cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (08/14/88)
In article <2160@ssc-vax.UUCP> dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Geary) writes: >3) The Amiga is loosing ground to the new IBM's and the Mac II. You make a very naive statement here. For the Amiga to lose ground to the Mac II and the 386 clones they have to be in the same league. What you fail to realize is THESE ARE NOT COMPARABLE SYSTEMS. Period, by any measure the stock Amiga is less powerful than a 32 bit 16 - 25Mhz machine. Are we suprised? Would you say that the Mazda RX-7 is losing market share to the Porches and Ferraris? No, you wouldn't even bother comparing them ? The fact that people (including Mac II and PS/2 model 80 owners) *feel the need* to compare them should give you and indication of what we have always realized. The Amiga is the best computer in it's class. You will also notice that no one compares the Atari ST to the Mac II, or the '386 boxes. Illuminating no? So if Commodore decides to build a machine in the same league as the Mac II and the '386 boxes they probably call it the Amiga 3000 and build in an '030 and with fast 32 bit RAM. Until then, comparing the stock Amiga 2000 is simply flattery as far as I am concerned. --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.
edc@aeras.UUCP (news guest account) (08/15/88)
In article <2160@ssc-vax.UUCP> dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Geary) writes: > > Well, I've been watching the Mac II bashing, etc. discussion with interest, >and no matter whether the Mac II is too expensive, does not have a blitter, >can't do this or that as well as the Amiga, etc. when you get down to the >nitty gritty, here are the facts: > >1) Mac II is made by Apple. >2) Because of 1) alone, it can be expected to do quite well. >3) The Amiga is loosing ground to the new IBM's and the Mac II. > > Yes, the Amiga may very well be superior to both the Mac II and IBM's in >many areas. Yes the Mac II is *way* overpriced compared to the Amiga. Yes, >the Amiga is the *only* pc you can buy that can multitask with it's *native* >operating system, ad infinitum... > > However, the fact remains that the Amiga is loosing ground. The huge >gap (technically speaking) between the Amiga and "the rest" is closing. Just who are Amiga's competitors anyway? It sure ain't Apple and Sun... I question if IBM worries about them. The only competitor I can see is Atari. At least I get to see Atari at UNIX trade shows... Amiga? Never! > BTW, I have had my Amiga since day one. It's sad to see the Amiga's >edge wither away... Me too, I sold mine about a year ago. Glad I did. I KNOW those slimeballs would be REALLY secretive about an A1000 > A2000 upgrade. I should have known better to think that scummy edge connector on the side of the A1000 was a bus. Damn interesting machine though. The sh*t will really hit the fan if when Apple drops the price of the MacII. I suspect that CBM is lose it in about a year or two. Atari won't let Amiga be. Sam and Jack want blood... By the way? anybody got sales figures for Word Perfect on the Amiga? I'll bet they suck. Can somebody name a major applications product that is selling well on Amiga? Face it, Hackers buy Amigas. POOR hackers who can't afford Macs. A "Hobbyist's" computer can't expect to compete with business machines. That happens only once in a lifetime. That was Apple. How about some Mega-ST bashing eh? -edc-
DMasterson@cup.portal.com (08/15/88)
In message <64123@sun.uucp>, cmcmanis@sun.com writes; >[...yum...] So if Commodore >decides to build a machine in the same league as the Mac II and the >'386 boxes they probably call it the Amiga 3000 and build in an '030 and >with fast 32 bit RAM. > Speaking of the Amiga 3000, I saw a little surprise mentioned in this month's copy of Unix World. In their (pre?)announcements section, they mentioned that Jack Strange of Commodore International Ltd (I believe) had said that Commodore would announce in September a couple of new systems to compete with the high-end Macs and low-end Suns. These systems would run the multi-tasking Amiga-OS, Amiga-DOS, MS-DOS, a version of Unix SVR3, and proprietary interfaces. Unix World called these the Amiga A2500 and A3000! Is Commodore at it again, or what? ^-^ (@v@) David Masterson \_/ DMasterson@cup.portal.com =^=^=
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (08/15/88)
>> BTW, I have had my Amiga since day one. It's sad to see the Amiga's >>edge wither away... > >Me too, I sold mine about a year ago. Glad I did. I KNOW those slimeballs You know they're getting restless when they resort to such (insert favorite explitive here) tactics. Please send your best flames to this guy personaly rather than waste netband repeating his words in '>'s. > >-edc- -Matt
koster@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David Ashley) (08/15/88)
In article <253@aeras.UUCP> edc@aeras.UUCP (news guest account) writes: > Face it, Hackers buy Amigas. POOR hackers who >can't afford Macs. A "Hobbyist's" computer can't expect to compete with >business machines. That happens only once in a lifetime. That was Apple. > >How about some Mega-ST bashing eh? > >-edc- So, the Amiga is a cheap machine for POOR hackers? I can't think of a better compliment. Yes edc, go away.
CRONEJP%UREGINA1.BITNET@cornellc.ccs.cornell.edu (Jonathan Crone) (08/16/88)
>> BTW, I have had my Amiga since day one. It's sad to see the Amiga's >>edge wither away... > >Me too, I sold mine about a year ago. Glad I did. I KNOW those slimeballs >would be REALLY secretive about an A1000 > A2000 upgrade. I should have >known better to think that scummy edge connector on the side of the A1000 >was a bus. > thats funny, i haven't had any problems expanding my system with the system bus on the side of my amiga 1000. and commodore sure as hell wasn't secretive about the trade up. everyone on the net knew about it, and nearly every dealer did as well. if you're so fucking brain dead that you can't read about it then screw you. >Damn interesting machine though. The sh*t will really hit the fan if >when Apple drops the price of the MacII. I suspect that CBM is lose it >in about a year or two. Atari won't let Amiga be. Sam and Jack want >blood... > Fascinating how Atari owned Federated computer stores are going out of business left and right, how new amiga dealerships are appearing everywhere, and how major computer computer center distributors are picking up the amiga (as in outfits that sell only IBM and Apple suddenly pick up the amiga) how atari's sales figures are falling through the basement floor in north america and europe.... >By the way? anybody got sales figures for Word Perfect on the Amiga? >I'll bet they suck. Can somebody name a major applications product that >is selling well on Amiga? Face it, Hackers buy Amigas. POOR hackers who >can't afford Macs. A "Hobbyist's" computer can't expect to compete with >business machines. That happens only once in a lifetime. That was Apple. Kinda funny how Word Perfect corp has announced plans to ditch the Atari version of word perfect because of rampant piracy and the fact that they STILL haven't made their money back on their investment in the development. Even more funny that Word Perfect issued a press release last year after they had been selling Word Perfect for the amiga for a month, to announce that it was selling so well that they had made back their development investment already, and that development was going full steam ahead on their other products for the amiga. (word perfect library is sitting on my shelf and is running quite nicely as well in my nice little machine) > > >How about some Mega-ST bashing eh? > >-edc- Nah, its too boring to bash an inferior machine that STILL doesn't have a blitter..... jpC -------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan P. Crone Vice President, AURA, (Amiga Users of Regina Associated.) (Regina, Sask. Canada ) (eh???) CRONEJP@UREGINA1.BITNET ....uunet!mcl!cronejp come on now.... does ANYONE give a damn about what i have to say? --------------------------------------------------------------------
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (08/16/88)
Go away Ed.
--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.peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/16/88)
In article <253@aeras.UUCP> edc@aeras.UUCP (news guest account) writes: >can't afford Macs. A "Hobbyist's" computer can't expect to compete with >business machines. That happens only once in a lifetime. That was Apple. In the computer business a lifetime is, what, 3 years? -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (08/17/88)
In article <8156@cup.portal.com> DMasterson@cup.portal.com writes: > Jack Strange of Commodore International Ltd (I believe) had said that > Commodore would announce in September a couple of new systems to compete with > the high-end Macs and low-end Suns. > Is Commodore at it again, or what? ^-^ Well you have to understand that Commodore International Ltd, is a different entity than Commodore-Amiga Inc, Commodore Electronics Ltd, and Commodore Business Machines Inc, etc. Basically, the thing you refer to as Commodore is a sort of Hydra where each of the heads know that if they bite off one of the other ones it will only hurt themselves but they would like to bite anyway. And this is a major reason why it takes Commodore the entity to move *anywhere*. Commodore Braunschweig Gmbh already demoed the 2500 at Hannover so no big suprise if they decide to "announce" it as a product. I don't think they'll announce anything as purely vaporous as the 3000 seems to be. (They should want to keep 2000 sales as strong as possible) --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.
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (08/17/88)
"News Guest Account" GO AWAY!!!! and GET A LIFE!!! YOU BORE ME!!!!!
- Doug -
Doug_B_Erdely@Portal.Cup.Com
P.S. What a Slime ball.... Hides behind a no-name account.... Wonder if his
mommy still holds his hand!! :> :>cfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP (Christopher Chiesa) (08/17/88)
In article <2160@ssc-vax.UUCP>, dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Geary) writes: > > ... > > However, the fact remains that the Amiga is loosing ground. The huge > gap (technically speaking) between the Amiga and "the rest" is closing. > > BTW, I have had my Amiga since day one. It's sad to see the Amiga's > edge wither away... Boy, this is just SO encouraging <heavy sarcasm> to me, the proud and so-far happy owner of a used Amiga 1000 ! 'Tis news to me that anything else "beats" the Amiga; a friend has one of the new IBM machines and frankly, it doesn't really impress me! Anyway, the Amiga still kicks the @$$ of that which in my case it replaces: my old pal Atari 800... :-) -- UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!cfchiesa cfchiesa@bsu-cs.UUCP
mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (08/18/88)
[] I have a friend who is a marketroid for that A*pple place. As a marketroid, he has to study the competition. In his office they have an Amiga, and according to him, it's the busiest machine around there during the lunch hour because it has all of the neatest games. (I know that this goes back to the "game machine" image we're trying to shake, but it's still an interesting observation.) Oh, by the way, I saw DPaint II on a VGA system last week. I looked real nice. -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Mom". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (08/19/88)
in article <253@aeras.UUCP>, edc@aeras.UUCP (news guest account) says: > Keywords: Sad > Just who are Amiga's competitors anyway? It sure ain't Apple and Sun... > I question if IBM worries about them. I don't know who worries, but you're being annoyingly American in this analysis. Commodore sells more PERSONAL COMPUTERs in Europe than Apple, and more PERSONAL COMPUTERs in Germany than IBM. Or Sun, for that matter. Over 1/2 of these are Amigas. Poof! > Damn interesting machine though. The sh*t will really hit the fan if > when Apple drops the price of the MacII. I suspect that CBM is lose it > in about a year or two. Atari won't let Amiga be. Sam and Jack want > blood... Atari's certainly BEEN letting Amiga be. Not to mention most of their customers. Considering Amiga software sales are up 84% over last year, while Atari ST sales are down around 45%, I think a few other folks have noticed this too. > By the way? anybody got sales figures for Word Perfect on the Amiga? They sold enough copies of Word Perfect quickly, like in it's first month on the market, to pay for the Amiga port. I use it myself; nice word processor (fast, that's what counts here). > -edc- -- 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!"
daves@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Dave Scroggins) (08/20/88)
> >>Me too, I sold mine about a year ago. Glad I did. I KNOW those slimeballs >>would be REALLY secretive about an A1000 > A2000 upgrade. I should have > >What secret? EVERYONE knew about the trade in. All the dealers knew, and >commodore even sent me a letter. By the way, who were they keeping the >secret from, and why? WHAT???????? CBM sent you a letter telling you of the upgrade?????????? If I hadn't been reading the NET I would probably never have heard of the upgrade offer. Jee- whizz - All I ever got was a letter inviting me to "upgrade" my C-128 (good cheap instrument controller. ;-) ) to an AMIGA-500. I ALREADY HAD MY 1000 FOR OVER A YEAR!!!!!!!!!! Yes I DID send in my resistration card!! Sounds like SOMEBODY slipped up!! Boy -- I just don't get no respect!! (with voice of Rodney Dangerfield.) Dave S.
brant@alberta.UUCP (Brant Coghlan) (08/22/88)
In article <253@aeras.UUCP> edc@aeras.UUCP (news guest account) writes: >can't afford Macs. A "Hobbyist's" computer can't expect to compete with >business machines. That happens only once in a lifetime. That was Apple. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The typical computer lifetime is 5 years. That means the A3000 will be able to compete with IBM and Apple for the business market, if they get their act together. Lets hear it for a A3000 with 32 bit archtecture, a Zorro II superset bus (able to plug in Zorro II cards), a fast 680?0 with a math coprocessor slot, and 32 million colours with table look up. -Brant "Reality is the dream" -- Brant Coghlan (career student) (403) 487-3619 ...!alberta!brant Dept. of Comp. Science, 615 GSB, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
rick@gtisqr.UUCP (Rick Groeneveld) (08/27/88)
In article <4517@cbmvax.UUCP>, daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: > They sold enough copies of Word Perfect quickly, like in it's first month > on the market, to pay for the Amiga port. I use it myself; nice word > processor (fast, that's what counts here). While WP _is_ a very powerful word processor, it is also, painfully ssssslllllooooowwww!
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (08/27/88)
In article <64123@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >In article <2160@ssc-vax.UUCP> dmg@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Geary) writes: >>3) The Amiga is loosing ground to the new IBM's and the Mac II. ... >THESE ARE NOT COMPARABLE SYSTEMS. > >Period, by any measure the stock Amiga is less powerful than a 32 bit >16 - 25Mhz machine. Are we suprised? Ok. So is the problem one of perception? Commodore put the A2000 into a box that looks vaguely like an AT. Therefore people expect at least AT class performance out of it. Or better performance because it's a 'new' machine and new machines in AT boxes are really fast. The misconception/perception I'm talking about here is the one where people are constantly comparing the A2000 to MacII's and the 386 based machines. -- <---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <david@ms.uky.edu> <---- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- Problem: how to get people to call ...; Solution: Completely reconfigure <---- your mail system then leave for a weeks vacation when 90% done.
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (08/31/88)
in article <429@gt-ford.gtisqr.UUCP>, rick@gtisqr.UUCP (Rick Groeneveld) says: > Summary: Since when? > In article <4517@cbmvax.UUCP>, daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >> They sold enough copies of Word Perfect quickly, like in it's first month >> on the market, to pay for the Amiga port. I use it myself; nice word >> processor (fast, that's what counts here). > While WP _is_ a very powerful word processor, it is > also, painfully ssssslllllooooowwww! While it's rather slow at producing an output file, the screen display is nice and fast. That's what I care about, that it can keep up with my typing at least as well as Emacs or something of that kind. As far as power goes, I put it in the "pretty powerful" category. It certainly doesn't do as much as TeX, Scribe, or even nroff will, but of course you don't really have to compile it either. Sure beats most of the other Amiga WPs I've used so far; a good portion of them can't handle automatic footnotes, section numbering or index generation. WordPerfect certainly isn't ideal; I'd like more WYSIWYG, smarter document structuring, tree-structured files, automatic item lists, etc. Maybe a mix of WordPerfect and Mentor's DOC would be ideal. As far as WordPerfect the company goes, I wish every company supported their software as well. I know if I buy something from WordPerfect, it'll do what I want it to do, I'll be able to figure out how to do it, easily, from the manual, and if there's a bug, they'll fix it for me, given the feedback. -- 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 (Dave Haynie) (09/01/88)
in article <10169@s.ms.uky.edu>, david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) says: > Keywords: Sad > In article <64123@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >>THESE ARE NOT COMPARABLE SYSTEMS. >> >>Period, by any measure the stock Amiga is less powerful than a 32 bit >>16 - 25Mhz machine. Are we suprised? > Ok. So is the problem one of perception? Commodore put the A2000 > into a box that looks vaguely like an AT. Therefore people expect > at least AT class performance out of it. You get at least AT class performance out of it. For example, Dhrystones on the real IBM PC-AT on this here chart range from 715 to 1791, depending on compiler. Current compilers are only doing around 1300 on the base Amiga, but at least one newer one (with optimzations, like that Microsoft compiler that pulls down 1791), is doing over 1500, and it's not finished yet. The PC-AT can't touch the Amiga is graphics or I/O performance (even the fastest '386 boxes are only touching what the Amiga under Fast Filesystem will do, hard disk wise). > it's a 'new' machine and new machines in AT boxes are really fast. > The misconception/perception I'm talking about here is the one where > people are constantly comparing the A2000 to MacII's and the 386 > based machines. OK, it certainly doesn't compare in speed to the latest things that are out in PC style cases. It also doesn't cost what those things cost, no matter how you slice it up. I think it's a good thing that it's being compared to those machines, though. I'd much rather have folks walk around saying my A2000 doesn't quite stack up to a Mac II or Compaq 25 MHz box than have them saying it really screams in comparison to an Apple II GeeWhiz or something. And you can upgrade the A2000 to run at similar rates to those other machines. One guy here has his machine configured with a 68020 board (OK, it's an A2620, and they're not out yet, but you could do the same thing with a CSA or Hurricane board) and a PC Bridge card with 16MHz '386 based pcelevATor in it. So that's most of a Mac II and a Compaq, all in the same box. Gotta like that! -- 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!"
scott@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) (09/02/88)
In article <4629@cbmvax.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: ... >Current compilers are only doing around 1300 on the base Amiga, but at least one >newer one (with optimzations, like that Microsoft compiler that pulls down 1791), >is doing over 1500, and it's not finished yet. Can you tell us more about this ?! -scott
ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) (09/07/88)
In article <429@gt-ford.gtisqr.UUCP> rick@gtisqr.UUCP (Rick Groeneveld) writes: > While WP _is_ a very powerful word processor, it is > also, painfully ssssslllllooooowwww! Compared to what? It's hardly fair to compare it to a speedy text editor such as dme, since it does so much in the way of continuous formatting, etc. Compared to other *word processors* I find it quite responsive. Some hints: Don't open lots of windows. It's nice that you can do it, but it slows things down a lot. Use FastFonts or BlitzFonts. It speeds up text scrolling and display. Don't use a SunMouse-type program. (By SunMouse-type program I mean DMouse, Mach, or HeliosMouse. SunMouse itself is a clumsy hack.) When WP opens a requester, it does it in a seperate window. Any input in the main window causes WP to automatically activate the requester window. This is a nice feature for non-SunMouse users. If I have Dmouse activated, and a WP requester pops up, WP and Dmouse fight each other at every input event, and moving the mouse is extremely sluggish. I simply disable that feature of Dmouse when I run WP. For the slightly more adventurous, use Matt's mwb to put WordPerfect on its own custom screen. I bet you could even specify a slightly larger screen and get a full 80 columns, even if your workbench screen is normal sized, but I can't swear to this, since I normally use morerows. In any event, putting WP on it's own screen seems to speed up intuition stuff. (Hm, I wonder if specifying a 1 bitplane screen would work? It might make some requesters or menus unreadable. I'll have to try. That should speed it up even more.) [Hmm, this whole article reads like a Matt Dillon commercial, doesn't it? Oh, well. It's not. Nor is it a WordPerfect commercial.] -- ------------ Eric Kennedy ejkst@cisunx.UUCP
scott@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) (09/08/88)
In article <12358@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: > .... SunMouse itself is a clumsy hack.) Hey, now wait a minute here! Sunmouse may be a hack, but it sure ain't clumsy. At least you can turn Sunmouse off. And I could almost argue that anything installed into the InputEvent stream is a hack, and if you disagree, then Sunmouse isn't a hack either. Heck, Sunmouse was the first of the bunch, and you can't be clumsy and a hack if you're the first one, eh? :-)scott
ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) (09/13/88)
In article <799@applix.UUCP> scott@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: >In article <12358@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >> .... SunMouse itself is a clumsy hack.) >Hey, now wait a minute here! Sunmouse may be a hack, but it sure >ain't clumsy. At least you can turn Sunmouse off. And I could When a program is sending fake mouse clicks when I didn't ask it to, I call it clumsy. Here I am typing in the cli, I hit the mouse into my text editor window with my elbow, (so I can keep my fingers in the home position :-) and start typing, and the cursor suddenly jumps to the position under the mouse pointer. I found Sunmouse unusable for this reason. Hey, don't get me wrong. It was a great idea. I was disappointed when I decided it would cause problems and bagged it. It's just that it's not anywhere near as elegant as HeliosMouse or Dmouse. >:-)scott -- ------------ Eric Kennedy ejkst@cisunx.UUCP