mrr@amanpt1.zone1.com (Mark Rinfret) (05/22/88)
In article <4710@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>, debate2@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (David Oh) writes: . In article <8805170742.AA28361@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: . > . . >>the Mac software. The Mac os is as far above the Amiga in richness and . >>robustness as the Amiga os is above the Atari ST os. Of coarse I'm not . >>talking about multi-taking here but the Mac also has good solutions for . >>multi-taking. Even the Atari ST can do reasonable mutli-tasking. Multi- . > . > Again, I say B.S. . > . . Hey, there are acutally computers better than the Amiga you know :-) The ^^^^^^^^ Sounds like a good name for a calculator :-) . Mac OS, which I personally haven't seen, could be better. I've seen the . Mac Interface (similar to WB - what's it called?) and it looks very clean . and easy to use. I've used Mac's before, and I Love the Mac II's. (I . also love 16 millions colours!) The problem with the Amiga is that the . OS is a bit "messy" for lack of a better term and too complicated.. If you . don't make your windows right, and forget one of the hundreds of flags, Are we exaggerating just a bit here? ^^^^^^^^ . you get gadgets that flicker, lock of the computer, and generally, mess . everything up. Sure, it can be bad code but has this every happened to . you? You lock up the IntuiMessages comming from a program, so you can't . type or move the mouse, but the tasks are still running? Even good code . can do this when you are multitasking. ...more omitted... HuH? Apparently, you've never programmed a Mac. You can get as "creative" (fireworks graphics, ivisible/inaccessible windows, inescapable programs) on a Mac as you can on an Amiga and its OS is every bit as complicated yet less capable. I program Mac SE's and Mac II's at work. I've only really gotten serious about it in the last couple of months and let me tell you, there's a helluva learning curve - every bit as complicated as the Amiga. The Mac does seem to lean more toward getting things done through function and procedure calls, while the Amiga prefers preset data structures. However, Intuition does a LOT more for you (except, of course, the text edit features supplied by the Mac, which are excellent). Also, try using the Mac's answer to multitasking, MultiFinder, on a 1 meg SE some time. Ha! The Amiga gives you a CHOICE of user interfaces - WorkBench or CLI. Try popping a CLI on a Mac sometime. Also, the WorkBench isn't as bad as you make it sound. If you're comparing a floppy-based Amiga system to a Mac SE or II with hard disk, of course the Mac is a winner. All of the above should not be interpreted as a slam against the Mac, either. I believe the Mac family is an excellent product line with an outstanding software selection. You only see the finished products - not their development cycle. Don't be so hard on the Amiga, however. All of this high powered graphics oriented interfacing doesn't come free to the programmer on ANY system, from what I've seen. ...other stuff omitted... . . :::> Dave uucp: debate2@watdcsu.waterloo.edu . Plink: dave*oh . . Please, no hate mail. :-) Never. . Mark -- < Mark R. Rinfret, mrr@amanpt1.ZONE1.COM | ...rayssd!galaxia!amanpt1!mrr > < AMA / HyperView Systems Home: 401-846-7639 > < 28 Jacome Way Work: 401-849-9930 x301 > < Middletown, RI 02840 "If I just had a little more time...">
debate2@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Dave Oh) (05/25/88)
In article <467@amanpt1.zone1.com> mrr@amanpt1.zone1.com (Mark Rinfret) writes: >Apparently, you've never programmed a Mac. You can get as "creative" You're right, I haven't. >development cycle. Don't be so hard on the Amiga, however. All of this >high powered graphics oriented interfacing doesn't come free to the >programmer on ANY system, from what I've seen. I do tend to be a bit hard on what I like... I just expect more from the Amiga, that's all. I think it can do a lot more that what it's showing. Sure, the demos are nice, but I haven't found an aplication to use the Amiga to its fullest. (Although there is still a lot of good software) :::> Dave
mclek@dcatla.UUCP (Larry E. Kollar) (05/27/88)
In article <4732@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> debate2@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Dave Oh) writes: >...I just expect more from the >Amiga, that's all. I think it can do a lot more that what it's showing. >Sure, the demos are nice, but I haven't found an aplication to use the >Amiga to its fullest. The Amiga is about 2 years behind the Mac in hardware & software development, but is catching up rapidly. The upcoming versions of AmigaDos should help a lot. Even when we can pronounce the Amiga "caught up," we'll still see a big difference in the software available. The Amiga is rapidly becoming to desktop video what the Mac is to desktop publishing, with a little overlap from both sides. So don't expect to see a flood of high-powered word processors for the Amiga for a good long time... Finally, the Mac is no longer a home computer. Apple's going for the big money in the business market. They've recently taken to going seminars & shows during the middle of the week, in an effort to keep home users away. So we're left just with the Amiga, ST, and Tandy (trying to push MS-DOG clones into homes). Any attempts to compare Amiga & Mac are therefore like trying to compare, uh, I'll let you finish the sentence. :-) Larry Kollar ...!gatech!dcatla!mclek (no, I haven't forgotten. Burn 'em in!!!)
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (05/27/88)
In article <5086@dcatla.UUCP> mclek@sunb.UUCP (Larry E. Kollar) writes: > The Amiga is about 2 years behind the Mac in hardware & software > development, but is catching up rapidly. The upcoming versions of > AmigaDos should help a lot. > Larry Kollar ...!gatech!dcatla!mclek I am probably not the only one who caught this, but just for Larry's benefit and those reading we need to clarify something. The Amiga's system software, and hardware are a couple of years *AHEAD* of the Mac, but the Mac is catching up rapidly. You see the Amiga has always been a multitasking OS and has always had automatically configuring dipswitch-free expansion architecture. The Mac finally got the latter when they introduced the Mac II and is working on the former. The PC clones now have the MicroChannel, and are getting OS/2 so they are closer than the Mac is. In either event the Amiga is the one out in front. With that said, let me add that in terms of *Application* software, the Amiga is a couple of years behind. The existing Mac OS, three to five years behind MS-DOS. It is ahead of OS/2 (although since there are literally billions of dollars going into OS/2 Development and mere millions going into Amiga SW development that won't last) and it is way ahead of the Mac multitasking product. There are better word processors coming out for the Amiga and there are a lot of things 'in the works' that will be arriving about Xmas time. More and more the Amiga is seen by businesses as acceptable solution, and that is because Commodore is doing better at selling themselves as a business computer maker. As the software gets better and Commodore becomes more profitable, investment goes up, and the machine gets better. I don't doubt the Amiga will own the small computer market by 1993. Some companies you would never expect to hear from consider it competition. --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.
mclek@dcatla.UUCP (Larry E. Kollar) (06/09/88)
In article <5701@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> cthulhu@athena.mit.edu (Jim Reich) writes: >> Amiga's >>system software, and hardware are a couple of years *AHEAD* of the >>Mac, but the Mac is catching up rapidly.... etc. Um, I think it was Chuck that wrote this part (correct me if I'm wrong). I agree in principle; the Amiga is definitely a more advanced design & the software uses MUCH less precious RAM. What I meant when I said the Mac is a couple of years ahead (Chuck's replying to a post of mine) what basically in the Finder (Mac Workbench). Finder has a few nice features that Workbench is missing (like moving windows offscreen w/o crashing), window zooming (making a window fullscreen or small). But Intuition has those NICE window to front/back gadgets that Mac doesn't, and the Amiga sports a CLI (which most of you use anyway, most likely :-). Add a low price & open the machine, and the Amiga is the winner. Now, to the meaty part. >Quality of the product is not, and never will be the determining >factor in sales. Seen an IBM or Apple ad lately? Seen a Commodore ad? I'll >give you a hint, the ten page foldout in Time magazine ISN'T the Amiga ad... Matter of fact, there was (is?) a two-page spread in USA Today lately. My friendly local dealer has a copy of it in his display window, and the Atlanta Amiga user group was passing out even more copies at the Tuesday meeting. I thought it was even a pretty well-written ad. (Oh, yeah, the content? The title was "Before you leap at a Mac, look what an Amiga can do." It went on from there.) Jim, if you send me a snail-mail address, I'll send you my copy. Larry Kollar ...!gatech!dcatla!mclek
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (06/10/88)
[Last one and I'll take it internal ...]
In article <5701@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> (Jim Reich) writes:
[>> is me writing ... ]
->> Amiga's
->>system software, and hardware are a couple of years *AHEAD* of the
->>Mac, but the Mac is catching up rapidly. You see the Amiga has always
->>been a multitasking OS and has always had automatically configuring
->>dipswitch-free expansion architecture. The Mac finally got the latter
->>when they introduced the Mac II
->No they didn't -- the Multifinder STILL isn't multitasking ("coming soon") and
->A/UX is not in common use -- Too expensive by far...
Read what I wrote please, they got "the latter" which referred to the
dipswitch-free expansion architecture. I to think that MultiFinder is
about as revolutionary as DesqView.
->>and that is because Commodore is doing better at selling
->>themselves as a business computer maker. As the software gets better
->>and Commodore becomes more profitable, investment goes up, and the
->>machine gets better. I don't doubt the Amiga will own the small
->>computer market by 1993.
->Oh come on-- Commodore is improving, but own the small computer
->market? Be serious. Quality of the product is not, and never will be
->the determining factor in sales. Seen an IBM or Apple ad lately? Seen
->a Commodore ad? I'll give you a hint, the ten page foldout in Time
->magazine ISN'T the Amiga ad... The Amiga is currently specialized --
->hackers, graphics and sound people, game players and some other smart
->folks, but not enough. How about an Amiga dealer network? Apple and
->IBM have fiercely loyal dealers all over the place. Commodore? A few
->dedicated dealers who do a LOT of business (SOMEONE has to be selling
->those 600,000 machines!)
-> -- Jim Reich
-> cthulhu@athena
I am serious. First off, there are, by some estimations, over 7 million
Commodore 64s out in the world. This is the largest single manufacturer
installed base (that's larger than Apple's Apple II line, and while there
are more IBM-PCs (approx 10 million in the 8bit class) they are from
several manufacturers). This demonstrates a) Commodore's ability to
manufacturer *many* machines economically, and b) that there are sufficient
channels in place to sell them. Secondly, as the Amiga matures it offers
features above and beyond what the original Mac and Mac plus could offer.
It *will* have more pixels on the screen standard (702 X 512 non interlaced)
offers a multitasking OS now, faster speed, lower cost, and equivalent
software, and you can do desktop video on it. Apple and PC/AT clones cannot
compete against that at the same price, the architecture decisions they
made were wrong. (Hindsight is 20/20 no?)
[I am not including the Mac II ok? That's out of the 'small' computer market.]
So take the following scenario : The Amiga installed base passes 1 million
by 1 Jan '89 and two million by 1 Jan '90. Given the current rate of sales
for the Mac that means it will exceed the Macintosh installed base in the
middle of 1990 at 2.5 million units. The original PC is practically history
now, with all new sales going to the AT and 386 clones. So by 1990 if you
buy a home computer, it's probably a Commodore. If you want something that
you can use PC programs on you get the 286 bridge card in a 2000 or some
other product that is essentially a 500 with a bridge card interface.
The Apple IIGS is no threat, neither are 8088 based PC's, Atari's, or
68000 based Mac's. So Commodore owns the home/small computer market.
Apple concentrates on the Mac II and maybe a cost reduced Mac.
IBM concentrates on the PS/2 Model 50 and above.
Atari sells Transputer and '030 boxes for a while.
The clone manufacturers try to produce PS/2's and get squashed by IBM.
Tandy sells the PS/2 clone but can't offer the packages that run on an
Amiga. (Desktop video, great games, animation software)
The $3K - $10K market will be much more jumbled since there is no clear
leader even today. But that's what makes it interesting no?
(Marketing analysis and extrapolation is tricky at best, there are many
assumptions in the above some obvious and some not, like the assumption
that *relative* prices will stay the same and there will be no new home
computer makers in the market. So take it for what it is, an educated
guess at what the world will be like in 3 years.)
--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.