machines!!!* Yeah, but it may be a while before I own one ;^). >In summary, I don't think the Amiga's image (or sales) can be said to be >fading at all. The competition is gaining on us, but that doesn't mean that >the Amiga is fading image-wise. > >> -MB- > >Rodney >-- >"We may have come over here in different ships, > but we're all in the same boat now." -- Jesse Jackson > >Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College Naw, the Amiga is doing OK today. Of course, Commodore is probably aware of what happens in today's market to companies that attempt to stand still (something I don't think they have been doing). DISCLAIMER: These are 100% my own personal opinions, and have nothing whatsoever to do with my employers or their opinions. --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
jimb@faatcrl.UUCP (Jim Burwell) (11/16/89)
WDV91@ccvax.iastate.edu (NetMonster) writes: > The following article is from the October 1989 issue of TIME >(P. 72): > "The twin fetes had all the glitz and hoopla of a Hollywood >premiere. Champagne flowed freely, and soft jazz whispered in >the background. Guests nibbled on caviar and smoked-salmon >quiche. The big bashes, which took place on the same day this >month in New York City and Los Angeles, were staged by Commodore >Business Machines to kick off a $15 million advertizing compaign, >]tarring celebrities ranging from the Pointer Sisters to Tommy >Lasorda, manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers. But instead of >coming off as a preview, the even seemed more like a benefit for >an aging star. > > "In this case, the focus of attention was the Amiga, a personal >computer introduced by Commodore four years ago, whose sagging >sales and fading image the company is trying to repair." When I read this article in Time (the same issue with 7 page Amiga ads in it), I was really annoyed. The basic mood of the beginning of the article is how computer companies are pushing stagnant technology on poor consumers. Of course, as seen above, the Amiga was highlighted. The article gave the impression that the Amiga was the "prime offender" for pushing stagnant technology! Sometimes I think IBM or Apple pays reporters to put bad press out on their competition! Anyway, I find it funny that the author didn't realize that the Amiga is the YOUNGEST computer when compared to computers offered by Apple and IBM. How old is the Mac ? 6-8 years or so (I don't remember). How old is the IBM PC ? 10 years ?? The Amiga.. ohh boy! 4 years! And if you compare them, the Amiga is still the most innovative computer of the bunch. Of course, PCs and Macs have changed over the years. PCs changed mostly hardware wise, with faster CPUs, better graphics, and more memory. But until recently, they still couldn't multi-task or run a GUI without running MS-DOG kludge programs which didn't run with half of the available software. MS-DOG users were delighted with TSRs, MS-Windows (ugh), and Desqview while we were running an elegant multitasking operating system with a GUI from day one. Now MS-DOS users can run OS/2, but you need a very fast and expensive machine, with a huge hard disk to run it. Apple impoved its hardware over the years also, and attempted to improve its OS. They added faster CPUs, better (color) graphics, more memory, and opened their architechture with the nubus so you could add cards. But they are still running basically the same OS. They made an attempt at multi-tasking with multifinder, but that has the same sort of problems that Desqview on the IBM has. The only real way to get a multi-tasking OS with a GUI in the Mac world is to take a second mortgage on your house, go out and buy a Mac II with a large hard drive, and run Unix with X-windows... And comparing end prices, I'd sooner go out get buy a Sun Sparcstation 1. So now who's the "prime offender" ? CBM has also added faster CPUs, improved graphics (even though they had superior graphics to start with), added memory, and opened their architechture with the Zorro II bus on the A2000. We're STILL running an elegant multi-tasking OS with a great GUI, and we'll soon have Unix. And we can also be MS-Dos, and Mac compatible (the only other machines I've seen that can run MS-Dos in a window are expen$ive Sun workstations).. And lets not forget all those nifty things we take for granted, like fantastic sound and animation capabilities, fast graphics co-processor, and the user friendly device independence and flexibility of AmigaDOS. Who's image is fading now ? The author of that article was either payed, or is just another MS-DOS or Mac weenie who doesn't know anything about Amigas, and probably knows next to nothing about computers in general. Grrr.. The only things that Apple and IBM (and clones) have on us is a larger software base, that only comes with age :-). CBM could move a little faster now and then, but I think they're going in the right direction now. One problem I do see is a possible reluctance to go in and improve/optimize the custom hardware that makes the Amiga what it is. Of course, now that we have slots in the A2000, we could take the Mac/IBM route, and simply chuck the cards that are obsolete, replacing them with newer ones, at a cost, of course. Just some thoughts... I'll be quiet now :-). Bye Jim -- +------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+ | James S. Burwell | | | | "UseNet...A text network | | UUCP: | in a binary world" - Me | | ...!{ames!netsys|rutgers}!faatcrl | | | !jimb | "How do you say | | . | 'multitasking' in | | Internet: . | MS-DOSish? Network | | // jimb@faatcrl.UUCP . ** | File Server!" - Me | | // . **** | | | \\ // GEnie: Airwarior: . .** | <reserved for future> | | \X/ JIMBURWELL Techrat . | <expansion.... > | +------------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
ltf@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Lance Franklin) (11/16/89)
In article <127836@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >Just to run OS/2 + Presentation Manager you need 6MB of memory. And as >far as I know there isn't a version of MINIXView or something equivalent >for MINIX so that is right out. Hell you can't even *run* OS/2 off floppies. <DING!> Whoops, slight mistake here...Just to run OS/2 + Presentation Manager, you need at least 2MB of memory...to run WITHOUT SWAPPING you need at least 4MB of memory (just for base OS/2) and if you need to run something like AutoCAD, you really should have at least 6MB (but 8MB is better). I'm presently running OS/2 on a 386 clone with 4meg of memory and a 100mb hard drive. The swap file, when running AutoCAD, typically runs about 1.7mb, so if I had another 2meg, everything would run in memory. However, I could run everything I do now with only 2meg (if I didn't mind the memory swapping hits on my disk drive). Oh, and you can run OS/2 from floppies...but not presentation manager, and minus virtual memory (unless you want to swap on a second floppy)...it's not pretty, and very limited, but it can be done...the installation procedure for OS/2 runs OS/2 off a floppy...it pretty much looks like MS/DOS in that mode. Oh, and I STILL like my Amiga better...now, if it just had virtual memory. :-) Lance -- +-------------------------+ +------------------------------------------+ | Lance T Franklin | | "And all who heard should see them there, | ltf@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US | | And all should cry, Beware! Beware! +-------------------------+ + His flashing eyes, his floating hair!"
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (11/16/89)
In article <32321@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: > > A 500-level machine with a seperate keyboard, an Agnus chip that stays > in place, and A GOOD POWER SUPPLY, > >Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College We had this once, it was called an A1000......(sigh....) Monty
ST9@jane.uh.edu (Rich Bainter AKA Pug) (11/17/89)
> (* low power flame on *) > What marvelously interesting opinions. You would never know that the amiga > was 'fading' around here. Our user group's membership is up, interest is high, > and there are more and more people who actually know what an amiga is! > Every year there are more and more amigas on our campus and there are rumors > of the university taking an interest in them. > (* low power flame off *) Well, down here in Houston, it is much different. HALPC has 10k members. We are down to 2 user groups with perhaps 150 combined members. There is a definite sense of malaise. Several of the "power" users who drove the scene have gone on to 386 machines where they "can make some money" off their hobbies/hacking. I made a big push on the Amiga. It didn't work out. Now my Amiga gathers dust while I make a living programming on other machines (36 + PC's) and go to school for a degree in Comp Sci on Vax/Unix boxes/Macs. We never go much advertising from CBM and we only have one full service dealer left. It is doing well (in part because it is next to NASA.) --- Stephen McLeod (aka Bandolar)
hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Anthony Adam Hill) (11/17/89)
Simple Soluton to the Time Problem,
Innundate Time with letter... (My WP is fired up in the background :-) )
^
s
Mine shall be mail tommorrow and will go int great detail........
Adam HilluserPUB1@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (UACS Publicity Director) (11/22/89)
In article <32321@auc.UUCP>, rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: >In article <3932@nigel.udel.EDU> WDV91@ccvax.iastate.edu (NetMonster) writes: >> Yes, the Amiga's image is fading. But Commodore can resurrect the Amiga's >> image very easily. Here is what Commodore needs to do: IT IS TIME FOR >> COMMODORE TO TOTALLY ABANDON THE 68000 MICROPROCESSOR, FOR ALL MODELS >> OF THE AMIGA. > >Yeah, right. Watch most games break, and many other programs, and prices >shoot throught the ceiling. > >Great move. Then people will be talking about about how buggy it is ("look >at all of these programs that don't work!"). > Commodore's current solution to this (on the 2000 and up) is to allow you to select which CPU you want to use. When you reboot, hold down both mouse buttons, and you will be presented with a menu asking you whether you want to work with AmigaDOS running on the 68000 or 68020, or if you want AmigaUX (which is not yet available...) I don't think Commodore should drop the 68000 line at all, but should really start pushing computers with both 68000 and 68020 installed. -= Scott =-
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (11/23/89)
in article <650@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA>, userPUB1@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (UACS Publicity Director) says: > Commodore's current solution to this (on the 2000 and up) is That's actually 2500, or in fall-of-89-speak, 2500/20 and 2500/30. > When you reboot, hold down both mouse buttons, and you will be > presented with a menu asking you whether you want to work with > AmigaDOS running on the 68000 or 68020, or if you want AmigaUX It's a nice feature, for sure, but realize that the reason you have it is that [a] A2000 based machines like either A2500 model already have a 68000 in place, and [b] it was a real easy thing to design into the A2620 and A2630 (basically for free). I put that feature in mainly to help out developers -- you can have just one machine, and still test out your software on a 68000 machine without taking apart your '020/'030 machine. A side effect of this is that software that breaks on the '020/'030 can still be run on the A2500. But don't anyone expect that to last! We don't support software that's 68000 specific -- all software should run on any 680x0 processor if possible. If you write 68020/30 specific code (for direct FPU calls or something), that's OK, but you should check for the CPU type at the program's start, and exit gracefully on a 68000, 68010, or a machine with no FPU. The A2500 does make a good transition machine; it gives developers with buggy software a little extra time to fix it. But you can bet that future machines won't have a 68000 to run this old stuff on; that would drastically cripple a full high speed 32 bit machine. Dropping back to the mode of your last CPU is for Intel machines. Motorola processors did it right, with just a little bit of care on the part of the programmer. > -= Scott =- -- 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
bagchi@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Bagchi) (11/26/89)
In article <650@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA> userPUB1@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (UACS Publicity Director) writes: < stuff > ... >Commodore's current solution to this (on the 2000 and up) is >to allow you to select which CPU you want to use. When you >reboot, hold down both mouse buttons, and you will be presented >with a menu asking you whether you want to work with AmigaDOS >running on the 68000 or 68020, or if you want AmigaUX (which is >not yet available...) > Just a thought that came upon me while I was reading the news... but is one processor completely inaccessible to the other? What I'm hinting at is parallel processing...could it be done between an 000 and an 020? -rj bagchi@sparky.eecs.umich.edu