dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) (09/24/88)
Recently, I flamed an Apple II owner in the Apple users group because they were complaining about lack of suuport from Apple Corp. The gist of it was that an 8 bit machine can only be made so fast before something had to give and the owner would have to move to a more powerful architecture. I made a side remark that they couldn't expect things to be all that much better from other manufacturers. I cited the fact that Commodore made the Amiga 2000 with an IBM slot as something that Amiga users did not want. I contended that what Amiga owners really wanted was a more powerful Amiga machine, ie more colors in normal res-modes and higher resolution with NO INTERLACE. Someone replied with a letter that IBM compatibility is a MUST, citing a Macintosh magazine as proof. So what is it Amiga owners? Do you want a more powerful Amiga or IBM compatibility? It seems to me that Commodore's wooing of the business market is a complete flop in this regard. If they saw excellent software on an excellent machine some people might change their minds. Witness of this phenomena is the fact that Macintosh owners had MacCharlie from Dayna Corpopration years ago. Has anybody heard of them lately? Moral to this story: Build a better computer machine, and the world will beat a path to your door (especially if the machine is cheaper)
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (09/27/88)
In message <661@wsccs.UUCP>, dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) says: >fact that Commodore made the Amiga 2000 with an IBM slot as something >that Amiga users did not want. I contended that what Amiga owners >really wanted was a more powerful Amiga machine, ie more colors in >normal res-modes and higher resolution with NO INTERLACE. Someone >replied with a letter that IBM compatibility is a MUST, citing a >Macintosh magazine as proof. So what is it Amiga owners? Do you want a >more powerful Amiga or IBM compatibility? Actually, if you're wanting to do weird off-the-wall applications, IBM compatibility is almost the only way to do them right now. For example, image processing -- you can either do PC/AT bus, VME bus, or Apple Nubus, take your pick, you aren't getting the hardware on the Amiga bus (mostly because of lack of market -- the medical folks know only enough about computers to buy name brands, while the industrial folks are pretty well intrenched in VAX/VME...). Boy, I sure would rather chomp on 750K of data with a 68020 than with a 80286 in 8088 emulation.... -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 "Freedom's just another word/for nothing left to lose" -- Janis
bmacintyre@watsol.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre) (09/27/88)
In article <661@wsccs.UUCP> dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes: > Moral to this story: Build a better computer machine, and the > world will beat a path to your door > (especially if the machine is cheaper) No, they won't. Tell me, why do so many Corporations buy IBM hardware ( personal computers, not IBM's *real* computers ... ) when you can get better, cheaper fully compatible clones???? Because it has the three magic letters: I B M As my boss at a job I had a couple of years ago told me, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM". Better machines, in terms of personal computers, will only sell to individuals, developers, small business, hackers, musicians, etc ... small, specialized markets. Computer preference is more a matter of just that - preference and prejudice - than anything else. I am prejudiced against IBM: I admit it, and even if they did come out with a truely amazing machine, which I doubt they ever will :-) ( talking micros, here ), I don't know if I'd buy it. Why? I don't like IBM. It's called human nature, and it ain't logical. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = Mr. Blair MacIntyre (bmacintyre@watsol.waterloo.edu) = = Using computers is like parachuting ... if you don't get it the first time, = = chances are you won't try it again. =
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (09/28/88)
In article <661@wsccs.UUCP> dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes:
)
) Recently, I flamed an Apple II owner in the Apple users group
)because they were complaining about lack of suuport from Apple Corp.
)The gist of it was that an 8 bit machine can only be made so fast before
)something had to give ...
) .... So what is it Amiga owners?
Please don't post a message like this (or followups to it) in
amiga.tech. It is perfect for comp.sys.amiga.
) Moral to this story: Build a better computer machine, and the
) world will beat a path to your door
) (especially if the machine is cheaper)
Welcome, but beat it to next door (comp.sys.amiga).
jimm
--
Jim Mackraz, I and I Computing
amiga!jimm BIX:jmackraz
Opinions are my own. Comments regarding the Amiga operating system, and
all others, are not to be taken as Commodore official policy.pnelson@antares.UUCP (Phil Nelson) (09/28/88)
Even though I have had some compatibility problems, I use the BridgeBoard
often. In my opinion, it is an effective and economical means of maintaining
compatibility. I would very much like increased resolution and no flicker,
but I will not trade my BridgeBoard for it.
-Phil Nelson
(BridgeBoard is a tm of Commodore-Amiga, OK?)
--
{ames|pyramid}oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson | Parallel IQ (the IQ of a group)
OnTyme: NSC.P/Nelson POTS: (408)922-7508 | may be easily calculated given
Disclaimer: Not officially representing | the IQ of each member - use the
McDonnell Douglas Corporation policy. | formula for parallel resistance.Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (09/28/88)
I would rather have a more powerful Amiga System, I could care less about
IBM compatability.
- Doug -
Doug_B_Erdely@Portal.Cup.Comrichard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (09/28/88)
In message <661@wsccs.UUCP>, dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) says: >fact that Commodore made the Amiga 2000 with an IBM slot as something >that Amiga users did not want. This is clearly incorrect and is not borne up by the sales figures. Think not of the A2000 as an easy way to do PC emulation, but rather as a way to exploit the worlds largest (and cheapest) base of peripherals. Apollo computer also employs this ``trick'' on almost all their current computers. It's pure genius. >I contended that what Amiga owners >really wanted was a more powerful Amiga machine, ie more colors in >normal res-modes and higher resolution with NO INTERLACE. Yes, more colours, (wider dacs) is at the top of my wishlist, and a lot of people seem to agree. We sure have talked about it enough. And, also has been pointed out many times, is that interlace in a required evil to be NTSC compatible. You can get a flicker fixer or wait till the rev of the chips that supports non-interlaced 400 line video. On a very expensive monitor. >Someone >replied with a letter that IBM compatibility is a MUST, citing a >Macintosh magazine as proof. So what is it Amiga owners? Do you want a >more powerful Amiga or IBM compatibility? Moot point. We already have IBM compatibility, so I guess now we go for the more powerful Amiga. -- Ice IS civilization. richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richard
trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) (09/28/88)
In article <661@wsccs.UUCP> dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes: > >... >I contended that what Amiga owners >really wanted was a more powerful Amiga machine, ie more colors in >normal res-modes and higher resolution with NO INTERLACE. Someone >replied with a letter that IBM compatibility is a MUST, citing a >Macintosh magazine as proof. So what is it Amiga owners? Do you want a >more powerful Amiga or IBM compatibility? Given the expense, neither. However, given some extra cash to throw around, I'd sooner see a more powerful Amiga with "a software emulator that can run IBM software, providing IBM compatibility for under $100." (Maybe paraphrased, but how many others of the early A1000 crowd heard something similar to this in Amiga's infancy?) I could care less if the IBM software runs 1/2 as fast as it could with special hardware. Of course, it would have been nice if the Amiga had been designed with a little more compatibility with off-the-shelf hardware products, e.g. hard disks, tape drives, ... > Moral to this story: Build a better computer machine, and the > world will beat a path to your door > (especially if the machine is cheaper) Amended moral: Build a better computer machine, and the world will snub it until it's obsolete and IBM puts it in a PC. ============================================================================== ARPA: @aplvax.jhuapl.edu:trn@warper \ nardo%str.decnet@capsrv.jhuapl.edu } one of these should work UUCP: {backbone!}mimsy!aplcen!aplcomm!warper!trn / USnail: c/o Johns Hopkins University/APL, Room 7-53 Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, Md. 20707 50% of my opinions are claimed by various federal, state and local governments. The other 50% are mine to dispense with as I see fit. ==============================================================================
mikes@oakhill.UUCP (Mike Schultz) (09/28/88)
In article <661@wsccs.UUCP> dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes: > >Macintosh magazine as proof. So what is it Amiga owners? Do you want a >more powerful Amiga or IBM compatibility? Well, I hate to rain on your parade, but as a matter of fact I did buy my Amiga 2000 because of the Bridgeboard. I had been impressed by the Amiga's software (I'm a system's programmer, multitasking is a requirement) but the Amiga 1000 wasn't enough to make me go out and buy one. When I read about the Amiga 2000 in Byte, the things that impressed me were the internal expansion capabilities and the fact that I could buy the Bridgeboard and get access to ALL THAT MS-DOS SOFTWARE. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't like the IBM-PC, I detest MS-DOS as an operating system (looks more like a kernel to me) and the Intel CPUs design are kludges based on past kludges. But I can't ignore all the software! So now I get to have my cake and eat it too. You may be right that improved graphics may be a good thing, but I spend all day looking at a Wyse-60 connected to a System V Unix machine, so at night my Amiga's screen looks real good. At any rate, I know my vote doesn't count for much, as I am not your typical user, but you did ask for it. Would you like to know what I'd really like to see next? A 68020 (68030) board running Unix in a window on my Amiga! (Some of us can't keep from taking work home.) Mike Schultz ...!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!mikes oakhill!mikes@cs.utexas.edu
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (09/28/88)
That bridge card is an interesting add-on to the machine. Yeah sure
it cost 'em some development effort to put in, does cost some in
the machine itself (4 slot amiga vs. 8 slot amiga -- a world of diff'ence).
[I've been waiting for the 80286 card before deciding if I want
one of those cards].
But do I really want it? Wee-eell, if someone had asked me a couple
of years ago if I'd have wanted such a machine I woulda said no.
I also definitely do not want a standalone pc compatible. HOWEVER,
as a 'cheap' access to that backwards technology I'm somewhat interested.
It'd be better if they sold the bridge card w/o the 5 1/4" floppy
'cause I've alread got some lying around from older computers.
--
<-- David Herron; The official MMDF guy of the 1988 Olympics <david@ms.uky.edu>
<-- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
<-- What does the phrase "Don't work too hard"
<-- have to do with the decline of the american 'work ethic'?ralph@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (Ralph Hightower) (09/28/88)
In article <8709@watdragon.waterloo.edu> bmacintyre@watsol.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre) writes: >Tell me, why do so many Corporations buy IBM hardware ( personal computers, >not IBM's *real* computers ... ) when you can get better, cheaper fully >compatible clones???? > >Because it has the three magic letters: > I B M Don't forget that there's also "FUD", Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. -- ralph@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM <Ralph M. Hightower> NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC Home of THE USC! South Carolina had a University 49 years before California was a state.
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (09/29/88)
In article <8709@watdragon.waterloo.edu> bmacintyre@watsol.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre) writes:
)Tell me, why do so many Corporations buy IBM hardware ( personal computers,
)not IBM's *real* computers ... ) when you can get better, cheaper fully
)compatible clones????
)
)Because it has the three magic letters:
) I B M
)
)As my boss at a job I had a couple of years ago told me, "No one ever got
)fired for buying IBM".
)
)= Mr. Blair MacIntyre (bmacintyre@watsol.waterloo.edu) =
Please do not post messages such as this or followups to comp.sys.amiga.tech.
It has no technical content. Be careful when following up to articles
cross-posted to comp.sys.amiga that you are not propogating bad behavior
if the original article did not belong in comp.sys.amiga.tech.
Thanks a lot.
jimm
--
Jim Mackraz, I and I Computing
amiga!jimm BIX:jmackraz
Opinions are my own. Comments regarding the Amiga operating system, and
all others, are not to be taken as Commodore official policy.wilson@nova.laic.uucp (Robin Wilson) (09/29/88)
While it may be true that MOST large corporations but I-B-M because of the way they spell their name, it is not true that ALL large corporations buy I-B-M. Here at Lockheed (a VERY LARGE corp.) we buy lots of many different machines, from Apples to Amigas, to PC Clones. But we don't buy anymore I-B-M PeeCees than we buy Amigas. We buy more Clones. And now, Macs are beginning to be the machines of choice for most workgroups, because they do a good job of text/DTP processing. So I-B-M doesn't have a LOCK on the Large Corps. R.D.Wilson (Just the facts 'mam.)
rmeyers@tle.dec.com (Randy Meyers 381-2743 ZKO2-3/N30) (09/29/88)
decwrl!labrea!agate!pasteur!ames!lll-tis!oodis01!uplherc!sp7040!obie! wsccs!dharvey writes: >So what is it Amiga owners? Do you want a more powerful Amiga or >IBM compatibility? Many Amiga owners have voted on this subject with their pocketbook. Last December, the Commodore brass visited the Amiga User Group of the Boston Computer Society. Someone asked Max Toy why bridgeboards were so hard to get. His reply was that Commodore had dramatically underestimated the market for the bridgeboard. They had predicted they would sell one bridgeboard for every four Amiga 2000s sold. The actual demand was more like three bridgeboards for every four Amiga 2000s. (I may have mis-remembered the numbers. They may have been 1 for 3 and 2 for 3.) I don't know if that demand continued, or if it was just a lot of early 2000 buyers were also interested in IBM compatibility. As for me, I prefer a more powerful Amiga. I think that Commodore realizes that they need to come up with a new high end Amiga. ---------------------------------------- Randy Meyers, not representing Digital Equipment Corporation USENET: {decwrl|decvax|decuac}!tle.dec.com!rmeyers ARPA: rmeyers%tle.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com
jmdavis@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Davis) (09/30/88)
It may well be the case that most current Amiga owners would rather have "disgustingly obese" Agnes chips instead of IBM compatability. However, I expect that most POTENTIAL Amiga buyers see IBM compatability as a plus. -- ________________________________________ | Mike Davis | ..!att!ihlpm!jmdavis |_________________________
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (09/30/88)
in article <7349@gryphon.CTS.COM>, richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) says: > in a required evil to be NTSC compatible. You can get a flicker > fixer or wait till the rev of the chips that supports non-interlaced > 400 line video. On a very expensive monitor. Uh, in case you haven't noticed, hi-res monitors are steadily decreasing in price. e.g. scanning through Computer Shopper I see a VGA card/monitor combo for less than $600... which is a lot if you just bought a $600 computer (an Amiga 500), but if you just spent $2000 for an Amiga 2000, it's peanuts. I suspect the day is rapidly approaching when someone will be able to put together a serious hi-res engineering workstation, with 68030, hi res monitor, and large disk drive (perhaps one of the new read/write magneto-optical devices), for a price less than a plain bare-bones Mac ][ right now. The monitors are getting cheap enough, the optical disks allow you to have a huge storage capacity (needed for heavily graphics-based systems and large virtual-memory operating systems), the processors won't stay expensive forever (unless you do like Intel, and single-source the 8087 -- which has stayed above $100 for as long as I can remember). The biggest problem right now is RAM. Again, that won't be forever... eventually, you'll be able to buy a megabyte for $100. Maybe someday I'll even be able to afford one ;-). -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 Q: How is Amigaworld like a (void) function? A: Neither returns anything of value.
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (09/30/88)
. (did ya ever notice that discussions in comp.sys.nnn usually end up being about micros in general, and don't specifically pertain to nnn ?) elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: >I wrote: >> in a required evil to be NTSC compatible. You can get a flicker >> fixer or wait till the rev of the chips that supports non-interlaced >> 400 line video. On a very expensive monitor. > >Uh, in case you haven't noticed, hi-res monitors are steadily >decreasing in price. e.g. scanning through Computer Shopper I see a >VGA card/monitor combo for less than $600... which is a lot if you >just bought a $600 computer (an Amiga 500), but if you just spent >$2000 for an Amiga 2000, it's peanuts. Uhh, in case you hadn't noticed, RGB monitors have been around longer than DRAMS, and while yes, they are getting cheaper, they will never be cheap. Televisions are cheap because they are standard. But there's no standard for RGB monitors. Plus, some of the neat resolution (> 1K) monitors use ungodly circuitry and components (read $$$) >I suspect the day is rapidly approaching when someone will be able to >put together a serious hi-res engineering workstation, with 68030, hi >res monitor, and large disk drive (perhaps one of the new read/write >magneto-optical devices), for a price less than a plain bare-bones Mac >][ right now. The monitors are getting cheap enough, the optical disks I'll agree to a point. I dont think monitors will ever be cheap unless everybody agrees on a standard - which is at best unlikely. >and single-source the 8087 -- which has stayed above $100 for as long >as I can remember). I understand thats because of 1) high demand, 2) low yields. >Q: How is Amigaworld like a (void) function? >A: Neither returns anything of value. Yes, I cancelled my subscription. Our budgie died. -- We've got everything we need, RIGHT HERE !! richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richard
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (10/01/88)
in article <8809290745.AA20082@decwrl.dec.com>, rmeyers@tle.dec.com (Randy Meyers 381-2743 ZKO2-3/N30) says: > ...As for me, I prefer a more powerful Amiga. ... What I want to know is, why does everyone think IBM compatibility and more powerful Amigas are mutually exclusive? In fact, they've got nothing what so ever to do with one another. The IBM slots in the Amiga 2000 required zero, 0, ZIP, NIL, NULL, none, void, etc. engineering effort. They're just a bunch of connectors with power and ground in the right place. Bridge cards are designed by people who'd otherwise be designing PC-10s or PC-20s or whatever, so they don't get in the way of Amiga people doing great Amiga things. So what's the big deal? You get something that lots of people want (I'll even use a Bridge card until CUPL is available on the Amiga. In fact, I'll trade my Bridge card, PC hard disk, and 5.25" floppy for an Amiga verison of CUPL) or even have a use for, and it doesn't cost anything. > Randy Meyers, not representing Digital Equipment Corporation > USENET: {decwrl|decvax|decuac}!tle.dec.com!rmeyers > ARPA: rmeyers%tle.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
kgschlueter@violet.waterloo.edu (Kevin Schlueter) (10/02/88)
So far in this thread, people have been saying that future Amigas should have higher resolution. I agree with this to a point, but feel that many of the higher resolution needs will be adequately addressed by the new 2024 monitor. What we need most, graphics wise, is more colours. Firstly, we need an expanded pallette -- 8 bits each of red, green and blue would be sufficient for just about any application. Secondly, we need more simultaneous onscreen colours. Personally, I would like to see support for up to 12 bit planes (in hires). It would be okay if you had to upgrade your memory to do this though. Many people will claim that 8 bit planes is enough. These people should try doing smooth shading of a reasonably complex scene (like you might get in your standard desktop video). I've been wondering why chip memory isn't further subdivided into banks. Having several banks of chip memory would allow parallel blits. It would also allow (I think) more bitplanes (if you have enough bandwidth for 4 bitplanes, don't you have enough bandwidth to put 4 bitplanes in each of 3 separate banks (each bank being on a separate bus, of course)). Really pie in the sky stuff: - how about a 4x4 matrix multiplier (in hardware) - how about a hardware clipper - what about putting the graphics chips on a card that goes in a special slot, so that they could be easily replaced when new chips are designed Disclaimer: I don't work for Commodore. Therefore it is really easy for me to make suggestions regarding future Amigas. Afterall, it's not my paycheque on the line, is it?
sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) (10/02/88)
In Message <1981@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>, trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes: >In article <661@wsccs.UUCP> dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes: >> >>... >>I contended that what Amiga owners >>really wanted was a more powerful Amiga machine, ie more colors in >>normal res-modes and higher resolution with NO INTERLACE. Someone >>replied with a letter that IBM compatibility is a MUST, citing a >>Macintosh magazine as proof. So what is it Amiga owners? Do you want a >>more powerful Amiga or IBM compatibility? > >Given the expense, neither. > >However, given some extra cash to throw around, I'd sooner see a more >powerful Amiga with "a software emulator that can run IBM software, providing >IBM compatibility for under $100." (Maybe paraphrased, but how many others >of the early A1000 crowd heard something similar to this in Amiga's infancy?) >I could care less if the IBM software runs 1/2 as fast as it could with >special hardware. > Lets see a software emulator that will run MS-DOS, easy. Under $100, sure. Run at 1/2 the speed, +- 20% yea we can do that. Matter of fact "Transformer" can and does do all that & more! It allows you to use your serial port as com1: - your parallel port as lpt1: - and more! Use 5.25" drive(s), 3.5" drive(s), boot from any drive (A: - B: - C: - D:). So I suggest you throw that extra cash into Transformer, it has what you want & it really does work very nicley. Of course it CBM only supports it on the 500 & 1000, but if your lucky (I wont waste bandwith with all the details of what makes you 'lucky') it will run on your 2000..... >Of course, it would have been nice if the Amiga had been designed with a >little more compatibility with off-the-shelf hardware products, e.g. hard >disks, tape drives, ... This is the same thing people said about the IBM-PC or the Apple Mac when they were new. And given a few years and half the support those machines received, people will buch the Amiga in that group too. -= And now for something almost different =- Personally I need MS-DOS capability for work and Transformer is just to slow. (I used to use Transformer on my 1000. Thats where I learned MS-DOS. But that was for a hobby, this is work.) So I have a BridgeBoard w/hard-card, expanded memory, 5.25" & 3.5" drives. Why? Because there just isnt enough room for another computer on this desk (2 - 2000's are enough!). Plus the ability to do direct file copies with Aread & Awrite allow me to do alot of my UUCP/UseNet work on my MS-DOS Zenith laptop wile sitting in the living room with the family. So for me MS-DOS is what I need. But hey I also want a stronger, more powerful Amiga. Hows does this sound *IN ADDITION* to the above mentioned MS-DOS capabilities? A2000 - 020 w/math co-processor & MMU -plus- 4meg 32 bit memory 1 meg Agnus w/1meg chip ram on the mother board 2 meg fast ram in an expansion slot built in genlock (for watching TV while you program ;-) 2090A auto-boot hard drive controller & 1.3 Kickstart ROM (No more floppy boots or Virus worries) Multi-Start board to allow use of 1.1 Kickstart 80 to 100 megs of hard drive storage *Plus (and this is the kicker!) Unix! Sound good? Well with the new items that CBM has already announced *ALL* of this will be possible & more! So why choose between MS-DOS capability or a more powerful Amiga? Have your cake and eat it too!!!! -- Dan "Sneakers" Schein {alegra|amiga|rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!heimat!sneakers Sneakers Computing 2455 McKinley Ave. Of course heimat is an Amiga. West Lawn, PA 19609 Doesn't everyone run UUCP & UseNet on an Amiga? Call: BERKS AMIGA BBS - 40 Meg - 24 Hrs - 3/12/2400 Baud - 215/678-7691
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/03/88)
#1 on the list of things for the next Amiga system, for more speed. Zorro-3, a 32-bit bus that's Zorro compatible. A daughter-slot like the AT or the new 32-bit AT busses would do. #2 on the list, for more speed. A higher bus clock rate, decoupled as much as possible from the chip rate. CHIP memory can be wait-stated as is currently done, but bus access (32- or 16- bit) should run as fast as the fastest thing on it. #3 on the list, better graphics. More bit planes would be nice, but more and wider color registers would be better. You should be able to go to 320x400x64/256K colors without widening the CHIP bandwidth (6 bit planes with 64 regs & 6-bit DACs). I think the software could all deal with this. If you could widen the CHIP bandwidth to allow 640x400x8 bit planes that'd be great. I think that anything wider than this would start making too many problems for the software. Either 8-bit DACs or 6+2 HAM. Can people really distinguish more than 6-bit DACs can provide? I don't believe they can handle more than 6-bit greyscale (based on an old Ciarcia article). -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) (10/03/88)
> *Excerpts from ext.nn.comp.sys.amiga: 29-Sep-88 Re: Next Amiga system* > *Davis@ihlpm.ATT.COM (348)* > It may well be the case that most current Amiga owners would > rather have "disgustingly obese" Agnes chips instead of IBM > compatability. However, I expect that most POTENTIAL Amiga > buyers see IBM compatability as a plus. That may be true, however when I purchased my Amiga I did so on the basis of it being the most technologically advanced machine I could obtain at the time for an affordable price. A few years from now technology will have passed up my A1000 and it will be time for me to upgrade. I would like to upgrade to another Amiga, but the truth of the matter is that I will buy whatever system is most technologically advanced (in both hardware and software) at the time. Grafting AT clones into an Amiga case does not strike me as advancing the state of the art in technology. --M Michael Portuesi / Information Technology Center / Carnegie Mellon University ARPA/UUCP: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: rainwalker@drycas "my friends say she's a dumb blonde, but they don't know she dyes her hair"
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/03/88)
In article <3618.AA3618@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: > *Plus (and this is the kicker!) > Unix! Unless I can run Deluxe Music (or whatever) under it, why should I get Amiga UNIX? I can take the (not inconsiderable) cost of the hardware necessary to put a killer UNIX on an Amiga and invest it in a 386 clone with UNIX. That way I get all the advantages of UNIX, a multiport card, *AND* I can run Sculpt-3d. Stick it all in a 2000 if I have one. Yes, if you get the idea I don't see the market for the 2500UX, you're right... -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (10/03/88)
Peter da Silva peter@sugar.uu.net Writes:
:too many problems for the software. Either 8-bit DACs or 6+2 HAM. Can people
:really distinguish more than 6-bit DACs can provide? I don't believe they
:can handle more than 6-bit greyscale (based on an old Ciarcia article).
:--
Many people get confused between a lack of DAC resolution and a
lack of color registers. As we have seen comparing HAM images to standard
color-register-based images, it is the lack of color registers that makes
granularity the most obvious. HAM images almost eliminate the color-register
problem so one essentially sees only the DAC resolution problem.
6 would be an improvment, but not a great enough leap to be meaningful.
8 is the bare competitive minimum for today's market (8 bits per gun that is).
I.E. the 24 bit plane Mac II cards usually do it this way, getting rid of
color registers entirely.
Also, the way things are moving, having screen memory part of the
computer's main memory will no longer work. Sure we should map it in, but
to get the bandwidth required it must be more dedicated (on the video board
itself). For the next class of machine, we want to remove the video DMA
completely out of the computer's motherboard. I would still like to keep
CHIP memory, but use it instead for a multi-channel general DMA chip...
Maybe 4 highspeed channels and a dozen low speed channels.
The need for one or more blitters is quite obvious. The Mac II
suffers in a big way due to the lack of blitters on both Apple's and 3rd
Party video cards. 3rd Party cards will probably have blitters on them
in quantity by early next year. The blitter should be part of the video
card and not the motherboard (these last two paragraphs I've been talking
about my envisionment of some future Amiga machine). Somebody suggested
some specialized hardware to do 4x4 matrices, I agree! Interface it in
with one of the Math libraries as a standard function so there's no
hardware dependence!
-Mattscotth@harlie.SGI.COM (Scott Henry) (10/03/88)
From article <8824@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, by kgschlueter@violet.waterloo.edu (Kevin Schlueter): > > Really pie in the sky stuff: > - how about a 4x4 matrix multiplier (in hardware) > - how about a hardware clipper > - what about putting the graphics chips on a card that goes in a special slot, > so that they could be easily replaced when new chips are designed Gee, you just designed (a primitive version of) Silicon Graphics Geometry Engine (tm)! Something like (up to) 12 of these are used in the top-end fastest graphics systems (I'm not a hardware guy, so I may be remembering some old literature). And just so that you next-Amiga wishers have some "real" comparisons, here is the resolution of SGI machines: 1280x1024x24 bits/ pixel. The highest resolution comercially available monitors that I know of only go to 1500x1280, so those "wishing" for 2048x2048 are REALLY wishing! Scott Henry <scotth@harlie.sgi.com> {or, also on the Internet:} <skywalker@cup.portal.com> #include <std_disclaimer.h> disclaimer: I just work there, I have no input on, nor do I echo, company policy in my postings. -- Scott Henry <scotth@harlie.sgi.com> {or, also on the Internet:} <skywalker@cup.portal.com> #include <std_disclaimer.h>
hobie@sq.uucp (Hobie Orris) (10/03/88)
Davis (jmdavis@ihlpm.ATT.COM) writes: > >It may well be the case that most current Amiga owners would >rather have "disgustingly obese" Agnes chips instead of IBM Don't you mean "Magnus Agnes" chips? Hobie Orris | guest of SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Ont. | "A velvet Elvis never dies." { backbone }!utzoo!sq!hobie |
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/03/88)
In article <8810030229.AA19219@cory.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > Peter da Silva peter@sugar.uu.net Writes: > :too many problems for the software. Either 8-bit DACs or 6+2 HAM. Can people > :really distinguish more than 6-bit DACs can provide? I don't believe they > :can handle more than 6-bit greyscale (based on an old Ciarcia article). > 6 would be an improvment, but not a great enough leap to be meaningful. > 8 is the bare competitive minimum for today's market (8 bits per gun that is). It may be a competitive minimum, but is it a real requirement after all? Can people really distinguish 256 levels of red, green, and blue? Just because the 8-bit DACs are cheap doesn't mean they're really necessary. Maybe 8-bit DACs with a 6+2 HAM mode as well. Let the market decide. > Also, the way things are moving, having screen memory part of the > computer's main memory will no longer work. OK, Yeh... part of my speedup "requirements". #2a: a seperate video bus. > The need for one or more blitters is quite obvious. Maybe not a given. Did you follow the blitter wars in comp.arch? Though a blitter that talks over the video bus and lets you run another task might be a different matter. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
daveh%cbmvax.uucp@UDEL.EDU (10/04/88)
Received: from CUNYVM by CUNYVM.BITNET (Mailer X2.00) with BSMTP id 5935; Fri, 30 Sep 88 21:32:52 EDT Received: from UDEL.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.1) with TCP; Fri, 30 Sep 88 21:32:48 EDT Received: from Louie.UDEL.EDU by Louie.UDEL.EDU id ae17280; 30 Sep 88 20:37 EDT Received: by Louie.UDEL.EDU id ae17131; 30 Sep 88 20:25 EDT Received: from USENET by Louie.UDEL.EDU id aa16729; 30 Sep 88 20:11 EDT From: Dave Haynie <daveh@cbmvax.uucp> Subject: Re: Next Amiga system Message-ID: <4907@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 30 Sep 88 20:12:54 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA To: amiga-relay@UDEL.EDU Sender: amiga-relay-request@UDEL.EDU in article <8809290745.AA20082@decwrl.dec.com>, rmeyers@tle.dec.com (Randy Meyers 381-2743 ZKO2-3/N30) says: > ...As for me, I prefer a more powerful Amiga. ... What I want to know is, why does everyone think IBM compatibility and more powerful Amigas are mutually exclusive? In fact, they've got nothing what so ever to do with one another. The IBM slots in the Amiga 2000 required zero, 0, ZIP, NIL, NULL, none, void, etc. engineering effort. They're just a bunch of connectors with power and ground in the right place. Bridge cards are designed by people who'd otherwise be designing PC-10s or PC-20s or whatever, so they don't get in the way of Amiga people doing great Amiga things. So what's the big deal? You get something that lots of people want (I'll even use a Bridge card until CUPL is available on the Amiga. In fact, I'll trade my Bridge card, PC hard disk, and 5.25" floppy for an Amiga verison of CUPL) or even have a use for, and it doesn't cost anything. > Randy Meyers, not representing Digital Equipment Corporation > USENET: {decwrl|decvax|decuac}!tle.dec.com!rmeyers > ARPA: rmeyers%tle.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
daveh%cbmvax.uucp%UDEL.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu (10/04/88)
Received: from CUNYVM by CUNYVM.BITNET (Mailer X2.00) with BSMTP id 6052; Mon, 03 Oct 88 22:04:31 EDT Received: from UDEL.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.1) with TCP; Mon, 03 Oct 88 22:04:27 EDT Received: from Louie.UDEL.EDU by Louie.UDEL.EDU id ak10567; 3 Oct 88 18:11 EDT Received: from USENET by Louie.UDEL.EDU id aa10357; 3 Oct 88 18:00 EDT From: daveh%cbmvax.uucp@UDEL.EDU Subject: Re: Next Amiga system Message-ID: <4392@louie.udel.EDU> Date: 3 Oct 88 21:59:45 GMT To: amiga-relay@UDEL.EDU Sender: amiga-relay-request@UDEL.EDU Received: from CUNYVM by CUNYVM.BITNET (Mailer X2.00) with BSMTP id 5935; Fri, 30 Sep 88 21:32:52 EDT Received: from UDEL.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.1) with TCP; Fri, 30 Sep 88 21:32:48 EDT Received: from Louie.UDEL.EDU by Louie.UDEL.EDU id ae17280; 30 Sep 88 20:37 EDT Received: by Louie.UDEL.EDU id ae17131; 30 Sep 88 20:25 EDT Received: from USENET by Louie.UDEL.EDU id aa16729; 30 Sep 88 20:11 EDT From: Dave Haynie <daveh@cbmvax.uucp> Subject: Re: Next Amiga system Message-ID: <4907@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 30 Sep 88 20:12:54 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA To: amiga-relay@UDEL.EDU Sender: amiga-relay-request@UDEL.EDU in article <8809290745.AA20082@decwrl.dec.com>, rmeyers@tle.dec.com (Randy Meyers 381-2743 ZKO2-3/N30) says: > ...As for me, I prefer a more powerful Amiga. ... What I want to know is, why does everyone think IBM compatibility and more powerful Amigas are mutually exclusive? In fact, they've got nothing what so ever to do with one another. The IBM slots in the Amiga 2000 required zero, 0, ZIP, NIL, NULL, none, void, etc. engineering effort. They're just a bunch of connectors with power and ground in the right place. Bridge cards are designed by people who'd otherwise be designing PC-10s or PC-20s or whatever, so they don't get in the way of Amiga people doing great Amiga things. So what's the big deal? You get something that lots of people want (I'll even use a Bridge card until CUPL is available on the Amiga. In fact, I'll trade my Bridge card, PC hard disk, and 5.25" floppy for an Amiga verison of CUPL) or even have a use for, and it doesn't cost anything. > Randy Meyers, not representing Digital Equipment Corporation > USENET: {decwrl|decvax|decuac}!tle.dec.com!rmeyers > ARPA: rmeyers%tle.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
daveh%cbmvax.uucp%UDEL.EDU%cunyvm.cuny.edu@cunyvm.cuny.edu (10/04/88)
Received: from CUNYVM by CUNYVM.BITNET (Mailer X2.00) with BSMTP id 6923; Tue, 04 Oct 88 00:47:33 EDT Received: from UDEL.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.1) with TCP; Tue, 04 Oct 88 00:47:30 EDT Received: from Louie.UDEL.EDU by Louie.UDEL.EDU id ac16810; 3 Oct 88 22:16 EDT Received: from USENET by Louie.UDEL.EDU id aa16647; 3 Oct 88 22:08 EDT From: daveh%cbmvax.uucp%UDEL.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu Subject: Re: Next Amiga system Message-ID: <4486@louie.udel.EDU> Date: 4 Oct 88 02:07:55 GMT To: amiga-relay@UDEL.EDU Sender: amiga-relay-request@UDEL.EDU Received: from CUNYVM by CUNYVM.BITNET (Mailer X2.00) with BSMTP id 6052; Mon, 03 Oct 88 22:04:31 EDT Received: from UDEL.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.1) with TCP; Mon, 03 Oct 88 22:04:27 EDT Received: from Louie.UDEL.EDU by Louie.UDEL.EDU id ak10567; 3 Oct 88 18:11 EDT Received: from USENET by Louie.UDEL.EDU id aa10357; 3 Oct 88 18:00 EDT From: daveh%cbmvax.uucp@UDEL.EDU Subject: Re: Next Amiga system Message-ID: <4392@louie.udel.EDU> Date: 3 Oct 88 21:59:45 GMT To: amiga-relay@UDEL.EDU Sender: amiga-relay-request@UDEL.EDU Received: from CUNYVM by CUNYVM.BITNET (Mailer X2.00) with BSMTP id 5935; Fri, 30 Sep 88 21:32:52 EDT Received: from UDEL.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.1) with TCP; Fri, 30 Sep 88 21:32:48 EDT Received: from Louie.UDEL.EDU by Louie.UDEL.EDU id ae17280; 30 Sep 88 20:37 EDT Received: by Louie.UDEL.EDU id ae17131; 30 Sep 88 20:25 EDT Received: from USENET by Louie.UDEL.EDU id aa16729; 30 Sep 88 20:11 EDT From: Dave Haynie <daveh@cbmvax.uucp> Subject: Re: Next Amiga system Message-ID: <4907@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 30 Sep 88 20:12:54 GMT Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA To: amiga-relay@UDEL.EDU Sender: amiga-relay-request@UDEL.EDU in article <8809290745.AA20082@decwrl.dec.com>, rmeyers@tle.dec.com (Randy Meyers 381-2743 ZKO2-3/N30) says: > ...As for me, I prefer a more powerful Amiga. ... What I want to know is, why does everyone think IBM compatibility and more powerful Amigas are mutually exclusive? In fact, they've got nothing what so ever to do with one another. The IBM slots in the Amiga 2000 required zero, 0, ZIP, NIL, NULL, none, void, etc. engineering effort. They're just a bunch of connectors with power and ground in the right place. Bridge cards are designed by people who'd otherwise be designing PC-10s or PC-20s or whatever, so they don't get in the way of Amiga people doing great Amiga things. So what's the big deal? You get something that lots of people want (I'll even use a Bridge card until CUPL is available on the Amiga. In fact, I'll trade my Bridge card, PC hard disk, and 5.25" floppy for an Amiga verison of CUPL) or even have a use for, and it doesn't cost anything. > Randy Meyers, not representing Digital Equipment Corporation > USENET: {decwrl|decvax|decuac}!tle.dec.com!rmeyers > ARPA: rmeyers%tle.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (10/04/88)
(My original message) >> 6 would be an improvment, but not a great enough leap to be meaningful. >> 8 is the bare competitive minimum for today's market (8 bits per gun that is). Peter da Silva peter@sugar.uu.net Writes: > >It may be a competitive minimum, but is it a real requirement after all? Can >people really distinguish 256 levels of red, green, and blue? Just because >the 8-bit DACs are cheap doesn't mean they're really necessary. Don't you mean, "can people really distinguish 64 levels of" ?? If, presumably, you are arguing for 6 bits/gun rather than 8 bits/gun as being reasonable. The answer is yes, you can, to both 64 and 256 levels. We still are nowhere near photographic quality. The best high-res monitors I saw at the desk-top publishing conference were awesome, and I was really struct by them UNTIL I looked at a very high end photographic quality output device (forgot the name, but it was huge, incredibly expensive, used a photographic process, and accepted postscript). -Matt
space@sns.UUCP (Lars Soltau) (10/04/88)
In article <2741@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > I can take the (not inconsiderable) cost of the hardware >necessary to put a killer UNIX on an Amiga and invest it in a 386 clone >with UNIX. > >Yes, if you get the idea I don't see the market for the 2500UX, you're >right... I for one definitely want to run UN*X on my Amy 2000. The reason is that with the exception of the MC68851 PMMU every single piece of hardware I have to buy to be able to run UN*X also increases throughput if I run AmigaDOS. I have to buy a 68020 card (hopefully I will be able to buy it soon -- CATS?) with a 68881 (optionally) and some (>= 2MB) 32bit RAM. All of this will also make the machine fly under AmigaDOS. So I get UN*X for the cost of the software, say (hopefully) somewhere below $1000. -- Lars Soltau UUCP: uunet!unido!sns!spcnet!space BIX: -- no bucks -- Here's looking at you, kid! -- the Medusa
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (10/04/88)
I still am in love with the concept of software emulation of the IBM PC. Given a 680[23]0 Amiga, I think the emulation would go adequately fast. So give us a bigger amiga, and a newer, better pc emulator.
wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (10/05/88)
In article <2745@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <8810030229.AA19219@cory.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > > Peter da Silva peter@sugar.uu.net Writes: > > It may be a competitive minimum, but is it a real requirement after all? Can > people really distinguish 256 levels of red, green, and blue? Just because > the 8-bit DACs are cheap doesn't mean they're really necessary. Most people can only distinguish about 30 shades of a given color, this tends to lead people to think that only 5 or 6 bits of each color in enough. This isn't really correct since the eye is very non-linear and DAC output tends to be linear. This means that while there may be plenty of shades at high intensities there is often too few at low intensities. Another problem comes in with the mixing of red, blue, and green to make other colors. The eye's response to each color is different, so this requires yet more color control to get the exact shades. Finally, the graphics world as a whole accepts 8 bits per color as a reasonable standard. There I say if the Next Amiga really is a true graphics computer, is should allow 8 bits per color. > > The need for one or more blitters is quite obvious. > > Maybe not a given. Did you follow the blitter wars in comp.arch? Though a > blitter that talks over the video bus and lets you run another task might > be a different matter. Here! Here! A lot of people (including myself) believe that things like bus bandwidth are more useful than blitters. Blitters seem great in a 2D world, but hey we live in a 3D visual world. Has anyone used a blitter to aid in 3D graphics yet? Wayne Knapp P.S. The reason why 8-bit DACs are getting cheap is because there is a large demand for then. Haven't you guys wondered why there are so many 8-bit triple DACs out there?
Sullivan@cup.portal.com (10/05/88)
>> 6 would be an improvment, but not a great enough leap to be meaningful. >> 8 is the bare competitive minimum for today's market (8 bits per gun that is). > >It may be a competitive minimum, but is it a real requirement after all? Can >people really distinguish 256 levels of red, green, and blue? Just because >the 8-bit DACs are cheap doesn't mean they're really necessary. > > YES, it is neccessary. The difference between 256 steps and 64 steps per gun is dramatic. It is most noticeable when you are trying to do smooth shading. 64 step smooth shading has to be dithered to end up looking very good at all. A DAC is acceptably wide when you can fill the screen with two colors, each to half of the screen, which are different by one bit at any intensity, in any gun, and you can't tell exactly where the division line is. -Sullivan Segall (still looking for a 68881 that can be piggy-backed on a 68000) _____________________________________________________________ /V\ My opinions are guaranteed to be worth at least what you ' paid for them. If you are dissatisfied, please return them to the nearest vendor for a full and prompt refund. To Quote the immortal Socrates: "I drank what?" -Sullivan _____________________________________________________________ Mail to: ...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Sullivan or Sullivan@cup.portal.com
sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) (10/05/88)
In Message <2741@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <3618.AA3618@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: >> *Plus (and this is the kicker!) >> Unix! > >Unless I can run Deluxe Music (or whatever) under it, why should I get >Amiga UNIX? I can take the (not inconsiderable) cost of the hardware >necessary to put a killer UNIX on an Amiga and invest it in a 386 clone >with UNIX. That way I get all the advantages of UNIX, a multiport card, >*AND* I can run Sculpt-3d. Stick it all in a 2000 if I have one. > What are you getting at Peter? Do you want a Un*x version of Deluxe Music? Or do you just want to run AmigaDOS & Un*x at the same time (like we do with the bridgeboard & Messy-DOS)? I think a 386 clone & Un*x would cost you more than the Amiga Un*x (but until its released thats up for debate). Plus im not sure how your going to run Sculpt-3d on Un*x unless they have a version im not aware of. Finally im sure that you are well aware of the multi-serial ports discussions a few months back. Regarding this issue im sure it will not be much longe before something becomes available. >Yes, if you get the idea I don't see the market for the 2500UX, you're >right... I get the idea your not happy with something, but im not sure what or why. -- Dan "Sneakers" Schein {alegra|amiga|rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!heimat!sneakers Sneakers Computing 2455 McKinley Ave. Of course heimat is an Amiga. West Lawn, PA 19609 Doesn't everyone run UUCP & UseNet on an Amiga? Call: BERKS AMIGA BBS - 40 Meg - 24 Hrs - 3/12/2400 Baud - 215/678-7691
brianm@sco.COM (Brian Moffet) (10/05/88)
In article <3320@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: >Most people can only distinguish about 30 shades of a given color, this tends >to lead people to think that only 5 or 6 bits of each color in enough. This There is 1 other problem that is more important than human recognition. It's called the Mach Effect (I believe) This effect is the eyes ability to differentiate differences in color when these colors are right next to each other. Normally the eye can't tell the differece between shade 1 and shade 2 of green. However, make these 2 shades butted up against each other and suddenly the human can see the difference. There are some computer graphics specialists that can distinguish over 200 colors of green when the mach effect kicks in. I assume this artifact came out to keep people from being eaten by leaf green saber toothed tigers in a forest :-) -- Brian Moffet {uunet,decvax!microsoft,ucscc}!sco!brianm -or- ...sco!alar!brian "Evil Geniuses for a better tomoorow!" My fish and company have policies. I have opinions.
Sullivan@cup.portal.com (10/06/88)
>> Maybe not a given. Did you follow the blitter wars in comp.arch? Though a >> blitter that talks over the video bus and lets you run another task might >> be a different matter. > >Here! Here! A lot of people (including myself) believe that things like >bus bandwidth are more useful than blitters. Blitters seem great in a 2D >world, but hey we live in a 3D visual world. Has anyone used a blitter to >aid in 3D graphics yet? Do you have a three-dee display? More than likely, your 3D graphics are being reduced to 2D for display. Since the blitter is a hardware device designed to assist in manipulating the final images, it still has a part even in your machine. (Of course, since it can do several fundamental mathematical functions on large arrays of numbers, it has been used for other purposes. As soon as HD3DTV comes out I'll trade in my blitter for my new neutronic-plate-carbon-brain. :-) -Sullivan Segall _____________________________________________________________ /V\ Sully set the example: to fly without moving. We shall ' learn to soar on wings of thought. And the student will surpass the teacher. To Quote the immortal Socrates: "I drank what?" -Sullivan _____________________________________________________________ Mail to: ...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!Sullivan or Sullivan@cup.portal.com
spierce@pnet01.cts.com (Stuart Pierce) (10/06/88)
I also would like to see an enhanced version of Transformer. I had the chance to play with DBase III+ under Transformer this weekend, and I was impressed with the emulation. I imagine the performance would be acceptable with a 68020/68881 card, but it really needs Hercules graphics capability to be useful. Stuart Pierce
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (10/06/88)
In article <3320@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM> wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: >Here! Here! A lot of people (including myself) believe that things like >bus bandwidth are more useful than blitters. Blitters seem great in a 2D >world, but hey we live in a 3D visual world. Has anyone used a blitter to >aid in 3D graphics yet? > Sega seems to do quite well with them. Outrun et. al. use scaling blitters. Actually, what they use is a dedicated 68000 to perform the needed blitting, but it's the same principle. Nevertheless, I'd like a Geometry Engine, too. Does anyone have any benchmarks on the XTAR chipset? _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: UUCP: pacbell > !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/06/88)
In article <3678.AA3678@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: > What are you getting at Peter? Do you want a Un*x version of Deluxe Music? Be nice, but no. > Or do you just want to run AmigaDOS & Un*x at the same time (like we do > with the bridgeboard & Messy-DOS)? Give the man a cigar. Yes, this is what I want to do. To be precise, I want to run UNIX *under* AmigaDOS. I want a real-time UNIX. This technology has been demonstrated (BSD under Mach, for example) and I believe that everything UNIX needs is provided by AmigaDOS. > I think a 386 clone & Un*x would cost > you more than the Amiga Un*x (but until its released thats up for debate). Maybe, maybe not. But within a few months of introduction, if chip prices fall the way they usually do, a 386 clone + UNIX will definitely be cheaper. Quantity, quantity, quantity. You should be spending your resources on stuff that Only The Amiga (tm) can do. > Regarding [serial-ports] im > sure it will not be much longe before something becomes available. Information. We want... Information. You are number 6. > I get the idea your not happy with something, but im not sure what or why. I want something so revolutionary that it will bring the Amiga back to the front of the pack. It's like a drag-racer... it was way ahead at first, but it's beginning to run out of gas and the bad guys on their mopeds are catching up. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/06/88)
In article <9742@cup.portal.com>, Sullivan@cup.portal.com writes: I said: > >Can people really distinguish 256 levels of red, green, and blue? > YES, it is neccessary. The difference between 256 steps and 64 steps per > gun is dramatic. OK, Sully! OK already everyone else! People can distinguish 256 levels of RGB! I get the picture. I'm sorry I brought it up. I'll cancel my Byte subscription all over again. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
daveh@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (10/06/88)
CUPL is a PAL compiler. It accepts a reasonably high level language that lets one describe PAL equations (actually, equations for general programmable devices). For a circuit designer using PALs, it's the equivalent of C or so, where the PALASM program is akin to a non-macro assembler. -Dave
brianm@sco.COM (Brian Moffet) (10/06/88)
In article dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > Peter da Silva peter@sugar.uu.net Writes: >> >>It may be a competitive minimum, but is it a real requirement after all? Can >>people really distinguish 256 levels of red, green, and blue? > > Don't you mean, "can people really distinguish 64 levels of" ?? >If, presumably, you are arguing for 6 bits/gun rather than 8 bits/gun as being >reasonable. The answer is yes, you can, to both 64 and 256 levels. Matt is correct. I wrote a small article in comp.graphics (I think) which sort of describes the Mach Effect. This is the human eyes ability to distinguish 2 different colors when they are next to each other even though the human would not be able to tell the difference if they were apart from each other. I found that in order to get *good* shading on a math project I was doing I needed 512 shades of color. The object was all the same color (cyan) with specular and diffuse reflection (with shadows of course). These pictures did not use dithering, and thus the port to my amiga looks pretty bad. (only 16 shades). brian -- Brian Moffet {uunet,decvax!microsoft,ucscc}!sco!brianm -or- ...sco!alar!brian "Evil Geniuses for a better tomoorow!" My fish and company have policies. I have opinions.
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (10/07/88)
in article <2741@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) says: > Xref: killer comp.sys.amiga:24520 comp.sys.amiga.tech:2384 > > In article <3618.AA3618@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: >> *Plus (and this is the kicker!) >> Unix! > > Unless I can run Deluxe Music (or whatever) under it, why should I get > Amiga UNIX? I can take the (not inconsiderable) cost of the hardware > necessary to put a killer UNIX on an Amiga and invest it in a 386 clone The (not inconsiderable) cost of the hardware is the exact same amount that you would spend to get killer AmigaDOS. Watching Mandelbrots on a 68020 machine is not the slow meditation that it is on a 68000 machine. I doubt that many people will get the 68020 card to run Unix. Rather, I suspect most of them will get it to run killer Amiga. (as for me: Yes, I'd run it, but mostly because of all the PD Unix-based software such as GNU Emacs, which most Amigans would not be aquainted with). -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 Q: How is Amigaworld like a (void) function? A: Neither returns anything of value.
kgschlueter@violet.waterloo.edu (Kevin Schlueter) (10/08/88)
<Talk about blitter not being useful for 3D> I don't agree that the blitter isn't all that useful for 3D. In general, you take your 3d objects (usually polygons), project them and clip them, after which you end up with 2d polygons which are then rendered. The blitter is quite useful for rendering 2d polygons, although it would be a thousand times more useful if it could do smooth shading (Phong would be nice, but it seems that hardware shaders tend to do Gouraud). Basically, what I'm saying is that the blitter is not useless but rather that its functions are a subset of what is needed. A smooth shading blitter, along with a larger palette, would greatly enhance the Amiga's graphics capability (and as I mentioned in a previous posting, a 4x4 matrix multiplier and a clipper chip would make it a real Mac II beater).
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/08/88)
In article <5741@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: > I doubt that many people will get the 68020 card to run Unix. Rather, > I suspect most of them will get it to run killer Amiga. Yeh, that I can dig. But I don't need a SV binary license for that. Besides, I don't wanna reboot! Rebooting is for PCs. (you can tell the man is getting a little crazed here) -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto) (10/08/88)
In article <2756@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Give the man a cigar. Yes, this is what I want to do. To be precise, I want >to run UNIX *under* AmigaDOS. I want a real-time UNIX. Running Unix under AmigaDOS would certainly not make it real-time Unix; it would be less real-time than if it were running directly on the machine. If a real-time Unix did exist for the Amiga, then it would make more sense to run Exec under Unix than the other way around. > This technology has >been demonstrated (BSD under Mach, for example) and I believe that everything >UNIX needs is provided by AmigaDOS. ... except reliability. It could work, but it would give me the willies. All that nice memory protection gone to waste as soon as you run a buggy AmigaDOS program. (Oops! Guru meditation!? Now I have to sit through another fsck!) Another possibility is to run Exec under Unix in a virtual machine... sounds awful, but that's what the Ms.Dos folks do with VP/IX and such. Real-time would be almost out of the question if this were done under "standard" Unix. Yet another possibility is to run them almost side-by-side -- have Unix at the core, but Exec tasks could be Unix processes. The Exec tasks could all run in the same context (like the current Exec) or in separate memory spaces with a big chunk of MEMF_PUBLIC shared memory. If enough of the graphics library & intuition were in the Unix kernel, they could achieve real-time response. And the best part ... if you run a buggy program, the worst that would happen is you might crash *one* of your virtual Amigas. (So you just go type "!!" on Unix and your in business again :-). And there are at least half a dozen other interesting ways to combine Unix and Amiga software... the above is just idle speculation. I agree with Peter da Silva that something really exciting could and should be done in this area, but I suppose we have to start with the essentials. -- -=] Ford [=- "The number of Unix installations (In Real Life: Mike Ditto) has grown to 10, with more expected." ford@kenobi.cts.com - The Unix Programmer's Manual, ...!sdcsvax!crash!elgar!ford 2nd Edition, June, 1972. ditto@cbmvax.commodore.com
DMasterson@cup.portal.com (10/09/88)
In article <2741@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Yes, if you get the idea I don't see the market for the 2500UX, you're >right... Hmmm... This weeks Computerworld made mention of the Amiga in a large table comparing various PCs, Workstations, Minis, etc. (actually it was a bunch of tables, but...). In the row for Commodore was listed the Amiga models (500, 2000, 2000HD, 2500). In the columns were listed things like price, speed, HD capacity, and operating systems. For the A2500, they listed a processor speed of 14.3Mhz and operating systems of AmigaDos, MS/DOS, Unix, and C64!! Does Computerworld know something we don't?? Has CBM announced...?? David Masterson DMasterson@cup.portal.com
sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) (10/09/88)
In Message <2756@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <3678.AA3678@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: >> What are you getting at Peter? Do you want a Un*x version of Deluxe Music? > >Be nice, but no. > Somehow the idea of Deluxe Music under Unix reminds me of the difference (sound wise) between Flight Simulator on the Amiga and a MS-DOS machine. >> Or do you just want to run AmigaDOS & Un*x at the same time (like we do >> with the bridgeboard & Messy-DOS)? > >Give the man a cigar. Yes, this is what I want to do. To be precise, I want >to run UNIX *under* AmigaDOS. I want a real-time UNIX. This technology has >been demonstrated (BSD under Mach, for example) and I believe that everything >UNIX needs is provided by AmigaDOS. > Mike Ditto has explained (rather well) why this is not the ideal choice. And I could not agree more. >> I think a 386 clone & Un*x would cost >> you more than the Amiga Un*x (but until its released thats up for debate). > >Maybe, maybe not. But within a few months of introduction, if chip prices >fall the way they usually do, a 386 clone + UNIX will definitely be cheaper. >Quantity, quantity, quantity. > Well when a 386 machine w/Unix becomes cheaper than Unix for the Amiga, guess I can have a backup system :-) For some reason I just don't see where someone can produce an entire machine (hd, monitor, ect) and include Unix for less that CBM can sell a HD and Unix. Im basing this on *not including* a 020 board because some of us already have them ;-) -=- but even with a 020 board it shouldnt cost more. Remember when ram prices drop for a 386, they also drop for a 020. And as the 386 increases in popularity and prices drop, the same thing is happening for the 020 as well. >You should be spending your resources on stuff that Only The Amiga (tm) can >do. > I agree to a point. Yes there are things that the Amiga would just be better at than other computers, but just as important is the ability to do the things that other computers *CAN* do. >> Regarding [serial-ports] im >> sure it will not be much longe before something becomes available. > >Information. We want... Information. You are number 6. > #6 for what ?!? >> I get the idea your not happy with something, but im not sure what or why. > >I want something so revolutionary that it will bring the Amiga back to the >front of the pack. It's like a drag-racer... it was way ahead at first, but it's >beginning to run out of gas and the bad guys on their mopeds are catching up. Maybe im beginning to see the problem here..... What are mopeds (and bad guys) doing on a drag strip? -- Dan "Sneakers" Schein {alegra|amiga|rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!heimat!sneakers Sneakers Computing 2455 McKinley Ave. Of course heimat is an Amiga. West Lawn, PA 19609 Doesn't everyone run UUCP & UseNet on an Amiga? Call: BERKS AMIGA BBS - 40 Meg - 24 Hrs - 3/12/2400 Baud - 215/678-7691
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/09/88)
In article <4964@cbmvax.UUCP>, ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto) writes: > In article <2756@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Give the man a cigar. Yes, this is what I want to do. To be precise, I want > >to run UNIX *under* AmigaDOS. I want a real-time UNIX. > Running Unix under AmigaDOS would certainly not make it real-time Unix; it > would be less real-time than if it were running directly on the machine. I'm not talking about having a big program that was the UNIX kernel running under AmigaDOS. I'm talking about making each process a seperate Exec task, subject to Exec scheduling, but with protection. Make each a big contiguous lump of memory with a virtual zero origin, etc... but handled by Exec. > If a real-time Unix did exist for the Amiga, then it would make more sense > to run Exec under Unix than the other way around. The only way to get a *real* real-time UNIX is to replace MOST of the UNIX kernel with a real-time executive. Abandon the UNIX coroutine model, make device drivers tasks (not UNIX processes, maybe, but tasks within the kernel). Make UNIX processes protected tasks. Protected from each other, at least. Why look, the Amiga Exec is a real-time kernel! What a convenient happenstance... > ... except reliability. It could work, but it would give me > the willies. All that nice memory protection gone to waste as soon as > you run a buggy AmigaDOS program. (Oops! Guru meditation!? Now I > have to sit through another fsck!) So if you want reliability don't run buggy AmigaDOS software. I have never gurud since I've gotten 1.2 except when I was running a known buggy program, such as something I'm developing or Manx VI. > Another possibility is to run Exec under Unix in a virtual machine... > sounds awful, but that's what the Ms.Dos folks do with VP/IX and such. This is totally out of the question. The Amiga Exec's primary advantage is that it's small and fast. Running it in a virtual machine is unreasonable. I would not WANT AmigaDOS on these terms... all its advantages would be gone. > Yet another possibility is to run them almost side-by-side -- have Unix at > the core, but Exec tasks could be Unix processes. Again, out of the question. UNIX tasks have too much overhead. > If enough of the graphics > library & intuition were in the Unix kernel, they could achieve real-time > response. Sticking more things in the UNIX kernel is a bad thing to do. There's too much pure garbage in there already. The UNIX kernel is a nightmare. The UNIX programming environment is a dream. On the other hand, the Amiga Exec is beautiful and the Amiga programming environment is, well, too many pizzas before bedtime. You'd get something, but real-time response isn't it. Look at a Sun some time. I'm not bashing Suns, but the display can be slow. This isn't their fault, it's UNIX's. There really hasn't been any fundamental change in how UNIX works in 10 years. And the AT&T/Sun merge, or the OSF effort, is just more of the same. > And there are at least half a dozen other interesting ways to combine Unix > and Amiga software... the above is just idle speculation. I agree with > Peter da Silva that something really exciting could and should be done > in this area, but I suppose we have to start with the essentials. The essentials are there already. A good real-time kernel. If you've ever done unprotected realtime work you would be amazed how *stable* the Amiga Exec is. It's a *lot* less likely to toss its cookies than even some protected realtime systems I've used. Don't throw out the best parts of this system just for the sake of a buzzword. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) (10/10/88)
In article <4392@louie.udel.EDU>, daveh%cbmvax.uucp@UDEL.EDU writes: > > in article <8809290745.AA20082@decwrl.dec.com>, rmeyers@tle.dec.com (Randy > Meyers 381-2743 ZKO2-3/N30) says: > > > ...As for me, I prefer a more powerful Amiga. ... > > What I want to know is, why does everyone think IBM compatibility and more > powerful Amigas are mutually exclusive? In fact, they've got nothing what > so ever to do with one another. The IBM slots in the Amiga 2000 required > zero, 0, ZIP, NIL, NULL, none, void, etc. engineering effort. They're just > a bunch of connectors with power and ground in the right place. Bridge > cards are designed by people who'd otherwise be designing PC-10s or PC-20s > or whatever, so they don't get in the way of Amiga people doing great Amiga > things. So what's the big deal? You get something that lots of people want > (I'll even use a Bridge card until CUPL is available on the Amiga. In fact, > I'll trade my Bridge card, PC hard disk, and 5.25" floppy for an Amiga verison > of CUPL) or even have a use for, and it doesn't cost anything. > > Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" > {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy > "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!" Engineers are so blissfully unaware of finances. Sigh. If you think for one minute that Commodore didn't sink a bundle of money into the IBM compatibility you need to see the figures to REALLY see what it costs. The point you are missing is that: "WE JUST DON'T CARE!" If we wanted an IBM, we would have bought one, or at the least a suitable clone. But that isn't what we want! We want more colors, higher res non-interlaced. Also, a machine with the mother board running at twice the clock frequency wouldn't be sniffed at either. And what did we get? What we didn't want. I have no reason to rush down to the store to get the 2000 since it offered me nothing more than what I already had with my 1000. The price differential alone allows me to buy expansion chassis with hard disk, etc. But if you came out with a 3000 with the features I just mentioned, immediate planning would be under way to acquire one of the beasts! Oh yes, I forgot. Leave the IBM slots out and put all Amiga ones in it. Also include the math coprocessor. dharvey@wsccs
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (10/10/88)
in article <219@sns.UUCP>, space@sns.UUCP (Lars Soltau) says: > Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.amiga:25850 comp.sys.amiga.tech:2656 > I for one definitely want to run UN*X on my Amy 2000. The reason is that > with the exception of the MC68851 PMMU every single piece of hardware I have > to buy to be able to run UN*X also increases throughput if I run AmigaDOS. Actually, if you consider all of your ROM Kernel libraries running out of 32 bit, 14.3 MHz memory rather than 16 bit, 7.16 MHZ memory, a throughput increase (hint -- try it and you will), then even the PMMU will help you when running the Amiga OS. > I have to buy a 68020 card (hopefully I will be able to buy it soon -- CATS?) > with a 68881 (optionally) and some (>= 2MB) 32bit RAM. Not sure if the '881 is optional or required. The RAM configurations are 2Meg and 4Meg. > So I get UN*X for the cost of the software, say (hopefully) somewhere below $1000. Starts to make sense, then, eh? > Lars Soltau UUCP: uunet!unido!sns!spcnet!space BIX: -- no bucks -- -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (10/12/88)
>James E. Haleblian "Mac II: The Volkswagen Beetle of Personal Computing." > I may have missed the point here, but what I understood is that you're >talking here about 8 bits per gun, making 16 million colors. My understanding >was that normal eyeballs can't distinguish over 4 million colors and anything It is a combination of the # of colors and the pixel density. To make up for the several orders of magnitude greater density the eye can see verses what we can put in high resolution monitors, one must increase the number of colors per pixel available. There is a limit to that particular solution but it is one of main reasons for having so many colors. Think about it.. if you had a 6000x6000 high pixel density screen you could use 4 bits per gun and a 6x6 shading matrix to achieve a perceived (guess) 2^12 shades per color. At lower densities and resolution, like HAM (read: most of the currently existing technology), you can't even use a 2x2 matrix because you can see each individual pixel. Thus, you need more pixels per gun to make up for it. -Matt
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (10/12/88)
in article <3590.AA3590@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) says: >>> I think a 386 clone & Un*x would cost >>> you more than the Amiga Un*x (but until its released thats up for debate). >>Maybe, maybe not. But within a few months of introduction, if chip prices >>fall the way they usually do, a 386 clone + UNIX will definitely be cheaper. >>Quantity, quantity, quantity. >> > Well when a 386 machine w/Unix becomes cheaper than Unix for the Amiga, guess > I can have a backup system :-) For some reason I just don't see where someone > can produce an entire machine (hd, monitor, ect) and include Unix for less > that CBM can sell a HD and Unix. It's called VOLUME. The three biggest mail order outlets probably sell more hard drives in an hour than Commodore Unix would ship in a year. I have seen complete 80386 clones selling for $2200. I'll leave the cost of the 4mb of RAM out for the moment, since both computers would need that 4mb. But: 80mb hard drive, $600. Bell Technologies Unix, $400. So that's $1,000 total. $3200 before 4mb is added in (which at current DRAM prices would be maybe $1500, alas). The cost of an equivalent Amiga Unix would be: A-2000: $2200 (monitor & computer, "street" cost). Hard drive interface: $300 68020 board: $1000 or so. Hard drive (SCSI, 80mb): $800 (unless you figure some way of mouting a full-height ST4096 in an Amiga!). Amiga Unix: let's be charitable and say $300. Already, we're up to $4600, and still rising. There's advantages: you have a windowing environment, and you can run Killer Amiga when you're not running Unix. But if you want a full-time Unix environment for a low cost (e.g. a public access Unix system), the 80386 is definitely the way to go. > Im basing this on *not including* a 020 > board because some of us already have them AH, but those of us who already have 020 boards can't use them with Amiga Unix! So the cost of the '020 board is a definite part of the expense of running Amiga Unix. >>Information. We want... Information. You are number 6. >> > #6 for what ?!? Poor confused Dan, has never encountered the underground classic series "The Prisoner". Watch it, Dan. It has been ten years since I last saw it (on PBS), and it still gives me shivers just thinking about it.... a hint: I am officially #433-xx-xxxx to the University of Southwestern Louisiana. -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 It's understandable that Mike Dukakis thinks he can walk on water. He's used to walking on Boston harbor.
nor1675@dsacg2.UUCP (Michael Figg) (10/12/88)
In article <3320@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>, wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: > > P.S. The reason why 8-bit DACs are getting cheap is because there is a large > demand for then. Haven't you guys wondered why there are so many 8-bit triple > DACs out there? Does this explain why 256k chips are still so cheap? :-) I always thought that large demand caused prices to go up. In fact I thought this was one of the principles that America was built on. Now if supply is even greater than demand it would be a different story but that would mean there wasn't really a large demand (relatively speaking). -- "Better graphics with crayons" Michael Figg DLA Systems Automation Center Columbus, Oh. (614)-238-9036
kgschlueter@violet.waterloo.edu (Kevin Schlueter) (10/12/88)
I'm concerned with the speed of native amiga implementations when run (on the same processor) simultaneously with UNIX. When I run SunTools on a Sun 3/50, the first thing I notice is how slow and unresponsive it is compared to my Amiga. I realize that running SunTools on a Sun and running native Amiga applications with Unix are not exact analogs. The lesson we should get from this, I think, is that we had better not forgot that the average user really doesn't care if Unix is running but certainly does care if his (or her) machine becomes unuseably slow. NB: The above is not a flame at Sun.
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/13/88)
In article <3590.AA3590@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: > For some reason I just don't see where someone > can produce an entire machine (hd, monitor, ect) and include Unix for less > that CBM can sell a HD and Unix. You're comparing apples and cinammon. AmigaDOS and UNIX are complementary. If I buy a 386 clone and UNIX I won't have to ever say "Hey, I can't show you "Boing-V: The Debate" because I've finally got on UUNET after 3 nights of trying". Rebooting to switch operating systems is for weenies with Macs and PCs. > Im basing this on *not including* a 020 > board because some of us already have them ;-) -=- but even with a 020 board > it shouldnt cost more. I'm basing it on a complete Amiga 2000, because some of us don't already have them. Like, for example, most of the potential UNIX market. An Amiga 2000 running UNIX isn't going to give them much that a 386 plus a 500 won't, and the 386-plus-500 will be more versatile. Yes, I'd like UNIX for my Amiga. But unless it does something UNIX for a 386 doesn't... while running UNIX... it's not something hat will sell that many *new* Amigas. > >Information. We want... Information. You are number 6. > #6 for what ?!? Never seen the British TV show "The Prisoner"? > Maybe im beginning to see the problem here..... What are mopeds (and bad guys) > doing on a drag strip? Hey, I didn't invite them. But they're there. Don't you remember, one of them tried to sabotage you while you were setting up? Jack T. was his name. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
glenns@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) (10/13/88)
Bonjour! Hello! Aloha!
I am new the USENET, and I feel I have something of substance to add to the
current discussion on the next Amiga.
The Amiga is a wonderful machine, I know, I have one (A500 w/ 1Meg 2floppies)
and have enjoyed programming/gaming with it. However, my feelings about
this machine are prejudiced by my previous computer (C=64), and the fact
that I love the 68k, and deplore Intel architecture.
This fine work of architecture (:-) has many flaws, and doesn't stand a
chance against impending machines. These machines will undoubtedly leap
the standard of user interface/speed/graphics/memory/sound/multitasking
set by the Amiga, and do it with style! (unlike C='s style).
The most important part of a computer (argue as you will) is it's ability
to run software that the user wants. (i.e. "SOLUTIONS" :-)
Microsoft, WordPerfect, AshtonTate, Bor(ing)land, and LOTUS define THE
STANDARD (tm :-( The Amiga is destined to ride the bench of has beens
if it doesn't either (1) surpass the standard, or (2) be compatable with
the standard. Seeing as these companies will not support the Amiga
until a large enough installed base is present (~ 5 million and growing),
the Amiga MUST gain access to a TARDIS (Dr. Who :-) and move agressively
into the unknown.
Laugh (Cry?) as you may, the Intel 386 will be the processor of choice
for business in the future. Business leads to home use, and thus Intel
will dominate. The Amiga is not far enough ahead in hardware supremacy
to influence this outcome. Sound with only four channels, and no major
Digital Signal Processing, is very limited; MIDI is a requirement, not
a 79$ option, which uses desk space/board space. The video resolution
MUST be in the range of VGA (640x480) with minimum 8 bit planes for
use in complex shading, and multiple plane animation. You can bet the
machines yet to come will not be limited to 1 Meg of Graphics/Sound
or have a MEASLY processor speed of 7+ MHz (or even 14+ MHz with CMI 2x).
Fixed disk storage, and possibly optical disks are a must for any
serious computer user. I should not have to pay the exhorb... mascive...
er... large (:-) amounts of green gold as is now the case.
The NEW AMIGA (tm) will HAVE to appeal to people as the RIGHT (?)
computer for their needs. Forget the IBM compatability, rather,
think about MS-WINDOWS/PM compatability. (Have you seen EXCEL, or
ALDUS PAGEMAKER?, they BLOW AWAY any programs of their type for the
Amiga, and they are STANDARDS!) Yea! Thats the ticket, Eh!
--
Microsoft (tm) (c) (etc) does not speak for me, so why should I speak for them?
Glenn Steffler glenns@microsoft.UUCP work phone: (206)-882-8080 x4171
gpsteffler@electrical.watstar.{waterloo.edu,UWaterloo.CA}
#define BRAIN_DEAD_RED_HEAD (CANADA > USA) ? (TRUE) : (FALSE)peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/13/88)
In article <229@dsacg2.UUCP>, nor1675@dsacg2.UUCP (Michael Figg) writes: > In article <3320@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>, wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: > > P.S. The reason why 8-bit DACs are getting cheap is because there is a large > > demand for then. Haven't you guys wondered why there are so many 8-bit triple > > DACs out there? > Does this explain why 256k chips are still so cheap? :-) I always thought > that large demand caused prices to go up. At a given cost of production, yes. But there's this thing called economies of scale... the demand goes up, so the price goes up. This means that people ramp up the supply. You get a lower cost of production because you can share the cost of the assembly line used to produce the chips between more chips. Now the prices go down until the new equilibrium is reached. Of course this increases the demand, you get higher prices, more supply, lower prices. Eventually you get to the point where everyone is using all the 8-bit DACS they can and the demand becomes inelastic. But by now prices are pretty low and people are buying plenty. Everyone's happy, except the people who's job is building assembly lines. So, you come up with the 12-bit DAC... Or maybe a faster 8-bit ADC for image capture. Or something else. The problem with RAM chips is that the government panicked after the cost of production began sliding and forced an artificial shortage. This halted the slide in the cost of production. The people whose job it is to build assembly lines decided that they needed to start early on the 1 megabit parts. Of course, they're not quite as mature so the yeilds are lower. This means higher costs of production and lower supply. Nobody's happy, except for the people who build assembly lines. > In fact I thought this was one of > the principles that America was built on. Franklin would agree. Jefferson wouldn't. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (10/14/88)
in article <723@wsccs.UUCP>, dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) says: > Summary: NO EFFORT OR MONEY? > In article <4392@louie.udel.EDU>, daveh%cbmvax.uucp@UDEL.EDU writes: >> in article <8809290745.AA20082@decwrl.dec.com>, rmeyers@tle.dec.com (Randy >> Meyers 381-2743 ZKO2-3/N30) says: >> > ...As for me, I prefer a more powerful Amiga. ... >> What I want to know is, why does everyone think IBM compatibility and more >> powerful Amigas are mutually exclusive? In fact, they've got nothing what >> so ever to do with one another. The IBM slots in the Amiga 2000 required >> zero, 0, ZIP, NIL, NULL, none, void, etc. engineering effort. > Engineers are so blissfully unaware of finances. Sigh. If you think > for one minute that Commodore didn't sink a bundle of money into the > IBM compatibility you need to see the figures to REALLY see what it > costs. Certainly Commodore spent SOME money building the Bridge Card. But you still refuse to read what I'm writing. Commodore doesn't just make the Amiga, though that's where most of the engineering effort these days exists. We also have people who make the Commodore IBM Clones: PC-10, PC-20, PC-40, PC-60, Colt, etc. The group in Germany that designs PC Clones has been around longer than the Amiga group at Commodore. The XT Bridge Card is mainly an outgrowth of the design efforts in Germany. Basically, the thing was nearly paid for, in terms of design, engineering effort, etc, before it was built. The only real investment in Amiga people has been for the software. > The point you are missing is that: "WE JUST DON'T CARE!" No, YOU just don't care. Statistically speaking, over 1/2 of A2000 owners do care. They probably care a great deal more than I do about it. YOU obviously have a problem with this Bridge Card that goes deeper than just complaining about the existence of just one more Zorro II Card, which is basically the level at which I regard Bridge Cards. You also seem to be overstepping your bounds here, claiming knowledge of both the internal workings of Commodore-Amiga and the feelings of all Amiga owners. > If we wanted an IBM, we would have bought one, or at the least a suitable > clone. But that isn't what we want! We want more colors, higher res > non-interlaced. I'll use small words this time so you'll understand: THOSE THINGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BRIDGE CARDS > dharvey@wsccs -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
d7pernb@dtek.chalmers.se (Nicklas Pernblad) (10/14/88)
In article <5777@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: > Hard drive (SCSI, 80mb): $800 (unless you figure some way of mouting >a full-height ST4096 in an Amiga!). > By pure coincidence (sp?) I did just that today! It takes some tinkering to put df0: and df1: outside the A2000, but it is possible. Nicklas Pernblad d7pernb@hacke0.chalmers.se
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/14/88)
Here's something the bridge-card cost... Zorro-1. Remember the problems caused when the Zorro-1 form factor was dropped? Remember the companies that dropped out of the Amiga market? Or dropped out altogether? The only reason I can see for going to Zorro-2, which is a more difficult form-factor to work with, was to get about the same form-factor as IBM-PC cards. Was it worth it? -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (10/14/88)
in article <229@dsacg2.UUCP>, nor1675@dsacg2.UUCP (Michael Figg) says: > In article <3320@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM>, wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: >> P.S. The reason why 8-bit DACs are getting cheap is because there is a large >> demand for then. Haven't you guys wondered why there are so many 8-bit triple >> DACs out there? > > Does this explain why 256k chips are still so cheap? :-) I always thought > that large demand caused prices to go up. In the short term, large demand causes prices to go up. In the long term, large demand causes prices to go down, because supply rises to meet demand and economies of scale can be brought into play. So sometime late next year, expect to pick up 256K chips for 50 cents ;-). (hint: It won't happen. They'll decrease the supply of the 256k as demand goes down, and put that into more-profitable 1-M chips). If there is a total market for 50 widgets, a widget will logically cost more than if there was a total market for 5,000,000 widgets, right??? Amongst other things, that's why a Cray 2 costs more than an IBM clone..... despite that Intel probably spent as much money on the 80286/80287 as Cray's team did for the Cray 2. [All courtesy of vague memories of Economics 300 :-).] -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 It's understandable that Mike Dukakis thinks he can walk on water. He's used to walking on Boston harbor.
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/14/88)
In article <9028@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, kgschlueter@violet.waterloo.edu (Kevin Schlueter) writes: > I'm concerned with the speed of native amiga implementations when run > (on the same processor) simultaneously with UNIX. This is why I want to run UNIX tasks under AmigaDOS. UNIX is not a realtime system, and managing a windowing environment is a soft-realtime task. With AmigaDOS as the base, you'd still get the prompt response of the Amiga. With UNIX as the base, nobody would use the Amiga software. It's written to assume lightweight processes. It's like the problems of porting UNIX software to VMS. In UNIX, starting a new process is cheap. In VMS it's very expensive, so expensive that most users spend most of their time in a single process environment that programs are loaded into. So UNIX programs that use 'system()' all over the place become very slow under VMS or Eunice. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (root) (10/14/88)
Perhaps the most reasonable "next" Amiga system would be a NeXT machine running with an Amiga color blitter board in it? Seems Job's has set people expectations of what is necessary and sufficient for current technology; if the A3000 falls short people will not even look at it. Rick Spanbauer SUNY/Stony Brook
root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (root) (10/14/88)
In article <2810@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Here's something the bridge-card cost... > > Zorro-1. > > Remember the problems caused when the Zorro-1 form factor was dropped? > Remember the companies that dropped out of the Amiga market? Or dropped > out altogether? > > The only reason I can see for going to Zorro-2, which is a more difficult > form-factor to work with, was to get about the same form-factor as IBM-PC > cards. Was it worth it? Early on in the game I would have said no. Ultimately the change only cost a few thousand for to re-layout so given the extras in Zorro-II (eg better coprocessor slot, extra int lines, etc) I say it was worth it to go Zorro-I -> Zorro-II. I agree that the bridgecard is a waste of time and resources however. From my point of view it muddies the waters about what an Amiga *really* is all about. But I don't want to get into the bridge card argument here as I've already fought in the same war on BIX a few months ago. > -- > Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net > Have you hugged U your wolf today? Rick Spanbauer Ameristar Technology
glenns@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) (10/15/88)
#include <government.keywords>
#consume <mass.quantities> (tm) ConeHeads of SNL fame :-)
#include <aspesdos.suit>
MAX_FLAME_REPLIES ~= min( max( 0, MY_stupidity_at_send_time ), oo ) |+]
#begin_brush_fire
#define ORIGINAL_ARTICLE <0XJL=yy00V4D010lID@andrew.cmu.edu>
rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu
#define RICK (Rick Francis Golembiewski)
#define ME (Glenn Patrick Steffler)
The play continues in the second ... Romeo comes to fore... :-)
ME: 386 processor of choice for business in the future.
Business leads to home use, and thus Intel will dominate.
RICK: Is the Amiga really a Business computer? I'de say that most of the
sales are to home or small busniness (people can't afford
20Mhz 386+ VGA card + VGA Monitor + Hard Drive).
SUM: As I recall (my mind the way it is *-), I didn't say the Amiga WAS a
business computer. SIMPLY stated (in case Jerry is peeping :-), the
Amiga is a revolution in home computing, with very little early
consideration for business app's, considering it was the offspring of
a game machine proto-type.
ME: IBM software is familiar to many business (read $$ for home purchases)
RICK: not impressed w/ said products, better s/w for Amiga
-Word(im)Perfect for Amiga available
SUM: no-arguement here, I did mention STANDARD (& established), not betta'
-UGH!!! WP-Amiga is horrid! (I rate it worst port ever)
ME: C=Amiga can not sit (or stand:-) in contemplation mode...
1/2 Meg Gfx/Sound @ 7.14 MHz is vastly superior to PRESENT DAY
IBM/Clone(heads):-)
RICK: More memory means unproportionally more $$$$
-Not a fan of VGA, too slow, 16Mhz 2/386's 'spencive
SUM: again, Rick was in present mode :-), I'm a future man.
-VGA, (on my COMPAQ 386/16 at work) under Windows 3.0
beta (is beta betta'? :-) makes even poorly written programs
programs run quickly! (I can't say that for my Ami)
-NO FLICKER! (albeit, gemlocks are at a premium for VGA)
means you can use the REAL RESOLUTION of the machine, not
Med-Res! (I find $5 Ray Charles shades are an acceptable kludge :-)
ADD: I must realize some do not read PC-Mags. There is a new
386 processor, the 386sx, which has 16 bit data bus, and
24 bit address bus, and 32 bit registers (sand familya?-)
Speed: 16Mhz Cost: about same as 68k in 'Mass Quantities' :-)
-Very cheap, (oops! read 'inexpensive' :-) '386 clones shall
appear, and banish all underlings (8086/286) with speed,
VGA Gfx, and fix disk storage.
ME: How 'bout WINDOWS/PM compatability ?
RICK: 'Are you sure that you aren't just a little biased in that?'
SUM: Silly me, replying to mail on a company computer!
I shall have to give my mail script file a look see to find
where they add that PLUG into my replies! :-)
-I probably meant source code comp'b'ty, but the question is moot anywho.
-I MUCH prefer the Amiga interface, and love MULTITASKING!!!!
-Good programmers (me included?) can surely port their code
to other systems if proper technique/ediquette is observed.
-A window, is a window, is a window. More developers who jump
on the WINDOWS/PM bandwagen will surely find home with the Amiga.
ME: Still stuck in PLUG MODE :-)
RICK: 286 Protected Mode memory problems
SUM: Who said 286? That thing is a piece of ExDel!
PLUG: Windows 386 can run a DOS virtual machine, and has non-preemptive
multitasking. This unfortunately is not the same as real MT!
ME: Harbinger of bad fortune for Amigoids
RICK: Don't forcast Doom! 'This babe's got staying power!'
(exact quote may change due to space/time relationships :-)
SUM: I agree somewhat. Although, when I got my C=64, I couldn't
imagine needing any more. (foolish youth :-)
RICK: 'I probabily have more software for that apple then I'll ever have
for the Amiga.' (taken out of context; boy am I tricky! $-)
SUM: Hmmmmmm, does this say something 'bout software developers, or
Commodores publicity standards?
RICK :'I don't really agree with your predictions.'
SUM: Good news!!!!!! I am pesimistick, and will likely
continue until C= (et all) decide to make something
of the Amiga. (PLEEASE !!!)
****floating point divide****
Rick's lines are longer than 80 char's!!!
(hint: try making your lines shorter :-)
#end_brush_fire
#include <appology.grovel>
Sorry if this offends/irritates anyone. I do appreciate ANY
comments concerning my forcasting, and general blubbering.
--
Microsoft (tm) (c) (etc) does not speak for me, so why should I speak for them?
Glenn Steffler glenns@microsoft.UUCP work phone: (206)-882-8080 x4171
gpsteffler@electrical.watstar.{waterloo.edu,UWaterloo.CA} (after Dec20th)
#define BRAIN_DEAD_RED_HEAD (CANADA > USA) ? (TRUE) : (FALSE)rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) (10/16/88)
#define MORE COLUMS 80!=80 /* 80 colum is not alaways 80 colum, would you agree that the following line is 80 col? */ 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789 0 /* Now is the following line 80 column? */ there is a slight problem when one uses a workstation that has proportional fonts this line is the... same size as the above line, do blame Andre/IBM RT not me, however I will try to minimize size! >SUM: again, Rick was in present mode :-), I'm a future man. > -VGA, (on my COMPAQ 386/16 at work) under Windows 3.0 > beta (is beta betta'? :-) makes even poorly written programs > programs run quickly! (I can't say that for my Ami) > -NO FLICKER! (albeit, gemlocks are at a premium for VGA) > means you can use the REAL RESOLUTION of the machine, not >Med-Res! (I find $5 Ray Charles shades are an acceptable kludge :-) Well if we want to talk future, the amiga has the new chip set (which will get rid of that flicker for only an extra $75 {proposed cost of chips, since we have to assume that you already have a multi sync for your VGA} Also, if you wnt to spend large sums of $$$ there is the Headly monitor, (I've seen VGA cards for about $600 +$500 for a monitor so it's not really all that different costwise, although I will grant that the Headly is a special purpose monitor). Also I'de say that the 386/16 not windows 3.0 is what makes the "poorly written" programs run faster, after all I'm sure that BASIC on a cray is faster then the Amiga running C, but that doesn't mean BASIC is faster then C... Not to mention, windows is another Application, so it MUST slow down the system's speed to some degree over just running those "poorly written" programs under DOS... >the 386sx, which has 16 bit data bus, and > 24 bit address bus, and 32 bit registers (sand familya?-) > Speed: 16Mhz Cost: about same as 68k in 'Mass Quantities' :-) In mass quantities anything is cheap, however look at the price of a 286, the lowest price I've seen was about $100 (8Mhz), and from the same company (Jameco) a 68000L8 was about $10. So, I won't hold my breath waiting for the price of the SX to come down to that of the 68K (After all by that time 386 will be obscelete, competing against 68050, 80586 and probabily some incredible RICS processors {880x0???} ). Also by that time there will probabily be an amiga 3000 using a 68030 at 25 or 30 Mhz (We have to try and Top the NeXT machine don't we?). >-Very cheap, (oops! read 'inexpensive' :-) '386 clones shall > appear, and banish all underlings (8086/286) with speed, > VGA Gfx, and fix disk storage. The same (basically) was said about the introduction of the 286 AT, about banishing 8086 technology, but at this point in time there are a lot more XTs floating around, (For instance, here at CMU, a VERY computer oriented University, all the computer clusters have XTs and Mac SEs+ assorted work stations ;->, also here {I'm currently doing a system backup :-( } at Mellon Institute {center for Biology/Chemistry Research/Departements} Of the PC that have been going into labs [replacing to some degree, the incredibly Slooow 750 which I'm backing up] there are several Macs, and 1 XT [not an AT, but an XT],) so I really doubt that the SX chip will make a great difference (especially since Big Blue probabily won't use it, and will continue to back 286es), after all a lot of place either can't afford/don't want to buy new systems every few years. For instance you are using a 16Mhz 386, now I'de say that Microsoft has enough $$$, and is very computer oriented, so why aren't you using a 25Mhz 386? Hummmmm??? > C=Amiga can not sit (or stand:-) in contemplation mode... > 1/2 Meg Gfx/Sound @ 7.14 MHz is vastly superior to PRESENT DAY > IBM/Clone(heads):-) If you are speaking of 16/20/25 Mhz IBM clones, then yes the Amiga has less power, but I can't afford $1500 for a CPU, (No graphics, no hard drive, etc.). Really, I can't even get a 286 clone for what my Amiga cost me, Even If I went with a EGA card and EGA ONLY monitor (which of course screws me when I want to go to VGA....) In the future these machines will be cheaper, but so will the amiga and there will be better machines (what about the 486? What there be 486 Clones????). > -I MUCH prefer the Amiga interface, and love MULTITASKING!!!! > -Good programmers (me included?) can surely port their code > to other systems if proper technique/ediquette is observed. >-A window, is a window, is a window. More developers who jump >on the WINDOWS/PM bandwagen will surely find home with the Amiga. True, you CAN port the code (actually I doubt there is any code that one couldn't port if one was willing to have MEGA kludges) Also, if a window, is a window, then why should everyone follow the MS WINDOWS/PM bandwagon? I've used the Amiga's window interface and it is EXTREEMLY simple. I'm pretty impressed at what intuition is able to do (ie, for a gadget, just fill out a few structures and add toi gadget list and POOF instant gadgets!). I haven't programmed for MS Windows, but I've seen some applications (and on a 6/8 Mhz 286 using EGA they were SLOOOOW), Besides why should people who program for a MS interface port to the amiga when MS won't? >SUM: Hmmmmmm, does this [That I have more software for my > Apple II+ then I'll probabily ever have for my Amiga] say something > 'bout software developers, or Commodores publicity standards? Not really either [Actually Amiga Software Prices are LESS then Apple prices where in the early/mid 80s], what I was trying to get at is that the apple II+ ,although it is a far less powerfull machine then the Amiga has a huge software base (because it's been around) and it STILL gets support (although granted, much of the new software is only for the newer II modles ie IIe/IIc and IIgs). However, the amiga isn't all that old YET, and I believe that we are in the peak time for software developement (Have yo noticed how small the print that Mail Order Co.'s are using, and that they still can't print ALL the titles?) Also many companies are developing a lot of new software for the Amiga (ie Gold Disk's new Draw Program which supports postscript {I happen to be interested in this one myself, even if it will be $200...}) and there is a good amount of PD software around, and there are many new Hard Ware products being produced: {Multitude of HD controllers/ Drives, Processore Acelerator, 680(20/30) & 6888(1/2) boards [if you have the $$$], genlocks, digitizers, etc.} I think that the Amiga's golden age is now, if a few years it'll be declining (assuming that a newer Amiga (3000?) doesn't come along and blow every thing else away again), so enjoy while you can :-) >Sorry if this offends/irritates anyone. I do appreciate ANY >comments concerning my forcasting, and general blubbering. well I hope that this was enough general blubbering and I didn't consider last message to be a real brush fire either... [take o' fence, I'de never take someone's fence....] +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Disclaimer: Me? Post That, impossible I never post anything... | | TypetoYouLater(Everyone); --> "functional Good bye".... | | Rick Golembiewski [ Pronounciation is half the Battle, spelling the other] | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) (10/17/88)
>> the amiga has GOOD graphics and sound (Go and use an Apple II+ for a while >> and tell me about BAD graphics...) and it is of comprable speed (Maybe not >> as fast as a Mac II or 386 in pure processor power, but it fairs pretty >> well compared to the SE, and an AT) > Which Amiga are you talking about. The one I have here has pretty > bad color graphics, eg interlaced 640x400x16 color vs the VGA 640x480 > non interlaced 16 color. I find the claim that the Amiga 68000 is > as fast as the Mac-II 68020 pretty interesting too :-) I still think the amiga has good graphics for several reasons (but I could use your very argument to say the VGA sucks because a PIXAR has even better graphics ;-> after all VGA doesn't have 24 bits per pixel and is far less then 1Kx1K resolution so it is really Terrible isn't it), VGA is NOT in the majority of IMBs (remember how many XTs there are out there), and also VGA is slow (compared to EGA/CGA,although I haven't seen any bench marks I bet Amiga graphics are faster too) also VGA is difficult to program (Amiga Graphics ARE EASY to PROGRAM, and you can be sure that every amiga owner will have the SAME graphics, so you don't have to write several drivers {which tend to make things slower}). Also VGA is expensive $1000+ depending on the card/monitor combination. (I bet you can get an entire amiga system for about the same cost, and you can get a few Amiga systems for the cost of Mac II color!). Also if you will re read my message I never said that the Amiga was as fast as a Mac II or a 386, but that it was comprable to a SE (another 68000 machine so are you satisfied?) In any case right now the amiga (I belive) is in good shape, because it is comprable in power and less in cost then other machines in its league (Do you really believe a $6000 {or more with apple's price increase} color Mac II system or an $4000 386 25Mhz extended VGA system are really in the same league? Go back and read some of the "Amiga on a Mac II Budget" messages, I think they covered the idea of cost and power pretty well) +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Disclaimer: Me? Post That, impossible I never post anything... | | TypetoYouLater(Everyone); --> "functional Good bye".... | | Rick Golembiewski [Pronounciation is half the Battle,spelling the other] | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) (10/17/88)
> *Excerpts from ext.nn.comp.sys.amiga: 15-Oct-88 Re:Next Amiga System Rick F.* > *Golembiewski@and (7431)* > there is a slight problem when one uses a workstation that has proportional > fonts this line is the... > same size as the above line, do blame Andre/IBM RT not me, however I will > try to minimize size! Messages (the primary Andrew Message System user interface) runs in a resizable window with proportional fonts. Its message editor wraps the text to fit the margins of its window. When you send the message, the delivery system wraps each line at 80 characters, exactly as you see this message (which was typed with Messages). It also removes style information such as _italics_ and* **boldface* for those sites which do not support it (such as Usenet), replacing them with underscores and asterisks. The problem occurs when you hit RETURN at the end of each line instead of once at the end of each paragraph. The Messages software obeys these hard carriage returns and does not wrap lines. Hence everyone else on Usenet sees yucky messages. Solution: stay away from the RETURN key and let Messages worry about the problem for you. Obviously this message has little to do with Amigas, but I didn't want everyone else to think our software was brain-damaged or something (well, it is in some ways, but this isn't one of them). --M Michael Portuesi / Information Technology Center / Carnegie Mellon University ARPA/UUCP: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: rainwalker@drycas "my friends say she's a dumb blonde, but they don't know she dyes her hair"
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (10/17/88)
In article <1038@microsoft.UUCP> glenns@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) writes: >ADD: I must realize some do not read PC-Mags. There is a new > 386 processor, the 386sx, which has 16 bit data bus, and > 24 bit address bus, and 32 bit registers (sand familya?-) > Speed: 16Mhz Cost: about same as 68k in 'Mass Quantities' :-) Uh, think about what you say. 68k's are, shall we say, cheap as sand. Now the 386sx may be as cheap as a 68020, but an 8Mhz 68000? -- Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
wayneck@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (10/18/88)
In article <8XJuKiy00Wg9ER5Ull@andrew.cmu.edu>, rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) writes: > >SUM: again, Rick was in present mode :-), I'm a future man. > > -VGA, (on my COMPAQ 386/16 at work) under Windows 3.0 > > beta (is beta betta'? :-) makes even poorly written programs > > programs run quickly! (I can't say that for my Ami) > > -NO FLICKER! (albeit, gemlocks are at a premium for VGA) > > means you can use the REAL RESOLUTION of the machine, not > >Med-Res! (I find $5 Ray Charles shades are an acceptable kludge :-) > Well if we want to talk future, the amiga has the new chip set (which > will get rid of that flicker for only an extra $75 {proposed cost of chips, > since we have to assume that you already have a multi sync for your > VGA} Also, if you wnt to spend large sums of $$$ there is the Headly > monitor, (I've seen VGA cards for about $600 +$500 for a monitor so > it's not really all that different costwise, although I will grant that the > Headly is a special purpose monitor). Right now you can get VGA and a cheap multi-sync together for about $650. This gives you 640x480 with 16 colors. Also you can chose the colors out of selection of about 200,000. If you don't believe me I refer you to any "Computer Shopper" mag.. PC clone stuff is getting really cheap. If I remember right, the $75 upgrade gives 640x400 at 4 colors. With overscan you could maybe get 704x480 at 4 colors. Plus the 4 colors are selected out of 64? Anyway you should compare this to EGA not VGA. I think you also get 16 colors out of 64 with EGA. Now if you have a $1200 or so you can get one of the new extended VGA and say a Diamond Scan multi-sync that gives 800x600 with 256 colors. If you shop around it could be cheaper. Now that is getting nice. So while the new Amiga chip set is a step in the right direction it seems like a pretty small one. Seems like the NeXT Amiga will have to do better if it is to keep up. Wayne Knapp
yuan@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Yuan 'Hacker' Chang) (10/18/88)
In article <1038@microsoft.UUCP> glenns@microsoft.UUCP (Glenn Steffler) writes: >ADD: I must realize some do not read PC-Mags. There is a new > 386 processor, the 386sx, which has 16 bit data bus, and > 24 bit address bus, and 32 bit registers (sand familya?-) > Speed: 16Mhz Cost: about same as 68k in 'Mass Quantities' :-) > -Very cheap, (oops! read 'inexpensive' :-) '386 clones shall > appear, and banish all underlings (8086/286) with speed, > VGA Gfx, and fix disk storage. With iNTEL trying to drive out second-sourced '286, what make you think that prices for the 386SX will drop? iNTEL purposely refused to second-source the 386 (and SX) so that they can keep the price artificially high. With that mentality in mind, I don't see how it'll cost the same as 68K unless 'mass quantities' you're talking about is more than 10 digits... 8) -- Yuan Chang "What can go wrong, did" UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!yuan ARPA: uhccux!yuan@nosc.MIL "Wouldn't you like to INTERNET: yuan@uhccux.UHCC.HAWAII.EDU be an _A_m_i_g_o_i_d too?!?"
cjp@antique.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (10/18/88)
In article <2810@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.UUCP writes: >Remember the problems caused when the Zorro-1 form factor was dropped? Yes. Most unfortunate. >The only reason I can see for going to Zorro-2, which is a more difficult >form-factor to work with, was to get about the same form-factor as IBM-PC >cards. Was it worth it? You couldn't put Zorro-1 boards into a nice low box, not without making them go in horizontally thus making cooling very difficult. Given that Zorro-1 was a mistake in this regard, I think fixing it was correct. -- Charles Poirier (decvax,ucbvax,mcnc,attmail)!vax135!cjp "Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..."
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (10/19/88)
What everyone is forgetting is that animation on VGA is EXTREMELY difficult!!!
And this IS important to *me*!
- Doug -
Doug_B_Erdely@Portal.Cup.Competer@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/19/88)
In article <2416@antique.UUCP>, cjp@antique.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes: > In article <2810@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.UUCP writes: > >The only reason I can see for going to Zorro-2, which is a more difficult > >form-factor to work with, was to get about the same form-factor as IBM-PC > >cards. Was it worth it? > You couldn't put Zorro-1 boards into a nice low box, not without making > them go in horizontally thus making cooling very difficult. Given that > Zorro-1 was a mistake in this regard, I think fixing it was correct. I don't think that's a given. You can't put Zorro-2 cards in a nice low box either, without at least putting them in at an angle. For a box a monitor is to go on, the Amiga 1000 is already uncomfortably high. The 2000 is out of the question... I know people have gotten used to the IBM-PC format, but I recall at the time it came out that the height was one of those things the ergonomics people bitched about (along with the icky keyboard and the crude CGA fonts). Given the popularity of stands to convert the PC into a tower configuration (and now you have horizontal cards in a box not designed for them), a tower-style (or NeXTcube/Mac style) 2000 might have done better. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
planting@sun16.cs.pittsburgh.edu (Dr. Harry Plantinga) (10/19/88)
What we really need for the next amiga system is a 68030, since it contains an mmu and doesn't cost much more than the motorola mmu alone. That way we can have virtual memory. Then too, we'll need several DMA channels to keep the I/O from slowing down the processor. As for memory, we'll need lots to keep from slowing down that processor. 8 Mb would really be nice. It will also need a faster bus, perhaps a VMEbus or a Nubus. It's got to have good graphics, at least 1024x768, and good sound. Maybe a DSP chip would be nice! Also, D/A and A/D. For the operating system, besides virtual memory we should really have compatibility with the rest of the world (of course not including the IBM or Mac world), so what could be better than BSD 4.3 unix compatibility? Finally, let's give it a really big floppy that could also serve as a distribution medium for large software packages and as a backup medium for a big disk, or even as the only secondary storage in a pinch. I think 256 Mb would be about right. It should also be able to handle an internal hard disk. A cheap postscript printer would help. Now I realize that this would all cost a lot, but if it is all made standard and the box sells pretty well, maybe we can keep the price down to less than it would cost to add all of that stuff to an amiga, or the price of a minimal mac II with A/UX. Say, 6500? It might be hard to manufacture at that price, but if they could do it, they could make a big dent in the high-end pc/low-end workstation market. And package it in some hi-tech format . . . And market it well . . . (The truth now, what would your opinion of this posting have been two weeks ago? Pie in the sky?)
eric@hector.UUCP (Eric Lavitsky) (10/20/88)
In article <2863@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <2416@antique.UUCP>, cjp@antique.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes: >> In article <2810@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.UUCP writes: > (much deleted) >I know people have gotten used to the IBM-PC format, but I recall at the time >it came out that the height was one of those things the ergonomics people >bitched about (along with the icky keyboard and the crude CGA fonts). Given >the popularity of stands to convert the PC into a tower configuration (and >now you have horizontal cards in a box not designed for them), a tower-style >(or NeXTcube/Mac style) 2000 might have done better. >-- > Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Gee, most people really like the way my Amiga 2000 "Tower" System looks. I just picked up a stock adjustable PC floor stand and a PC Keyboard Extender cable and voila - a low monitor (on a swivel stand), a mouse and the keyboard. Looks pretty slick and works like a charm. The floppies sit right up near the top of the case making it rather easy to reach down and put new and wonderful things inside them :-) -Eric ARPA: eric@topaz.rutgers.edu or eric@ulysses.att.com UUCP: {att,ucbvax}!ulysses!eric or {wherever!}rutgers!topaz!eric SNAIL: 34 Maplehurst Ln, Piscataway, NJ 08854 "To err is human; To really f*ck up requires the root password."
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/20/88)
In article <4176@pitt.UUCP>, planting@sun16.cs.pittsburgh.edu (Dr. Harry Plantinga) describes the NeXT box and goes on to ask... > (The truth now, what would your opinion of this posting have been two > weeks ago? Pie in the sky?) It would have been "I don't want UNIX in my Amiga until they rewrite the kernel to provide realtime response and clean message passing, and besides by the time it comes out it'll have to compete with Jobs' $3000 NeXT box". Yes, $3000. That was the figure he was originally using to justify the beast. Well, as it turns out Jobs does have a rewritten kernel, Mach. No realtime, which is a pity. I'll have to continue campaigning for a UNIX that uses the Amiga EXEC and Intuition the way NeXT uses Mach. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? Disclaimer: I accept full responsibility for my own typos.
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (10/21/88)
In article <4176@pitt.UUCP> planting@sun16.UUCP writes: > What we really need for the next amiga system is a 68030 ... [description of NeXT box deleted.] > ... >(The truth now, what would your opinion of this posting have been two >weeks ago? Pie in the sky?) I think the truth is that Steve Jobs took a very big bite. Now, since he has a very big mouth he may be able to chew it as well :-) Sorry couldn't resist. I'm torn between believing whether or not the "Cube" is more Lisa like or more Mac like. Will it be too expensive? Can Jobs turn Universities into dealers? I do know that it has "legitimized" many of the things that the Amiga brought to the "PC" marketplace. How many times have you heard someone say "Well, of course the sound is great on an Amiga, it is a games machine after all." Now you can ask that person if their reasoning applies to the NeXT machine too. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
timg@ziebmef.uucp (Tim Grantham) (10/23/88)
In article <73828@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >I think the truth is that Steve Jobs took a very big bite. Now, since >he has a very big mouth he may be able to chew it as well :-) Sorry couldn't >resist. I'm torn between believing whether or not the "Cube" is more >Lisa like or more Mac like. Will it be too expensive? Can Jobs turn ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Interesting comment... When I commented to a colleague that the NeXT was a gross case of technological overkill that would really be only of much use to the Comp. Sci. elite, he said ``Kind of like the Lisa was... maybe Jobs will have to come out with the NeXT equivalent of the Mac as well to make any sales to the masses.'' I think that's going to be the scenario. One has only to look at the PC to see that whiz-bang technology is not what sells lots of boxes. Tim.
space@sns.UUCP (Lars Soltau) (10/24/88)
In article <2863@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >a tower-style >(or NeXTcube/Mac style) 2000 might have done better. Hey, this Amiga 2000 of mine has been standing under my desk for 6 months now, and neither the hard disk nor the Amiga itself has shown any signs of mistreat- ment. I agree with you that the tower design is the most ergonomic if you don't have to change floppy disks too often. Since the Amiga does not automatically have a hard drive, a tower chassis would be kinda nasty for all those w/o a HD. If you have one, simply put the Amiga under your desk. Most hard disks can be mounted vertically. -- Lars Soltau UUCP: ...uunet!unido!sns!space BIX: -- no bucks -- Here's looking at you, kid! -- the Medusa
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/26/88)
In article <1988Oct22.213709.3687@ziebmef.uucp>, timg@ziebmef.uucp (Tim Grantham) writes: > Interesting comment... When I commented to a colleague that the NeXT was > a gross case of technological overkill that would really be only of much > use to the Comp. Sci. elite, he said ``Kind of like the Lisa was... maybe > Jobs will have to come out with the NeXT equivalent of the Mac as well to > make any sales to the masses.'' Interesting. As far as I can see the Amiga is the NeXT equivalent of the Mac. Not directly, but they share a soul... Like the Mac it's got a non-compatible operating system that inherits the basic concepts of the original with some added features and big missing chunks: in the case of the Lisa, the toolkit was way better on the mac but it wasn't multitasking. In the case of NeXT, the Amiga Exec is realtime and Mach isn't, but Mach supports virtual memory superbly... and the Amiga not at all. Both the Lisa and the Mac are heavily windowed, with bitmapped displays. Both the NeXT and the Amiga have a mixture of command lines and windows and a message based operating system; with bitmapped displays, coprocessors, and digital audio synthesis that have been described as inadequate for serious work (though theres no doubt that the NeXT is less inadequate :->). And the Amiga already has software! -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? Disclaimer: I accept full responsibility for my own typos.