conklin@eecae.UUCP (Terry Conklin) (10/21/88)
A lot of net discussion centers around the ideas of how an Amiga, what it
is, does, and acts like, impresses the general (buying) public.
Almost 1 month ago now, an Amiga found it's way into my home. Like many of
yourselves, I am not a new user. Like fewer of yourselves, this Amiga is
now nestled in among 8 other computers. Like probably none of you at all,
though, I ran the biggest ST PD BBS (The Club II) for several years. In fact,
larger than Compuserve own selection for a least a year or two.
Before you say it. I think Amiga's are _morally_ superior, so Amiga-freaks
riled at the above, choke on it.
The environments I knew before I came to it include: The TRS-80 crew,
Atari 8bits, ST's and GEM, Ultrix, Data General AOS Rev 6.00, and
Suntools/SunOS and Macs.
Being an Atari 8-bit fan, the Amiga is virtually home again. Thus the graphics
dont "suprise" me. I dont think "what if" about HAM mode, I'm twiddling my
thumbs while people figure it out. It's all been by before, it was called
GTIA modes on the 8 bit, and it took em about 5 years.
Probably the single best feature that shocked me was Amiga Sound. I really
dont understand the Amiga emphasis on graphics, when the graphics are just
great and the sound is tremendous! The first occasion I had to see F-18, we
had alternately been playing the radio, and then using the stereo for sound.
I _didn't even realize_ it was the machine at first. For me, the Amiga is a
virtual Ensonic Mirage.
This, unfortunately, seems to been lending itself lately to many programs
pretty shamelessly digitizing real world sounds as a whole track, rather than
digitizing instruments and then playing music with them.
Some other observations with more marketing value:
Workbench's colors appear "schlocky." After you use the machine for a week or
two, you get used to, then fond of all the color all over hell. But the inital
impact is negative. And a large part of a sale is there. Solutions?
Workbench itself is - hmm - unprofessional. Sorry! But once again, the really
neato colors that you get used to just dont have that business "boring" to
them. No, I take that back. You never really get THAT used to them.
What seems "professional?" GEM on the ST is. With those unchangable icons,
GEM has no choice! But it's crisp and clean. They seem almost identical, so
close that I wonder if they used thinner lines for gadgets or something for a
more "delicate" look.
The existence of CATS makes a real difference, on the street, to people just
walking into the shop. Word travels fast, and when I can tell people something
about what CBM's doing and that I heard it here, I have visibly seen it
positively influence people's purchasing decision.
In a related marketing issue, recently I saw a handful of different British
68000 & gaming magazines. Folks, you _wouldn't_ believe it. If Amiga World
has a review of 13 games, they call it a games issue. One of these things
reviewed 77 games!!! Worse, the obvious ST presence in Europe is devastating.
The time has come for America to take a SERIOUS look at the European titles.
Many of them are just better programmed. Since I still come into contact with
a large amount of ST software, it's annoying to think that, other than sound,
F-18 Interceptor could visually look almost the same on the dramatically less
capable ST. The same can be said of Emrald Mines, Fire Power, Sidewinder, etc.
The first "Amiga-only" title I have seen (as in just couldn't be half as nice)
is a game called Fusion, which I believe is using 32 color 640 X 200 mode.
Dragon's Lair, also just coming out, looks - real. It's incredible.
My feeling has been that, in order to win a customer, you need not only to
show him that you have a superior machine, you need a _clearly_ superior.
Historical precedent: The C64, a relativel simple and low cost machine,
ripped Atari 8-bit sales to shreds. Though the 8-bit was more capable, and
had a much better OS, the 64's "70% as nice" graphics were close enough to
befuddle the issue. Now, the game is the same, the sides reversed. This time,
the ST is the largely off-the-shelf simple machine, and the Amiga is only
marginally strutting it's stuff.
From the business perspective, I just spent 6 months, 70 hours a week, writing
a new operating system for the IBM 386 AT clones. All day long, I worked with
an EGA monitor driving a Nec Multisync. When I got to play with the Amiga,
long and behold the "graphics machine" hit me with the same capacity. 640 X 400
16 color resolution. ?????
Which leads to probably the worst, single, biggest turn off in the world.
FLICKER IS UNACCEPTABLE.
Probably a moot point, having seen references on the net to new chips. Well,
they need to be here, right away. Real Soon, NOW.
The other major impression that I had was, after using the CLI, was that
the non-imbedded commands was needless. I guess this all boils down to the
idea that if I switch to an Amiga, (mentally) it should be a proper
superset. Whether I've used MS-DOS or GEM or whatever, the mentality
behind the scenes says, "Well, if the machine is superior, and worth
getting, then it should be -superior-." Anything that represents a step back
in usability from anything I've used will by association detract from the
real advantages of the machine. I guess I expect CLI to have at least as much
speed and functionality as Mess-DOS. I think I would expect a wristwatch to
have the functionality of MS-DOS.
As a closing (cheers in the back) comment, I dont find myself reccommending
Amiga's to new users. The machine is NOT a total "Click-and-point" system,
(an ST is) and suprisingly, many situations require the use of CLI. The
lack of any option to get no-icon-available files from workbench is, for
Joe Fool, a requirement to use CLI. And poor Joe doesn't cope. When
people ask me for a machine, I have to be able to reccommend with confidence
that they will be able to get where they want to go by themselves.
---
This message, being almost totally negative, is largely unrepresentative of
our experience with the machine. On the other hand, the above mentioned
problems are real. The sole purpose of this message is to identify potential
and necessary areas of improvement in order to assist CBM in refining the
machine. While the 2000 has slots, there is a certain truth to idea that
people (as a whole) will always program for, and expect, the base machine.
On the ST, that attitude produced a generation of new MIDI fans and cheap
local area networking. On the Mac, Appletalk has produced little Macintosh
networks in the MSU dorms. Only by raising the base machine, do you
raise the public perception of the whole machine.
Perhaps the best example - Every Amiga disk holds almost a Meg. When
was the last time you cringed at a 400K file? When was the last time you
used a PC/XT? Let alone a 64k machine. Your basic perception of file sizes
is altered by the base configuration of the machine.
The machine must grow.
Terry Conklin "Living on your knees, conformity
conklin@egr.msu.edu Or dying on your feet for honesty."
{msudoc|frith}!conklin -Metallica, Damage Incorporated
The Club (517) 372-3131 Online 8 years in December! See BYTE IBM Issue
The Club II (313) 334-8877 p45, para 1 for more BYTE "facts" & researchdillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (10/22/88)
:Workbench itself is - hmm - unprofessional. Sorry! But once again, the really :neato colors that you get used to just dont have that business "boring" to :them. No, I take that back. You never really get THAT used to them. :What seems "professional?" GEM on the ST is. With those unchangable icons, :GEM has no choice! But it's crisp and clean. They seem almost identical, so No, definately *NOT* GEM on the ST.... The Mac's desktop is professional. There's been a lot of flack about our workbench and, in fact, many people do not even use it. :ripped Atari 8-bit sales to shreds. Though the 8-bit was more capable, and :had a much better OS, the 64's "70% as nice" graphics were close enough to :befuddle the issue. Now, the game is the same, the sides reversed. This time, :the ST is the largely off-the-shelf simple machine, and the Amiga is only :marginally strutting it's stuff. Mmmm... I would disagree here. Neither the Atari 8-bits OR the C-64 ever had an OS. Nobody ever used them, anyway, except maybe the file system (what little of it there was). I would tend to agree with your 'turn-around assessment' though I should point out that the ST gets no where near the support the old 8 bits had. Atari used a 'bash the other guy' approach and it backfired on them. :long and behold the "graphics machine" hit me with the same capacity. 640 X 400 :16 color resolution. ????? : :Which leads to probably the worst, single, biggest turn off in the world. : :FLICKER IS UNACCEPTABLE. : :Probably a moot point, having seen references on the net to new chips. Well, :they need to be here, right away. Real Soon, NOW. Uh huh. I think we've spent about 50MB on that particular issue. Get a flicker fixer if you don't like it, I am willing to wait for the new chips. But also keep in mind that at least we can *get* that resolution on a standard (cheap) monitor. By the time the new stuff gets integrated , the cost of higher resolution monitors should be attainable for the general user. :The other major impression that I had was, after using the CLI, was that :the non-imbedded commands was needless. I guess this all boils down to the Don't use the CLI, use a shell. There are several shells out there and you get a hellofalot more power and convenience out of them. I never use a plain CLI. Also, you *do* have a hard disk don't you? Got 1.3 yet? *GET IT* take the time to bring up the FFS on your HD and the machine will suddenly look more professional ... much more professional. :As a closing (cheers in the back) comment, I dont find myself reccommending :Amiga's to new users. The machine is NOT a total "Click-and-point" system, :(an ST is) and suprisingly, many situations require the use of CLI. The With the advent of 1.3, the A2000, and the FFS, I find myself now recommending the Amiga where before I recommended the IBM... sometimes the Mac, though *never* the ST. Many situations require the use of a CLI because it is impractical to use a point-and-click system in all cases. That was amply proven by the Mac ... sure, it looks kind of flashy, but you can do a lot more for a C compiler with a Makefile, editor, and shell 10 times faster than you could ever do with a similar point-and-click enviroment. I would say that the LACK of a choice between the two types of interfaces (CLI, WB) is a major screwup for both the Mac and the Atari. While both machines have shells and such, it isn't standard and cannot be counted upon. The IBM has the exact opposite problem ... it has only a CLI-like interface and a static (text) screen size so they have to do all sorts of hacks to give it a more graphical enviroment. :lack of any option to get no-icon-available files from workbench is, for :Joe Fool, a requirement to use CLI. And poor Joe doesn't cope. When :people ask me for a machine, I have to be able to reccommend with confidence :that they will be able to get where they want to go by themselves. Joe Fool gets icons for those programs that are simple enough for his tiny brain to understand. Larger, more complicated programs still have icons, but it becomes optional because Joe Fool wouldn't be able to use them anyway (cause he is too stupid to even understand the general purpose of the program). If you look closely, *MOST* commercial programs work with both the workbench and the CLI. If you are a CLI user or run the programs from the CLI they usually do not bother creating icons whereas if you run the programs from the workbench they do. Also, a big reason for the fact that not everything has an icon (apart from what I mentioned above), is that C-A screwed up the workbench/ icon enviroment.... requiring a separate file for each icon is simply ridiculous, takes too much time to scan, and makes directories look a mess. Thus, none of us developers have ever had much incentive to use icons. So I'd say, C-A, fix the damn workbench! I can't do everything! :Perhaps the best example - Every Amiga disk holds almost a Meg. When :was the last time you cringed at a 400K file? When was the last time you :used a PC/XT? Let alone a 64k machine. Your basic perception of file sizes :is altered by the base configuration of the machine. : :The machine must grow. Uh huh. I Especially like the 2Gig (or is it 4Gig) partition size limit under the FFS. IBM's are still struggling along. My basic perception of the Amiga as a professional machine is that you need, in laymans terms, disk. A hard disks that is. The moment I put together my HD, under FFS, and stuck it to the side of my A1000 everything changed. -Matt
page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (10/22/88)
conklin@eecae.UUCP (Terry Conklin) wrote a pretty level article. A couple comments: >For me, the Amiga is a virtual Ensonic Mirage. There's a product (software) that turns your Amiga into a Mirage player. Just stick your Mirage disk into the Amiga and you can play them. You can do a *little* editing, but that's not what the package is about. It can also save the samples in IFF format. >Workbench itself is - hmm - unprofessional. Sorry! Fortunately, Workbench is simply an application program, and will be removed from the ROM in version 1.4 of the OS, so they can squeeze more goodies in. Workbench will go to disk, and will probably be rewritten to such a large degree that you'll barely notice it. Commodore isn't blind, deaf or stupid - they see what PD and commercial software people are using. Although I haven't spoken to anyone at CBM about a new Workbench, I'll eat my mouse if they don't have a way to see ALL files from workbench (not just .info files), some kind of browser capability, and much more user control over what workbench looks like. Even if for some reason I have to eat my mouse, I'm sure there will be loads of Workbench replacement programs available, both commercially and in the public domain. But I don't think they will be necessary, because CBM has a good idea of what people want in a new Workbench. >The existence of CATS makes a real difference, on the street, to people just Amen. >The machine is NOT a total "Click-and-point" system, I think the focus of that comment is against Workbench. I agree with it, but wanted to point out that CBM has said over and over that one of their priorities for 1.4 was to overhaul workbench. I'll let everybody read this, it's easy to miss: >This message, being almost totally negative, is largely unrepresentative of >our experience with the machine. Lastly, agreed on the 'need to have a cheap network (presumably through the MIDI port)'. I think CBM knows that too, but doesn't know what to do about it. Remember, CBM is not a software company - I think they'd rather see something like SLIP or DNET take off without any work on CBM's behalf. These are just conjectures, mind you. ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page Have five nice days.
bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) (10/22/88)
> *Excerpts from ext.nn.comp.sys.amiga: 21-Oct-88 Re: Amiga public impressions* > *Bob Page@swan.ulowell.ed (2281)* > There's a product (software) that turns your Amiga into a Mirage > player. Just stick your Mirage disk into the Amiga and you can play > them. You can do a *little* editing, but that's not what the package > is about. It can also save the samples in IFF format. What is this called? -Miles
dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) (10/22/88)
The solution to Workbench woes is Peter da Silva's Browser. A fantastic program that almost completely replaces Workbench. When he gets CLI mode working, it'll virtually replace that too. I use CLI about twice a week now, and I never use Workbench any more. On second thought, remove the 'almost' in the above paragraph. *I* think they should ship it with 1.3 and make it a selectable option in preferences. Dan Hankins
conklin@eecae.UUCP (Terry Conklin) (10/22/88)
In article <8810211750.AA12489@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > So I'd say, C-A, fix the damn workbench! I can't do everything! Well, even if you dont, what you DO do is great! (just found Dmouse...) Terry...
harald@leo.UUCP ( Harald Milne) (10/24/88)
In article <9757@swan.ulowell.edu>, page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: > There's a product (software) that turns your Amiga into a Mirage > player. Just stick your Mirage disk into the Amiga and you can play > them. You can do a *little* editing, but that's not what the package > is about. It can also save the samples in IFF format. I have played with Sound Oasis a bit. This product is pretty hot as far as getting fantastic sounds out of the Amiga. The package claims 2500 or so sounds available, well I believe it! I drove a music store salesperson nuts copying everything in sight. (PD samples that is) Sound Oasis reads Ensoniq disks, but can be saved in "Oasis" format. The advantage is you never have to read/decode the Mirage disks again. Initial reads can take up to 4 minutes. The format is somewhat bizarre and alien, so that's not very suprising. I have hooked this up to a terribly cheap Casio (MT-600, $129.00 at Circuit City) and use the Casio's keyboard to trigger MIDI events in Sound Oasis. Instant Ensoniq Mirage - $1000 bucks! I am still waiting for my upgrade from Dynamic Drums to Dynamic Studio. Why? The new version of Dynamic Studio has Sound Oasis built in. So now you have a dirt cheap MIDI drum machine (ala Amiga), Ensoniq Mirage, and MIDI sequencer. What more could a person ask for! Anyway, all is not roses. Sound Oasis gave me a lot of trouble, but being new, and me and my stupid 68010 A2000 probably don't help either. I've also been waiting a HELLUVA long time for this upgrade (since June, SHEEZ). Im still waiting. They say any day now. > > ..Bob > -- > Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@swan.ulowell.edu ulowell!page > Have five nice days. -- Work: Computer Consoles Inc. (CCI), Advanced Development Group (ADG) Irvine, CA (RISCy business!) UUCP: uunet!ccicpg!leo!harald
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (10/24/88)
Terry made several interesting points in his article. From a joe consumer point of view, he is correct in many instances. Unfortunaely, the Amiga is often compared with the Atari ST. Both machines are in the same general price bracket and do employ the same central processing element. Really, the two machines excel in different applications areas. I feel that comparing the Amiga (models) is sort of like comparing the IBM model 80 and Sun 386i. The latter machines both happen to use an 80386 CPU, but each has its own niche. One thing that hurts the Amiga's game image is that some games are poor ports from other machines to the Amiga. Of course, the fault is not the Amiga's, but rather the software author's. There are many Amiga specific programs that do use the Amiga's abilities to the fullest. Unfortunately, the Amiga's advanced hardware makes it difficult to port the other direction. It is relatively less work to port (but not enhance) some IBM PC CGA program over to the Amiga. What you get on the Amiga then is CGA quality graphics. Since software houses understand economics, stuff tends to get written to the least common denominator. Even a year and a half after VGA graphics have become commonly available in the IBM PC marketplace, there are relatively few mainstream applications that use VGA to its full extent. I've programmed custom graphics applications for both the Amiga and IBM EGA. I've frequently cussed at EGA becuase you just can't do things in the EGA hardware that are easy on the Amiga. VGA is better, but it still has realatively minimal harware smarts. As far as flicker goes, the high end IBM yardstick is the 8514 graphics system (hope I got the number right!). The 8514 *IS INTERLACED*. IBM smelled the same economics that C-A did. High resolution non-interlaced graphics requires a *very good* monitor. To do a 600*400 display non-interlaced at 60 Hz would require doing 600 lines in 1/60th sec. That translates to 27 uS per line. Let's allow 7 uS for the horizontal retrace. That means that you have to put out 600 pixels in 20 uS, or a pixel every 33 nS. To get a semblance of a decent picture, you'd have to have a video fequency response that is no more than -3 dB at 30 MHz! (Even that would be marginal). That means that you'd have to get a monitor at least as good as a NEC multisync Plus. The Multisync Plus has a frequency response to about 38 MHz on the VGA connecor, or about 45 MHz through the BNC connects. (Why it is better through the BNC who knows; maybe they factor in some calbing losses for the VGA connector). The street price of the Multisync Plus in the latest Priority One catalog is $900. (Don't confuse this with the cheaper Multisync II, which is $600.) Of course, if your wallet is up to it, you can get the Microway Flicker Fixer (~$500) and a Multisync Plus and kick some serious video tail with an Amiga 2000. Unfortunamely, this makes the entry level price around $3000, which is not in the same market as the ST. But with a 40 meg drive, the Amiga would still be well under $4000, which makes it a very attractive player in the medium level graphics market. We use the interlacing to our advantage on the Amiga. We use the Amiga to study growth patterns in neurons (brain cells). We can collect data on video tape, looking at the cells under a microscope. At that time, we don't even have to worry about the computer. Later on, we can play the tape back into our digitizer. One thing you do have to watch is that your VCR has an interlaced pause feature. Some of the newer VCRs with digital freeze do. Standard VHS decks give you a non-interlaced half-frame in pause. We take the shots in 640*400 mode, save them to disk, and then do a post hoc video subtraction to see what changed over time. The neat thing is that the digitizer + software cost only $129 for the Amiga. True, it takes 30 sec to digitize a 640*400 grayscale image, but for us that is OK. Our A-1000 based system with hard disk was well under $3K (exclusive of the cost of student slave labor to program it). It would have been impossible or much more expensive on any other system. It would have been around $6K on an IBM system. On Mac II, I don't even want to think about the cost (and the Mac has that yucky Mac O/S to deal with; yes I've really used Macs enough to be fair). Atari TOS versus Amigados is not a terribly fair comparison either. No more fair than comparing Unix/Xenix to msdos. It didn't really seem to me that using CLI is required to do things equivalent to GEM operations. There are things that I can (and do use CLI) for that are not possible in GEM/TOS. You can use a Sun strictly in Sunview or Suntools without ever touching a C or Bourne shell, but you won't get the most from the machine. The same is true for Amigados; CLI can be spurned if desired, but it is there. The Amiga has "only" been on the market since the fall of 1985. Considering that the Amiga hardware and software are unique products, it seems to me that the machine has shown considerable growth in that time. The first 3 years of the IBM PC were pretty dull years, with most software just being knock-offs of CP/M products. Really, once one learns how to write for Amigados, the Amiga is easier to deal with because all hardware configurations are more-or-less congruent. In the IBM world, there are umpteen hardware configurations operating at umpteen CPU speeds. Wost of all is the plethora of video types. It is daunting to thoroughly test out a PC application. --Bill
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (10/25/88)
In article <9757@swan.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >There's a product (software) that turns your Amiga into a Mirage >player. Just stick your Mirage disk into the Amiga and you can play >them. You can do a *little* editing, but that's not what the package >is about. It can also save the samples in IFF format. Unfortunately, what I want is a product that will write Amiga samples to Mirage disks so I can convert my Amiga sample library to run on the Mirage. (did most of my original sampling on the Amiga because that is all that I had). Heard of a product like that? Either that or some specs on Mirage disk format? Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170
conklin@eecae.UUCP (Terry Conklin) (10/25/88)
Several people have, accurately and unfortunately, missed the major point
of my "first impressions" of the machine.
There are all sorts of wonderful products out there, Browers, DMouse, ConMan,
etc. which can fix many of the usabilty faults in the system. However, I
PURPOSELY have NOT gotten them, and DELIBERATELY avoided the net as much as
I could force myself to (no comp.sys.amiga) such that I would NOT be aware
of these products.
Why? Because I was specifically attempting to identify the first reactions
as a new user. New users, the real people, walking into stores and looking at
the 2000 in the local shopping mall, dont GET those things. The store owners
dont know about the stuff in depth, and it's just not part of the machine.
CBM has demonstrated considerable post-Tramiel versatility. Is it conceivable
that they could put together a special Public Domain disk to ship with the
machine? Micro-EMACS came with it, so it's not that big of a leap.
Speaking of leap, the Byte review of the NeXT machine sez it's shipping with
GNU C++ compiler & GNU emacs. What's stopping anyone from including a C
compiler with the 2000? Its a proposition with some drawbacks, (compiler
market pressure for one,) but I think NeXT does come into the realm of
"competition."
An interesting note: A major theme of my original message was that the _base_
configuration of a machine defines (to a large extent) what people think and
expect of it. I was quite suprised to see how wholeheartedly the NeXT crew
took it to heart!
Steve Jobs and I think alike? Is that good? For either of us?
Terry Conklin "Eyes dripping blood, realization of death.
conklin@egr.msu.edu Transforming of five toes to two."
{msudoc|frith}!conklin -Slayer, Altar Of Sacrifice
The Club (517) 372-3131 3/12/2400 In case you didn't guess ^^^^^^^
The Club II (313) 334-8877 3/12/2400 Club Net features Heavy Metal bases toonsw@cord.UUCP (Neil Weinstock) (10/26/88)
In article <12722@eecae.UUCP> conklin@eecae.UUCP (Terry Conklin) writes: >There are all sorts of wonderful products out there, Browers, DMouse, ConMan, >etc. which can fix many of the usabilty faults in the system. However, I >PURPOSELY have NOT gotten them, and DELIBERATELY avoided the net as much as >I could force myself to (no comp.sys.amiga) such that I would NOT be aware >of these products. > >Why? Because I was specifically attempting to identify the first reactions >as a new user. New users, the real people, walking into stores and looking at >the 2000 in the local shopping mall, dont GET those things. The store owners >dont know about the stuff in depth, and it's just not part of the machine. I've had my machine for 4 months now and I'm still finding out about some of these programs. They make a big difference on first impressions. I have never been a fan of the way Workbench works, and it to some extent slowed my decision to get an Amiga. Then, one day, I got Dmouse. The increase in pleasurability in just doing basic stuff was so great that I felt I had gotten a new machine. Any dealer that is showing Amigas without Dmouse or Mach or some other such utility, for example, is not putting the Amiga's best foot forward. >CBM has demonstrated considerable post-Tramiel versatility. Is it conceivable >that they could put together a special Public Domain disk to ship with the >machine? Micro-EMACS came with it, so it's not that big of a leap. How about a couple of disks? It would of course be nice if the authors of the software got a little "reward" for such a thing, but either way. Speaking of which, what ever happened to the Goldfish disks? Have they been updated periodically? It seemed to me that they were the answer to this problem, though I've heard zilch about them lately. Hey, I think a lot more stuff should be bundled with the machine just in general, like an AmigaDos manual, for instance (wow, radical idea). >Steve Jobs and I think alike? Is that good? For either of us? Yikes. .- -- .. --. .- .-. ..- .-.. . ... .- -- .. --. .- .-. ..- .-.. . ... | Neil Weinstock | att!cord!nsw | "I think my cerebellum just | | AT&T Bell Labs | nsw@cord.att.com | fused." - Calvin | .- -- .. --. .- .-. ..- .-.. . ... .- -- .. --. .- .-. ..- .-.. . ...
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (10/26/88)
I belive that the Amiga is not being sold with a C compiler beacuse it is surmised that the target audiance for the machine does not want a C compiler. Of course, this may or may not be true. Machines like the Macintosh and IBM [or clones thereof] do not include C compilers. With IBM, you don't even get DOS! Of course, you could use ROM BASIC on the IBM, but I don't know how you'd save anything since the cassette recorder jacks are no longer included. I suppose if C-A included Lattice C with every machine it sold, they might be able to get a pretty good deal on the software license. The market that the Amiga 500 competes in is very price sensative, and margins are relatively thin. The extra 50 bucks added to the cost (just guessing) would probably not be palletable. Dealer support apparenty varies a lot too. The dealer here happens to be very good. He has the complete fish library and a dedicated Amiga running BBS-PC for an information forum. Since there are relatively few Amiga delers, it can be harder to find a competent one within a given area. IBM/clone dealers can be just as incompetent. All the IBM/clone dealers here are terrible. The nearest decent one is about a 45 mile drive. Macintosh dealers are usually good because Apple is very insistent that their dealers provide a high level of support .. but the owner pays for by suffering Apple's lack of price competetion. C-A could police dealers the way Apple does, but then Amigas would probalby have a biased price structure similar to Apple's inflated prices. Support of Atari products is definitely worse than Amiga. The only local place that carries Atari is Toys R Us. The profit has been pared so thin on STs that nobody else is willing to carry it. Toys R Us treats the ST like any other comodity item they carry: strictly cash 'n carry. The lady that rings-up cabbage patch dolls is the same person that sells you your ST.. basically knows nothing other than the ST is something that comes in a big box labeled "ST". ST dealer-bashing is NOT ST-bashing. Spare the flames. The ST is an OK piece of hardware, but it doesn't fit my particular application as well as the Amiga fits.