palarson@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Paul Larson) (11/14/87)
Oh boy, I think I'm going to get flamed for this one. I am a non-Amiga user. I just found out that the Amiga is multi-tasking, something for which I would kill. However, if my sources are correct, the A2000 only comes with 1 meg standard. My question is: is this enough to really use multi-tasking to its full extent? Multifinder for the Mac is pseudo-multitasking, but it appearantly doesn't do much good until you're playing with at least 2 meg of memory and a hard disk. Johan Larson
ugmiker@sunybcs.uucp (Michael Reilly) (11/15/87)
In article <4124@watdragon.waterloo.edu> palarson@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Paul Larson) writes: >Oh boy, I think I'm going to get flamed for this one. > >I am a non-Amiga user. I just found out that the Amiga is multi-tasking, >something for which I would kill. However, if my sources are correct, the >A2000 only comes with 1 meg standard. My question is: is this enough to >really use multi-tasking to its full extent? Multifinder for the Mac is >pseudo-multitasking, but it appearantly doesn't do much good until you're >playing with at least 2 meg of memory and a hard disk. > > Johan Larson Take it from a BIASED (and proud of it :-) Amiga A100 owner. When I use my Amiga, I am always doing about three-five different things, downloading files, playing othello, running the shell, running facc, running mouseclock, and I almost Never have memory problems....What is the bid deal about that you ask, well, I only have 512k, and one drive!!! And I can do allll the above. I can't live without multitasking, My freinds call me a "multitasking maniac" I just can't do one thing at a time, much to my atari-owning housemate's unhappiness. One quick example of why not....Once while downloading a HUGE (170k)file I ran out of disk space, OH DAMN !!!! what am I gonna do now, I have 150k of this file here, and no more room on the disk....hmmmmm... BUT wait !!! I OWN A Commodore Amiga, I can do a jillion (o.k. exaggeration :-) ) things at once... Aren't I running the shell somewhere in all those windows...? ahhh yes, here it is, I guess I could just get a directory of this disk, hmmmm there is a file I don't need... blow that away.... go back to the vt100 program, and look,it is finishing the file transfer, like nothing ever happend !!!! BOY WHAT A MACHINE!! ..... TRY that on a monochrome mac !!! (of course from an amiga commercial ..) mike p.s. Also I think a 2 Meg. expansion for the 2000 is only about $450, and my local dealer had a bunch of them in stock.. Michael (what am I wood??) Reilly University of Buffalo Computer Science -------------------------------------- CSNET: ugmiker@buffalo.CSNET INTERNET: ugmiker@{joey,marvin}.cs.buffalo.edu UUCP: ..!{nike|watmath,alegra,decvax}!sunybcs!ugmiker BITNET: ugmiker@sunybcs.BITNET <-OR-> ACSCMPR@ubvmsc.BITNET
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (11/15/87)
>Oh boy, I think I'm going to get flamed for this one. > >I am a non-Amiga user. I just found out that the Amiga is multi-tasking, >something for which I would kill. However, if my sources are correct, the >A2000 only comes with 1 meg standard. My question is: is this enough to >really use multi-tasking to its full extent? Multifinder for the Mac is >pseudo-multitasking, but it appearantly doesn't do much good until you're >playing with at least 2 meg of memory and a hard disk. > > Johan Larson Not at all. The problem with the Mac is that it *eats* memory. Multifinder itself is huge, and most Mac applications assume they can play with all the available memory. Equivalent applications on the Amiga take much less memory, and are more friendly towards the machine's resources. 1Meg is sufficient. I myself have 2.5Meg in my A1000, 1Meg of that being a ram disk to hold my development enviroment (compile, linker, include files, etc...). Of course, memory is very cheap these days, and with the A2000 it is simply a matter of buying a 2, 4, or 8 Mbyte board to expand even further. -Matt
bilbo@pnet02.cts.com (Bill Daggett) (11/15/87)
If you are going to multitask, the more RAM and hard drive the merrier Johan.
But I was multitasking a year ago with 512K on my A1000 before my recent
upgrade to 2Megs RAM and the Supra 20Meg drive. You will always need more RAM
and a hard drive, whether you multitask or not regardless of machine.
Bill Daggett -- a.k.a.
*Bilbo Baggins* Recombinant Hobbit and Sysop of = Bilbo's Hideaway =
* Sometimes The Dragon Wins! * 213-640-6104
INTERNET: bilbo@pnet02.CTS.COM
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd!crash, ihnp4!scgvaxd }!gryphon!pnet02!bilbo
WHAT?:ccasttd@pyr.gatech.EDU (Thomas Dixon) (11/16/87)
In article <4124@watdragon.waterloo.edu> palarson@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Paul Larson) writes: >Oh boy, I think I'm going to get flamed for this one. > >I am a non-Amiga user. I just found out that the Amiga is multi-tasking, >something for which I would kill. However, if my sources are correct, the >A2000 only comes with 1 meg standard. My question is: is this enough to >really use multi-tasking to its full extent? Multifinder for the Mac is >pseudo-multitasking, but it appearantly doesn't do much good until you're >playing with at least 2 meg of memory and a hard disk. > > Johan Larson Where have you been, man... The PDP-11/23 can run Unix in 128K, not just muti-tasking but multi- user. The DEC LSI-11 can do primative multitasking under RT-11 or Xinu in 64K!!! The list can go on for days... The thing more memory gives you is speed. 64K multitasking is pretty slow... Memory should not be you concern...the fact that the Amiga has no MMU is the real stumbling block to efficient multitasking...
higgin@cbmvax.UUCP (Paul Higginbottom SALES) (11/16/87)
in article <4124@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, palarson@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Paul Larson) says: > Oh boy, I think I'm going to get flamed for this one. Not at all, that's a perfectly reasonable question. > I am a non-Amiga user. I just found out that the Amiga is multi-tasking, > something for which I would kill. However, if my sources are correct, the > A2000 only comes with 1 meg standard. My question is: is this enough to > really use multi-tasking to its full extent? Multifinder for the Mac is > pseudo-multitasking, but it appearantly doesn't do much good until you're > playing with at least 2 meg of memory and a hard disk. > Johan Larson Well Johan, the main difference between the Mac and the Amiga is that the Amiga OS was designed with multi-tasking in from day one, not as an afterthought, and as such has a number of memory conserving features that make 1 megabyte more than enough to do multi-tasking unless you're running a desktop publishing program, a word processor, and a 3D animation program all at once!!! Anyway... these features are things like shared software libraries. Huge amounts of re-entrant code so that each program doesn't bring into memory the same code over and over. "On-demand" (disk resident) libraries and device drivers. Software resources are only brought into memory as needed and can be expunged from the system if no longer needed by any running program to free up memory. A hard disk is absolutely not necessary for multi-tasking because things are not paged back and forth to disk to allow multiple programs to run. The Amiga OS is compact, efficient, fast, and expandable. Now on the other hand... memory is cheap... our 2Mb expansion card for the A2000 is only $499 (sugg. list), so if you do need additional memory, you can buy ours or a third party card. Regards, efeway
bakken@tahoma.ARPA (Dave Bakken) (11/16/87)
In article <4124@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, palarson@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Paul Larson) writes: > Oh boy, I think I'm going to get flamed for this one. I don't know why you would. > > I am a non-Amiga user. I just found out that the Amiga is multi-tasking, How did you find out? Grapevine, Amigan friends, or (gasp!) CA ads?? > something for which I would kill. So would a lot of technical and non-technical users if they knew the benefits of multitasking (as you obviously do) and found out that the Amiga supports it. And it looks like CA's advertising agency might actually be starting to tell the world one or both of the above points. > > However, if my sources are correct, the > A2000 only comes with 1 meg standard. My question is: is this enough to > really use multi-tasking to its full extent? Multifinder for the Mac is > pseudo-multitasking, but it appearantly doesn't do much good until you're > playing with at least 2 meg of memory and a hard disk. > Probably, but 2 would be nice and 3-5 very powerful. The actual programs that you might want to run at once will probably take less than a meg. So you can get by fine with 1M. But to use a recoverable RAM disk (survives a warm boot) and facc (floppy accelerator that is a disk cache - best thing since sliced bread) you will most certainly want 2-3M, and 5M if you are spending a lot of time doing program development and want all your libraries in RAM. > Johan Larson Go for it, Johan! Note - I own CA stock, but mostly for the exact same reasons you would do well with Amy, I have with the Amy1000 and will with the 2000 one of these days. -- Dave Bakken Boeing Commercial Airplane Company uw-beaver!ssc-vax!shuksan!tahoma!bakken Disclaimer: These views are my own, not my employers.
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (11/17/87)
In article <4124@watdragon.waterloo.edu> (Paul Larson) writes: >Oh boy, I think I'm going to get flamed for this one. I don't see why you would. >I am a non-Amiga user. I just found out that the Amiga is multi-tasking, >something for which I would kill. However, if my sources are correct, the >A2000 only comes with 1 meg standard. My question is: is this enough to >really use multi-tasking to its full extent? Multifinder for the Mac is >pseudo-multitasking, but it appearantly doesn't do much good until you're >playing with at least 2 meg of memory and a hard disk. > > Johan Larson First, the answer is that the Amiga multitasks well in 512K and above systems. It is very nice on a 1Meg system and above 4 megs other things come into play. But the real reason I am posting this rather than mailing it, is because the growing misconception which I cannot stop on my own, all I can do is ask you to write in to various magazines etc and complain loudly. The misconception is this : "Multitasking is only reasonable on when you have a lot of memory." And this misconception is coming about by people trying to bandaid multi- tasking on single tasking OSs like MS-DOS and the Mac's OS. When the system is designed from the ground up to be multitasking it takes no more memory than a single tasking operating system, period. A classic example is Xenix. It runs multitasking (and multiuser) in a 1 meg AT, why can't OS/2 ? Because it is bound by backward compatibility with MS-DOS. Why is the Mac's Multi- finder so huge? Because it has to contend with programs that think they own the entire address space, and thus the only way it works is by providing three our four address spaces. Multitasking on the 2000 works, works cleanly, and to the extent that it doesn't have an MMU (and cannot protect you against other tasks scribbling in each others address spaces) works reliably. The only limit I have ever hit on the Amiga was running out of chip memory. With only 512K and each 640X200 window getting 32K (64K if they are 16 color windows) you can run out of chip mem with less than 15 interactive tasks running. --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.
cunniff@hpfclq.UUCP (11/18/87)
In article <34014@sun.uucp>, cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: > Multitasking on the 2000 works, works cleanly, > and to the extent that it doesn't have an MMU (and cannot protect you against > other tasks scribbling in each others address spaces) works reliably. Amen. > The only limit I have ever hit on the Amiga was running out of chip memory. > With only 512K and each 640X200 window getting 32K (64K if they are 16 > color windows) you can run out of chip mem with less than 15 interactive > tasks running. Of course, this is only if the windows are saving their entire bitmap for redisplay, and not just relying on software signals to tell them when to redraw. The first type of window acts just as Chuck describes, and redraws nearly instantaneously, although with substantial memory usage. The second type has a fairly small memory overhead (100 bytes? 200 bytes? Something like that.), but is somewhat slower to redraw. Note that console (text) windows are typically of the second type. A paint program, or something like it, typically uses windows of the first type. I would tell you the AmigaSpeak for each type of window, but I always get them confused without looking them up (SIMPLE_REFRESH? SMART_REFRESH? I can come up with a rationale for which is which, BOTH WAYS :-> ). Just another instance of an over-the-hill programmer at 23 (have you read this month's Amazing Computing yet?) > --Chuck McManis Ross Cunniff Hewlett-Packard System Software Operation ...{hplabs,ucbvax}!hpda!cunniff cunniff%hpda@hplabs.ARPA
peter@dalcsug.UUCP (11/19/87)
>The only limit I have ever hit on the Amiga was running out of chip memory. >With only 512K and each 640X200 window getting 32K (64K if they are 16 >color windows) you can run out of chip mem with less than 15 interactive >tasks running. > Same here, I still only have 512K (gasp!) and still do fine, I always have an editor hanging around when I compile and mosttimes have quite a bit of stuff in the RAM: disk. When I first bought my amiga I was curious to see if the advertised "up to 50 windows" was right or not, so I opened up 51 "dotty" windows! WELL ... Actually I could only do 51 with 2 megs, but I did get somewhere around 30 or so (this was almost 2 years ago). Lets see you do that on a PC with Desqview! - Peter Philip > >--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.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/24/87)
In article <4230009@hpfclq.HP.COM>, cunniff@hpfclq.HP.COM (Ross Cunniff) writes: > [discussion of SMART_REFRESH/SUPERBITMAP vs SIMPLE_REFRESH] Note that console > (text) windows are typically of the second type. A paint program, or > something like it, typically uses windows of the first type. Console windows (produced by CON:) are all Smart Refresh. I wish they were Simple Refresh. There would be a lot less slicing and dicing going on. > I would tell you the AmigaSpeak for each type of window, but I always get > them confused without looking them up (SIMPLE_REFRESH? SMART_REFRESH? I > can come up with a rationale for which is which, BOTH WAYS :-> ). Easy to get confused. They're named in terms of how much work Intuition has to do to handle them, not how much work the program needs. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) (11/27/87)
In article <4459@pyr.gatech.EDU> ccastks@pyr.UUCP writes: >In article <4124@watdragon.waterloo.edu> palarson@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Paul Larson) writes: >>I am a non-Amiga user. I just found out that the Amiga is multi-tasking, >>something for which I would kill. However, if my sources are correct, the >>A2000 only comes with 1 meg standard. My question is: is this enough to >>really use multi-tasking to its full extent? >> Johan Larson >Where have you been, man... > >The PDP-11/23 can run Unix in 128K, not just muti-tasking but multi- >user. The DEC LSI-11 can do primative multitasking under RT-11 or >Xinu in 64K!!! Oh gee ... I can go better! I think the all-time ultimate in cheap and small multi-tasking and multi-user machines has to be the CoCo-1. You put OS-9 L-1 into it and you immediately have the capability to be multi-user and multi tasking. Tho, you're probably crazy to do anything other than multi tasking on the CoCo-1. (The CoCo-3 on the other hand ... but it's too late in the game to have a powerful 8-bit machine really amount to anything) Oh ... the CoCo-1 I'm talking about is: CoCo-1, 64K memory ... $300 Disk controller, and two or 3 floppies ... $400 80 column video card ... $70 OS-9 ... $80 (in 1984-1985 prices, nowadays the 512K coco3 is less, and you don't need an 80 column card) -- <---- David Herron -- Resident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <---- or: {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- "The market doesn't drop hundreds of points on a normal day..." -- <---- Fidelity Investments Corporation
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (12/01/87)
> >>A2000 only comes with 1 meg standard. ... enough to use multi-tasking...? > >The PDP-11/23 can run Unix in 128K... RT-11 or Xinu in 64K!!! > Multiuser OS/9... CoCo-1, 64K memory... OK. How about multiuser under PolyForth with something like 16K? Multitasking with 4K ROM/2K RAM. (makes childish nyah nyah noises) -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (12/06/87)
In article <1150@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > > >>A2000 only comes with 1 meg standard. ... enough to use multi-tasking...? > > >The PDP-11/23 can run Unix in 128K... RT-11 or Xinu in 64K!!! > > Multiuser OS/9... CoCo-1, 64K memory... > > OK. How about multiuser under PolyForth with something like 16K? Multitasking > with 4K ROM/2K RAM. (makes childish nyah nyah noises) Don't forget that the origins of Amigados are in Tripos. The original plans for the Amiga, according to legend (or is it fact?), were for a high zoot custom O/S. When, according to legend, the new O/S was pitifully behind schedule, Metacomco was contracted to do the work. Metacomco went with an established O/S, Tripos. Tripos ran on PDP 11s in a token ring network, so I've read. So I guess you could say that Amigados really runs in 64K if you strip out all the neat features (like bit mapped graphics, etc). Amigados does share some ancestry with Unix, as Tripos is written in BCPL, as were some early Unix kernels. I used to work in a lab where we ran MU-BASIC on a 32K word PDP 11-34 with 8 terminals and RT-11 O/S. One thing I do know is that it sure wasn't the equal of Amigados. --Bill
tlm@pur-phy (Timothy Lee Meisenheimer) (12/08/87)
In article <816@neoucom.UUCP> wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: >. . . . . . . . . >Don't forget that the origins of Amigados are in Tripos. The >original plans for the Amiga, according to legend (or is it fact?), >were for a high zoot custom O/S. When, according to legend, the >--Bill So what happened to this "zoot custom" O/S. Was it just shelved, completely trashed or is it still being worked on. Does anyone know some of the characteristics? Good points or bad points? Not that I want to knock Exec (although BPCL and some aspects of AmigaDos are suspect). I guess I should go out and buy Enquirers : I just gotta know! :-) :-). tim. filler filler filler filler Fuller Fuller bluuuaaackkkk!
jesup@pawl19.pawl.rpi.edu (Randell E. Jesup) (12/10/87)
In article <953@pur-phy> tlm@newton.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (Timothy Lee Meisenheimer) writes: >So what happened to this "zoot custom" O/S. Was it just shelved, >completely trashed or is it still being worked on. Does anyone know >some of the characteristics? Good points or bad points? Not that >I want to knock Exec (although BPCL and some aspects of AmigaDos >are suspect). Exec, graphics, intuition, etc are NOT part of tripos, they were done for the amiga. The DOS (AmigaDos nee Tripos) replaced the custom disk operating system that was supposed to run on top of Exec, etc. In fact, the custom OS (called CAOS) was spec'ed by the person who wrote Exec, Karl Sassenrath. I have been told by Andy Finkel that CAOS actually somewhat existed on a Sage for a while, before it was scrapped. // Randell Jesup Lunge Software Development // Dedicated Amiga Programmer 13 Frear Ave, Troy, NY 12180 \\// lunge!jesup@beowulf.UUCP (518) 272-2942 \/ (uunet!steinmetz!beowulf!lunge!jesup)
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (12/16/87)
> In article <953@pur-phy> (Timothy Lee Meisenheimer) writes: > >So what happened to this "zoot custom" O/S. Was it just shelved, Sigh. This was in response to an earlier article that mentioned a "high zoot custom O/S"... The original should have been spelled "high-zoot custom..." High-zoot is a back pointer to a 40s style of counterculture high fashion (originally amongst Los Angeles Hispanic males, manifesting itself in elaborately-cut suits with *wide* lapels, loud *wide* ties, full baggy cut pants and jacket and varying amounts of shiny chain(s) dangling about. Sort of the absolute opposite of a military uniform of the period. Therefore, a "high-zoot" mumble is an elaborate, fancy, out-of- the-ordinary mumble. Now back to our regular...um...programming. :] seh
ccplumb@watmath.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) (12/21/87)
In article <139@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU> lunge!jesup@beowulf.UUCP writes: >In fact, the custom OS (called CAOS) was spec'ed by the person who wrote >Exec, Karl Sassenrath. I have been told by Andy Finkel that CAOS actually >somewhat existed on a Sage for a while, before it was scrapped. Weel, the question everyone's asking is: Where do I get it? However, this seems a trifle presumptive. One lesser, but still interesting question I've been interested in answers for is: What does it do? I.e. what were the specs? Who knows, maybe the interface is sufficiently nicer than AmigaDOG that it would be worth writing a CAOS interface library. Then, of course, we could get everyone using it, and could shove in CAOS without breaking the world. Wishful thinking, I know, but Minix has proved that there exists a market for second operating systems, even ones without corporate support. And gosh, golly, gee, the hackers of the net could have fun with "their" operating system. -- -Colin (watmath!ccplumb) "Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it." (Guess what *I* read last night? No, don't answer.)