mcinerny@rochester.ARPA (Michael McInerny) (12/15/86)
[sorry if this was posted already]
I've been pondering the subject for a while now, and I decided it was
time to post my results.
It seems to me that for a minimal expense (the cost of higher speed
components, possibly just the RAMs), you could really enhance the
abilities of the Amiga with one simple trick...
Double the system clock.
What would happen if you did this? Well...
. You'd have twice (at least) the current CPU performance.
. The custom chips would be able to get at the same amount of
data twice as fast or twice the amount of data in the same time.
So what? Well, with the extra CPU cycles you could:
. Get real performance out of the iAPX86 emulator. Heck, you'd
probably have enough cycles to run the thing under Exec, either
on a seperate sceen or in a superbitmap (read: scrollable) window.
While you're at it, integrate the file system with a pctrackdisk.
device. This is important for people who care about compatibility
(btw: read 720K format 3.5" disks).
. Enhance the speech synthesis software for even more intelligibility.
This is to starve off competition from the Apple ][GS. Also,
add user-programmable dictionaries and accents, as well as foreign
language translators. C'mon, Commodore: EuroKeyboards but not
speech? This is good for world markets, handicapped services,
educational programs, telecommunications, etc.
. Add "grey scale" text routines. 3x5x2 (4 grey levels) is actually
legible. 8x8x8 would be awesome! The original PARC PC left out
grey scale because they were planning on using LCDs. We're not
so put this valuable feature back in. How do you think text on
TV ads looks so nice?
. Anti-aliasing routines would be nice for the same reasons.
What about the custom chips?
. Don't bother increasing the resolution--NTSC won't take it. But,
please do increase the number of bit-planes. 640x400x8 would be
terrific (esp. with dithering) and 320x400x12 would be awesome
(true 4K colors on screen).
. Blitting should be faster--better animation, faster text, etc.
. Sound could use a big shot in the arm. Many possibilities here.
Currently the Amiga has 4 channels 8-bit D/A ~28KHz, 6-bit envelopes
per channel. This is nice, but not great. Two problems: the
rate and the resolution. Sure, more voices would be nice, and
you could double the number to 8. Not bad. You could also
Double the rate to 56KHz (overkill). You can double the
resolution to 16-bits (nice). As a comparison, CDs are 16-bit,
2-channel (L&R), 44KHz. Sony PCM 8mm Digital Audio is 8-bit,
2-channel, 31.5KHz. Professional is generally considered at least
12-bits. Now, the 6-bit envolopes could be considered part of
the resolution, yielding 14-bits, but I don't buy it. How about
12-bits, four voices (the same), 31KHz sample rate, and 6-bits
envelope. I think this is a good compromise. Probably the
choice should be programmable. In any case, you can use the
newer resolutions and rates for even better speech synthesis.
(I think that serious musicians are going to use MIDI devices
for real output anyways).
Now, in addition to/instead of doubling the system clock, you
could add the following:
. an MC68010. This, with some kernel tuning, could pay off handsomely.
maybe even for the iAPX-86 emulator (so-called SoftDOS).
. 1-Mbyte CHIP memory and make it standard equipment. You'll
need the extra memory for the new video modes.
. An extra serial port and/or (gulp) AppleTalk software. Why?
Well, the Amiga needs SOME kind of network, and the current
hardware should be able to support this simple and cheap network
with inexpensive software. Besides, it would open the door
for the Amiga to Mac houses which already have nets (including
schools). Plus, you can now use the venerable LaserWriter at
high speeds.
. One or more of the following:
. IEEE-488 for old Commodore users and labs (and HDisks)
(should be easy software hack for parallel port).
. SCSI port, either via current parallel port or NCR SCSI chip.
This opens the door to large, fast disks and even networks.
. Oh, and for crying out loud, put a stupid clock circuit in the
system. It's one lousy chip!
Please note that a lot of software mods could be made (see above) without
changing the hardware, although the hardware mods aren't hard either.
Finally, a cosmetic issue:
I see the Amiga as being the ideal 'component computer'. I think that
a repackaging of the Amiga as a 'stereo-like component' (including
a genlock interface), makes a lot of sense. You could allow for
an IR keyboard interface (with optional cord as well), make a keyboard
with a trackball (as a mouse substitute, for laptop use--don't forget
to make the tball side selectable for lefties), and even put a zorro
connector on top for an expansion chassis box. I think that this
packaging would really work.
Also, consider new storage technology:
. 3.5" hard drives.
. Higher density uFloppies (1.7 megs)
. Sysgen's 4" hard disk packs (15megs)
. Vertical media (~100 megs/floppy)
. CD-ROMs.
Just some thoughts. Comments very welcome.
-Michaelccplumb@watnot.UUCP (12/15/86)
>[Very long, very good posting about Amiga enhancements deleted.]
In one word: YES!!
*All* of your ideas are good. The only point of disagreement is
over a 68010... I'd go straight to a 68020 and be done with it. Then
we'd *really* see some performance.
I'd also like to suggest that C-A make a bigger hunk of memory
standard... 1 Meg *at least*. I'm sure 4 Meg machines would sell
quite well. I think could get by with 2 Meg chip, 2 Meg fast....
Sometime in the distant future, hardware memory management would be
nice, but I guess it's too much to ask for now. (But, gee, wouldn't
non-fatal Gurus be nice?)
Oh, yes... Would someone at C-A like to tell me if the planned
ROMming of kickstart will mean someone who *wants* to boot from disk
will have to find a used machine, or if the WCS will still be available.
Thanks.
-Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP)
Zippy says:
NEWARK has been REZONED!! DES MOINES has been REZONED!!aburto@marlin.UUCP (Alfred A. Aburto) (12/17/86)
In article <12299@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: >>[Very long, very good posting about Amiga enhancements deleted.] > > In one word: YES!! > > *All* of your ideas are good. The only point of disagreement is >over a 68010... I'd go straight to a 68020 and be done with it. Then >we'd *really* see some performance. > I agree with you! Go for the 68020/68881 particularly since the Amiga operating system already supports these devices. Operate the 68020 and 68881 and fast RAM at 14.32 MHz or higher clock speeds. CSA has demonstrated that you can do this relatively easily and it need not cost an arm and a leg to do so. Don't fool around with the 68010----go to the top. > I'd also like to suggest that C-A make a bigger hunk of memory >standard... 1 Meg *at least*. I'm sure 4 Meg machines would sell >quite well. I think could get by with 2 Meg chip, 2 Meg fast.... > Gee, I agree with you again---At least one Meg (even 512K but its marginal) much better than the dinky 256K the original came with... Also TWO disk drives is essential. Al Aburto
gary@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Gary Samad) (12/17/86)
In article <918@marlin.UUCP>, aburto@marlin.UUCP (Alfred A. Aburto) writes: > In article <12299@watnot.UUCP> ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: > >>[Very long, very good posting about Amiga enhancements deleted.] > > > I'd also like to suggest that C-A make a bigger hunk of memory > >standard... 1 Meg *at least*. I'm sure 4 Meg machines would sell > >quite well. I think could get by with 2 Meg chip, 2 Meg fast.... > > > > Gee, I agree with you again---At least one Meg (even 512K but its marginal) > much better than the dinky 256K the original came with... > Also TWO disk drives is essential. Yes, at LEAST one Meg! Adding a one meg board to my system really changed the character of the Amiga - from being able to barely run one application at a time to being able to really multitask! I now ALWAYS have at least two CLIs active, usually an editor running, and something else going on at the same time. As far as 2 disk drives go, I don't agree. With a machine of the power described in the preceeding articles, most people will probably want a hard disk... save me the $300 for the second floppy and apply it toward a hard disk please! Gary
wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (12/17/86)
Now all they gotta do is to put Unix on it...
--
========================-> Rebel or be oppressed! <-========================
Michael R. Wayne Working at (but not employed by) Ford Motor Company
(313) 322-3986 UUCP: {epsilon|ihnp4}!mb2c!fmsrl7!wayne
Above opinions are my own but can be purchased (quantity discounts available)wilkes@beatnix..UUCP (John Wilkes) (12/24/86)
In article <617@fmsrl7.UUCP> wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (Michael R. Wayne) writes: > > Now all they gotta do is to put Unix on it... ...in an AmigaDos window! Seriously, folks, is U**x really all that wonderful? -- John Wilkes -- UUCP: {ihnp4|decwrl|pyramid}!sun!elxsi!beatnix!wilkes USPS: ELXSI, 2334 Lundy Pl., San Jose CA 95131 # My Employer appologizes for the fact that I have access to the network. # Furthermore, my Employer has absolutely no responsibility for the above # random ramblings, which are clearly the product of a deranged mind.
fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) (12/25/86)
In article <210@elxsi.UUCP> wilkes@beatnix.UUCP (John Wilkes) writes: >In article <617@fmsrl7.UUCP> wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (Michael R. Wayne) writes: >> >> Now all they gotta do is to put Unix on it... > ...in an AmigaDos window! > >Seriously, folks, is U**x really all that wonderful? I just read the announcement in mod.newprod about Andy Tanenbaum's new book and the MINIX system. MINIX is apparently a V7 UNIX clone and is available in source form along with the book from Prentice-Hall. It includes lots of utilities (from ar through wc :-), including a C compiler. Now, does anyone want to form a working group to port this to the Amiga? How about you guys at the Software Distillery? -Fred -- =========================================================================== Fred Fish Motorola Computer Division, 3013 S 52nd St, Tempe, Az 85282 USA {seismo!noao!mcdsun,hplabs!well}!fnf (602) 438-5976 ===========================================================================
wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (12/27/86)
In article <210@elxsi.UUCP> wilkes@beatnix.UUCP (John Wilkes) writes: >In article <617@fmsrl7.UUCP> wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (Michael R. Wayne) writes: >> >> Now all they gotta do is to put Unix on it... > ...in an AmigaDos window! > >Seriously, folks, is U**x really all that wonderful? > While I do not want to get into a discussion of the wonderfulness of Unix, I would like to point out that it is a great joy to be able to use the same set of commands on EVERY machine I use. For this reason, although I think the amiga is a wonderful machine, I won't purchase one without Unix on it. I would think that the way to do this would be to put Unix on the machine as the base operating system and write an Amigados emulator that dropped on top (as a shell). CLI could also be a shell. Graphics, multitasking and sound are wonderful but without Unix, it's just another computer. -- =======================--> Rebel or be oppressed! <--======================= Michael R. Wayne Working at (but not employed by) Ford Motor Company (313) 322-3986 UUCP: {epsilon|ihnp4}!mb2c!fmsrl7!wayne Above opinions are my own but can be purchased (quantity discounts available) "Let's get sex and violence off the streets and back on TV where it belongs."
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (Don't have strength to leave) Meyer) (12/27/86)
In article <617@fmsrl7.UUCP> wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (Michael R. Wayne) writes: >Seriously, folks, is U**x really all that wonderful? No. Unix started life on a small system, supporting a couple of users. It's since moved to large systems, supporting hundreds of users. Some of the changes to make that work have not been pretty; some of them have not been made. Unix started with the wrong set of basic objects (files instead of ports+messages). In the original Unix environment it didn't matter much. It matters a lot now. The Unix documentation SUCKS. I've been saying for 10 years that the important part of the Unix docs are the sources. Compared to them, the stuff for AmigaDOS is wonderful. At least they TRIED to tell you how to write a device driver. With Unix, you get no such help (of course, there may be people shipping Unix with just that, and I know there are people who've done real docs for Unix). I should dig out my random collection of humorous posting based on the Unix documentation. On the other hand, Unix has one of the nicest sets of development tools I've ever run into. The only thing I've even heard of which might be better is Interlisp. If we could get all those tools on an Amiga, that'd be great! As for Unix itself, the box is slow enough as it is. Why make it worse? Oh, yeah, the people suggesting porting the v7 clone to the Amiga: That's the right one to use. V7 is as the "common subset" of the sysV and 4BSD lines. It also hasn't suffered nearly as much random growth as modern Eunices. Still no longer small and tight, but better than the other choices. <mike
root@mentat.UUCP (doug) (12/27/86)
The question was "is Unix really all that wonderful", and Mike Meyers correctly points out that Unix documentation sucks and furthermore is based on an obsolete paradigm -- that of files and streams. But we can learn an important lesson from the ways in which Unix *is* wonderful. Note that most people still prefer doing development under Unix than under any other commonly available system. And the first thing we ask for (or write) on the Amiga are Unix development tools. In the abstract, what is good about Unix is that what it does, it does "right". Everything is just a stream of characters, and everything from system calls to utilities generically supports this (actually Unix is best at supporting streams of *lines* of printable characters) in a pretty modular way. This made it so much easier to get things done that a lot of people wrote programs for it in the early Bell Labs days, which would have been too annoying to develop otherwise. It is no coincidence that Unix has the development tools programmers want...it is a direct result of the ease of assembling standard parts, just like in Henry Ford's revolutionary assembly line. Interchangeable standard off-the-shelf parts are really the only thing that made automobiles accessible and affordable; same thing with Winchester rifles earlier. And this is what makes Unix great. So any future systems/applications we do should similarly operate on a generic model. The IFF standard for the Amiga is a good example of how useful it is to have everyone speaking the same language. Unfortunately we lack some flexibility...I'm told that on the Mac, you can cut and paste gadgets as generically as text, for example. And isn't it too bad that, icon/workbench flames aside, icons and executables are not part of that generic IFF model. What you really want is to be able to design a program that deals with anything easily. Why do we need an icon editor when we've already got a paint program? Because of this lack of unity between icons and IFF. Ideally icons would be part of the IFF standard, instead of just including a reference to an IFF picture. Why should it be impossible to have digitized sound played when you click an icon? Or to see a closed-loop animation when you click? Why can't you "pipe" an image through a filter before it hits the screen, then redirect it to the printer? (This last could be emulated by a special purpose program, of course, but note that such services are not generically available.) In summary, this is not about Unix wars or Workbench flames; it's about a neat little machine with a lot of potential which is as yet unrealized. Fortunately, the Amiga has (I think and I hope) what we need to build a good modular system. Along with IFF, it also has virtual device drivers, which helps. For examples of what you get from highly developed modularity, look at Smalltalk's objects and messages, look at Hypertext, look at Unix shell scripts using dozens of utilities to massage text. I believe that this kind of approach is necessary to really make the Amiga shine. Otherwise it'll go down in history as just yet another machine with yet another operating system, and that would be a real shame. Doug Merritt hoptoad!mentat!doug, pesnta!mentat!doug, ucbvax!unisoft!certes!mentat!doug
vanam@pttesac.UUCP (Marnix van Ammers) (12/31/86)
In article <216@mcdsun.UUCP> fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: >In article <210@elxsi.UUCP> wilkes@beatnix.UUCP (John Wilkes) writes: >>In article <617@fmsrl7.UUCP> wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (Michael R. Wayne) writes: >>Seriously, folks, is U**x really all that wonderful? Yes. >I just read the announcement in mod.newprod about Andy Tanenbaum's >new book and the MINIX system. MINIX is apparently a V7 UNIX clone and Now I'd like to know as soon as someone finds out if MINIX will run on the sidecar. From what I heard MINIX requires an IBM PC or hardware compatible clone. Is the sidecar compatible enough for MINIX? Sure I'd love to see UNIX on the Amiga, but if I can get UNIX on the sidecar now, I'll buy the sidecar instead of the hard disk I've been saving for. Marnix