sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) (11/01/88)
In article <6526@xanth.cs.odu.edu> manes@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) writes: > Changes in the software, Yep, as a programmer, I love the guru mediation > alerts and completey understand them. However, it is coarse and introduces > a feeling of uncertainty in the operation of the machine. A pretty screen > would be much nicer, a screen that looks nice, but says what went wrong in > english text. If I can decode a number, why can't the computer? If Hypertek/Silicon Springs can make a GOMF 3.0, why can't Commodore? Better yet, maybe they could buy the rights to GOMF 3.0 and bundle it with every new Amiga sold. Ever since I got GOMF (v2.2), the ability to smoothly recover from many "Error--Task held" messages without rebooting has really added to the feeling of solidity of the operating system (and made multitasking much more usable). It's not as good as full resource tracking, but it really helps. > I did see an excellent suggestion by someone from CATS talking about > software failure messages. He said something to the fact that it should > be called "Application failure", Amen! Amen! Folks must be completely > confident in the operation of the operating system. I'd rather have a GOMF capability supported by Commodore, not a renaming of the current alert. Steven Litvintchouk MITRE Corporation Burlington Road Bedford, MA 01730 Fone: (617)271-7753 ARPA: sdl@mitre-bedford.arpa UUCP: ...{cbosgd,decvax,genrad,ll-xn,mit-eddie,philabs,utzoo}!linus!sdl "Those who will be able to conquer software will be able to conquer the world." -- Tadahiro Sekimoto, president, NEC Corp.
pds@quintus.uucp (Peter Schachte) (11/02/88)
In article <6526@xanth.cs.odu.edu> manes@cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) writes: >... does it make good marketing sense for Commodore to develop a >Amiga 3000? ... >Perhaps the Amiga 500 needs to be renamed, or the 2000. A clear seperation >must exist in order for the people to seperate game machine from >business system (no offense 500 owners!). Business people do not want to >buy a computer that has the same name on it as a machine that would be >available at Toys-R-US. They want a "elite" feeling. This is just why there should be an A3000. The businessperson will sure get that warm, fuzzy "elite" feeling running a 25 MHz 68030. Especially since he or she can run the same programs his kids do on their A500 at home. And he or she can use the same programs at home as a work (if more slowly). I don't think it would be good for this machine to have a different name; the name should say "the same, only better." "Mac II" is a good name in this way. The only problem with the 2000/500 distinction is that the differences don't seem all that convincing to the average businessperson. After looking at both, he or she might think "well, the 2000 doesn't seem all that much flashier than the 500, and I know the 500 is a game machine*, so maybe I should stick with a Mac." Having a fast, sexy 3000 should help that problem. * Not my opinion, that of a mythical businessperson. Don't flame me about this. -Peter Schachte "Clean water? I'm for clean water." pds@quintus.uucp -George Bush ..!sun!quintus!pds
tron1@xanadu.UUCP (Kenneth Jamieson) (11/02/88)
In article <41435@linus.UUCP>, sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes: > > In article <6526@xanth.cs.odu.edu> manes@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) writes: > > > Changes in the software, Yep, as a programmer, I love the guru mediation > > alerts and completey understand them. However, it is coarse and introduces > > a feeling of uncertainty in the operation of the machine. A pretty screen > > would be much nicer, a screen that looks nice, but says what went wrong in > > english text. If I can decode a number, why can't the computer? > > I did see an excellent suggestion by someone from CATS talking about > > software failure messages. He said something to the fact that it should > > be called "Application failure", Amen! Amen! Folks must be completely > > confident in the operation of the operating system. It is a definate problem of the AMiga's that the OS is not stable enough. Lets facee it. I love my Amiga, and between GOMF 2.2 and WB1.3 things HAVE gotten better. But I still get locked up once a session or so. That is un-acceptable. I Think that with a 68020 board in it, the AMIGA can very well compete with the likes of SUn and others. But it needs certain things..... 1) A BIG SCREEN - HI-RES (1024x1024) display 2) Better color resolution... (640x400x>4096<) 3) STABILITY 4) see item 3 With the above options, the thing to do would be a 68020 UNIX BRIDGE- BOARD. LET the 68020 run UNIX (With X-windows) in an AMIGA window. Like when someone I know runs WINDOWS on the PC-Bridgeboard. Or the otehr way around. All I know is, I have to reboot my Amiga once a night. I havent had to re-boot this UNIX box for WEEKS! -- ****************************************************************************** * All rumors about my death are true. {...}galaxy!dsoft \ * * Responsibility is management's word for blame. --- xanadu!tron1 * * "The world is GOD's source level debugger" {...}s4mjs! / *
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (11/02/88)
In article <41435@linus.UUCP> sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes: >If Hypertek/Silicon Springs can make a GOMF 3.0, why can't Commodore? >Better yet, maybe they could buy the rights to GOMF 3.0 and bundle it >with every new Amiga sold. Ever since I got GOMF (v2.2), the ability >to smoothly recover from many "Error--Task held" messages without >rebooting has really added to the feeling of solidity of the operating >system (and made multitasking much more usable). It's not as good as >full resource tracking, but it really helps. GOMF is a neat hack. It can be a useful tool for a developer, or even a sophisticated user. It's DEADLY DANGEROUS to a generic or novice user! GOMF may seem to recover you from a situation, but other important things may have been trashed. A generic user will say "Oh, it recovered, I'll start editing my unrecoverable, immensely valuable data", or some such, and perhaps trashes their entire HD or floppy, or just subtly corrupts some important data file. -- You've heard of CATS? Well, I'm a member of DOGS: Developers Of Great Software. Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
manes@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) (11/03/88)
In article <613@quintus.UUCP> pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) writes: >In article <6526@xanth.cs.odu.edu> manes@cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) writes: >>... does it make good marketing sense for Commodore to develop a >>Amiga 3000? >... >>Perhaps the Amiga 500 needs to be renamed, or the 2000. A clear seperation >>must exist in order for the people to seperate game machine from >>business system (no offense 500 owners!). Business people do not want to >>buy a computer that has the same name on it as a machine that would be >>available at Toys-R-US. They want a "elite" feeling. > >This is just why there should be an A3000. The businessperson will sure >get that warm, fuzzy "elite" feeling running a 25 MHz 68030. Especially >since he or she can run the same programs his kids do on their A500 at >home. And he or she can use the same programs at home as a work (if >more slowly). I don't think it would be good for this machine to have a >different name; the name should say "the same, only better." "Mac II" A warm fuzzy feeling? Not sure. I doubt that most "business" folks know or care about the speed of a CPU. They care about the applicatinos that are available, how easy is it to use, if it takes a 68030 to do it, then so be it. The hardware is not the problem, 68020 should be more than adequent (I would even argue that a 68000) to handle busisness tasks. I said "rename" the machines, create a distinction. I did not say make the A500 incompatible with the A2000 (A3000?). Mac II? compared to Mac? Granted that Mac II is a good name, but, the situation is different, you do not have the game aura around any of the MACs. The marketing problem does not exist. People assume that it is better because you called it the MAC II. >is a good name in this way. > >The only problem with the 2000/500 distinction is that the differences >don't seem all that convincing to the average businessperson. After >looking at both, he or she might think "well, the 2000 doesn't seem all >that much flashier than the 500, and I know the 500 is a game machine*, >so maybe I should stick with a Mac." Having a fast, sexy 3000 should >help that problem. Exactly my point, why is there even a comparison? The educated user can look and see if there were compatible, but it should not be so readly noticed. > >* Not my opinion, that of a mythical businessperson. Don't flame me > about this. > >-Peter Schachte "Clean water? I'm for clean water." >pds@quintus.uucp -George Bush >..!sun!quintus!pds --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark D. Manes "In Amiga We Trust" Programmer of Fortune, have compiler will travel "Her SCSI was a fuzzy place, a place where my SEEK could find no perch" ===========================================================================
dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (11/04/88)
In article <6526@xanth.cs.odu.edu> manes@cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) writes: >An interesting subject arose on GEnie in the Amiga conference. The question >came up, does it make good marketing sense for Commodore to develop a >Amiga 3000? >[some thoughts on this topic] My own immediate thoughts run along the following lines: when the Amiga came out, its strengths were its graphics and sound, and its multitasking os. It still has a multitasking os (although it isn't as invulnerable to bad programming as we'd like), but it's falling behind in the other two categories. I think that if commodore were to come out with an Amiga 3000 sort of machine, it would only make sense for them to soup up the rez, the audio processing, (add NeXT-like on-board dsp, etc.), and play to the multi-media strengths, rather than play ibm wanna-be and pretend that businesses are going to start using these things. Given that by the time this hypothetical A3000 would come out, the os would be more bulletproof, the 68000 would be a thing of the past, and a lot of the other software sorts of things would be fixed up (e.g. the annoying workbench, for one), I think the next amiga would have to make things like 44KHz digitized sound and serious image processing affordable in order to carve out a legitimate niche. And of course, it would still play some pretty mean games. -Dan
leyse@voltron.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Todd Leyse) (11/04/88)
In article <6558@xanth.cs.odu.edu> manes@cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) writes: >In article <613@quintus.UUCP> pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) writes: >>In article <6526@xanth.cs.odu.edu> manes@cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) writes: >>>... does it make good marketing sense for Commodore to develop a >>>Amiga 3000? Sure. It is a natural extension of the line. Maybe the time is not now but it should be addressed. Since Amiga sales are 40% of Cmdre's revenue and the 64/128 sales are slipping even more each year (since 1985) they either have to look to new markets, increase market penetration, or develop new products. Obiously they are doing the first two things (more ad budget and expanding distribution in Austrailia and Asia Pacific). >>>Perhaps the Amiga 500 needs to be renamed, or the 2000. A clear seperation Rename??? Negative. Remember when the 1000 came out? Commodore didn't put their name on the product 'cause of their game/low quality image but now they do on the 500 and 2000. They have built up a better name; it would be unwise to change a name. >>>must exist in order for the people to seperate game machine from >>>business system (no offense 500 owners!). Business people do not want to >>This is just why there should be an A3000. The businessperson will sure >>get that warm, fuzzy "elite" feeling running a 25 MHz 68030. Especially >>since he or she can run the same programs his kids do on their A500 at >>home. And he or she can use the same programs at home as a work (if >>more slowly). I don't think it would be good for this machine to have a >>different name; the name should say "the same, only better." "Mac II" > >A warm fuzzy feeling? Not sure. I doubt that most "business" folks know >or care about the speed of a CPU. They care about the applicatinos that >are available, how easy is it to use, if it takes a 68030 to do it, then >so be it. The hardware is not the problem, 68020 should be more than >adequent (I would even argue that a 68000) to handle busisness tasks. I agree completely. If I were a business owner and said the 2000 is okay for now but I may need two or three terminals in the future. Sure I can add this, but maybe I want to bump up the speed. I don't want to buy this '020 card and this ethernet and this ram for buffering and another hard disk. I would rather "upgrade" when I think I need to. If you don't have another model for me, I may go somewhere else. Who (business wise) wants to learn two O.S.'s and two application packages when they switch. What about the Ranger? Remember this name circulating before the Amiga was named? Maybe the 3000 should be the Amiga Ranger??? :) >I said "rename" the machines, create a distinction. I did not say make the >A500 incompatible with the A2000 (A3000?). Mac II? compared to Mac? >>The only problem with the 2000/500 distinction is that the differences >>don't seem all that convincing to the average businessperson. After >>looking at both, he or she might think "well, the 2000 doesn't seem all >>that much flashier than the 500, and I know the 500 is a game machine*, >>so maybe I should stick with a Mac." Having a fast, sexy 3000 should >>help that problem. > >Exactly my point, why is there even a comparison? The educated user >can look and see if there were compatible, but it should not be so >readly noticed. I think this is what dealers are for. I would guess that most business people would prefer the 2000 over the 500 because of - drive in front - detached keyboard (easier to compare to friends' computers) - internally expandability >>* Not my opinion, that of a mythical businessperson. Don't flame me >> about this. No flames intended. Just my two bits. >>-Peter Schachte "Clean water? I'm for clean water." >>pds@quintus.uucp -George Bush >>..!sun!quintus!pds >Mark D. Manes "In Amiga We Trust" By the way, I don't like Cmdre's Annual Report this year. I just got mine last week and I noticed a few stupidities. (Okay, I'm picky, but...) ON THE COVER - the guy has his dress shirt buttoned at the cuff but not the next button up 3 inches. He looks like he needs a shave too. Come on guy, you're on the cover! Page 14 - They used the exact same sentence twice. "The strengthening of European currencies versus the dollar had a favorable impact on sales." Sure, it was for different years, but couldn't they have changed it a little or say "Once again" or something? Besides these slight imperfections, I think it sells well. I realize they are probably afraid of too much expansion with their long term debt but too would like to see them expand by buying up the rights to GOMF and maybe some of the ideas of ARP and incorporate them into the OS. I think many people don't like to make those choices. Anyway, Mooooo... Todd C Leyse MN65-2100 Honeywell Systems and Research Center Voice: (612)782-7380 Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 Amiga: Not Available yet Internet: leyse@moon.honeywell.com UUCP: leyse@srcsip.uucp Bang: {umn-cs,ems,bthpyd}!srcsip!leyse
manes@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) (11/07/88)
In article <20@xanadu.UUCP> tron1@xanadu.UUCP (Kenneth Jamieson) writes: >In article <41435@linus.UUCP>, sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes: >> >> In article <6526@xanth.cs.odu.edu> manes@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Mark Manes) writes: >> >> > Changes in the software, Yep, as a programmer, I love the guru mediation >> > alerts and completey understand them. However, it is coarse and introduces >> > a feeling of uncertainty in the operation of the machine. A pretty screen >> > would be much nicer, a screen that looks nice, but says what went wrong in >> > english text. If I can decode a number, why can't the computer? >> > I did see an excellent suggestion by someone from CATS talking about >> > software failure messages. He said something to the fact that it should >> > be called "Application failure", Amen! Amen! Folks must be completely >> > confident in the operation of the operating system. > > It is a definate problem of the AMiga's that the OS is not stable >enough. Lets facee it. I love my Amiga, and between GOMF 2.2 and WB1.3 things >HAVE gotten better. But I still get locked up once a session or so. That is >un-acceptable. > Well, how do you know that the Operating System failed? IN fact, I doubt it did. I will bet that an application failed because of either bad programming, or user error. I agree that I would like the OS to be stronger in this regard, but I doubt that without a MMU this can be done. > I Think that with a 68020 board in it, the AMIGA can very well compete >with the likes of SUn and others. But it needs certain things..... > > 1) A BIG SCREEN - HI-RES (1024x1024) display Have you priced monitors lately? A high resolution display is nice if you can afford it, and since the market that the Amiga seems to have made progress in is Desktop Video, this display would be of little help, as we are stuck with NTSC. > 2) Better color resolution... (640x400x>4096<) I assume you mean more colors - I agree. > 3) STABILITY I think the OS is stable, I think making it more bullet proof is in order, lets make this system truly "Intuitive". >****************************************************************************** >* All rumors about my death are true. {...}galaxy!dsoft \ * >* Responsibility is management's word for blame. --- xanadu!tron1 * >* "The world is GOD's source level debugger" {...}s4mjs! / * --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark D. Manes "In Amiga We Trust" Programmer of Fortune, have compiler will travel "Only Amiga makes it Possible, but with 1 meg its hell!" ===========================================================================