Rod.Fulk@f24.n228.z1.FidoNet.Org (Rod Fulk) (06/26/91)
Tom, Apparently you have not really used an Atari computer... There are many offerings available on the ST that are not available on any other computer to date. Since atari does not make the ST computer any more that I know of you must compare the capabilities of the STe to that of the amiga. A 1040 Ste compares VERY favorably to an amiga 500. The ONLY thing the amiga 500 has over the atari is the fact that the atari can not do as many colors on the screen at the same time... However there is a 24bit card available for $800 with a coprocessor of some sort for really good graphics... Adding things to the ST come alot cheaper over all then on the amiga and the standard equipment atari sells is of better quality on average. Compare.... An Ste with tos 1.6 and blitter performs pretty well... Compared to an Amiga 500 the amiga only has a slight edge over the Atari.. (Note: for the price no other computer even comes close... ) Compare OS's... The St is built with a much more complete OS then ANY of the amiga OS's.. (The 2.0 doesnt really count at this point since last time I looked it was not available on amiga 500's yet) If you compare the amigas 2.0 to the Mega Ste's 2.x and the TT's 3.X the atari beats it hands down. (Beats it in all areas of ease of use and of pure power...) Of course the amiga does multi task but I have very little use for multi tasking.. (I use a 25 mhz '386 with desqview.. On the BBS multi tasking is nice..) VERY few people I talk to use multi tasking more then ocassionally. As to sound? Well The ST is the only one so far that has the capability of 3d sound. The STe series computers have the capability of using 3 seperate speakers with different sounds out of each.... 2 of those full 8 bit digital.. It is easy to use HD floppies on an ST.. I have yet to see on on an amiga... Since the ST uses standard parts it is easy to get most of the items... Comparing an ST to an Amiga at purely CPU intensive things the Amiga can not be compared very favorably. The amiga has a hand up on the serial port since the ST is limited to 19200 baud... ALL the memory can be used in an ST as compared to the amigas limitation of chip memory... (Note the ST does not waste memory... You must waste memory on an amiga to do double buffered graphics and digital sound at the same time.) Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.. The Standard ST is MUCH better suited to bussiness then an amiga. However the Amiga is better suited to games and higher resolution color work... Start comparing at the TT to amiga 3000 level and the difference is alot less.. The TT can do some graphic modes the amiga would be jelous of and visa versa. The sound systems are for the most part the same.. Differences can be over come by the speed of the processor. If you REALLY push it the amiga can do a few things better in the graphics arena though.. Over all though you have no bussiness stating the ST is no where as good as the amiga.. It is not true.. However Atari USA is missing the boat.... Actually someone shot the boat they were on while they were sipping a toast to what they thought was going on... Then federated almost killed them.. From the current trends I would predict that the Atari will come on very strong in the next five years.. If Atari ever gets over their fatuation of keeping low graphics to keep the price down and offer a multi tasking environment then there will be nothing any amigaite can say against the ST... ;-) (Multi tasking doesnt make a better machine but since most people dont realize they are not gonna need it they think they need it and might lewt it make some sort of an effect on them..) * Origin: The R.I.P. (616)235-2313 [HST] (1:228/24)
don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (06/26/91)
In article <677913506.0@therip.FidoNet> Rod.Fulk@f24.n228.z1.FidoNet.Org (Rod Fulk) writes: >Tom, Apparently you have not really used an Atari computer... >There are many offerings available on the ST that are not available on any >other computer to date. Okay, I was going to sit back & watch, but I felt compelled to reply to this one... >Since atari does not make the ST computer any more that I know of you must >compare the capabilities of the STe to that of the amiga. >A 1040 Ste compares VERY favorably to an amiga 500. The ONLY thing the amiga >500 has over the atari is the fact that the atari can not do as many colors on >the screen at the same time... There are many who would disagree with this statement.... >However there is a 24bit card available for $800 with a coprocessor of some >sort for really good graphics... I can get a 24-bit card for $299 (list). It takes advantage of the Amiga's built-in coprocessors. For about $100 more I can get one that also includes a slow-scan video digitizer. This one (DCTV) has been demoed at shows paging full-motion, full-color video off a HD and displaying it through this advice in real time (Watched a few minutes of Back to the Future III...) >Adding things to the ST come alot cheaper over all then on the amiga and the >standard equipment atari sells is of better quality on average. Better quality in what way? I assume you're speaking of quality of 'workmanship' or quality control with this point. What data are you using to arrive at this conclusion? Besides, if you have a problem with your 500, you FedEx it back to Commodore (at CBM's expense) & it's promptly replaced or repaired & sent back. If your 2000, 2500, or 3000 go bad, and your warranty is still valid (1 year warranty on all models, w/option to purchase an extension), Commodore sends someone to your home to fix it there. >Compare.... >An Ste with tos 1.6 and blitter performs pretty well... >Compared to an Amiga 500 the amiga only has a slight edge over the Atari.. I've seen the so-called blitter on an ST. I was not impressed. The Amiga's blitter performs most operations about as fast as a 14 MHz 68020 (according to Dave Haynie, a CBM hardware guy who frequents c.s.amiga.*). The ST's processor runs .86 MHz faster than the Ami's 68000, but the blitter more than makes up for this in all but extremely processor-intensive apps. Of course, for about $10 (probably less) you can pop a 68010 into your Amiga & make up for that difference. Unless Atari has finally released a non-TT TOS version that supports 680(1+)0 chips, ST owners don't have this option. >(Note: for the price no other computer even comes close... ) The A500 can be had for about $400 now. It generally also comes bundled with some software as well. >Compare OS's... The St is built with a much more complete OS then ANY of the >amiga OS's.. (The 2.0 doesnt really count at this point since last time I >looked it was not available on amiga 500's yet) In what way are they more complete? Do they include a shell environment as well as a GUI? Do they support multiple simultaneous screens of different depths, resolutions, and pallettes? (Can the ST even change resolutions yet without a reboot?) Shared libraries & interprocess communication? (Oops! No need... no multitasking! Sorry.) >If you compare the amigas 2.0 to the Mega Ste's 2.x and the TT's 3.X the atari >beats it hands down. >(Beats it in all areas of ease of use and of pure power...) Workbench is just as easy to use as any most other GUIs. Double click the icon & away you go... As far as "pure power", I've yet to see a GUI with the pure power of a Unix-like command line, which is part of the Amiga OS (note that you don't _have_ to use this; it's just there in case you want to). > Of course the >amiga does multi task but I have very little use for multi tasking.. Normally, I'd counter this standard argument with another standard one ("Then you probably haven't tried it yet"....), but... >(I use a 25 mhz '386 with desqview.. On the BBS multi tasking is nice..) >VERY few people I talk to use multi tasking more then ocassionally. Nearly every Amiga user I talk to uses it on a regular basis. I'm doing it now. A BBS is certainly far from the only time multitasking is useful. A list of the processes currently running on my system (using Snap, one of those processes, to clip this text from a window & paste it here): CLI(1):artm CLI(2):iprefs CpuBlit V1.00 AssignX FaccII ForFacc RexxMaster CLI(4):c:snap CygnusEd CLI(3):loadwb jr-comm DMouse Virus_Checker jrcomm-clock SD (Note that I've deleted a number of system processes (devices & handlers) because they're not things that I specificaly started up in one way or another.) >As to sound? Well The ST is the only one so far that has the capability of 3d >sound. The STe series computers have the capability of using 3 seperate >speakers with different sounds out of each.... 2 of those full 8 bit digital.. How is this superior to the Amiga's 4 channel 8 bit stereo sound? (8 bit on all 4 channels, not just 2 of them). There's even software (Octaplayer?) that supposedly pushes out 8 voices. Of course, unlike the ST, the Amiga's sound is driven by yet another coprocessor, so it takes almost 0 CPU time to play a musical score or a digitized sound (as a background process in your multitasking environment, while you work on something else). >It is easy to use HD floppies on an ST.. I have yet to see on on an amiga... Applied Engineering and Commodore both make Ami HD drives. The problem with HD drives on the Amiga is that the floppies are controlled by a coprocessor (yes, another one!) that allows me to do things like formatting a floppy (which I'm doing now via the SD process listed above) with little loss of CPU time. This coprocessor, though, cannot handle the throughput speeds of high density drives (twice that of the older drives), so workarounds have had to be found. >Since the ST uses standard parts it is easy to get most of the items... Eh? Standard parts? Like the standard SCSI drive inside my Amiga, the standard memory chips, the standard printer connected to my standard parrallel port right next to the standard serial port which talks to my standard modem? >Comparing an ST to an Amiga at purely CPU intensive things the Amiga can not >be compared very favorably. No? Why not? That .86 MHz doesn't make much of a difference... especially if the ST also has to use the CPU to do I/O and/or graphics stuff at the same time. Oops! Forgot again... no multitasking. Never mind. >The amiga has a hand up on the serial port since the ST is limited to 19200 >baud... > >ALL the memory can be used in an ST as compared to the amigas limitation of >chip memory... (Note the ST does not waste memory... You must waste memory on >an amiga to do double buffered graphics and digital sound at the same time.) I can use all the memory in my system too. I just have to keep graphics & sound data in the 1st 2 megs. Why do you say the Amiga has to waste memory to do d.b. graphics & sound? Having to keep it in a limited section of memory only constitutes a limitation, not a waste. On the subject of memory, what exactly is the difference between "ST memory" and "TT memory" on the TT? Is ST mem 16 bits wide? >Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.. The Standard ST is MUCH better >suited to bussiness then an amiga. However the Amiga is better suited to >games and higher resolution color work... Oh? On what do you base this assumption? I really don't know what business software is available for the ST other than PageStream (is 2.1 out yet for the ST? I've been using it for a while, & am looking forward to the 2.2 upgrade they're now advertising for the Ami version), Calamus, and DynaCadd (now also available for the Amiga). Of course, around here, the Amiga will nearly always win out over the ST simply because there are no ST dealers around and no sources of ST software short of mail order. I've been to nearly every computer store in this state, but have yet to see an ST anywhere. >Start comparing at the TT to amiga 3000 level and the difference is alot less.. >The TT can do some graphic modes the amiga would be jelous of and visa versa. If I remember the TT specs correctly, the only grahics mode the TT has that can outdo a stock Amiga 3000 (or any other model, if it weren't for the flicker in interlace mode on <3000 Amigas) is the 1024x960 mono mode which needs a special monitor. With the CBM A2024 monitor or Moniterm Viking, any amiga can do 1008x800 (1008x1024 in PAL mode) mono. >The sound systems are for the most part the same.. Differences can be over >come by the speed of the processor. If you REALLY push it the amiga can do a >few things better in the graphics arena though.. Over all though you have no >bussiness stating the ST is no where as good as the amiga.. It is not true.. From what I've seen of the ST it doesn't take much pushing for the Amiga's graphics to beat it. The processor speed differences (ST vs A500) are so small they're almost irrelevant; the Ami's blitter, copper, and other coprocessors make up for them easily. >However Atari USA is missing the boat.... >Actually someone shot the boat they were on while they were sipping a toast >to what they thought was going on... Then federated almost killed them.. >From the current trends I would predict that the Atari will come on very strong >in the next five years.. If Atari ever gets over their fatuation of keeping >low graphics to keep the price down and offer a multi tasking environment then >there will be nothing any amigaite can say against the ST... ;-) From the current trends I would predict that Atari sales will continue to be negligible in the US and falling in Europe. Sales of the TT might go well for a little while as current ST owners upgrade, but IMHO, they'll die down shortly. I would also predict that Commodore's sales will continue the steady rise they've been experiencing worldwide. >(Multi tasking doesnt make a better machine but since most people dont realize >they are not gonna need it they think they need it and might lewt it make some >sort of an effect on them..) Multitasking _does_ make a better machine for any machine that's not completely dedicated to a single task. I won't buy a computer that can't do it, and feel extremely claustrophobic when I find myself having to use one that can't. -- Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork is spoken fork() be Amiga Student On-Campus Consultant, U of D here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.
csbrod@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod) (06/27/91)
don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) writes: > I can get a 24-bit card for $299 (list). It takes advantage of the Amiga's >built-in coprocessors. For about $100 more I can get one that also includes >a slow-scan video digitizer. This one (DCTV) has been demoed at shows paging >full-motion, full-color video off a HD and displaying it through this advice in >real time (Watched a few minutes of Back to the Future III...) A 24-bit card with complete screen drivers for all the applications you have? I doubt that. > Besides, if you have a problem with your 500, you FedEx it back to >Commodore (at CBM's expense) & it's promptly replaced or repaired & sent back. >If your 2000, 2500, or 3000 go bad, and your warranty is still valid (1 year >warranty on all models, w/option to purchase an extension), Commodore sends >someone to your home to fix it there. You must be kidding. At least here in Germany, nobody cares when your A2000 breaks down. Especially Commodore won't care. > I've seen the so-called blitter on an ST. I was not impressed. The You have probably seen the desktop build up windows with and without a blitter, using TOS 1.02. This means you ain't seen nothing yet. Blitter support in TOS is not as it could be, and in general one is tempted to say that Blitters Are Not Important. You can speed up graphics a lot more by software. >Amiga's blitter performs most operations about as fast as a 14 MHz 68020 >(according to Dave Haynie, a CBM hardware guy who frequents c.s.amiga.*). The ST blitter won't stand much behind in these terms. It's just that the Amiga OS and architecture much more relies on the fact that there is something like a blitter and therefore uses it much more than TOS. > Of course, for about $10 (probably less) you can pop a 68010 into your >Amiga & make up for that difference. Unless Atari has finally released a >non-TT TOS version that supports 680(1+)0 chips, ST owners don't have this >option. TOS 1.06, TOS 2.05, TOS 3.01 and TOS 3.05 support the 68010. Nevertheless, you won't gain much from a 68010, as experiments have shown. > In what way are they more complete? Do they include a shell environment >as well as a GUI? Do they support multiple simultaneous screens of different >depths, resolutions, and pallettes? (Can the ST even change resolutions yet >without a reboot?) Shared libraries & interprocess communication? (Oops! >No need... no multitasking! Sorry.) Sigh. We've had cooperative multitasking from the start. Applications and accessories can send messages to each other. And I don't think the Workbench is much of a real GUI - not before Kick 2.0, at least. > Workbench is just as easy to use as any most other GUIs. Double click >the icon & away you go... Just try to view all files in a folder with the standard workbench. You won't get them. Instead, you have to confine yourself to a command shell. That's not the way GUIs were meant to work. >CLI(1):artm >CLI(2):iprefs >CpuBlit V1.00 >AssignX >FaccII >ForFacc >RexxMaster >CLI(4):c:snap >CygnusEd >CLI(3):loadwb >jr-comm >DMouse >Virus_Checker >jrcomm-clock >SD If you look at this list closely, you'll realise that most of the processes mentioned are equivalents of TSRs. CpuBlit is a text output speeder (BTW, interesting to know that you're using CpuBlit while you're claiming that your blitter is much faster than a ST blitter). DMouse is a screen saver/mouse speeder package. Virus_Checker is also of the TSR type. If you think about it, you'll see that the list above was no good example for real multitasking. When working with my ST/TT, I have at least that many processes and resident programs in my computer. Don't get me wrong: I don't question the usefulness of preemptive multitasking. It's just that you gave a bad example of your usage of this feature. > How is this superior to the Amiga's 4 channel 8 bit stereo sound? (8 bit >on all 4 channels, not just 2 of them). There's even software (Octaplayer?) >that supposedly pushes out 8 voices. Of course, unlike the ST, the Amiga's >sound is driven by yet another coprocessor, so it takes almost 0 CPU time to >play a musical score or a digitized sound (as a background process in your >multitasking environment, while you work on something else). I couldn't care less if my computer has 3 or 4 digital voices. It just doesn't matter. If you're making professional music, you can't make use of the home-computer bleep-style digital channels the STe and Amiga offer; instead, you will use MIDI devices (that's why the ST has a MIDI port built-in). If you're running standard applications, you don't need sound except the occasional beep when you've done something wrong. For your information: The STe/TT digital sound chip has an own DMA channel, just like the Amiga. > Applied Engineering and Commodore both make Ami HD drives. The problem >with HD drives on the Amiga is that the floppies are controlled by a coprocessor >(yes, another one!) that allows me to do things like formatting a floppy (which >I'm doing now via the SD process listed above) with little loss of CPU time. >This coprocessor, though, cannot handle the throughput speeds of high density >drives (twice that of the older drives), so workarounds have had to be found. To my knowledge, there is no HD drive for the Amiga that handles standard MFM disks. A real pain when shuffling data to a PC. > No? Why not? That .86 MHz doesn't make much of a difference... especially >if the ST also has to use the CPU to do I/O and/or graphics stuff at the same >time. Oops! Forgot again... no multitasking. Never mind. See above. The floppy controller and the ACSI bus have an own DMA channel. In the TT, there is a second SCSI DMA channel. > On the subject of memory, what exactly is the difference between "ST >memory" and "TT memory" on the TT? Is ST mem 16 bits wide? To the video chip, it is even 64 bits wide. > If I remember the TT specs correctly, the only grahics mode the TT has >that can outdo a stock Amiga 3000 (or any other model, if it weren't for the >flicker in interlace mode on <3000 Amigas) is the 1024x960 mono mode which >needs a special monitor. With the CBM A2024 monitor or Moniterm Viking, any >amiga can do 1008x800 (1008x1024 in PAL mode) mono. 1280x960. 72 Hz. Without a special graphic card. IMHO, a big advantage and one of the reason why I bought a TT. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Claus Brod, Am Felsenkeller 2, Things. Take. Time. D-8772 Marktheidenfeld, Germany (Piet Hein) csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de Claus_Brod@wue.maus.de ----------------------------------------------------------------------
jmay@lunatix.uucp (Jimmie Mayfield) (06/27/91)
I generally try to stay away from computer wars regardless of the platforms involved so I'll be brief. In article <677913506.0@therip.FidoNet> Rod.Fulk@f24.n228.z1.FidoNet.Org (Rod Fulk) writes: >However there is a 24bit card available for $800 with a coprocessor of some >sort for really good graphics... There are 24bit cards for the A500 that run as low as $400 list. Granted these don't include racy processors such as i860s or anything but they offer good displays for a good price (you can even choose between RGB or composite (in case you're a video professional) ). >Adding things to the ST come alot cheaper over all then on the amiga and the >standard equipment atari sells is of better quality on average. How about some supporting for this? >Compare.... >An Ste with tos 1.6 and blitter performs pretty well... >Compared to an Amiga 500 the amiga only has a slight edge over the Atari.. Again, please support your assertions with benchmarks, etc. otherwise they're ineffective as arguments. I'm not an Atari expert so I'd like to see some numbers. >Compare OS's... The St is built with a much more complete OS then ANY of the >amiga OS's.. (The 2.0 doesnt really count at this point since last time I >looked it was not available on amiga 500's yet) From what little I've read in this newsgroup, there seem to be more than a few people who think that TOS should be trashed (and, of course, some people who think that TOS still has merits). I'm curious how friendly the ST's OS is to program. Is it library-based or something else. From a programmer's POV, the Amiga's libraries make programming even an enjoyable process :-) >It is easy to use HD floppies on an ST.. I have yet to see on on an amiga... I agree with you on this point. Thus far, Amiga HD floppies aren't compat. with the 1.4 meg standard (to my knowledge). >Comparing an ST to an Amiga at purely CPU intensive things the Amiga can not >be compared very favorably. How so? Again, benchmarks and the like please. >ALL the memory can be used in an ST as compared to the amigas limitation of >chip memory... This only applies to applications which utilize the custom chips. This has currently been increased to 2 MB though there are ways around the limitation. >You must waste memory on >an amiga to do double buffered graphics and digital sound at the same time.) Exactly how does the Amiga waste memory doing this? >The sound systems are for the most part the same.. Differences can be over >come by the speed of the processor. If you REALLY push it the amiga can do a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Which _should_ be considered an important factor. If I offered an engineer two systems identical systems (note that I am not implying that the ST and Amiga are identical...) with the exception of processor speed, one may assume that the engineer will choose the faster of the two. >few things better in the graphics arena though.. Over all though you have no >bussiness stating the ST is no where as good as the amiga.. It is not true.. I have made no such claim. However, I have found no facts which state that the ST is the better of the two. >(Multi tasking doesnt make a better machine but since most people dont realize >they are not gonna need it they think they need it and might lewt it make some >sort of an effect on them..) I suppose the trend towards multitasking operating systems is bogus then? Now I'm not going to say that "I'm running a WP, this terminal program, and am archiving a big program while I type this" because I'm not :-) BUT, I do have a virus checker running in the background, and I have the aformentioned multitasking that the OS does on its own going on as I type this. Question: when you load a program from disk, does the rest of the system come to a halt? I don't know the ST that well but I will vouch that this doesn't happen on the Ami. > > > * Origin: The R.I.P. (616)235-2313 [HST] (1:228/24) Jimmie -- Jimmie Mayfield - TRA# 1226 UUCP: lunatix!jmay@ms.uky.edu BitNet: S0E3@TRANSY #include <stddisclaim.h> "Climbin' the Walls"
mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (06/28/91)
In article <677913506.0@therip.FidoNet> Rod.Fulk@f24.n228.z1.FidoNet.Org (Rod Fulk) writes: >However there is a 24bit card available for $800 with a coprocessor of >some sort for really good graphics... >(Multi tasking doesnt make a better machine but since most people dont realize >they are not gonna need it they think they need it and might lewt it make some >sort of an effect on them..) Grin :-). 24 bit color doesn't make a better machine but since most people don't realize they are not gonna need it they think they need it and might let it make some sort of effect on them. Four colors is fine for everything I do; just let me choose them from a sufficiently large pallete, and I'm happy. Oddly enough, 4096 colors is a sufficiently large pallete. (now, 700x500 isn't enough bits, but multiple virtual screens go a long way towards solving that). On the other hand, take away my ability to pop open new CLI to terminate a CPU runaway, and I'll be upset. Maybe it's because I started by playing with multitasking systems instead of monotasking systems, but not having worry about whether I can start application X while application Y is running for all applications X and Y seems like an important feature to me. If you don't do what I do (not unlikely), and actually need 24 bit color, and don't want multitasking - that's fine. Choose the computer that's best for you. Don't tell me I didn't choose the best computer because I chose one that meets my needs better than what you chose, though. <mike -- Take a magic carpet to the olden days Mike Meyer To a mythical land where everybody lays mwm@pa.dec.com Around in the clouds in a happy daze decwrl!mwm In Kizmiaz ... Kizmiaz
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun26.192356.26253@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> csbrod@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod) writes: >don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) writes: > >> I can get a 24-bit card for $299 (list). It takes advantage of the Amiga's >>built-in coprocessors. For about $100 more I can get one that also includes >>a slow-scan video digitizer. This one (DCTV) has been demoed at shows paging >>full-motion, full-color video off a HD and displaying it through this advice in >>real time (Watched a few minutes of Back to the Future III...) > >A 24-bit card with complete screen drivers for all the applications you have? >I doubt that. Why on earth would you run a word processor or shell in 24bits? EVen if the Amiga had 24bit graphics built in I wouldn't run my Workbench on it because it would slow down ALL screen rendering to a sluggish halt without a something like a 34010 onboard. Instead, I'd have the Word processor and GUI set to 8 or 16 colors (3d look) and the paint program on another screen set to 24bit. All the current Amiga graphic cards work with the OS because they are still using the custom chips for their tricks. HAM-E and DCTV work with all paint programs and all displayer programs. (even things like AmigaVision authorware) >> Besides, if you have a problem with your 500, you FedEx it back to >>Commodore (at CBM's expense) & it's promptly replaced or repaired & sent back. >>If your 2000, 2500, or 3000 go bad, and your warranty is still valid (1 year >>warranty on all models, w/option to purchase an extension), Commodore sends >>someone to your home to fix it there. > >You must be kidding. At least here in Germany, nobody cares when your A2000 >breaks down. Especially Commodore won't care. In the US FedEx will come to your house, pick up your computer, and repair it quickly. For A3000's someone comes to your house (onsite repair). What other countries do is different since each Commodore sub-company has different policies. Does Atari even exist in the US? >> I've seen the so-called blitter on an ST. I was not impressed. The > >You have probably seen the desktop build up windows with and without a >blitter, using TOS 1.02. This means you ain't seen nothing yet. >Blitter support in TOS is not as it could be, and in general one >is tempted to say that Blitters Are Not Important. You can speed up >graphics a lot more by software. A blitter helps out alot if you only have a 68000/20. >>Amiga's blitter performs most operations about as fast as a 14 MHz 68020 >>(according to Dave Haynie, a CBM hardware guy who frequents c.s.amiga.*). > >The ST blitter won't stand much behind in these terms. It's just that >the Amiga OS and architecture much more relies on the fact that there >is something like a blitter and therefore uses it much more than TOS. Yes, it's better integrated on the Amiga, and shared nicely as is alll resources on the Amiga. >> Of course, for about $10 (probably less) you can pop a 68010 into your >>Amiga & make up for that difference. Unless Atari has finally released a >>non-TT TOS version that supports 680(1+)0 chips, ST owners don't have this >>option. > >TOS 1.06, TOS 2.05, TOS 3.01 and TOS 3.05 support the 68010. Nevertheless, >you won't gain much from a 68010, as experiments have shown. And the ST doesn't gain much from running at a _slightly_ faster processor speed. >> In what way are they more complete? Do they include a shell environment >>as well as a GUI? Do they support multiple simultaneous screens of different >>depths, resolutions, and pallettes? (Can the ST even change resolutions yet >>without a reboot?) Shared libraries & interprocess communication? (Oops! >>No need... no multitasking! Sorry.) > >Sigh. We've had cooperative multitasking from the start. Applications >and accessories can send messages to each other. And I don't think the >Workbench is much of a real GUI - not before Kick 2.0, at least. Intuition is the GUI, workbench is the file/finder system (e.g. like Finder on the Mac). I never used workbench before 2.0, but I haven't seen many Atari users who used GEM either. GEM doesn't look too hot on that lo-res screen. >> Workbench is just as easy to use as any most other GUIs. Double click >>the icon & away you go... > >Just try to view all files in a folder with the standard workbench. >You won't get them. Instead, you have to confine yourself to a command >shell. That's not the way GUIs were meant to work. You do in 2.0. There are _numerous_ workbench replacements/enhancements out there. But 2.0 beats the pants off all of them. (2.0 kicks the stuffings out of GEM too) >>CLI(1):artm >>CLI(2):iprefs >>CpuBlit V1.00 >>AssignX >>FaccII >>ForFacc >>RexxMaster >>CLI(4):c:snap >>CygnusEd >>CLI(3):loadwb >>jr-comm >>DMouse >>Virus_Checker >>jrcomm-clock >>SD > >If you look at this list closely, you'll realise that most of the >processes mentioned are equivalents of TSRs. CpuBlit is a text output >speeder (BTW, interesting to know that you're using CpuBlit while >you're claiming that your blitter is much faster than a ST blitter). That's because the poster probably has an A3000 with a 68030. CPUBlit ONLY gives a speed increase on the maximum resolution screens and only for things like text rendering. It would slow down massively trying to do what the blitter does (like combine 3 DMA channels of data using one of the 256 logic operations, plus masking ans shifting, and filling the pattern.) The key phrase here is "parallel processing". Letting the blitter do something takes the load off the CPU. >DMouse is a screen saver/mouse speeder package. Virus_Checker is also >of the TSR type. If you think about it, you'll see that the list >above was no good example for real multitasking. When working with >my ST/TT, I have at least that many processes and resident programs in >my computer. But TSR's don't share the CPU, one of them runs until it completes it processing and then the next one does. The more of them you have running in an interupt/os patch routine the more sluggish the computer will get. You should never hog interupts. TSR's on the Amiga under 2.0 are done using commodities.exchange which allows you to set up handlers in the input.device that watch for certain hot-keys/events. While they are waiting, they are taking ZERO cpu time. How about what I am doing now? Right now I have a terminal loaded, in the background I have lharc unarcing some gif pictures I downloaded earlier which are passing the output names to a script which runs them through GIF->IFF. Meanwhile, I have 2 shells open and one of them is running a corewars simulator which is battling two programs (mice vs mortar). In addition to this, I am getting no visible slow down on my terminal which is running at 19,200 baud on a USR HST. >Don't get me wrong: >I don't question the usefulness of preemptive multitasking. It's just >that you gave a bad example of your usage of this feature. > >> How is this superior to the Amiga's 4 channel 8 bit stereo sound? (8 bit >>on all 4 channels, not just 2 of them). There's even software (Octaplayer?) >>that supposedly pushes out 8 voices. Of course, unlike the ST, the Amiga's >>sound is driven by yet another coprocessor, so it takes almost 0 CPU time to >>play a musical score or a digitized sound (as a background process in your >>multitasking environment, while you work on something else). > >I couldn't care less if my computer has 3 or 4 digital voices. It just >doesn't matter. If you're making professional music, you can't make use >of the home-computer bleep-style digital channels the STe and Amiga Amiga channels don't bleep. They have 4 DMA channels to themselves, 8 bit sound, 4khz to 28khz. You can change the sampling rate on demand and can attach DMA channel to have one channel module the volume and frequency of the other (allows you to get synthesis effects) >offer; instead, you will use MIDI devices (that's why the ST has a >MIDI port built-in). If you're running standard applications, you don't need >sound except the occasional beep when you've done something wrong. Except when you run things like Amigavision or hypertext/authorware applications where you want to combine animations with digitized sound. For CDTV it's a nice addition, along with it's 16bit sound and it's MIDI port. >For your information: The STe/TT digital sound chip has an own DMA >channel, just like the Amiga. But does it have DMA for each channel? Can you change the DMA rate? I heard the STe's DMA sound is fixed at one frequency/sampling rate and can't change it. >> Applied Engineering and Commodore both make Ami HD drives. The problem >>with HD drives on the Amiga is that the floppies are controlled by a coprocessor >>(yes, another one!) that allows me to do things like formatting a floppy (which >>I'm doing now via the SD process listed above) with little loss of CPU time. >>This coprocessor, though, cannot handle the throughput speeds of high density >>drives (twice that of the older drives), so workarounds have had to be found. > >To my knowledge, there is no HD drive for the Amiga that handles standard >MFM disks. A real pain when shuffling data to a PC. The new HD drive on the A3000 has 3 modes. 880k, 1.44mb, and 1.76mb. 1.44mb mode was the main reason for making it. You can also buy $200 SCSI floppy drives. >> No? Why not? That .86 MHz doesn't make much of a difference... especially >>if the ST also has to use the CPU to do I/O and/or graphics stuff at the same >>time. Oops! Forgot again... no multitasking. Never mind. > >See above. The floppy controller and the ACSI bus have an own DMA channel. >In the TT, there is a second SCSI DMA channel. The A3000 has 32-bit for it's harddrive , and it normally gets xfer rates of up to 2mb/second (and this only eats 5% of the CPU time while doing it.) The Amiga has over 25 DMA channels. The A3000 now has 8 integrated custom chips to handle them. >> If I remember the TT specs correctly, the only grahics mode the TT has >>that can outdo a stock Amiga 3000 (or any other model, if it weren't for the >>flicker in interlace mode on <3000 Amigas) is the 1024x960 mono mode which >>needs a special monitor. With the CBM A2024 monitor or Moniterm Viking, any >>amiga can do 1008x800 (1008x1024 in PAL mode) mono. > >1280x960. 72 Hz. Without a special graphic card. IMHO, a big advantage and >one of the reason why I bought a TT. (A2024) 1024x1024 PAL on the Amiga without a graphic card, just need a nice monitor. (The 1024x1024 also has 4 grey colors for the 3d GUI look) With Commodore's A2410 you get up to 1024x1024 with 256 colors out of 16.7 million. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Claus Brod, Am Felsenkeller 2, Things. Take. Time. >D-8772 Marktheidenfeld, Germany (Piet Hein) >csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de >Claus_Brod@wue.maus.de >---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
csbrod@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod) (06/28/91)
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > Why on earth would you run a word processor or shell in 24bits? EVen if >the Amiga had 24bit graphics built in I wouldn't run my Workbench on it >because it would slow down ALL screen rendering to a sluggish >halt without a something like a 34010 onboard. Instead, I'd have >the Word processor and GUI set to 8 or 16 colors (3d look) and the paint >program on another screen set to 24bit. All the current Amiga graphic >cards work with the OS because they are still using the custom chips >for their tricks. HAM-E and DCTV work with all paint programs and all >displayer programs. (even things like AmigaVision authorware) I was alluding to the fact that there is no real gfx standard for the Amiga right now. Much like the situation in the PC world. I think having a general scheme for implementing graphic card drivers is a definitive plus for an OS - the ST's VDI allows just this. > In the US FedEx will come to your house, pick up your computer, and >repair it quickly. For A3000's someone comes to your house (onsite >repair). What other countries do is different since each Commodore >sub-company has different policies. Does Atari even exist in the US? Admittedly, this is good service. No doubt about that. I'm impressed. > And the ST doesn't gain much from running at a _slightly_ faster >processor speed. I didn't claim that. But remember that it's not only the 10% clock difference that makes CPU-intensive jobs on the Amiga slower. You must take the video hardware into account which costs additional cycles. > Intuition is the GUI, workbench is the file/finder system (e.g. like >Finder on the Mac). I never used workbench before 2.0, but I haven't seen >many Atari users who used GEM either. GEM doesn't look too hot on that >lo-res screen. Who uses lo-res? Gamesters - but not me. > You do in 2.0. There are _numerous_ workbench replacements/enhancements >out there. But 2.0 beats the pants off all of them. (2.0 kicks the >stuffings out of GEM too) The new workbench is clearly better. But we were discussing the former version and the philosophy behind it. > That's because the poster probably has an A3000 with a 68030. CPUBlit >ONLY gives a speed increase on the maximum resolution screens and only >for things like text rendering. It would slow down massively trying to do what >the blitter does (like combine 3 DMA channels of data using one of the >256 logic operations, plus masking ans shifting, and filling the pattern.) I know, I've read the CpuBlit docs. >The key phrase here is "parallel processing". Letting the blitter >do something takes the load off the CPU. Right you are. I didn't like the fact that the original poster overemphasized the importance of a blitter in general. I don't question that it's useful - but it's not what makes or breaks a computer. > How about what I am doing now? Right now I have a terminal loaded, >in the background I have lharc unarcing some gif pictures I downloaded >earlier which are passing the output names to a script which runs them through >GIF->IFF. Meanwhile, I have 2 shells open and one of them is running >a corewars simulator which is battling two programs (mice vs mortar). >In addition to this, I am getting no visible slow down on my terminal >which is running at 19,200 baud on a USR HST. Likewise, I didn't say multitasking is a no-no. I would like to have it here (besides: I can have it on my machine, though not officially by Atari). The original poster just gave a bad example for its usage. > Amiga channels don't bleep. They have 4 DMA channels to themselves, >8 bit sound, 4khz to 28khz. You can change the sampling rate on demand >and can attach DMA channel to have one channel module the volume and >frequency of the other (allows you to get synthesis effects) I know all this. I've read the hardware manuals. The new STe/TT sound hardware is similar in may respects - but it still bleeps, just like the Amiga does. At least when you're talking about professional music! > Except when you run things like Amigavision or hypertext/authorware >applications where you want to combine animations with digitized sound. >For CDTV it's a nice addition, along with it's 16bit sound and it's MIDI >port. It's _nice_ to have it, I agree upon that. But I don't need it. That's why I bought the ST and the TT instead of an Amiga. > But does it have DMA for each channel? Can you change the DMA rate? >I heard the STe's DMA sound is fixed at one frequency/sampling rate and >can't change it. That's wrong. I didn't delve into the details yet, but I'm sure there is more than just one sampling rate. > The new HD drive on the A3000 has 3 modes. 880k, 1.44mb, and 1.76mb. >1.44mb mode was the main reason for making it. You can also buy >$200 SCSI floppy drives. Does it format standard MFM format so that every PC can read it? > The A3000 has 32-bit for it's harddrive , and it normally gets >xfer rates of up to 2mb/second (and this only eats 5% of the CPU time >while doing it.) The Amiga has over 25 DMA channels. The A3000 now has >8 integrated custom chips to handle them. We know all that. What do you want to prove by that? >(A2024) 1024x1024 PAL on the Amiga without a graphic card, just need a nice >monitor. (The 1024x1024 also has 4 grey colors for the 3d GUI look) From what I've heard, the 2024 is a monitor with special hardware integrated in it that buffers screen frames and displays them at quadruple the speed the Amiga sends it. This way, the Amiga sends a forth of the whole screen in every screen frame, and the monitor composes the complete picture. This means you have a real refresh rate of 50Hz/4 or 60Hz/4. Not exactly what I would call "without a graphic card". >With Commodore's A2410 you get up to 1024x1024 with 256 colors out of >16.7 million. Is it available? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Claus Brod, Am Felsenkeller 2, Things. Take. Time. D-8772 Marktheidenfeld, Germany (Piet Hein) csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de Claus_Brod@wue.maus.de ----------------------------------------------------------------------
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.200127.23004@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> csbrod@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod) writes: >rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >I was alluding to the fact that there is no real gfx standard for >the Amiga right now. Much like the situation in the PC world. I think >having a general scheme for implementing graphic card drivers is a >definitive plus for an OS - the ST's VDI allows just this. They are working on device independent graphics right, the problem is, keeping rhe Amiga the leading desktop video computer without damaging it's performance. (DIG is always slower than hitting the hardware directly) We also have problems to worry about like programmable scan rates, beam synchronization, sprites,multiple play fields, genlocking ,etc Do many ST apps use VDI? I heard they hit the system a little more directly. If they don't, I'm surprised the ST doesn't have lots of graphic cards (and sooner). The main reason the Amiga didn't get them until recently was lack of a graphics standard for external cards. >> And the ST doesn't gain much from running at a _slightly_ faster >>processor speed. > >I didn't claim that. But remember that it's not only the 10% clock >difference that makes CPU-intensive jobs on the Amiga slower. You must >take the video hardware into account which costs additional cycles. Not really that slower. 10% of .7? MIPS isn't much. The Amiga isn't slowed down by the video hardware except by the megacolor screens (half brite, ham, or the hires 16 color screens) and this only happened if the user has no extra ram (fast ram). >> Intuition is the GUI, workbench is the file/finder system (e.g. like >>Finder on the Mac). I never used workbench before 2.0, but I haven't seen >>many Atari users who used GEM either. GEM doesn't look too hot on that >>lo-res screen. > >Who uses lo-res? Gamesters - but not me. Don't you need 2 monitors for the ST? One lo-res color and one mono? >> The new HD drive on the A3000 has 3 modes. 880k, 1.44mb, and 1.76mb. >>1.44mb mode was the main reason for making it. You can also buy >>$200 SCSI floppy drives. > >Does it format standard MFM format so that every PC can read it? The Amiga's filesystem isn't at like the ST/IBM PC format. But filesystems are only the higher level organization of data. The Amiga (and it's new HD drive) can write MFM tracks out exactly like 720k/1.44mb IBM disks, or 880k/1.72mb Amiga disks. For instance, on my Amiga, I merely mount an MS-DOS filesystem and I can read/write IBM disks from any application as if ithere was nothing different. >>(A2024) 1024x1024 PAL on the Amiga without a graphic card, just need a nice >>monitor. (The 1024x1024 also has 4 grey colors for the 3d GUI look) > >From what I've heard, the 2024 is a monitor with special hardware >integrated in it that buffers screen frames and displays them at >quadruple the speed the Amiga sends it. This way, the Amiga sends >a forth of the whole screen in every screen frame, and the monitor >composes the complete picture. This means you have a real refresh rate >of 50Hz/4 or 60Hz/4. Not exactly what I would call "without a >graphic card". Well, you don't need any internal hardware to use it. You just buy a $499 monitor. The refresh rate is 15hz, yes, but it's not bad. The monitor is meant for publishing/cad/text applications, not animation. The Amiga can send out one 768x240x4 screen every 60th of a second (or 768x480x4 interlaced at 30hz) This is 92,160 bytes of data. A 1024x1024x2 (or 1008x800x2) is about ~200,000 bytes. So it takes ~3.2 frames to transfer a screen to the A2024. I guess C= rounds it up to 4 so the A2024 updates at 15hz. >>With Commodore's A2410 you get up to 1024x1024 with 256 colors out of >>16.7 million. > >Is it available? I hear its finished, but won't be released until AmigaUNIX v2.0 with X11R4 is finished. That way, the 3000UX can run a nice megapixel /mega color Xwindows. (the A2410 has a 34010 processor onboard) >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Claus Brod, Am Felsenkeller 2, Things. Take. Time. >D-8772 Marktheidenfeld, Germany (Piet Hein) >csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de >Claus_Brod@wue.maus.de >---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
Rod.Fulk@f24.n228.z1.FidoNet.Org (Rod Fulk) (06/28/91)
DRL> DRL> I can get a 24-bit card for $299 (list). It takes advantage of the DRL> Amiga's DRL> built-in coprocessors. For about $100 more I can get one that also DRL> includes DRL> a slow-scan video digitizer. This one (DCTV) has been demoed at shows DRL> paging DRL> full-motion, full-color video off a HD and displaying it through this DRL> advice in DRL> real time (Watched a few minutes of Back to the Future III...) NOT on a 500 though.. Not as easily as a 2000 I am sure.... I am comparing the 500 to the STe.. Compare the Mega Ste to the Amiga 2000 and it gets a little closer and the TT and the Ami 3000 might as well be the same machine... (Different capabilities here... I wouldnt really deam one or the other of killing the other.) In SOME areas (Video is a biggy) the atari is behind yet... However there are some boards available to boost the video. I have heard of some nice stuff comming out of Germany that makes the ST ATLEAST as functional in ANY bussiness arena as ANY computer out there... (Within $10,000 of the ataris price range.) HD Floppies, Tremendous graphics... Multi tasking environments. (UNless your running a bbs or drawing alot of fractals multi tasking has no real purpose.. I still stand by that statement... The ONLY time I EVERY use multi tasking is when the task at hand takes a long time and I need the computer.. This only includes telecomputing... I use macs in a multi tasking environment.. I use unix machines... (Some neat stuff can be done with this in the background but thats different..) And of course my BBS on this desqview machine. (I do use desqview but only cause most dos programs are pretty brain dead...) There are real time video digitizers available for the ST also.. The Ste brings GENLOCK to the ST easier then it does with an amiga... (Plug it in like a monitor.) Note, there are enhancements available that take the computer to extremes too... For roughly 1200 I could turn any ST into a machine that would be as fast as a TT, Ami 3000 or Mac fx.. With 32 bit of memory... (I think 1200 is actually something like with 2 meg of ram... ) Yes, Tos 2.x will work with ANY machine and is not a TT tos... (However older machines do not have the ROM space for it so it might be a little tricky...) Tos 1.6 in the Ste's is supposed to work with the 680x0 processors but I understand there are some quirks... Tos 2.x is much better anyhow... Other then the STe's Atari products have normally been VERY reliable... The older St's did have a DOA problem but that was due to loose chips and not fault of the hardware. I can't believe some of the stuff I did to motherboards while doing upgrades of memory to them and the ST's still worked... I know of quite a few local dealers that have had ALOT of problems in the past getting working amiga equipment... (Course you ask them now and they will deny it since most the employees have moved on to something else since then..) (PS, who cares how long the warrenty is.. If you have to wait for parts for long periods of time what good is the warrenty. Sure you get the problem fixed but it takes forever sometimes...) On broken in warrenty parts you can do UPS's equivelent of fed/exing it and get it back within a week from atari on their better days.. 2 weeks otherwise.. The blitter is a little slower in the STe then the amiga.. But the STe's interface and usage of the Blitter is MANY times better then the older st's. Not to mention the amigas blitter was more "built into the system" then the st's ever has been. The Mega Ste comes swithcable at 8/16 mhz.. At 16mhz it blows a standard amiga out of the water.. * Origin: The R.I.P. (616)235-2313 [HST] (1:228/24)
Rod.Fulk@f24.n228.z1.FidoNet.Org (Rod Fulk) (06/28/91)
Gem tasks can communicate between them. As I said before TRUE multi tasking is of limited use. Specialty programs are available to do most things in the back ground. There is an explosion of PD programs that can multi task quite well. As well as communicate and such. I realize these are not standards at this time but its only a matter of time. DRL> Workbench is just as easy to use as any most other GUIs. Double DRL> click DRL> the icon & away you go... Yes but its not as "intuitive" as the St or Macs Desktop.. If you compare the amiga desktop to Windows maybe it works well and is very powerful... ;-) (CLI support is heavy in the ST.. They just didnt provide the actual interface to one. There are alot of powerful Cli's out there. I like to run a unix clone type CLI when I DO need a CLI.. But the GUI is powerful enough you do not need the CLI...) DRL> As far as "pure power", I've yet to see a GUI with the pure power of DRL> a Unix-like command line, which is part of the Amiga OS (note that you DRL> don't _have_ to use this; it's just there in case you want to). The STe and above have VERY powerful features tucked away in their desktops... Unless your a programmer you will never see them anyhow... (Isnt this the way its supposed to be? ;-) ) DRL> Nearly every Amiga user I talk to uses it on a regular basis. I'm DRL> doing DRL> it now. A BBS is certainly far from the only time multitasking is DRL> useful. DRL> A list of the processes currently running on my system (using Snap, one DRL> of those processes, to clip this text from a window & paste it here): (list of processes deleted.) Yes but those programs you listed could be run as TSR's too.. The ST DOES support specialized multi tasking... YOu just can not do full blown multi tasking. The ability to run them in a full blown environment makes it kinda nice but its not a necessity... (I have a few processes running on my ST in the background too.. But they are either desk accessories like my terminal program or they are TSR's such as my ram disks and caches... And some performance enhancers are available too as well as things to make my screen bigger and such...) DRL> How is this superior to the Amiga's 4 channel 8 bit stereo sound? (8 DRL> bit DRL> on all 4 channels, not just 2 of them). There's even software DRL> (Octaplayer?) DRL> that supposedly pushes out 8 voices. Of course, unlike the ST, the DRL> Amiga's DRL> sound is driven by yet another coprocessor, so it takes almost 0 CPU DRL> time to DRL> play a musical score or a digitized sound (as a background process in DRL> your Ahh but your wrong.. IN a standard ST even the chip is a coprocessor. NO cpu time is taken to do most non-digital sounds. It is a synthisizer chip and you load it and it goes.. In the New STE you have 5 seperate voices... These can be seperated into 3 different speakers. Unlike the Amigas dual purpose channels (Which can do either digital or synthisized sound) Each of the STe's channels are specialized. Depending on your usage of the STe you can get alot of sound out of it... (It wouldnot be difficult to get 4 and possibly 6 channels on an STe in the digital channels the same way as the amiga does.. These could be played off the stereo channels while the monitor or another speaker plays a totally synthisized accompliment. CPU overhead? Just load up the memory and plug the proper pointers with the addresses... (Its called DMA sound... ;-) Same as the amigas..) As to the Disk drives... The ST uses a coprocessor too that doesnt take up much of the CPU time. It also is a DMA device.... (Same as the amiga... Same problem getting the HD drives to work too. Although the ST world has more then conquored this problem...) * Origin: The R.I.P. (616)235-2313 [HST] (1:228/24)
Rod.Fulk@f24.n228.z1.FidoNet.Org (Rod Fulk) (06/28/91)
DRL> DRL> >Since the ST uses standard parts it is easy to get most of the items... DRL> DRL> Eh? Standard parts? Like the standard SCSI drive inside my Amiga, the DRL> standard memory chips, the standard printer connected to my standard DRL> parrallel DRL> port right next to the standard serial port which talks to my standard DRL> modem? I said standard parts... Such as the RF modulator.. (RS part) the drive controler (RS part) the sound chip (RS part) very ver properitory (sp?) chips in the ST. DRL> I can use all the memory in my system too. I just have to keep DRL> graphics & DRL> sound data in the 1st 2 megs. Why do you say the Amiga has to waste DRL> memory to DRL> do d.b. graphics & sound? Having to keep it in a limited section of DRL> memory DRL> only constitutes a limitation, not a waste. 2 meg? You must have a 3000 cause the others are limited to 1meg and the old 500's to 512k. Any time you must load the data into the upper memory and copy it down into lower memory to be used is wasting memory.. (Ie having it in two places at the same time..) Not to mention the slowdown while copying the memory around.. (ST's have a four meg limit.. That should make a BIG difference when the bigger graphics displays become common.) DRL> On the subject of memory, what exactly is the difference between "ST DRL> memory" and "TT memory" on the TT? Is ST mem 16 bits wide? No, the ST memory is limited to 4 meg... (Same as chip memory as opposed to fast memory.. The TT uses the same type of setup memory wise as the Amiga.. CPU ram is VERY fast and is unlimited in theory.) DRL> Oh? On what do you base this assumption? I really don't know what DRL> business software is available for the ST other than PageStream (is DRL> 2.1 out yet for the ST? I've been using it for a while, & am looking With the St you have a rock solid display that except for the Ami 3000 you can not get at all... You can get close to the mono screen but you cant quite get there... (The TT's high mode is 1280x960... The TT's lowest TT mode is 256 colors out of 4096 in a 320x480 screen and the mid screen is 640x480 with 16 colors These match very well with the Amigas graphics... Not "quite" as good but close enough your not likely to tell real easily.) Since the St uses a double speed buss split between the DMA chips and the CPU I believe the support chips can access the memory when the CPU doesnt.. When IT accesses the memory i believe it might be in 16 bit mode.... When the CPU has its share it will access the ST memory with a true 32bit access. I could be wrong there but that was my impression. (Ie in a normal ST the buss is a 16mhz buss and everything runs on alternate buss cycles so the CPU doesnt load the coprocessors down AT ALL...) The stuff Atari is comming out with now is very good. Unfortunetly at present they are about a year and ahalf behind. (ALthough they are catching up quickly hardware wise..) It shouldnt be too long before Atari is in the front runners again... Although I don't know if it will at that time be solely a "german" computer.... BTW, if your GUI was so great why use a CLI? The Newer STe's and newer have powerful enough GUI's that CLI's are not necissary for anything except specialized jobs... (Software wise the ST has a slighlty better selection of bussiness programs.. Such as data bases, spreedsheets and that stuff... ) * Origin: The R.I.P. (616)235-2313 [HST] (1:228/24)
csbrod@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod) (06/28/91)
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > They are working on device independent graphics right, the problem >is, keeping rhe Amiga the leading desktop video computer without >damaging it's performance. (DIG is always slower than hitting the hardware >directly) We also have problems to worry about like programmable scan >rates, beam synchronization, sprites,multiple play fields, genlocking ,etc >Do many ST apps use VDI? I heard they hit the system a little more >directly. If they don't, I'm surprised the ST doesn't have lots of >graphic cards (and sooner). The main reason the Amiga didn't get them until >recently was lack of a graphics standard for external cards. Every GEM application uses the VDI. There are lots of programs, though, that won't work with any resolution VDI will offer them, that's a sad truth. But the standard is there, and it works fine. In Germany, we have quite a few graphics cards for the ST, including a 24-bit graphic card. In the US, the situation may be entirely different. >>Who uses lo-res? Gamesters - but not me. > Don't you need 2 monitors for the ST? One lo-res color and one mono? In general, I use the mono modes only. Using a multisync, you don't need two monitors. It's just that the SM124 has such a brilliant display - much better than standard multisyncs, and that's why people are using it. Anyway, I'm a bit old-fashioned. I need exactly two colors on my computer: Black and white. >>Does it format standard MFM format so that every PC can read it? > The Amiga's filesystem isn't at like the ST/IBM PC format. But >filesystems are only the higher level organization of data. The Amiga >(and it's new HD drive) can write MFM tracks out exactly like >720k/1.44mb IBM disks, or 880k/1.72mb Amiga disks. For instance, on >my Amiga, I merely mount an MS-DOS filesystem and I can read/write >IBM disks from any application as if ithere was nothing different. I know quite a bit about the Amiga's filesystem, but I didn't know the new HD drives can write a genuine PC MFM format. Tnx for the information. This must have been done by using intelligent drives, I suppose. > Well, you don't need any internal hardware to use it. You just buy >a $499 monitor. The refresh rate is 15hz, yes, but it's not bad. >The monitor is meant for publishing/cad/text applications, not >animation. The Amiga can send out one 768x240x4 screen every 60th of a >second (or 768x480x4 interlaced at 30hz) This is 92,160 bytes of data. >A 1024x1024x2 (or 1008x800x2) is about ~200,000 bytes. So it takes >~3.2 frames to transfer a screen to the A2024. I guess C= rounds it up to >4 so the A2024 updates at 15hz. And how many cycles does this cost for the CPU? > I hear its finished, but won't be released until AmigaUNIX v2.0 >with X11R4 is finished. That way, the 3000UX can run a nice megapixel >/mega color Xwindows. (the A2410 has a 34010 processor onboard) And a fast gfx processor will be needed judging from my experience with X 8-( ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Claus Brod, Am Felsenkeller 2, Things. Take. Time. D-8772 Marktheidenfeld, Germany (Piet Hein) csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de Claus_Brod@wue.maus.de ----------------------------------------------------------------------
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/29/91)
In article <1991Jun28.124442.15920@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> csbrod@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod) writes: >rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >> The Amiga's filesystem isn't at like the ST/IBM PC format. But >>filesystems are only the higher level organization of data. The Amiga >>(and it's new HD drive) can write MFM tracks out exactly like >>720k/1.44mb IBM disks, or 880k/1.72mb Amiga disks. For instance, on >>my Amiga, I merely mount an MS-DOS filesystem and I can read/write >>IBM disks from any application as if ithere was nothing different. > >I know quite a bit about the Amiga's filesystem, but I didn't know >the new HD drives can write a genuine PC MFM format. Tnx for the >information. This must have been done by using intelligent drives, >I suppose. The Filesystem has alittle to do with the density of the drive. All the file system cares about are block numbers. What controls the drive is the trackdisk.device. For instance,a normal 880k disk has 1738 sectors and the Filesystem might ask the trackdisk.device to read block 1600 (which may be a part of a file, a directory sector, whatever) The new drives in the 3000 are variable speed drives like the Mac, so the drive motor can be slowed to 1/2 speed giving twice the density without a more expensive drive head or a new controller chip. So all the new system does is check if your using an HD disk and switch drive speeds. Writing PC format is no problem in the HD mode. >> Well, you don't need any internal hardware to use it. You just buy >>a $499 monitor. The refresh rate is 15hz, yes, but it's not bad. >>The monitor is meant for publishing/cad/text applications, not >>animation. The Amiga can send out one 768x240x4 screen every 60th of a >>second (or 768x480x4 interlaced at 30hz) This is 92,160 bytes of data. >>A 1024x1024x2 (or 1008x800x2) is about ~200,000 bytes. So it takes >>~3.2 frames to transfer a screen to the A2024. I guess C= rounds it up to >>4 so the A2024 updates at 15hz. > >And how many cycles does this cost for the CPU? Zero CPU cycles. The display doesn't eat CPU cycles as long as you have fast ram. A more appropriate question would be to ask, how many blitter cycles does it cost? Answer: it will eat 50% of blitter cycles. The A2024 monitor also has a 10hz mode that only ats 25%. I suspect putting the A2024 in mono mode will eat zero. >> I hear its finished, but won't be released until AmigaUNIX v2.0 >>with X11R4 is finished. That way, the 3000UX can run a nice megapixel >>/mega color Xwindows. (the A2410 has a 34010 processor onboard) > >And a fast gfx processor will be needed judging from my experience >with X 8-( That's what the TI34010/34881 is for. The Xwindows code will probably run on the 34010 processor itself instead of the 68030. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Claus Brod, Am Felsenkeller 2, Things. Take. Time. >D-8772 Marktheidenfeld, Germany (Piet Hein) >csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de >Claus_Brod@wue.maus.de >---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/29/91)
[note the follow up line] [felt I should correct some misinformation before leaving this group] In article <678091803.0@therip.FidoNet> Rod.Fulk@f24.n228.z1.FidoNet.Org (Rod Fulk) writes: >NOT on a 500 though.. Not as easily as a 2000 I am sure.... The 500 and 2000 are nearly the same. The harddrive DMA is the same speed. The real-time playback from HD can be done on the 500 an the 2000. >ataris price range.) HD Floppies, Tremendous graphics... Multi tasking >environments. (UNless your running a bbs or drawing alot of fractals multi >tasking has no real purpose.. I still stand by that statement... >The ONLY time I EVERY use multi tasking is when the task at hand takes a long >time and I need the computer.. This only includes telecomputing... I use macs >in a multi tasking environment.. I use unix machines... (Some neat stuff can >be done with this in the background but thats different..) And of course my >BBS on this desqview machine. (I do use desqview but only cause most dos >programs are pretty brain dead...) I disagree wholeheartily. Multitasking is very useful. If it wasn't, why is multifinder integrated into the Mac's OS now? Why OS/2, why GEOS, why Window's? Because multitasking is important. I can't stand other computers the way you get locked into an App sometimes. When I'm downloading, I like to be doing something else, like working on a program, or editing something. >There are real time video digitizers available for the ST also.. >The Ste brings GENLOCK to the ST easier then it does with an amiga... >(Plug it in like a monitor.) Plug what in? You can get very cheap genlocks for $60, but the more expensive $1000 ones on the Amiga have multichannel/multisource genlocking, selective fade/blend, genlocked audio, custom wipes, etc. A genlock that can't fade/wipe is not very useful. Besides genlocking, the Amiga can CHROMAKEY which means putting live video infront rather than behind the computer's graphics. It can also use any color register for the transparent color, not just the background color{ >Note, there are enhancements available that take the computer to extremes >too... For roughly 1200 I could turn any ST into a machine that wqould be as >fast as a TT, Ami 3000 or Mac fx.. With 32 bit of memory... (I think 1200 is >actually something like with 2 meg of ram... ) Likewise, the MegaMidget racer cfor $599 gives you a 33mhz 68030 w/32bit memory for your A500. >working amiga equipment... (Course you ask them now and they will deny it >since most the employees have moved on to something else since then..) >(PS, who cares how long the warrenty is.. If you have to wait for parts for >long periods of time what good is the warrenty. Sure you get the problem fixed >but it takes forever sometimes...) This is unsupported bull. I know over 50 people with Amigas and none of them have problems. I have had my Amiga for 4+ years and it has never given me trouble. The only known problems with Amiga's were the rev 4.2 A2000 motherboards and the loosely seated chips in the bridgcards. >On broken in warrenty parts you can do UPS's equivelent of fed/exing it and >get it back within a week from atari on their better days.. >2 weeks otherwise.. You pay no shipping cost for C='s FedEx and it gets fixed in <2 days. (They will swap the entire motherboard if they want). If you have >A2000 machine you get onsite repair. (SOmeone comes to your house and fixes it right then and there) >Not to mention the amigas blitter was more "built into the system" then the >st's ever has been. The Mega Ste comes swithcable at 8/16 mhz.. At 16mhz it >blows a standard amiga out of the water.. 16mhz 68000 doesn't really blow a 7mhz 68000 out of the water in performance, I'd say less then 2x performance (probably 1.5). Strickly because with a faster clock rate you need a better ram system. I could put a 33mhz 68030 in my Amiga, but if I didn't have any 80ns 32-bit ram the 68030 would run at 1mips. The extra speed comes from 32-bit access, and and faster ram to cut down on wait states. > > * Origin: The R.I.P. (616)235-2313 [HST] (1:228/24) -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/29/91)
In article <678091803.1@therip.FidoNet> Rod.Fulk@f24.n228.z1.FidoNet.Org (Rod Fulk) writes: >Gem tasks can communicate between them. >As I said before TRUE multi tasking is of limited use. Specialty programs are >available to do most things in the back ground. There is an explosion of PD Right now I am on a BSD Unix machine. If I get a write message from a user or if I get a mail notice, I can stop rn/emacs, and go respond. Likewise, I can start up a huge compilation (average time, 5 minutes) and read news while it's compiling. The ability to have multiple shells and run multiple programs is invaluable to me. > DRL> Workbench is just as easy to use as any most other GUIs. Double > DRL> click > DRL> the icon & away you go... >Yes but its not as "intuitive" as the St or Macs Desktop.. If you compare the >amiga desktop to Windows maybe it works well and is very powerful... ;-) >(CLI support is heavy in the ST.. They just didnt provide the actual interface >to one. There are alot of powerful Cli's out there. I like to run a unix clone >type CLI when I DO need a CLI.. But the GUI is powerful enough you do not need >the CLI...) What not's intuitive about Workbench? Give an example please? I find most of the Finder/Gem type stuff is nothing but a glorified program launcher/file renamer/copier. If GUIs are so powerful then why do Mac developers use MPW? The bandwidth of the mouse/icon interface gets in the way sometimes. I can type cc -c *.c faster than I can drag 20 source icons onto a compiler icon. > DRL> As far as "pure power", I've yet to see a GUI with the pure power of > DRL> a Unix-like command line, which is part of the Amiga OS (note that you > DRL> don't _have_ to use this; it's just there in case you want to). >The STe and above have VERY powerful features tucked away in their desktops... >Unless your a programmer you will never see them anyhow... (Isnt this the way >its supposed to be? ;-) ) Give me some examples. > DRL> Nearly every Amiga user I talk to uses it on a regular basis. I'm > DRL> doing > DRL> it now. A BBS is certainly far from the only time multitasking is > DRL> useful. > DRL> A list of the processes currently running on my system (using Snap, one > DRL> of those processes, to clip this text from a window & paste it here): >(list of processes deleted.) Yes but those programs you listed could be run as >TSR's too.. The ST DOES support specialized multi tasking... YOu just can not >do full blown multi tasking. The ability to run them in a full blown >environment makes it kinda nice but its not a necessity... (I have a few >processes running on my ST in the background too.. But they are either desk >accessories like my terminal program or they are TSR's such as my ram disks >and caches... And some performance enhancers are available too as well as >things to make my screen bigger and such...) This is not multitasking (not really). These programs on the IBM (TSR)'s are more like interupt handlers. They don't multitask. Each one of them runs until completion. Let's suppose you have a screen blanker that draws fireworks on the screen and a hotkey utility. While the screen blanker is rendering, the hotkey utility will get no cpu time. The more the screen blanker takes, the less the hotkey gets. it also makes things load order dependent. On the Amiga, the screen blanker will get interupted while it's rendering to give the hotkey utility some CPU time. In addition, AmigaDOS 2.0 has made load-order dependency totally vanish. Commodities Exchange allows multiple "enhancer" (INIT/DA time programs) to peacfully coexist even if they watch the same keys on the keyboard. No more load-order dependency. [followups to advocacy, since I may be getting on some ST users' nerves] -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/29/91)
In article <678091803.2@therip.FidoNet> Rod.Fulk@f24.n228.z1.FidoNet.Org (Rod Fulk) writes: > > DRL> > DRL> >Since the ST uses standard parts it is easy to get most of the items... > DRL> > DRL> Eh? Standard parts? Like the standard SCSI drive inside my Amiga, the > DRL> standard memory chips, the standard printer connected to my standard > DRL> parrallel > DRL> port right next to the standard serial port which talks to my standard > DRL> modem? >I said standard parts... Such as the RF modulator.. (RS part) the drive >controler (RS part) the sound chip (RS part) very ver properitory (sp?) chips >in the ST. "That's the problem with standards, there are so many to choose from." The Amiga chips have been in mass production for 6 years. They are very cheap now (since they are in mass quantities). > DRL> I can use all the memory in my system too. I just have to keep > DRL> graphics & > DRL> sound data in the 1st 2 megs. Why do you say the Amiga has to waste > DRL> memory to > DRL> do d.b. graphics & sound? Having to keep it in a limited section of > DRL> memory > DRL> only constitutes a limitation, not a waste. >2 meg? You must have a 3000 cause the others are limited to 1meg and the old >500's to 512k. Any time you must load the data into the upper memory and copy >it down into lower memory to be used is wasting memory.. (Ie having it in two >places at the same time..) Not to mention the slowdown while copying the >memory around.. (ST's have a four meg limit.. That should make a BIG >difference when the bigger graphics displays become common.) The Amiga doesn't "copy" data. Let's say you have a compressed animation loaded. 2 screens will be allocated in chip memory. The first frame will be displayed and while it is being display, another frame will be "decompressed" directly to the other frame. This is copying in a minor sense. What about resident programs? Putting programs in a ram disk is a waste of memory? Why? Because the program exists in 2 copies. The one copy that is in the ram disk, and the one that gets loaded and executed from the ram disk. On the Amiga, you make a program "resident" (it has to be reentrant and re-executable) and you can run as many copies as you like without taking any extra memory except for stack. (For instance, I could run 100 copies of the program "ls" program which is 16k long and only eat 116k of memory. 16k for the 100 programs (all running the same code in ram, not copies) and 100k for the 100 1k stacks for each task. Without resident code, you would need 1.7 megabytes to do this. Not a very good example, but in 1mb of memory I can run 3 or 4 copies of my favorite editor (100k executable) and only use 100+k of memory.) > DRL> On the subject of memory, what exactly is the difference between "ST > DRL> memory" and "TT memory" on the TT? Is ST mem 16 bits wide? >No, the ST memory is limited to 4 meg... (Same as chip memory as opposed to >fast memory.. The TT uses the same type of setup memory wise as the Amiga.. >CPU ram is VERY fast and is unlimited in theory.) Does this mean the normal ST is limited to 4mb? (barring hacks to the motherboard) The Amiga's normal limit is 9mb (the 68000 is limited to 16mb due to it only has 24 address lines) Of course any 68020/30 board would give you more, but I'm talking standard add on memory. No processor upgrades. > DRL> Oh? On what do you base this assumption? I really don't know what > DRL> business software is available for the ST other than PageStream (is > DRL> 2.1 out yet for the ST? I've been using it for a while, & am looking >With the St you have a rock solid display that except for the Ami 3000 you can >not get at all... You can get close to the mono screen but you cant quite get Deinterlacer's on the Amiga cost ~$200 now. Every Amiga can have a rock solid display. With the ECS Denise chip you don't need a deinterlacer. With the A2024 you get 1024x1024x4. (not mono) You need atleast 4 colors to have a nice "3d-look" GUI. (background, highlight, shadow, and text color) >computer.... BTW, if your GUI was so great why use a CLI? The Newer STe's and >newer have powerful enough GUI's that CLI's are not necissary for anything >except specialized jobs... That's because the Shell is great for lots of things especially scripting and batching. Let's say you wanted to catalog every c source on your harddisk to a file? $ ls -R rootdir | grep \\.c\|\\.h >t:filecat There are things you can do in a shell that are just not possible in a low-bandwidth environment like a GUI. That's why even Mac programmers/power users use MPW or some other shell. >(Software wise the ST has a slighlty better selection of bussiness programs.. >Such as data bases, spreedsheets and that stuff... ) Examples please. The Amiga has a multitude of databases, spreadsheets, authorware, etc. For instance, the Amiga has SuperBase Professional 4, DBMan V( Dbase clone), MicroFiche Filer, Advantage, Analyze, MaxiPlan, SuperPlan, VIP Professional, Accountant, Best Bussiness Management, Datatax, Desktop Budget, Easy Ledgers, Phasar 4.0, Service Industry Accounting, etc, etc. It's easy to make statements like "slightly better" it's harder to back them up when it comes time to compare quantity and quality. [followups to c.s.a.advocacy, I'm out of this group.] > > * Origin: The R.I.P. (616)235-2313 [HST] (1:228/24) -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/30/91)
Rod.Fulk@f24.n228.z1.FidoNet.Org (Rod Fulk) writes: >Tom, Apparently you have not really used an Atari computer... >There are many offerings available on the ST that are not available on any >other computer to date. >Since atari does not make the ST computer any more that I know of you must >compare the capabilities of the STe to that of the amiga. >A 1040 Ste compares VERY favorably to an amiga 500. The ONLY thing the amiga >500 has over the atari is the fact that the atari can not do as many colors on >the screen at the same time... >However there is a 24bit card available for $800 with a coprocessor of some >sort for really good graphics... >Adding things to the ST come alot cheaper over all then on the amiga and the >standard equipment atari sells is of better quality on average. >Compare.... >An Ste with tos 1.6 and blitter performs pretty well... >Compared to an Amiga 500 the amiga only has a slight edge over the Atari.. >(Note: for the price no other computer even comes close... ) >Compare OS's... The St is built with a much more complete OS then ANY of the >amiga OS's.. (The 2.0 doesnt really count at this point since last time I >looked it was not available on amiga 500's yet) >If you compare the amigas 2.0 to the Mega Ste's 2.x and the TT's 3.X the atari >beats it hands down. >(Beats it in all areas of ease of use and of pure power...) Of course the >amiga does multi task but I have very little use for multi tasking.. >(I use a 25 mhz '386 with desqview.. On the BBS multi tasking is nice..) >VERY few people I talk to use multi tasking more then ocassionally. >As to sound? Well The ST is the only one so far that has the capability of 3d >sound. The STe series computers have the capability of using 3 seperate >speakers with different sounds out of each.... 2 of those full 8 bit digital.. >It is easy to use HD floppies on an ST.. I have yet to see on on an amiga... >Since the ST uses standard parts it is easy to get most of the items... >Comparing an ST to an Amiga at purely CPU intensive things the Amiga can not >be compared very favorably. >The amiga has a hand up on the serial port since the ST is limited to 19200 >baud... > >ALL the memory can be used in an ST as compared to the amigas limitation of >chip memory... (Note the ST does not waste memory... You must waste memory on >an amiga to do double buffered graphics and digital sound at the same time.) >Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.. The Standard ST is MUCH better >suited to bussiness then an amiga. However the Amiga is better suited to >games and higher resolution color work... > >Start comparing at the TT to amiga 3000 level and the difference is alot less.. >The TT can do some graphic modes the amiga would be jelous of and visa versa. >The sound systems are for the most part the same.. Differences can be over >come by the speed of the processor. If you REALLY push it the amiga can do a >few things better in the graphics arena though.. Over all though you have no >bussiness stating the ST is no where as good as the amiga.. It is not true.. > >However Atari USA is missing the boat.... >Actually someone shot the boat they were on while they were sipping a toast >to what they thought was going on... Then federated almost killed them.. >From the current trends I would predict that the Atari will come on very strong >in the next five years.. If Atari ever gets over their fatuation of keeping >low graphics to keep the price down and offer a multi tasking environment then >there will be nothing any amigaite can say against the ST... ;-) >(Multi tasking doesnt make a better machine but since most people dont realize >they are not gonna need it they think they need it and might lewt it make some >sort of an effect on them..) > > > * Origin: The R.I.P. (616)235-2313 [HST] (1:228/24) > There are many offerings available on the ST that are not available on any > other computer to date. Ok i'll listen, if you have the facts to support your claims. > Since atari does not make the ST computer any more that I know of you must > compare the capabilities of the STe to that of the amiga. Ok, i'll give you that, but don't ever compare an Amiga 1000 either. > A 1040 Ste compares VERY favorably to an amiga 500. The ONLY thing the amiga > 500 has over the atari is the fact that the atari can not do as many colors > on the screen at the same time... Really? this is the ONLY feature? Since when does the STe have 25 DMA channles? since when does the STe have a graphics co-processor capable of running concurently with the CPU? since when does the STe have Multi-tasking? > However there is a 24bit card available for $800 with a coprocessor of some > sort for really good graphics... just one? i can buy 3 or 4 24 bit graphics devices for the 500 for under $500.00. > Adding things to the ST come alot cheaper over all then on the amiga and the > standard equipment atari sells is of better quality on average. > Compare.... Really? what facts do you have to support this? why is it cheaper to expand the STe? What items of CBM equipment can you *PROVE* are inferior to anything Atari makes? > An Ste with tos 1.6 and blitter performs pretty well... *IF* any software uses that blitter. very little does. > Compared to an Amiga 500 the amiga only has a slight edge over the Atari.. > (Note: for the price no other computer even comes close... ) Really? does the STe cost less than $500.00? > Compare OS's... The St is built with a much more complete OS then ANY of the > amiga OS's.. (The 2.0 doesnt really count at this point since last time I > looked it was not available on amiga 500's yet) Ok.. i won't count something because it's not available to everyone. But still the Atari's OS is hardly more complete. I have a book that attempts to do the same thing on an Amiga and an ST, and they had to supply a whole bunch of routines that had to be written from scratch to match what they used in the Amiga's OS. > If you compare the amigas 2.0 to the Mega Ste's 2.x and the TT's 3.X the > atari beats it hands down. Oh really? why? comparisons? facts? i don't see any. Please supply facts to support your position. > (Beats it in all areas of ease of use and of pure power...) Of course the > amiga does multi task but I have very little use for multi tasking.. Oh! another feature that the ST lacks that the 500 has... i thought you said there was only one? > (I use a 25 mhz '386 with desqview.. On the BBS multi tasking is nice..) > VERY few people I talk to use multi tasking more then ocassionally. But you said you had little use of multi-tasking! it seems that running a bbs and doing things is something you use multi-tasking for. NOBODY has any use for multi-tasking. that is until their computer can do it. then it becomes a necessity. > As to sound? Well The ST is the only one so far that has the capability of > 3d sound. The STe series computers have the capability of using 3 seperate Oh really? hmm.. In a month or 2 (as soon as the board is released) i will be able to hook up 16 speakers to my amiga and have seperate sound coming from all of them. by the way, how's the quality on that third channel? > speakers with different sounds out of each.... 2 of those full 8 bit digital.. oh! only 2 are full(?) 8 bit digital. hmm are there any companies developing 16 bit audio boards? > It is easy to use HD floppies on an ST.. I have yet to see on on an amiga... There are 2 of them. the Applied Engineering 1.56 meg High Density, and the Commodore 1.76 meg High Density. > Since the ST uses standard parts it is easy to get most of the items... > Comparing an ST to an Amiga at purely CPU intensive things the Amiga can not > be compared very favorably. Oh really? and i suppose that there are numerous 020,030,and 040 boards available for the STe? and a 50 Mhz 030? > The amiga has a hand up on the serial port since the ST is limited to 19200 > baud... hmm.. and *WE* amigans thought *OUR* serial ports were bad... > ALL the memory can be used in an ST as compared to the amigas limitation of > chip memory... (Note the ST does not waste memory... You must waste memory > on an amiga to do double buffered graphics and digital sound at the same > time.) Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.. The Standard ST is MUCH > better suited to bussiness then an amiga. However the Amiga is better suited > to games and higher resolution color work... What do you mean by "wasting memory"? I do double buffered graphics, and i don't waste memory. what's your definition of wasting memory? > Start comparing at the TT to amiga 3000 level and the difference is alot less.. > The TT can do some graphic modes the amiga would be jelous of and visa versa. > The sound systems are for the most part the same.. Differences can be over > come by the speed of the processor. If you REALLY push it the amiga can do a > few things better in the graphics arena though.. Over all though you have no > bussiness stating the ST is no where as good as the amiga.. It is not true.. Oh, but we're not supposed to compare things that aren't available to everyone. since when is a TT available in the US? if we can compare TT's then we can compare workbench 2.0. Can you easily add an 040 board to a TT? and the TT has it's version of Chip Memory as well. It's for performance, and it only took Atari 6 years to realize that. > However Atari USA is missing the boat.... An understatement if i ever heard one. > Actually someone shot the boat they were on while they were sipping a toast > to what they thought was going on... Then federated almost killed them.. > From the current trends I would predict that the Atari will come on very strong > in the next five years.. If Atari ever gets over their fatuation of keeping > low graphics to keep the price down and offer a multi tasking environment then > there will be nothing any amigaite can say against the ST... ;-) > (Multi tasking doesnt make a better machine but since most people dont > realize they are not gonna need it they think they need it and might lewt > it make some sort of an effect on them..) Huh? that last sentance was totaly incomprehensible. (sort of like multi-tasking to ST users). I'd like to see some proof of all your alegations. since everything you've stated is based purely on speculation on your part and not facts. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
scott@cs.odu.edu (Scott D. Yelich) (06/30/91)
>>>With Commodore's A2410 you get up to 1024x1024 with 256 colors out of >>>16.7 million. >>Is it available? > I hear its finished, but won't be released until AmigaUNIX v2.0 >with X11R4 is finished. That way, the 3000UX can run a nice megapixel >/mega color Xwindows. (the A2410 has a 34010 processor onboard) Let me get this straight.... You are going to run Unix, X windows and have a display of 1024x1024x8? How much memory are you planning on putting in this beast? Also, tell me what it would take to get the Amiga 500/1000 to run Unix, X windows and have a 1024x1024x8 display. Scott
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/30/91)
In article <SCOTT.91Jun29205654@drizzle.cs.odu.edu> scott@cs.odu.edu (Scott D. Yelich) writes: >>>>With Commodore's A2410 you get up to 1024x1024 with 256 colors out of >>>>16.7 million. >>>Is it available? >> I hear its finished, but won't be released until AmigaUNIX v2.0 >>with X11R4 is finished. That way, the 3000UX can run a nice megapixel >>/mega color Xwindows. (the A2410 has a 34010 processor onboard) > >Let me get this straight.... > >You are going to run Unix, X windows and have a display of 1024x1024x8? > >How much memory are you planning on putting in this beast? The A3000UXD comes with 9mb of ram. The A2410 card has VRAM onboard (I don't know how much) so the X display runs on the board, not in the A3000's memory. The A3000UXD already runs Unix (SysVR4) with X11R3, but it's B&W and X11R3 is slow. Unix2.0 will have X11R4 which will use the A2410. >Also, tell me what it would take to get the Amiga 500/1000 to >run Unix, X windows and have a 1024x1024x8 display. It would take a lot. Unix needs an MMU so you need atleast 68020, 8mb of ram, a fast hd. To use the A2410 (1024x1024) you need atleast an A2000(because the 500 doesn't have a Zorro II slot) In the end, you'd pay more for an A500+Cpu Card+Ram+HD+Unix+Expansion chassis+A2410. The A500 only costs $400, and a good Unixx system costs >$3k so there's no point upgrading an A500 to run Unix. The A500 is only a low end machine. Re-direct any future questions to comp.unix.amiga or comp.sys.amiga.introduction. >Scott -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/30/91)
In article <SCOTT.91Jun29205654@drizzle.cs.odu.edu> scott@cs.odu.edu (Scott D. Yelich) writes: > >Also, tell me what it would take to get the Amiga 500/1000 to >run Unix, X windows and have a 1024x1024x8 display. > Who cares? That's like asking what would it take to turn a PC XT into a file server for an Ethernet LAN with 100 machines. It is pointless. You buy the machine appropriate for your needs. Of course, you CAN get that A500 to run X-Windows on a 1024x1024 4 grey-scale monitor under AmigaDOS. -- Ethan FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. Take one down, Short it to ground, FE buckets of bits on the bus.
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (06/30/91)
Jeez, Rod... if you're gonna defend the ST, at least get it right..! BobR
harryk@bucsf.bu.edu (Harry Karayiannis) (07/01/91)
I'm sick & tired of this nonsense. I don't know what is the problem of the Amiga users who ocasionally post childish messages to this newsgroup, but most of us don't give a damn about ANY Amiga machine. I don't wanna know the PROS and CONS of the Amiga...when, and if, I do I'll let you know. In the meanwhile leave us alone. I'd also like to ask from the few ST users who participate to this silly (IMHO) discussion, to either ignore them, or continue arguing via personal e-mail. thanks =============================================================================== Harry Karayiannis Post: || |# || 15 N.Beacon |#| ||#| |#| Boston University Allston, MA 02134 |#| ||#| |#| Computer Science Dpt. U.S.A. |##| ||#| |##| _______________________ ||#| ||#| ||#| |INTERnet: //// |||| \\\\ % fortune -o | harryk@bucsf.bu.edu ///// |||| \\\\\ "Hackers do it with |BITnet: ///// ATARI ST \\\\\ fewer instructions" | cscrzcc@buacca.bu.edu =======================================================|_______________________