blandy@oberlin.UUCP (isjimblandy) (03/15/88)
I almost feel compelled to include "bigtrouble" and "argumentbrewing" in the keywords line... :-) I've recently put my Amiga up for sale on misc.forsale; I'm going to get a Mac II, which I can get at an educational discount. I think the reasons behind the choice are interesting. After all, I think almost anyone will agree that, in theory, there's nothing a Mac can do an Amiga can't do better. With a superb architecture, an I/O system well-matched with the operating system, and other similar things, why would one want to switch to a simpler, more conventional machine? *flaming, I'm afraid.* Take a look at the software. For the Mac, every WP supports multiple fonts, onscreen text attributes, proportional fonts, and they're usually almost WYSIWYG. And this is expected. On the Amiga, we've had TEXTCRAFT??!? Scribble!?!? The thing had dot commands, for God's sake! What are we, troff afficandos? Mewling and puking and trying to be Wordstar? Aren't we past that era? Why did Scribble! win an award from Amigaworld (I think)? Why is this acceptable? Why did it take ten minutes (I'm exaggerating) to list a directory under 1.1? Why was 1.2 better, but still awful compared to any PC clone? Come on - when I know my machine could scream past them, why is anything less than wonderful acceptable? Deluxe paint. Suppose you want to do some hardcopy, like posters? Maps? diagrams or charts for a homework paper or presentation? Why can't the thing conveniently work with an image larger than the screen like, say, the size of A PIECE OF PAPER???? Oh, sorry, I'll do it SIDEWAYS. Right. Even MacPaint lets you work on a page at a time. And MacPaint has been topped since. Why is this acceptable? Oh, we have a printer driver that will support graphics and offers standard escape codes. Sorry, boys- a bitmap dump routine does not a printer driver make. And the fool thing won't handle accented characters correctly. Why is this acceptable? It's frustrating knowing that your computer isn't living up to a fraction of its potential. *okay, no more flaming* I'd also like to observe something about new computers. I'm not talking about PC clones, born into a world of compatible software, printers, and cards. I'm talking about the Mac when it was new, the Amiga when it was new, and probably IBM's "new" PS/2. The first few software packages available (and the things bundled with it especially) have an amazing impact on the character and quality of the software for the lifetime of the computer. For the IBM - (as I recall - I was 13) we had Wordstar, Visicalc, and Microsoft BASIC. The new windowy stuff is influence from the Mac, and the new generation of fast compilers is Borland. But other than that, not much change. For the Amiga (and I think this is really telling), we had a WHOLE SLEW of snazzy graphic demos. And LOUSY word processing. Now we have amazing snazzy graphics, and still mediocre word processors. (Vizawrite is okay, but fatally flawed, I hear Word Perfect is buggy) For the Mac, we had MacWrite and MacPaint. It's kind of hard to see change in the Mac field, because they want all programs to look the same. But in general, I think, the stuff for the Mac has made more people say, "Wow! I didn't know a computer could do that!" and then sit down and make use of it. This is what computers are for. So since things seem so stable, I'm guessing that the Amiga stuff isn't going to improve radically. From my point of view, the Mac is the place to go. Mac users seem to expect excellence and useful innovation, and from what I've seen, they seem to get it. I guess what I'm saying here is something about the nature of computers. So if you think I'm just saying "mine's better than yours," do the wise thing - ignore me. It's not worth the net. But if you think I'm saying something new, post something, and let's argue. :-) -- Jim Blandy /oo\ "Insects were insects when OCMR Box 265, Oberlin OH 44074 /`--'\ man was just a burbling sjb1392@oberlin.bitnet \_][_/ whatsit." - archy ...ihnp4!oberlin!blandy
cjs@oberlin.UUCP (chris seline) (03/15/88)
What Blandy says is : The AMIGA hasn't lived up to its potential, and the MAC has.... In article <702@oberlin.UUCP>, blandy@oberlin.UUCP (isjimblandy) writes: > I've recently put my Amiga up for sale on misc.forsale; I'm going to > get a Mac II [stuff deleted] > Take a look at the software. For the Mac, every WP supports > multiple fonts, onscreen text attributes, proportional fonts, and > they're usually almost WYSIWYG. And this is expected. > [deleted] > On the Amiga, we've had TEXTCRAFT??!? Scribble!?!? The thing had > dot commands, for God's sake! What are we, troff afficandos? > Mewling and puking and trying to be Wordstar? Aren't we past that > era? Why did Scribble! win an award from Amigaworld (I think)? Why > is this acceptable? > [more deleted] > Deluxe paint. Suppose you want to do some hardcopy, like posters? > Maps? diagrams or charts for a homework paper or presentation? Why > can't the thing conveniently work with an image larger than the > screen like, say, the size of A PIECE OF PAPER???? Oh, sorry, I'll > do it SIDEWAYS. Right. Even MacPaint lets you work on a page at a > time. And MacPaint has been topped since. Why is this acceptable? > [still more deleted] > It's frustrating knowing that your computer isn't living up to a > fraction of its potential. > [still more deleted] > So since things seem so stable, I'm guessing that the Amiga stuff > isn't going to improve radically. From my point of view, the Mac is > the place to go. Mac users seem to expect excellence and useful > innovation, and from what I've seen, they seem to get it. > > sjb1392@oberlin.bitnet > ...ihnp4!oberlin!blandy Jim has an excellent point. I've only found the AMIGA to be tolerable now that I have 2.5 MEG (and can finally run several processes at once). But we still don't have bug free WP systems as good as MacWrite. As for DPaint fuck color (yes I said it) fuck color. I want something I can write nice B&W reports with. And this isn't it. The list goes on. 1) Why didn't CM steal the idea of resource files -- please read the Apple Documentation before responding. 2) Why didn't CM make the drives compatible? So I could exchange disks -- and source easily. (yes, I'd have to convert it) 3) Why did CM insist on a single interface -- ever notice every program has a slightly different way of putting up file requestors? 4) Why didn't they insist programs use the ClipBoard? 5) Why isn't their documentation as clear as APPLE's (read the apple docs before flaming) Well.... So there..... Chris Seline ihnp4!oberlin!cjs p.s. Atari is coming out with a 68020 unix color machine for the American Market 1989. Real UNIX. CM what have you done for me lately?
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (03/16/88)
More observations about the state of the Amiga, today, tomorrow, and yesterday. If someone starts a MCIBTYC war we shall shoot them ok? >What Blandy says is : The AMIGA hasn't lived up to its potential, and the MAC > has.... [standard snide remark here is "Well the Mac didn't have far to go."] When in fact this is both true and false. One of the problems with the Amiga 'market' is that there isn't nearly as much money going into it as the Mac market. But that is to be expected for a computer that is only a couple of years old. You see, if you look at history you will see that the amount of development effort that goes into a machine is proportional to the installed base. After all, no one wants to hire eight programmers and pay them 60,000 a year to develop whiz-calc when they only expect to sell a 1000 copies. But if the installed base is a million and they can sell 10,000 copies at $200 a piece then they will make the investment. Thus, the available software is an exponential function that depends on three things : a) Most importantly, installed base. Are people buying this machine? The 500,000 number speaks well for the Amiga here. b) Will people pay >$200 for a piece of software (which is the minimum price for a major, well supported product) c) Is the manufacturer supporting the ISVs and promoting the product. (This helps A. above) Basically, Commodores advertising has kept A) up, plus they seem to update the system software once a year and each time it is an improvement. I have seen 1.3 and it is as much an improvement in the user interface as 1.2 was in the programming interface. The stuff going on for 1.4 is even more exciting. And in the b) category, programs like Word Perfect, VideoScape 3D, and X-Cad show that you can sell software in the Amgia market at the $200 level. So each year the installed base doubles and another bunch of companies start developing software. So lets look at the past ... Ok when I bought my Amiga, I also bought Deluxe Paint and Lattice C 3.03b. (Oh and skyfox and arcticfox). They were ok programs, the best paint program anyone had ever seen, and a decent but not great C compiler. For word processing I used an early version of microemacs. Dial up communications were accomplished by AmigaTerm, the original source to Vt100. A year later, 1.2 had come out with improved system facilities and better programmer support. Lattice went to version 3.10 of the compiler and EA release Deluxe Paint II, a much more useful version of Deluxe Paint. Another 6 months passed before Word Perfect came out. But out it came and I found it quite useful and well supported. Now I have Lattice 4.01, Deluxe Paint II, MaxiPlan+, WordPerfect 4.2, and Shakespeare. The combination lets me do just about anything I could do on the Mac in the second year of it's existence but there are still some problems. 1) Printing is slow and looks *bad* on my Epson printer. (1.3 fixes this problem) 2) Working with floppies is slow as molasses. (They are still slow in 1.3 but should be faster in 1.4) 3) The user interface is still not 'standard'. (Being looked at I'm sure but I don't know if it can be fixed at this point) But these are just problems that take a little software and R&D, and *THAT* is where we really need to look to understand the Amiga. Since the release of 1.1 the number of engineers working on system software for the Amiga decline radically to a low of about 4 I believe, now it appears to be somewhere in the 8 to 12 range. Apple on the other hand has over a hundred people working on Mac stuff. Often times C/A tech support doubles as the systems programming staff , and Apple has a whole separate department with *another* hundred people in it to do that. Maybe as Commodore increases it's revenue it will staff up its programming staff. It really is a snowball effect. Hell, if Apple wanted to get a 'standard' IPC package for the Mac they would just assign a half dozen engineers to go off and design it. And six months later (poof) there it would be, and it would work with everything because they have the source and the access and the time to do it right. What do we have? A bunch of motivated and bright people all contributing ideas but we will never know if what we decide is *right* because we don't have the system perspective. It's worse than a chicken and egg problem, we're an egg with no idea what the chicken looks like. The advantages of this though are that Commodore really does take your suggestions and put them into the software. And you and I really have some influence over what their priorities are so in some small way we are helping to shape the Amiga. I always counsel people who want canned solutions and don't care what the machine is underneath to get a Mac or a PC clone. [Can 1000 lemmings all be wrong?:-)] For programmer/engineers who like to get their hands 'dirty' I always reccomend the Amiga. For budding entreprenures(sp?) it is a toss up, kinda depends on how creative they are and whether or not they have a 'real' job. As with any computer there will be those software companies that grow up with the Amiga and become the leaders. We're just starting to move off the ground floor so look out. So why haven't I sold my Amiga and bought a Mac II (or a Sun which is the better machine :-)) ? Because of the potential and the fun, because Commodore is improving the software and helping others improve theirs, and because I haven't found anything close in it's potential. I'm sticking with it, and helping it grow, and would be willing to predict that in the next couple of years people who write Mac and PC programs will be adapting things that pioneered on the Amiga, ports of 'Amiga' programs will be demanded by those users, and the Amiga will have >1.5 Million installed users out there. Oh, and some comments on the comments here : >But we still don't have bug free WP systems as good as MacWrite. >As for DPaint fuck color (yes I said it) fuck color. I want >something I can write nice B&W reports with. And this isn't it. Well, color will be more important next year when Apple announces it's color LaserWriter no? Also I use DPaint II in black and white mode all the time for the same reason, my printer is black and white. Using a 800 X 1000 screen I can get pretty nice output from it on my Epson, great output on the LaserWriter at work. >The list goes on. > 1) Why didn't CM steal the idea of resource files -- please > read the Apple Documentation before responding. Maybe because Apple threatened to Sue DRI, maybe because they just didn't have the resources to do it right. > 2) Why didn't CM make the drives compatible? So I could > exchange disks -- and source easily. (yes, I'd have to > convert it) Because the Mac uses screwy drives. You could still use the serial port like you would have to if you had a PC clone. > 3) Why did CM insist on a single interface -- ever notice > every program has a slightly different way of putting up file > requestors? Yes, again because they probably didn't have the resources. As things like the arp.library get wider distribution this problem will go away (for file requesters anyway). Now all we need are a standard color requester and font requester and we will be cooking with gas. > 4) Why didn't they insist programs use the ClipBoard? Because it wasn't quite "done" the way it should have been. Why didn't C/A supply an iff.library to read and write all of these IFF forms? If you will recall, CBM was on the verge of Bankruptcy when the Amiga was announced, and no believed they would survive long enough to get 1.2 out the door. Apple was never under that sort of pressure. > 5) Why isn't their documentation as clear as APPLE's > (read the apple docs before flaming) What part did you find unclear? >p.s. Atari is coming out with a 68020 unix color machine for the >American Market 1989. Real UNIX. CM what have you done for me >lately? And if you really believe that I've got a bridge to sell you in brooklyn. At COMDEX they were showing the ABAQ, a transputer based machine that did all sorts of fancy graphics. They said "It will be available in March, if you sign up as a developer you can get one in January." Well, no one I know has one, nor does Atari talk much about them any more, nor does anyone who sent in their $100 developer fee have anything more than a slightly embellished spec. Atari is the land of vapors these days. And I will believe it when I see it and not a second before, even if JT himself called me up and told me they would meet that date. --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.
sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) (03/16/88)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.47.1 of Sun Aug 2 1987 on linus (berkeley-unix) > But we still don't have bug free WP systems as good as MacWrite. > As for DPaint fuck color (yes I said it) fuck color. I want > something I can write nice B&W reports with. And this isn't it. As I see it, the big problem the Amiga had was that Textcraft, its Commodore-supplied word processor, was frankly terrible. The first couple of software products for the Amiga didn't show off the Amiga's power: Textcraft didn't multitask, and didn't import graphic files. (Commodore should have produced a simple version of Aegis Animator or Deluxe Video to show off the Amiga's animation capabilities.) But the new products are a great improvement in this area. Example: I just got my ProWrite upgrade (version 2.0) and it looks pretty good. 8 color WYSIWYG, new printer drivers; looks great, does what I want. (I may post a review if anyone cares.) I'm convinced that the Mac would have remained a curiosity if Apple hadn't integrated it with the Laserwriter and Postscript. But I won't contribute to the incipient Mac vs. Amiga flaming wars by stating whether the Mac would have deserved this fate. As for whether the Mac is a great success and the Amiga is an incipient failure, consider this: I've heard that after 4 years of trying (count 2 more if you want to include the Lisa), Apple has managed to sell 1 million Macs. Approximately 600,000 Amigas have been sold since late 1985. This compares with 10-15 million IBM PC's and clones. Steven Litvintchouk MITRE Corporation Burlington Road Bedford, MA 01730 Fone: (617)271-7753 ARPA: sdl@mitre-bedford.arpa UUCP: ...{cbosgd,decvax,genrad,ll-xn,mit-eddie,philabs,utzoo}!linus!sdl "Those who will be able to conquer software will be able to conquer the world." -- Tadahiro Sekimoto, president, NEC Corp.
mclek@dcatla.UUCP (Larry E. Kollar) (03/16/88)
(No flame war so far -- let's keep it that way!) Since I use a Mac extensively at work & have an Amiga at home, I feel qualified to make a few comments here. In article <702@oberlin.UUCP>, blandy@oberlin.UUCP (isjimblandy) writes: >> I've recently put my Amiga up for sale on misc.forsale; I'm going to >> get a Mac II.... >> Take a look at the software. For the Mac, every WP supports >> multiple fonts, onscreen text attributes, proportional fonts, and >> they're usually almost WYSIWYG. And this is expected. I use the Mac for word processing. I sit in front of it about 8 hrs/day, and don't get eyestrain. This is possible partially because of the Mac's nice, rock steady, MONOCHROME screen, and partially because my vision hasn't dimmed to the point where I can't see the small letters. Some older people have problems with it. Other features making the Mac about ideal for WP include the small size (you can carry it home without finding a pushcart), fonts, mixed text/graphics, and a laser printer designed to work with it. But there's a dark side: the only printers that work well are Apple's, and they are somewhat expensive. We tried an early version of a Mac print driver for the HP LaserJet, and it stunk. There's a driver for Epson printers (how well it works I don't know), and a freeware driver for daisy-wheel printers (of course, you don't get graphics). Essentially, if you want hardcopy, you buy Apple printers or don't show off the results. Software? Only recently have there been any *heavy-duty* word processors available for the Mac. For the longest time, there was MacWrite and Microsoft Word 1.05. Word 3.0 was the first high-powered word processor, followed quickly by Word 3.01 when the former turned out to be bug-infested. This resulted in much ill-will toward Microsoft. FullWrite is available (?), but nearly a year after the original announced release date. I haven't looked at it yet, but customers & pitchmen say it's more powerful than Word. -------- So where does that leave the Amiga? Well, that leaves it in video, graphics, and music production, and engineering graphics. This is where I understand the Amiga is really doing well. These are not the type of people who tend to be fussy about their word processing; for the engineers & hackers, MicroEmacs (or your favorite text editor) suits them just fine. The rest are likely to use one of the light-duty word processors or something and not worry about it. Sure, I'd like to have a nice word processor for working at home, but rule #1 is "Don't use a color screen for long-term word processing." Fast track to eyestrain. :-) I'm looking at KindWords, which looks somewhat like MacWrite, for home word processing, and maybe a page layout program for anything heavy- duty. Or I could be fairly happy with an nroff-style processor -- which is STILL the only thing that will let me do everything I want with text. Ever see a WP program that supports interrupts? >> Deluxe paint.... I don't know much about Deluxe Paint, but wasn't it one of the first paint programs to come out? There are many newer paint programs, and they just might work better. >> It's frustrating knowing that your computer isn't living up to a >> fraction of its potential. >> So since things seem so stable, I'm guessing that the Amiga stuff >> isn't going to improve radically. The Amiga is not as "mature" a system as the Mac. The Mac muddled along for a couple of years before desktop publishing came along. It took a bit longer for heavy-duty word processing to come along. The Amiga is now nearing the point where it is as old as the Mac was when it really took off. I suspect that some really fantastic Amiga software will hit the market before too long. Some of its already there -- ever try ray-tracing on a non-Mac II? >> Mac users seem to expect excellence and useful >> innovation, and from what I've seen, they seem to get it. They also expect to pay through the nose for it. I bought an Amiga 500 with two floppies & 1 meg of memory, for about 1/2 what I'd pay for a similarly- equipped Mac Plus. The standard response is "you're also paying for service," but many Mac dealers turn out to be as knowledgeable as your standard K-Mart clerk (if you believe all the dealer flames that cross the networks). Find a good CBM dealer (I know one in the Atlanta area), and you're just as well-off. As for useful, I think the Amiga is extremely useful. I wish I could usefully multitask on my Mac with "only" 1Meg. It's possible on an Amiga. Anyway, each machine fills a niche that the other doesn't. Chris Seline responds: > > 2) Why didn't CM make the drives compatible? Compatible with what? IBM? Mac? Why didn't Apple make their drives IBM- compatible? Compatibility is a two-edged sword. I understand the Atari ST uses IBM-compatible drives, but they hold about 40% of what an Amiga drive does. > 3) Why did CM insist on a single interface -- ever notice > every program has a slightly different way of putting up file > requestors? Apple insists on certain guidelines, but they're not always followed. Post a message in comp.sys.mac sometime asking how well Microsoft follows the Apple guidelines. There was a painful transition from the 512K Mac to the Mac Plus, and another from the Plus/SE to the Mac II, because some people figured they could do it better "their" way. So that's not just C-A's problem. > 4) Why didn't they insist programs use the ClipBoard? I'd like to see this happen myself. I understand it's hard to use, but there must be SOMEONE who's come up with a few routines to make it easier. Anyone? > 5) Why isn't their documentation as clear as APPLE's > (read the apple docs before flaming) You mean people read Apple's manuals? We didn't. :-) After all, that's what graphic-based interfaces are supposed to let you do. Actually, I pretty much like what I've seen so far of the A500's manual. It includes pinouts for everything -- unlike the Mac manuals. >p.s. Atari is coming out with a 68020 unix color machine... >CM what have you done for me lately? "If I wanted Unix, I'd have bought a Sun." :-) But this isn't really the place to debate the merits of Unix. Or Atari. This is really getting longer than I planned. In summary, I use both the Mac and the Amiga, and I like both, for different reasons. (Now if only Apple would sell the Mac II for $600. :-) Larry Kollar ...!gatech!dcatla!mclek
peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (03/17/88)
In article <702@oberlin.UUCP>, blandy@oberlin.UUCP (isjimblandy) writes: > Take a look at the software. For the Mac, every WP supports > multiple fonts, onscreen text attributes, proportional fonts, and > they're usually almost WYSIWYG. And this is expected. On the Mac, hardly any editors of any kind support global search and replace. Until Multifinder came along they all took over the machine. > On the Amiga, we've had TEXTCRAFT??!? Scribble!?!? The thing had > dot commands, for God's sake! What are we, troff afficandos? I don't know about you, but I *am* a troff afficianado. I think TextCraft and Scribble are insufficiantly powerful for real work. Vi and Emacs are the only way to fly. I'd also like to note that the PC has a whole lot more serious text editors available for it than the Amiga, the Mac, all the CP/M machines in the world... > Mewling and puking and trying to be Wordstar? Aren't we past that > era? Why did Scribble! win an award from Amigaworld (I think)? Why > is this acceptable? I don't know. I've given up on AmigaWorld. > Why did it take ten minutes (I'm exaggerating) to list a directory > under 1.1? Why was 1.2 better, but still awful compared to any PC > clone? Come on - when I know my machine could scream past them, why > is anything less than wonderful acceptable? It isn't. We've been flaming Amiga on the net for years about the slow speed of AmigaDOS, and how we want a UNIX-style file system. But let's talk about the slow speed of the Mac. On the Mac-II, I have to stop and pause every time I want to do something and wait for the machine to catch up with me. Up to a couple of seconds with a moderate software load. On a 68020? Why is anything less than instantaneous response acceptable? And we could take pot-shots at the Mac file system for years and not do it justice. > Deluxe paint. Suppose you want to do some hardcopy, like posters? > Maps? diagrams or charts for a homework paper or presentation? Why > can't the thing conveniently work with an image larger than the > screen like, say, the size of A PIECE OF PAPER???? Oh, sorry, I'll > do it SIDEWAYS. Right. Even MacPaint lets you work on a page at a > time. And MacPaint has been topped since. Why is this acceptable? Gee. I just pulled up DPaint II, selected "Page Size", and set it to 640 by 800. That's actually a bit larger than 8.5 by 11". I guess it isn't. > Oh, we have a printer driver that will support graphics and offers > standard escape codes. Sorry, boys- a bitmap dump routine does not a > printer driver make. And the fool thing won't handle accented > characters correctly. Why is this acceptable? Actually the printer driver is a *bit* more complex than that, and remember: the Mac only supports *one* printer. Oh, right. Now it supports *two*. The Amiga supports any printer you care to name. > It's frustrating knowing that your computer isn't living up to a > fraction of its potential. Agreed. But it's young yet. Give it time. After all, Commodore is nowhere near as rich as Apple, and the Mac didn't have to put up with being used as a soccerball by Jack Tramiel & Commodore. > *okay, no more flaming* Why? You do it so well. > So since things seem so stable, I'm guessing that the Amiga stuff > isn't going to improve radically. What makes you think that? The Amiga hasn't had any real advertising until last November. Since then the number of machines out there has increased fourfold. > From my point of view, the Mac is > the place to go. Mac users seem to expect excellence and useful > innovation, and from what I've seen, they seem to get it. So, are you a user or a programmer? Do you plan on writing software for your shiny new Mac? There are 600,000 Amigas out there. If the situation is as bad as you say then all you need to do is clone MacWrite or MacPaint and you'll sell 100,000 copies, easy. > I guess what I'm saying here is something about the nature of > computers. So if you think I'm just saying "mine's better than > yours," do the wise thing - ignore me. It's not worth the net. But > if you think I'm saying something new, post something, and let's > argue. :-) You're not saying anything new. Haven't you been watching this group over the past months? -- -- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva `-_-' -- normally ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter U -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) (03/18/88)
In a previous article, Mr. Seline stated: > [Much stuff deleted] >So there..... > >Chris Seline >ihnp4!oberlin!cjs > >p.s. Atari is coming out with a 68020 unix color machine for the >American Market 1989. Real UNIX. CM what have you done for me >lately? Sorry to write this, but Mr. Tramiel's track-record for living up to his promises aren't to good. As an *early* Vic20 and C64 owner, I know of far too many instances of Mr. Tramiel promising things which he did not (or could not) deliver. Many of those promises, if I remember, were about computers (B128, ill-fated machines like the Plus-4 and C16 [which didn't last too long], etc.). And I have heard that he is doing this with Atari's products now. Suffice it to say that I will believe the above statement when I see the machine selling at a store. Would you like it if Commodore made these same kinds of promises, and then not living up to them? Yeah, let's see, a $1500 box running System V, 4.3BSD, and Xenix, as well as MS-DOS and OS/2, with a 68040, an 80386, and a transputer, plus some custom RISC chips (what the hell!), and promised for 1st quarter 1989! ;-) -Chris Lishka -- Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu "My cockatiels control my mind!"\{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka
kgschlueter@orchid.waterloo.edu (Kevin Schlueter) (03/18/88)
Although I rarely post anything, I felt I just had to respond to this silly "why isn't the Amiga a Mac" discussion. Before I start, let me say that I like the mac and have used one since before its official introduction. The purpose of this article is not to derogate the mac, but to defend the Amiga against some rather silly criticism. First, the Mac had a two year head start. The software is hence much more mature. But the Amiga is catching up. Those experiencing problems with the output from their paint programs should wait for 1.3. Those interested in super hi-quality output (ie for reports) should chuck their paint programs entirely and look into a postscript laser printer and a software package such as Professional Page. Those who want a powerful word processor should consider using WordPerfect along with Professional Page (or its competition, I suppose). It is much faster to type a document in WP and then to lay it out using PP than to try to enter it into a WSYWIG word processor (and believe me - I've used MS Word, MacWrite, WriteNow and several others). The point I'm trying to make here is that those doing the complaining don't seemed to have thoroughly investigated the software available for the Amiga (ie DPAINT II has no trouble printing an entire page). On a related note, you have to be patient with the Amiga documentation (I assume you mean technical documentation here -- if not, ignore the the rest of the paragraph). It has not gone through the revisions that Inside Mac has. Until recently, Inside Mac was pretty terrible. As a further point of comparison, the first version of the Amiga documentation (pre Addison Wesley) was much better than the early drafts of Inside Mac. I bought my Amiga in November, 1985. If I had purchased a computer from the competition (who shall remain nameless), I would have had tremendous trouble expanding it and would most likely have to forego some of the new software. This HAS NOT been the case with my A1000. Finally, I feel that it is pointless to compare currently available machines with vapour-ware from a source which too often promises alot more than it delivers. ============================================================================= Kevin Schlueter 4B Computer Science University of Waterloo. =============================================================================
wilkes@mips.COM (John Wilkes) (03/18/88)
In article <27010@linus.UUCP> sdl@linus.UUCP (Steven D. Litvintchouk) writes: >I've heard that after 4 years of >trying (count 2 more if you want to include the Lisa), Apple has >managed to sell 1 million Macs. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Er, huh?? What is your source for this statistic? Anybody have reputable numbers for the Mac installed base? I just can't believe they've only sold 1 million. According to an article on page F-1 in today's San Jose Mercury News, Apple's Fremont factory is operating at top capacity, and they're looking to expand. Also, according to the same article, Apple had their first $1 Billion quarter (that's Billion, with a *B*) in the first three months of this fiscal year. I don't think they made all those bucks peddling the GS. A million Macs in one month would be more beleivable. >Steven Litvintchouk John Wilkes -- -- @work: -- {decwrl,ames,pyramid,prls}!mips!wilkes -- OR, for those of great faith: -- wilkes@mips.com
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (03/19/88)
In article <704@oberlin.UUCP> cjs@oberlin.UUCP (chris seline) writes: >But we still don't have bug free WP systems as good as MacWrite. >As for DPaint fuck color (yes I said it) fuck color. I want >something I can write nice B&W reports with. And this isn't it. Fuck reports (yes I said it) fuck reports. I bought the Amiga because I was interested in video, not reports. Ok, so all the machines should be able to do all the functions, but I gotta tell ya, the Amiga does reports better than the Mac does video. > 2) Why didn't CM make the drives compatible? So I could > exchange disks -- and source easily. (yes, I'd have to > convert it) I'm glad they didn't. The Mac drive formats are bizarre and buggy. I've never had more flaky disks than on a Mac system, and half of the time the !(#*&%)@#^ machine wouldn't even give them back to me without getting out a paper clip and jabbing in that little hole. Nonstandard variable-speed drives. The Amiga hardware allows IBM compatibility (720K), (ever hear of Dos-2-Dos?) why didn't the Mac? > 3) Why did CM insist on a single interface -- ever notice > every program has a slightly different way of putting up file > requestors? So the file requesters are a little different. BIG DEAL. I've never had any trouble making them work. If they'd have been standardized, the FIRST one you ever saw would probably be what we're still using. Instead, they get better with every program (generally). Granted, it would be handy if the OS implemented a file requester as a primitive, but only so the developers don't *have* to do their own, NOT because I think a standard file requester is a good idea. You'd still probably find applications that implement their own because they'd like to provide better features than the built-in standard one. Apple will pull your developers support if you determine that their "approved" interface is a poor fit for your particular application and decide to "customize" a bit (and they notice). BAH! Then watch them go off and "customize" it all to hell themselves because even THEY found it too limiting. A completely standardized interface means a mediocre jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none interface that no one is allowed to improve upon. If you're main application is producing reports, then OK, maybe you're better off right now with a Mac (or a PC). Don't blame C= because you didn't investigate the issues better before you went out and bought your system. Sorry for any perpetuation of the MCIBTYC wars, I just hate to see people blame a system design for a wrong decision THEY may have made. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (03/21/88)
In article <704@oberlin.UUCP> cjs@oberlin.UUCP (chris seline) writes: >But we still don't have bug free WP systems as good as MacWrite. You must be joking. I used MacWrite for some serious word processing. It sucks big. A minimal WP system if I've ever seen one. WYSIWYG is about the ONLY thing MacWrite has going for it. > 1) Why didn't CM steal the idea of resource files -- please > read the Apple Documentation before responding. While resource files offer some things that are fairly nifty, they also require considerable gyrations within the OS in order to work properly. C/A's decision not to go to a 'resource fork' type environment isn't a bad one. > 2) Why didn't CM make the drives compatible? So I could > exchange disks -- and source easily. (yes, I'd have to > convert it) Compatible with what? Mac drives? Surely you must be joking - why would Commodore (or anybody else who could learn a lesson from Apple) want to design in drives that are totally non-standard, relatively low-capacity, and expensive? > 3) Why did CM insist on a single interface -- ever notice > every program has a slightly different way of putting up file > requestors? I presume you meant to say 'didn't' up there. This is a bit of a pain, but not that much of an issue. Or have you found a file requester that was too much for you to understand? *I* haven't had that much problem with it. > 4) Why didn't they insist programs use the ClipBoard? A hit, but not that much of one. Clipboard was poorly thought-out in the beginning, and so hasn't had that much acceptance as yet. I must point out that ALL Mac programs don't let you use the Clipboard - just most. > 5) Why isn't their documentation as clear as APPLE's > (read the apple docs before flaming) You're joking, right? I have, right here in front of me, the first edition of Inside Macintosh. While this might have been improved for later editions, by comparison to the first edition Rom Kernel Manual (which sits right next to it on the shelf, by the way) it is a marvel of turgid, badly organized, and undecipherable text. In order to understand much of anything in it, you had to read the entire document, and then go back and reread the applicable parts. Even then, the chances that you'd get something wrong were pretty great. And you're holding this up as a paragon? You crazy, mon. If Apple's done better in later editions, great. Let's see how Amiga does in THEIR later editions. >p.s. Atari is coming out with a 68020 unix color machine for the >American Market 1989. Real UNIX. CM what have you done for me >lately? Would YOU buy a UNIX machine from Atari? If you would, then any arguments I've made above can be ignored - you're probably too dumb to understand them :-) At least check out Atari's record for support of their existing, simple products. Then let me know. And, BTW - hadn't you seen the postings from C/A people acknowledging the existence of their 68020 card? And that one, at least, is real enough that people have actually used it... -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
ncreed@ndsuvax.UUCP (Walter Reed) (03/22/88)
In article <2001@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >...................... The Amiga hardware allows IBM compatibility (720K), >(ever hear of Dos-2-Dos?) why didn't the Mac? Umm, the mac used 3 1/2 drives way before IBM ever did (at least in PC products...) I remeber when people had trouble finding "those funny little disks." At that time, there really wasn't a standard and it allowed apple to put more information on a single sided disk than other methods. -- /* Walter Reed UUCP : uunet!ndsuvax!ncreed Internet : ncreed%NDSUVAX.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU Ph 701-235-0774 Bitnet : ncreed@ndsuvax OR NU105451@NDSUVM1 ------------------- */
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (03/25/88)
In article <733@ndsuvax.UUCP> ncreed@ndsuvax.UUCP (Walter Reed) writes: >In article <2001@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >>...................... The Amiga hardware allows IBM compatibility (720K), >>(ever hear of Dos-2-Dos?) why didn't the Mac? >Umm, the mac used 3 1/2 drives way before IBM ever did (at least in PC >products...) I remeber when people had trouble finding "those funny little >disks." At that time, there really wasn't a standard and it allowed apple >to put more information on a single sided disk than other methods. Yes you're right, I forgot Mac started the 3 1/2" drives. Never mind. Still, once both Mac and PC format drives are out there, if you had to pick between the formats for an existing standard to support, I would pick the IBM formats (based on standard 5-1/4" MFM/M2FM) over the Mac's bizzare variable speed format. And knowing Apple, they'd probably sue you for using it anyway. Keith
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (03/27/88)
In article <2008@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >>Umm, the mac used 3 1/2 drives way before IBM ever did > >Yes you're right, I forgot Mac started the 3 1/2" drives. Actually, HP was using them considerably before Apple. And with a more- or-less standard format, too. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame