ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) (04/12/88)
Well, Computer Chronicles put on a perfectly frustrating show this weekend. The show was entirely about multitasking. Multitasking with OS/2, multitasking with Concurrent DOS 386, multitasking with Windows/386... you get the idea. Amiga? What's that? Multitasking? Really? For nearly three years you say? No! Oh, well, it could be worse. If I'm not mistaken, they didn't mention MultiFinder either. -- ------------ Eric Kennedy ejkst@cisunx.UUCP
mike@ames.arpa (Mike Smithwick) (04/13/88)
In article <8567@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: > >Well, Computer Chronicles put on a perfectly frustrating show this >weekend. [] >Amiga? What's that? Multitasking? Really? For nearly three years you >say? No! > >Oh, well, it could be worse. If I'm not mistaken, they didn't mention >MultiFinder either. Au contraire my dear sir. CruftiFinder was shown in all it's "glory". "Wow, look how you can load in multiple programs at one, and then switch between them!!!" -- *** mike (Cyberpunk in training) smithwick *** "After all, isn't our only real purpose in life merely to make the person next to us slightly more insane than we are?" - Me [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
baer@percival.UUCP (Ken Baer) (04/15/88)
In article <8567@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: > >Well, Computer Chronicles put on a perfectly frustrating show this >weekend. The show was entirely about multitasking. Multitasking with >OS/2, multitasking with Concurrent DOS 386, multitasking with >Windows/386... you get the idea. >Amiga? What's that? Multitasking? Really? For nearly three years you >say? No! Well, at least they did an entire show on Amiga a while ago. I was pleased with that one. But, I do agree with you that the CC guys are a little near sighted. I have the address of the show, you might try writing them a letter to make them listen. Here it is: Computer Chronicles, KCSM-TV Attn: Stuart Chiefet 1700 West Hillsdale Blvd. San Mateo, CA 94402 (415) 574-6586 I almost seems like this show has intentionally overlooked the Amiga. Especially, when we see that lonely Amiga in the background of the weekly software review segment. A few weeks ago, they did a review of Test Drive, but they showed the IBM version running, while that poor Amiga was just sitting there with a 'Software Review' on its screen. Computer Chronicles needs to do a show on Desktop Video, or computer animation, and feature the Amiga. Maybe they'll get it right some day. >------------ >Eric Kennedy >ejkst@cisunx.UUCP -- -Ken Baer. // Hash Enterprises: When the Going gets Weird, the Weird go Professional \X/ USENET - ...tektronix!reed!percival!baer OR baer@percival.UUCP, BIX - kbaer, "while (AINTGOTNOSATISFACTION) { do stuff }" - RJ Mical
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (04/16/88)
<< Multitask non Amigas >> Yeah, I'd like to know where the heck the Amiga was on that show -- especially after they did an entire show on the Amiga a few weeks ago. I guess they felt that a whole half hour on the Amiga was sufficient representation for the rest of the season. I guess it is indicitive of the typical pinstripe computing prejudice: The Mac and the Amiga are strictly for artsy-fartsy individuals, while 80x86 processor based stuff is for what they consider to be legitimate business. The Mac probably got passing mention for multifinder since the Mac runs Excell, a "legitimate" business program. Artsy-fartsy individuals, obviously, don't need multitasking. :-) As for a point of interest, much to my surpise windows 386 does work pretty well and does honest multitasking, but it doesn't do the job well without a PS/2 80, 6 meg of memory and a 70 meg hard disk. Alternatively, the Amiga performs pretty well with just two 880K floppies and 768K (256K rom + 512K ram). I don't know how much muscle multifinder needs, but I'll bet it isn't as resource - efficient as the Amiga either. --Bill
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (04/16/88)
In article <8567@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: > >Well, Computer Chronicles put on a perfectly frustrating show this >weekend. The show was entirely about multitasking. Multitasking with >OS/2, multitasking with Concurrent DOS 386, multitasking with >Windows/386... you get the idea. > >Amiga? What's that? Multitasking? Really? For nearly three years you >say? No! > >Oh, well, it could be worse. If I'm not mistaken, they didn't mention >MultiFinder either. Of course not. They tried to run hypercard. Oops, it crashed, oh yeah it doesnt run under MultiFinder. They tried Interleaf. *Pop* Ooops that doesnt run under MutliFinder either. hy do you think they call it MF ? -- 4 out of 5 net.goddesses recommend richard for the prevention of tooth decay. richard@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard
jmpiazza@sunybcs.uucp (Joseph M. Piazza) (04/17/88)
In article <1106@neoucom.UUCP> wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: > ><< Multitask non Amigas >> >... As for a point of interest, much to my surpise windows 386 does >work pretty well and does honest multitasking, but it doesn't do >the job well without a PS/2 80, 6 meg of memory and a 70 meg hard >disk. Alternatively, the Amiga performs pretty well with just two >880K floppies and 768K (256K rom + 512K ram). I don't know how >much muscle multifinder needs, but I'll bet it isn't as resource - >efficient as the Amiga either. Actually, MultiFinder doesn't require much muscle -- just a LOT of memory. On a 1 Meg Mac SE I can run Word 3.01 and Versatrerm 3.0 at the same time -- but I can't print on a LaserWriter untill I quit from one of the programs. Let's see if I can run Handshake and WordPerfect after turning off my 1 Meg Insider (leaving me with 512K on my 1000) and Facc II ..., Ooops, OK -- make a temporary directory in RAM:, (just t r y , doing that on a Mac :-), load a 19 page document, [additional task switching here], Oops, no printer driver, ... bail out? Not yet -- let's try again. Hung. [Reboot here and log back on. Did I also mention that my Mac has a 20 Meg hard disk but only two floppies on me Amiga?] OK, this time I'll have WP be the system disk from the start ... Loadup that there 19 page paper, ... there she goes! Printing that sucker from a spool file even as I type this on the Vax at work using HandShake. That temporary directory is back in Ram: too. So, I think it's safe to say the Mac SE/Plus with 1 Meg isn't as resource efficient as the Amiga with 512K. Now, let's load up that there HyperCard ... :-> Flip side, joe piazza --- In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's the other way around. CS Dept. SUNY at Buffalo 14260 UUCP: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!jmpiazza GEnie:jmpiazza BITNET: jmpiazza@sunybcs.BITNET Internet: jmpiazza@cs.Buffalo.edu
jwhitnel@csi.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) (04/19/88)
In article <3364@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Obnoxious font grad studnet) writes: >In article <8567@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >> >>Oh, well, it could be worse. If I'm not mistaken, they didn't mention >>MultiFinder either. > >Of course not. They tried to run hypercard. Oops, it crashed, oh yeah >it doesnt run under MultiFinder. Hypercard works fine with MultiFinder on any machine with 1 mb or more. Of course, with "only" 1 mb, you can't run anything else because HyperCard is a memory hog. >They tried Interleaf. *Pop* Ooops >that doesnt run under MutliFinder either. Of course Interleaf has lots of other problems on the Mac. Comes from not following the interface guidelines. For example, they don't use the font manager and so loose a few characters from the fonts. Useless things like umlats and such that nobody except Europeons would miss. >4 out of 5 net.goddesses recommend richard for the prevention of tooth decay. >richard@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard Jerry Whitnell Been through Hell? Communication Solutions, Inc. What did you bring back for me? - A. Brilliant
cjp@antique.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (04/19/88)
In article <10249@sunybcs.UUCP> jmpiazza@sunybcs.UUCP (Joseph M. Piazza) writes: |memory. On a 1 Meg Mac SE I can run Word 3.01 and Versatrerm 3.0 at the |same time -- but I can't print on a LaserWriter untill I quit from one of |the programs. Let's see if I can run Handshake and WordPerfect after |turning off my 1 Meg Insider (leaving me with 512K on my 1000) and Facc II ..., |... [multitasking test deleted] | So, I think it's safe to say the Mac SE/Plus with 1 Meg isn't as |resource efficient as the Amiga with 512K. While your conclusion is probably correct, the test you performed is not strictly fair unless your printer is also a LaserWriter or a printer of equivalent resolution. I believe these printers require a substantially large buffer to build their bitmaps into. -- Charles Poirier (decvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp "Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..."
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (04/20/88)
In article <1483@csib.csi.UUCP> jwhitnel@csib.UUCP (Jerry Whitnell) writes: I wrote: >>In article <8567@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >>> >>>Oh, well, it could be worse. If I'm not mistaken, they didn't mention >>>MultiFinder either. >> >>Of course not. They tried to run hypercard. Oops, it crashed, oh yeah >>it doesnt run under MultiFinder. > >Hypercard works fine with MultiFinder on any machine with 1 mb or more. >Of course, with "only" 1 mb, you can't run anything else because HyperCard >is a memory hog. Gosh. That nasty old InfoWorld must have lied when they said: "it crashed". Maybe it was an old version ? > >>They tried Interleaf. *Pop* Ooops >>that doesnt run under MutliFinder either. > >Of course Interleaf has lots of other problems on the Mac. Comes from >not following the interface guidelines. For example, they don't use the >font manager and so loose a few characters from the fonts. Useless things >like umlats and such that nobody except Europeons would miss. Useless huh ? Thats almost as funny as having to pay ANOTHER $2500 to get the latest version after you've alredy paid $2500 for the original version. So thats what, $15K For a Mac ][, $5K more if you want unix, and $5K to get a the latest version of some hard to use software. Computer for the rest of us ? Us what ? Billonaires ? Just what the world needs, a $25,000 text processor. I sit in awe. -- Five tacos, one taco burger. Do you know where the American Dream is ? richard@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard
jesup@pawl13.pawl.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) (04/21/88)
In article <3466@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >So thats what, $15K For a Mac ][, $5K more if you want unix, and $5K >to get a the latest version of some hard to use software. > >Computer for the rest of us ? Us what ? Billonaires ? > >Just what the world needs, a $25,000 text processor. I sit in awe. Interleaf is actually well worth the price for a company in many cases. I was part of a group that did a 100+ page report with several dozen illustrations (some quite complex) using Interleaf on Suns (1's and 2's). It is NOT just a text processor. We were going to have the graphics/etc people do the report, but when we talked to them we showed them our rough drafts, done in interleaf, and they said that they couldn't come close to matching the quality of even the rough drafts with their computers/software, and forget the graphics. Of course, we already had Suns on our desks. Interleaf is NOT for the home market, or even the small business market. It's meant for people doing major (& minor) high-quality reports, papers, and documentation; and it is wonderful for that, especially at integrating graphics. // Randell Jesup Lunge Software Development // Dedicated Amiga Programmer 13 Frear Ave, Troy, NY 12180 \\// beowulf!lunge!jesup@steinmetz.UUCP (518) 272-2942 \/ (uunet!steinmetz!beowulf!lunge!jesup) BIX: rjesup (-: The Few, The Proud, The Architects of the RPM40 40MIPS CMOS Micro :-)
jmpiazza@sunybcs.uucp (Joseph M. Piazza) (04/22/88)
>In article <2182@antique.UUCP> Charles Poirier writes: >In article <10249@sunybcs.UUCP> jmpiazza@sunybcs.UUCP (Joseph M. Piazza) writes: >|memory. On a 1 Meg Mac SE I can run Word 3.01 and Versatrerm 3.0 at the >|same time -- but I can't print on a LaserWriter untill I quit from one of >|the programs. Let's see if I can run Handshake and WordPerfect after >|turning off my 1 Meg Insider (leaving me with 512K on my 1000) and Facc II ... >|... [multitasking test deleted] >| So, I think it's safe to say the Mac SE/Plus with 1 Meg isn't as >|resource efficient as the Amiga with 512K. > >While your conclusion is probably correct, the test you performed is >not strictly fair unless your printer is also a LaserWriter Exactly, but I didn't have a spare LaserWriter hanging around to try it on, which is why I mentioned it ... :-) >or a >printer of equivalent resolution. I believe these printers require a >substantially large buffer to build their bitmaps into. I'm not exactly sure but for the Mac's part most bitmaps are at regular Mac resolution of 72 dpi. The full 300 dpi is usually left to the LaserWriter which is why i t is so slow. I'd like to work on 300 dpi graphics but it still isn't easy yet. Also, bit maps are actually very fast; it's scaling fonts that really makes that sucker grind. Flip side, joe piazza --- Cogito ergo equus sum. CS Dept. SUNY at Buffalo 14260 UUCP: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!jmpiazza GEnie: jmpiazza BITNET: jmpiazza@sunybcs.BITNET Internet: jmpiazza@cs.Buffalo.edu > Charles Poirier (decvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp
DMasterson@cup.portal.com (04/23/88)
In message <2182@antique.UUCP>, cjp@antique.UUCP writes: >In article <10249@sunybcs.UUCP> jmpiazza@sunybcs.UUCP writes: >|memory. On a 1 Meg Mac SE I can run Word 3.01 and Versatrerm 3.0 at the >|same time -- but I can't print on a LaserWriter untill I quit from one of >|the programs. Let's see if I can run Handshake and WordPerfect after >|turning off my 1 Meg Insider (leaving me with 512K on my 1000) and Facc II ..., >|... [multitasking test deleted] >| So, I think it's safe to say the Mac SE/Plus with 1 Meg isn't as >|resource efficient as the Amiga with 512K. > >While your conclusion is probably correct, the test you performed is >not strictly fair unless your printer is also a LaserWriter or a >printer of equivalent resolution. I believe these printers require a >substantially large buffer to build their bitmaps into. > Is this true?? I don't think so. Laserprinters have their own internal memory buffers for constructing the output. I don't think the printouts of our MAC SE to the Laserwriter occupy more memory than is required to send the proper commands to the printer. Isn't the Laserwriter postscript compatible and, therefore, the image is not sent to the printer, just the postscript commands? >-- > Charles Poirier (decvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp > > "Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..." David Masterson DMasterson@cup.portal.com "Where nothing can go wrong... go wrong... go wrong..."