carter@cat27.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) (02/05/91)
There are a number of reasons why you can't compare the AMIGA 500/2000 even though they have comparable processors. Probably the biggest point I can make on this matter is that the AMIGA has more capable display hardware, that is true, but the STe has more capable connectivity hardware built into it right out of the box. Just from this fact alone, the ST and AMIGA are targeted for two very different markets. >>acquire video data. In the more colourful video modes you have to run your >>CPU in the intervals. >> >>This is why amigas have limits on video ram. ST's have no limit on video ram >>except the inherent ST memory limits this makes frame animation much easier >>on an ST. >There may be a physical limit to CHIP ram, but all the serious 8Meg >Sound/Animation players use bank switching, it's not a problem at all. Well, this is really absurd, 8megs, your already WAY out of the ST's ball park in far as memory capacity and price. As for GEM being a complete turn off, I WOULD have greed when I had TOS 1.4, I WOULDN'T agree now that I have TOS 2.05. GEM is VERY functional. Personally, I thought the same when I seen the WORKBENCH pop up with its color thought bubbles everytime you wanted to run something. Yes you can do multitasking on an AMIGA 500/2000, YES in my personal opinion and experience, I think it is TOO slow. An 8Mhz 68K processor is just not that great for multitasking that much. Not only THAT, you IDIOT, but GEM on the PC and GEM on the ST are TOTALLY different beasts. --Gregory PS: NO, multitasking can be done on an ST, you haven't been reading up on our machine, your a fool, and you don't know what your talking about.
mjs@hpfcso.HP.COM (Marc Sabatella) (02/05/91)
>In comp.sys.atari.st, carter@cat27.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) writes: > ... > Not only THAT, you IDIOT ... > ... > your a fool, and you don't know what your talking about. This from the same guy that called Allan Pratt an IDIOT, and even after a rational explanation of what a disk cache was, still wondered why his hard drive didn't go any faster. When did the University Of Wisconsin CS Department start accepting 7 year olds?
carter@cat27.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) (02/05/91)
First of all GUY, I NEVER called Allan Pratt an idiot.
--Gregory
PS: Secondly I AM 8 YEARS OLD not seven years old and I got accepted because
I got 2 Million points on an X version of Tetris!
CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu (02/07/91)
The limit on Amiga video ram is due to the inability of the custom chips (the
three chips called the Agnes, the Blitter, and the Portia). These same chips
are responsible for the multitasking power of the Amiga. The 68K CPU is free
to attend to other operations while Portia handles the port accessing, and the
Blitter and Agnes operate the graphics and sound. Every limitation on the
Amiga is due to these three chips, which Commodore has been slow to revise and
upgrade. The only exception being the new 'Fat Agnes' which can access 1 meg
of video memory at a time, and the new ECS (Enhanced Chip Set). While a slight
improvement, the only thing I can remember about the new capabilities is the
ability to run Viking Moniterm resolution in 4 colors. There is also a 50MHz
accelerator board available for the Amiga, and the Tahiti rewritable optical
drive which stores 1 gigabyte of information. The Amiga 3000 has the
capability to have RAM expansion to a few gigabytes (but I don't remember the
exact number). You should both get your facts straight, and read industry-
wide publications instead of product specific publications. Every system has
it's limits. Read Byte instead.
Chris Winward
userid CXW148 on PSUVMddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug Dyer) (02/07/91)
CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >upgrade. The only exception being the new 'Fat Agnes' which can access 1 meg >of video memory at a time, and the new ECS (Enhanced Chip Set). The 3000 setup has 2MB chip. Framebuffers make for a fast graphics system, giving the chipset and chip memory you increase performance, but decrease flexibility. In this area, C= is known to be working on a few things: 1) Their new graphics board 24bit palette, 8-bit look-up table 2) retargetable graphics (to enable workbench to use any device such as their board) 3) The 3000 can run two cpus efficiently ('30, '40). The '30 might become a blitter. This is only speculative on my part. Their graphics board sounds REAL good. Its currently used for openlook, and I hope they decide workbench could use it. bye, Doug -- "I/O's revenge is at hand." - Hennessy & Patterson
neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) (02/07/91)
In article <12968@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug Dyer) writes: > (an article that contains not one word about Atari products) That is NOT why I read this group! If you want to relpy to someone about Am*gas then do so by mail. Please stop filling this group with such messages! Thank you +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ! DISCLAIMER:Unless otherwise stated, the above comments are entirely my own ! ! ! ! Neil Forsyth JANET: neil@uk.ac.hw.cs ! ! Dept. of Computer Science ARPA: neil@cs.hw.ac.uk ! ! Heriot-Watt University UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!neil ! ! Edinburgh, Scotland, UK "That was never 5 minutes!" ! +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug Dyer) (02/08/91)
neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) writes: >In article <12968@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug Dyer) >writes: >> (an article that contains not one word about Atari products) >That is NOT why I read this group! If you want to relpy to someone about >Am*gas then do so by mail. Please stop filling this group with such messages! >Thank you Just giving amiga specs. I certainly don't mind when atari people explain their machines in the amiga group. -- 2B|!(2B) => ? ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu
mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew W. Pierce) (02/08/91)
In article <91037.172827CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu>, CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > The limit on Amiga video ram is due to the inability of the custom chips (the ^^^^^^^^^ I think the proper term is accessability or addressability, but certainly not inability. I have one meg of video ram and two of fast, and I have not run into any memory problems yet, certainly not any problems with video ram. > three chips called the Agnes, the Blitter, and the Portia). These same chips ^^^^^^ What the h*ll is Portia, you really need to get your facts straight, there is no Portia chip. > are responsible for the multitasking power of the Amiga. The 68K CPU is free Don't forget to give credit to the operating system, and the CPU, they also play a very important part in the Amiga's amazingly powerful system. > to attend to other operations while Portia handles the port accessing, and the > Blitter and Agnes operate the graphics and sound. Again, read a book and get your facts straight, and remember label the proper task` with the proper chip, and to include other chips like Gary and Denise, they are important too. Every limitation on the > Amiga is due to these three chips, which Commodore has been slow to revise and > upgrade. The only exception being the new 'Fat Agnes' which can access 1 meg > of video memory at a time, and the new ECS (Enhanced Chip Set ). Don't for get to include Buster, and Super Denise with her amazing programmable dispisplay modes, you seem to be leaving quite a lot out, and not getting what is here corect. While a slight > improvement, the only thing I can remember about the new capabilities is the > ability to run Viking Moniterm resolution in 4 colors. There is also a 50MHz > accelerator board available for the Amiga, and the Tahiti rewritable optical > drive which stores 1 gigabyte of information. The Amiga 3000 has the > capability to have RAM expansion to a few gigabytes (but I don't remember the > exact number). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You make it sound so trivial, it's actully 1.7 gigs, and it's a whole lot!! . You should both get your facts straight, and read industry- > wide publications instead of product specific publications. Every system has > it's limits. Read Byte instead. > Chris Winward > userid CXW148 on PSUVM You should make your words short and sweet, I sense that you may have had to eat them in the past. YOU should readup on what YOU are talking about, go beyond byte, pickup or borrow a hardware manual, they are much more informative. Matt Pierce
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (02/08/91)
In article <1420@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew W. Pierce) writes: >In article <91037.172827CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu>, CXW148@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >> three chips called the Agnes, the Blitter, and the Portia). These same chips > ^^^^^^ >What the h*ll is Portia, you really need to get your facts straight, there is no >Portia chip. Portia=Paula! The Amiga chips were renamed when the Amiga500/2000 were made. Portia=chip that controls the ports. (the name fits the function) The Denise chip originally had a different name too. >> are responsible for the multitasking power of the Amiga. The 68K CPU is free >Don't forget to give credit to the operating system, and the CPU, they also play >a very important part in the Amiga's amazingly powerful system. > >> to attend to other operations while Portia handles the port accessing, and the >> Blitter and Agnes operate the graphics and sound. >Again, read a book and get your facts straight, and remember label the proper task` >with the proper chip, and to include other chips like Gary and Denise, they are >important too. Well, the original message did have some facts wrong, but it is essentially correct. Portia (Paula) handles Sound, and Agnus plays an integral part is Sprite DMA, BitMap DMA, DISK DMA, Sound DMA, etc. And the Copper is located in Agnus. So it can be said that Agnus handles graphics and sound (and everything else) , however Denise is specialized in display output, and Portia(Paula) in sound/ports. >> Amiga is due to these three chips, which Commodore has been slow to revise and >> upgrade. The only exception being the new 'Fat Agnes' which can access 1 meg >> of video memory at a time, and the new ECS (Enhanced Chip Set ). >Don't for get to include Buster, and Super Denise with her amazing programmable >dispisplay modes, you seem to be leaving quite a lot out, and not getting what is >here corect. Nor Amber,RAMsey, Super DMAC, and Gary! >. > You should both get your facts straight, and read industry- >> wide publications instead of product specific publications. Every system has >> it's limits. Read Byte instead. The real limitation of the Amiga is the speed of the chip bus. Once the 16bit/NMOS bottlenecxk is overcome, the custom chips can once again take the lead in the industry, however, I really don't see the need to keep making new custom chips, the real work needs to be done in display independence. >> Chris Winward >> userid CXW148 on PSUVM > >You should make your words short and sweet, I sense that you may have had to eat them >in the past. YOU should readup on what YOU are talking about, go beyond byte, pickup >or borrow a hardware manual, they are much more informative. While the original poster made a few mistakes, he was essentially correct. You made a few mistakes too so don't get so high on your horse. Everyone makes mistakes. (And Portia is a REAL CHIP!) >Matt Pierce
s37837k@saha.hut.fi (Jari Lehto) (02/10/91)
Could you just finally believe, that articles under that Subject do not belong to this newsgroup at all!!! Move them to comp.sys.amiga! This article may well be the begin of a global flame war!!! THIS GROUP IS FOR ATARI-ORIENTED SUBJECTS ONLY!!!!! Or should we establish groups like comp.sys.atari.st.amiga-talk and comp.sys.amiga.atari-talk ????? Or even comp.sys.flame-war ???? Jartsu *** Jari Lehto, jartsu@otax.hut.fi, s37837k@saha.hut.fi ***
rjc@churchy.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (02/10/91)
In article <1991Feb9.224526.5473@santra.uucp> s37837k@saha.hut.fi (Jari Lehto) writes: >Could you just finally believe, that articles under that Subject do not >belong to this newsgroup at all!!! > >Move them to comp.sys.amiga! > >This article may well be the begin of a global flame war!!! > >THIS GROUP IS FOR ATARI-ORIENTED SUBJECTS ONLY!!!!! > >Or should we establish groups like comp.sys.atari.st.amiga-talk and > comp.sys.amiga.atari-talk ????? > >Or even comp.sys.flame-war ???? > > > Jartsu > > > *** Jari Lehto, jartsu@otax.hut.fi, s37837k@saha.hut.fi *** Just to let everyone know there is a special amiga group for comparisons : comp.sys.amiga.advocacy And a group for computer flames, alt.religion.computers. There is already a NeXT vs Amiga and Atari vs Amiga debate going on in '.advocacy.