marc@cbmvax.UUCP (Marc Rifkin CATS) (07/26/88)
I've been reading alot of flames on CBM about customer support, and still
can't believe what I have been hearing. I have owned my 500 for over a
year now, with NO, ZER0 problems. Not a one. Three friends of mine got
theirs within this year and have had some SERIOUS chip seating problems and
not very much success with service.
But blaming Commodore for dealer troubles is like blaming the US post
service because ol Bob at the local post office is not a nice fellow.
I understand that improvements are underway, so don't lose your confidence
in the Amiga.
Just be glad you don't own a computer that cost you twice the price of an
Amiga plus repairs and has 1/2 the memory and .0001 the power. Or take
pride that you don't have to buy a new computer in order to get more
memory and the newest OS. You have the only computer that REALLY
multitasks. Realize that what you may think the Amiga does not do well,
other computers cannot do at all. Remember, when your Amiga DOES work,
it is INCREDIBLE.
So after this pep-talk, what do you do? Have patience and be persistent.
--
==========================================================================
Marc Rifkin -- Summer CATS Assistant
PHONE 215-431-9180 UUCP ...{uunet,allegra,rutgers}!cbmvax!marc
"I don't need to quote anyone."
"Greenland is in Utah."
==========================================================================tws@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Thomas Sarver) (07/26/88)
In article <4322@cbmvax.UUCP> marc@cbmvax.UUCP (Marc Rifkin CATS) writes: >I've been reading alot of flames on CBM about customer support, and still >can't believe what I have been hearing. I have owned my 500 for over a >year now, with NO, ZER0 problems. Not a one. Three friends of mine got >theirs within this year and have had some SERIOUS chip seating problems and >not very much success with service. >But blaming Commodore for dealer troubles is like blaming the US post >service because ol Bob at the local post office is not a nice fellow. >I understand that improvements are underway, so don't lose your confidence >in the Amiga. !Just be glad you don't own a computer that cost you twice the price of an !Amiga plus repairs and has 1/2 the memory and .0001 t Yeah! I have a friend with one of the original 520ST's. Boy is he mad every time he has chip seating problems. He's finally gotten a new motherboard. The point is, IF YOU OWN AN AMIGA, YOU ARE AN ELITIST ! ^^ (sp?) You made the right decision. You own the most awesome PC "... and God is in His heaven, and all is right with the world." +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ But hey, its the best country in the world! Thomas W. Sarver "The complexity of a system is proportional to the factorial of its atoms. One can only hope to minimize the complexity of the micro-system in which one finds oneself." -TWS Addendum: "... or migrate to a less complex micro-system."
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (07/28/88)
In article <4322@cbmvax.UUCP>, marc@cbmvax.UUCP (Marc Rifkin CATS) writes: > Just be glad ... > You have the only computer that REALLY > multitasks. Is this: a. a jab at OS/2, or b. a dogmatic statement that doesn't take into account the unix-pc or '86 based unix systems? Just curious, not flaming you. Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. CBM should have gone with OS9 or an OS9 variant (in my opnion). At least OS9 has fork(). :-) :-) -- Motorola Skates on Intel's Head! J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/28/88)
In article <1209@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: > Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. CBM should > have gone with OS9 or an OS9 variant (in my opnion). At least > OS9 has fork(). :-) :-) OS/9 doesn't have fork(). This is why OS/9 can run on small 68000 based systems with no MMU, like the Amiga, and UNIX can't. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net "You made a TIME MACHINE out of a Have you hugged U your wolf today? VOLKSWAGEN?" "Well, I couldn't afford a deLorean. It's a bit of a pain trying to get it up to 88 miles an hour though."
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (07/28/88)
In article <2353@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <1209@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: > > Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. CBM should > > have gone with OS9 or an OS9 variant (in my opnion). At least > > OS9 has fork(). :-) :-) > > OS/9 doesn't have fork(). This is why OS/9 can run on small 68000 based > systems with no MMU, like the Amiga, and UNIX can't. I thought that OS9/68K had fork()... My mistake. -- Motorola Skates on Intel's Head! J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/
marc@cbmvax.UUCP (Marc Rifkin CATS) (07/28/88)
In article <1209@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: >Is this: > >a. a jab at OS/2, or >b. a dogmatic statement that doesn't take into account the unix-pc or >'86 based unix systems? > >Just curious, not flaming you. a. To be honest, indirectly yes (but not OS2 specifically) b. To me, 'unix' and 'pc' don't seem to go together B-) >Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. CBM should Oh yeah, but RUNNING OS9. Amiga does not have to *RUN* anything in order to multitask. And since mtasking is its native mode, most (I wish I could say all) programs support it. >Motorola Skates on Intel's Head! >J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 > ..!bellcore!tness1!/ -- ========================================================================== Marc Rifkin -- Summer CATS Assistant PHONE 215-431-9180 UUCP ...{uunet,allegra,rutgers}!cbmvax!marc "I don't need to quote anyone." "Greenland is in Utah." ==========================================================================
eachus@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Robert Eachus) (07/29/88)
In article <1209@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: >In article <4322@cbmvax.UUCP>, marc@cbmvax.UUCP (Marc Rifkin CATS) writes: >> Just be glad ... >> You have the only computer that REALLY >> multitasks. > >Is this: > >a. a jab at OS/2, or >b. a dogmatic statement that doesn't take into account the unix-pc or >'86 based unix systems? How about c. A comment that the Amiga is the only REAL-TIME machine that also does multi-tasking right. >Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. Please don't. There was some talk once upon a time of porting OS9 to the Amiga. I think this fell through for the same reason that Commodore can't give the Transformer away -- Amiga owners don't want to give up all the other goodies just to get access to the available software for some other OS. What I would like to see is for someone to put together a tool to convert OS9 68K programs to run from the CLI... Robert I. Eachus
FAUSETT@radc-tops20.arpa (07/29/88)
In article <4353@cbmvax.UUCP> Marc Rifkin CATS <marc@cbmvax.uucp> >>Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. CBM should > >Oh yeah, but RUNNING OS9. Amiga does not have to *RUN* anything in order >to multitask. And since mtasking is its native mode, most (I wish I could >say all) programs support it. It seems to me that the the Amiga has to *RUN* its operating system in order to multitask. It's the Amiga's Operating System which is multitasking, not the Amiga hardware. Mark Fausett arpa: fausett@radc-tops20.arpa -------
FAUSETT@radc-tops20.arpa (07/29/88)
In article <2353@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: [stuff deleted here] > OS/9 doesn't have fork(). This is why OS/9 can run on small 68000 based > systems with no MMU, like the Amiga, and UNIX can't. I don't think this is entirely true; I used to have a Callan Unistar 100 on my desk running UN*X. It was MC68000 based, with 512K ram, and no MMU. It *would* crash once in a while, but not too frequently. Mark Fausett arpa: fausett@radc-tops20.arpa -------
paolucci@snll-arpagw.UUCP (Sam Paolucci) (07/30/88)
In article <3546@louie.udel.EDU> FAUSETT@radc-tops20.arpa writes: >In article <4353@cbmvax.UUCP> Marc Rifkin CATS <marc@cbmvax.uucp> > >>>Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. CBM should >> >>Oh yeah, but RUNNING OS9. Amiga does not have to *RUN* anything in order >>to multitask. And since mtasking is its native mode, most (I wish I could >>say all) programs support it. > >It seems to me that the the Amiga has to *RUN* its operating system in order >to multitask. It's the Amiga's Operating System which is multitasking, not >the Amiga hardware. > >Mark Fausett >arpa: fausett@radc-tops20.arpa >------- The Amiga operating system is in ROM. You could argue that that is *RUN* everytime you turn the machine on, but I think you would be just trying to be argumentative about something that is a fact! -+= SAM =+- "the best things in life are free" ARPA: paolucci@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov FILLER FILLER FILLER FILLER
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/30/88)
In article <3547@louie.udel.EDU>, FAUSETT@radc-tops20.arpa writes: > I don't think this is entirely true; I used to have a Callan Unistar 100 > on my desk running UN*X. It was MC68000 based, with 512K ram, and no MMU. > It *would* crash once in a while, but not too frequently. It's got to have some sort of MMU, even if just base and bounds registers. I've used a Callan, and while it's no great shakes it sure acted like it had one. An MMU (to belabour the point) doesn't imply full demand paged virtual memory. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (08/01/88)
In article <4353@cbmvax.UUCP>, marc@cbmvax.UUCP (Marc Rifkin CATS) writes: > In article <1209@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: > >Oh yeah, don't forget the cocoIII running OS9 Level II. CBM should > > Oh yeah, but RUNNING OS9. Amiga does not have to *RUN* anything in order > to multitask. And since mtasking is its native mode, most (I wish I could > say all) programs support it. Oh, so then your Amiga doesn't *RUN* AmigaDos? The OS9 for the CoCo is just that: a replacement OS. Just like UNIX on a 386 box: DOS isn't required to "run" unix; neither is TrashDos needed to "run" OS9. OS9 on a CoCo *is* native mode. It's no longer a CoCo, but an OS9 box instead. Unfortunatley, most people don't know what OS9 is in the first place.... :-) -- Motorola Skates on Intel's Head! J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/
marc@cbmvax.UUCP (Marc Rifkin CATS) (08/01/88)
In article <1239@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) writes: > >Oh, so then your Amiga doesn't *RUN* AmigaDos? The OS9 for the CoCo >is just that: a replacement OS. Just like UNIX on a 386 box: >DOS isn't required to "run" unix; neither is TrashDos needed to >"run" OS9. > >OS9 on a CoCo *is* native mode. It's no longer a CoCo, but an OS9 box >instead. Unfortunatley, most people don't know what OS9 is in the >first place.... :-) >-- Ok- I understand now. I thought OS9 was an addition to the CoCo O.S., not a replacement. But still, (for the sake of pointless arguement), the standard, out of the box, unmodified Amiga is multitasking. Additionally, and most important, its architecture is based on such operation (COprocessors, separate busses, DMA). Without these features, multitasking on the Amiga would be slow and impractical. It's Monday morning, please excuse any pointless babbling. Normally, I don't like to compare computers. It usually breaks down to childish bickering ("Mine's better than yours!"). The point is that although I'm interested in other systems, I don't feel it is of any use to compare different systems unless you're trying to decide which one to use (I already have). In other words, it doesn't matter! B-) >Motorola Skates on Intel's Head! >J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 > ..!bellcore!tness1!/ -- ========================================================================== Marc Rifkin -- Summer CATS Assistant PHONE 215-431-9180 UUCP ...{uunet,allegra,rutgers}!cbmvax!marc "I speak only for myself- I'm not a ventriloquist" "Greenland is in Utah; in fact, its the capital" ==========================================================================
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/02/88)
In article <4372@cbmvax.UUCP>, marc@cbmvax.UUCP (Marc Rifkin CATS) writes: > Additionally, and most important, [the Amiga's] architecture is based on > such operation (COprocessors, separate busses, DMA). Without these > features, multitasking on the Amiga would be slow and impractical. Without these features, moving windows around would be quite a bit slower... however multitasking would be quite reasonable and practical. For any CPU with more than 64K of address space (and a good many with less) multitasking is such an obvious win that I'm still flabbergasted that anyone is satisfied with less. I've written a basic timesliced multitasker (no preemption, no realtime) in Forth that runs under CP/M on an 8080. About 50 lines of code total. I've used a Forth development system that supports multiple users with less than 64K, on a computer with a 4-bit ALU. I've run UNIX on a stock IBM-PC/XT, and it was quite a bit faster than MS-DOS. In fact you can buy a computer with a very similar operating system to the Amiga's with no coprocessors... the Sinclair QL. I suspect that you're looking at Multifinder and OS/2 and saying "there but for the grace of Agnes go I". It's not the lack of CPU power that cripples these systems, it's software... the need to retain compatibility with an obsolete and inefficient software architecture. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?