ali@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Ali Ozer) (10/31/87)
---- In article <6674@ut-ngp.UUCP> kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: >Actually, by that time I was convinced that the Amiga had the potential to >outclass the Mac .... unless they screwed up (which they did, it seems). And in article <12346169899024@G.BBN.COM> Donald Redick writes: > [talking about Byte] > Their editorial policies have ALWAYS been strange: consider the number > of articles lauding the Amiga, a commercial failure, vs. the Mac. You guys are under the wrong impression, I think! The Amiga is not a commercial failure, and nor have "they" (Commodore-Amiga) screwed up. (Of course there is the endless debate now raging about if Commodore is screwing 1000 users up by providing them with 2000 upgrades... But that is another discussion, for comp.sys.amiga.) Ever since the appearance of the 500 in July and the 2000 just a month and a half ago, Amigas have been selling very well... In fact, so well that if Commodore can make 200k Amigas in the next 2 months they will easily hit the half-million mark that they'd predicted for end of 1987. Seems like the the price of the 500 is what the Amiga needed... As far as "outclassing the Mac," most people will say the Amiga does indeed do that. Unless you define "outclass" as "sell more." Go to an Amiga dealer sometime and look at how much software is out there --- certainly more than for a dead machine. (Or better yet, for a rather fun time & a mindblowing experience, borrow the 20-minute "Test Flight" video tape from the dealer... A friend borrowed it and showed it to me, and it's the ultimate in "sensory overload." A 20 minute Star Tours flight. It'll also give you an idea of what software is out there.) Please email all flames if you have any, I'm not here to start any compwars. Oh, also, we had the Byte discussion on comp.sys.amiga as well, and guess what? Most everyone there seems to agree with you guys here, about Byte. Ali Ozer, ali@rocky.stanford.edu
cm450s02@uhccux.UUCP (jeff t. segawa) (11/01/87)
In article <716@rocky.STANFORD.EDU> ali@rocky.stanford.edu (Ali Ozer) writes: > >Go to an Amiga dealer sometime and look at how much software is out there --- >certainly more than for a dead machine. > I think you've just brought up the biggest problem I've encountered with the Amiga: SOFTWARE! Off and on, I've been following developments in the Amiga world, looking for an excuse to buy a second computer. Trouble is, when I go to the software store, I generally see lots of IBM and Apple II software, a fairly decent selection of Mac software, and if I see Amiga software at all, it's usually in the cutout bins, and is almost always games, or maybe some business software I've never heard of, and the business programs I've seen don't seem to offer any advantages in terms of power, features or ease of use over my existing Mac software, and more often than not, the Amiga software appears to fall far short of it's Mac counterpart. Amiga games, on the other hand, can be very impressive. I've played Marble Madness and Mindwalker on the Amiga and was very impressed. Great graphics and sound! Loved DPaint II, also. Trouble is, I can't see spending $500+ to play games! The Amiga needs some useful type of software that is unique, not a bunch of so-so programs that look like they were ported over from other systems (and not very well). (And some of us aren't into programming, either). Even the original, 128K Mac had some very real advantages in it's favor: It had an incredibly sharp display and software unlike anything I'd ever seen before--not only nice to look at, but easy for even someone like me to use. Not only did it look like a lot of fun, but it could do things that my Apple //e and the IBM PC I had wanted couldn't, like turn out dazzling reports and the like, complete with graphics. And now, of course, there are new toys like Hypercard. Haven't figured out what it is, exactly, but I'm awfully impressed by what I've seen, and I've got a million ideas for new stacks, just as soon as Apple sends me my copy.
khayo@sonia.UUCP (11/01/87)
In article <1043@uhccux.UUCP> cm450s02@uhccux.UUCP (jeff t. segawa) writes: (...) >Mac had some very real advantages in it's favor: It had an incredibly >sharp display and ... I'm glad Jeff mentioned that - I thought I was the only one: all other obvious differences between the Mac & others, like Amiga (i.e. user interface etc.) aside, I think my mind was really made up when I saw the sharpness & resolution of the screen. I *hate* those round, easily discernible pixels on most other monitors; I can't praise Apple enough for not rushing into color until it could be made as sharp & clear as B&W. At least this potential Amiga buyer has become a convert because of that. Eric ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>>---------------> khayo@MATH.ucla.edu
korn@apple.UUCP (11/02/87)
There comes a time in every UseNet poster's life when, though he knows better, he just can't resist the temptation to post the response and risk starting up a discussion that really shouldn't be started up for the n-th time, rather than simply mailing it.... This is one of those times. In <1043@uhccux.UUCP>, cm450s02@uhccux.UUCP (jeff t. segawa) said: >>Go to an Amiga dealer sometime and look at how much software is out there --- >>certainly more than for a dead machine. >I think you've just brought up the biggest problem I've encountered with >the Amiga: SOFTWARE! Off and on, I've been following developments in >the Amiga world, looking for an excuse to buy a second computer. Trouble >is, when I go to the software store, I generally see lots of IBM and Apple II >software, a fairly decent selection of Mac software, and if I see Amiga software >at all, it's usually in the cutout bins, and is almost always games, or maybe >some business software I've never heard of, and the business programs I've seen >don't seem to offer any advantages in terms of power, features or ease of use >over my existing Mac software, and more often than not, the Amiga software >appears to fall far short of it's Mac counterpart. Jeff, where do you live, and what stores do you frequent? Mac-enthusiast that I am, I too have followed the Amiga market; indeed, I've worked in a store that sold both Apple and Amiga (and Atari & PC) hardware & software, and it can no longer truthfully be said that the Amiga doesn't have a large base of software written for it. Nor can it be said that it doesn't have quite a few very high quality non-game packages for it. Word Perfect in the word processing category; Delux Paint II, & two others (who's names escape me for the moment) in the painting category (all three better than most everything currently available for the macintosh, LaserPaint included); Sculpt 3D, a ray-tracing program (no such category for the mac that's on dealer shelves); animation software that beats the pants off of *anything* currently available for the macintosh; music software that, simply because of the Amiga hardware, is better than what's available for the mac in the sound output category (though Studio Session's giving it real competition); etc. etc. etc. But Jeff, your comments do bring out a *very* important point, and illustrate the very problem with the Amiga: it's not mainstream. It could very well be that the dealers in your area don't carry any of the good Amiga software. It could very well be that they have no concept of an Amiga's uses beyond playing games. In fact, most of the Amiga dealers that I've had occasion to have dealings with don't perceive as anything more than an extremely powerful toy. Additionally, Commodore hasn't gone overboard in engendering a sense of loyalty from it's programmers or engineers; hasn't evangelized their product as Apple has, hasn't gone overboard in getting it's developers pre-release machines and software specifications (until *very recently*) as Apple has; hasn't done any decent advertising as Apple has, etc. etc. The user-interface isn't as uniform as the macintosh user-interface is, which is a large part of the Mac's appeal to a large segment of it's user-base; there were a lot of compatibility problems when Commodore went from 1.0 to 1.1 to 1.2 of it's OS, (they are NOT completely upwardly compatible for developers who followed the rules [when those rules were specified]); etc. etc. Networking, which is becoming more and more important to businesses, is not nearly as easy an option on an Amiga as it is on the macintosh; furthermore, the spreadsheet and accounting software available for the Amiga is (in my opinion) severely lacking--this will really hurt business sales. The screen that Commodore markets for the machine is poor, and doesn't really show off the machines graphic capabalities. Third-party hardware products are almost uniformly poor in quality (with the exception of some of the memory expansion products), aren't all compatible with eachother, especially as the expansion board spec. changes several times ove the last two years (somewhere between 3 & 6 times, if I recall), are fairly expensive (when it comes to hard-drives), are not marketed well through dealers, etc. etc. In the last few months, with the advent of the A2000 & A500, the Amiga is finally starting to come into it's own. More and more of the machines are selling, advertising is increasing in quantity and quality. More dealers are starting to learn just what the machine can do. More 'business-quality' software is coming out. Fonts are finally starting to get supported in software. Third-party hardware products are slowly increasing in quality, decreasing in price, and going through dealerhships more. Commodore will be coming out with a new monitor (if it hasn't already hit the streets) that should finally allow users to see what the machine is capable of. It looks like the operating system and expansion spec. have finally frozen. Development tools are getting better and better. At the same time, after firing most of it's best engineers, Commodore has put itself in the position of not being able to really lead the market in innovations anymore. Programs like HyperCard probably won't come out of Commodore first. Innovations probably won't be the rule around commodore anymore; especially software innovations. Most all of that will have to come from third-party sources, and unless these sources get together via users-groups or what-have-you to standardize, what innovations that do arise may very well not be compatible with eachother. One of the things that has characterized the Macintosh is the high degree to which 3rd party products are compatible with eachother. Unfortunately that isn't nearly as prevelantly the case with Amiga software (where most of the games re-start your machine when you exit them, and word processors *still* by and large are unable to handle graphics or fonts, or have even the slightest concept of font families). Perhaps it will never be. So, what machine should everyone go out and buy? Why that's simple: a MacII... Peter "the final word??? [dare I hope?]" Korn -- Peter "Arrgh" Korn korn@apple.com !hplabs!amdahl!apple!korn "Hi mom!"
ali@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Ali Ozer) (11/03/87)
--- In article <1043@uhccux.UUCP> Jeff T. Segawe writes: > ... Trouble is, I can't see spending $500+ to play games! The Amiga needs >some useful type of software that is unique, not a bunch of so-so programs >that look like they were ported over from other systems (and not very well). > How about graphics/animation/video? The Amiga has a large collection of animation/video software --- You can, without any programming, create ray-traced animations, 3d movies, etc. We're talking 4096 colors at once, at speeds above 30 frames/sec. For more special effects, you have a good selection of genlocks to choose from, and thanks to the multitasking, you can add background music to your creations even if the animation program doesn't provide any sound/music capabilities. And you can you record your animations on video, at upto 704x470 resolution, as you get NTSC out. There are some features the Amiga has that even the Mac II will have a hard time providing (and at what price), and, depending on your interests, it might very well be worth it to spend a few extra hundred dollars on an Amiga system. The software is already there --- Just don't look for it at an IBM or Apple dealer... (There are about a dozen (or maybe even more) Apple dealers within 15 minute radius of my house, but only 2 Amiga dealers. The software is there, you just have to look harder. Like Byte, dealers like going with the stuff that appeals to the majority.) I'll shut up now. 8-) Ali Ozer, ali@rocky.stanford.edu Any comments/flames to me, please please provide an address other than .UUCP!
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (11/03/87)
In article <1043@uhccux.UUCP> cm450s02@uhccux.UUCP (jeff t. segawa) writes: >at all, it's usually in the cutout bins, and is almost always games, or maybe >some business software I've never heard of, and the business programs I've seen >don't seem to offer any advantages in terms of power, features or ease of use >over my existing Mac software, and more often than not, the Amiga software >appears to fall far short of it's Mac counterpart. Amiga games, on the other >hand, can be very impressive. I've played Marble Madness and Mindwalker on >the Amiga and was very impressed. Great graphics and sound! Loved DPaint II, >also. Trouble is, I can't see spending $500+ to play games! The Amiga needs >some useful type of software that is unique, not a bunch of so-so programs >that look like they were ported over from other systems (and not very well). "useful type of software that is unique" Hmm. You mean like those animation packages that use the amiga specific hardware ? For ease of use, right now, as it stands, I would have to say the mac is the easiest way to get good black and white illustrations down on paper; I just spent a couple of days fighting with Dpaint, IFF -> PS convertors and hacking in some postscript code just to get some illustrations for a manual finished. But, that could change and somebody could write a decent macwhatever clone for the Amiga. Where it really shines, is playing with video both in post production, but also generation and synthesis of images. In simpler terms, you wanna write a small book ? Use a mac. You wanna play Andy Warhol ? Use an amiga. Sure either computer can do either, but each does its own 'type' of work with more relative ease. Disclaimer: No computer wars, please. You should own one of each :-) -- Richard J. Sexton INTERNET: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!richard "It's too dark to put the keys in my ignition..."
dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (11/03/87)
>Networking, which is becoming more and more important to businesses, is not >nearly as easy an option on an Amiga as it is on the macintosh; furthermore, >the spreadsheet and accounting software available for the Amiga is (in my >opinion) severely lacking--this will really hurt business sales. The screen Actually, Networking is quite a bit easier to do on the Amiga than on the macintosh, especially integration into the filesystem. I agree about the spreadsheet and accounting stuff, though, and everything else. -Matt
dwb@apple.UUCP (David W. Berry) (11/03/87)
In article <8711030308.AA01230@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: >>Networking, which is becoming more and more important to businesses, is not >>nearly as easy an option on an Amiga as it is on the macintosh; furthermore, >>the spreadsheet and accounting software available for the Amiga is (in my >>opinion) severely lacking--this will really hurt business sales. The screen > > Actually, Networking is quite a bit easier to do on the Amiga than >on the macintosh, especially integration into the filesystem. Sorry, I can't buy this one. Given that every Mac ever made has the AppleTalk hardware built in, and that the driver/protocol software is all builtin to the system software it would seem as if all the basics are in place. The amiga requires extra hardware (=$, probably significant amounts thereof) There are several network filesystem packages readily available for the mac/appletalk (Tops, AppleShare, others) as well as electronic mail packages (Intermail among others) and database packages which support multiple users on a single database, independent of networked file systems. All the Macintosh user has to do is buy the cable and applications he wants plug in the cables and go. Conceptually, to the programmer, it might be easier to fit a network file system into the amiga than the mac. Practically, to the usr, it seems much easier on the mac, simply because the applications are already there to pick and choose from. While as a programmer I can laud the extreme modularity of the Amiga System Software which allows me to replace the file system code and easily implement network file systems, the average user really doesn't care, he just wants to be able to get his work done in a consistent environment. -- David W. Berry dwb@well.uucp dwb@Delphi dwb@apple.com 973-5168@408.MaBell Disclaimer: Apple doesn't even know I have an opinion and certainly wouldn't want if they did.
NETOPRHM@NCSUVM.BITNET (Hal Meeks) (11/05/87)
Just finished reading Peter Korn's posting...
I own an Amiga 2000, and have used a Mac since the 128k machines.
He's right on the money. I like my Amiga a lot; it does the things
I specifically needed a machine for (re: this year's buzzword--Desktop
Video). But I still appreciate the niceties of even something as
simplistic as MacWrite. VizaWrite is the only thing I've seen so far that
comes close, and it needs work. Yes, I am looking for a 128k mac to buy
real cheap, because I appreciate the uniform polish that Mac applications
seem to have.
Hal
gary@fairlight.oz (Gary Evesson) (11/06/87)
In article <6613@apple.UUCP> dwb@apple.UUCP (David W. Berry) writes: > Sorry, I can't buy this one. Given that every Mac ever made has >the AppleTalk hardware built in, and that the driver/protocol software >is all builtin to the system software it would seem as if all the basics >are in place. The amiga requires extra hardware (=$, probably significant >amounts thereof) Ahem.... 1) There is no special hardware in the Mac for Appletalk - it plugs into the serial port. 2) Appletalk costs a fortune - for no good reason as far as I can see. I spoke to a dealer here in Australia who wanted to sell me 100m of cable for over A$1,000 ($US650) - he was embarrased, but that's how much Apple wanted for it. gary@fairlight.oz Gary Evesson
brad@ut-sally.UUCP (blumenthal @ home with the armadillos) (11/09/87)
>--- >In article <1043@uhccux.UUCP> Jeff T. Segawe writes: >> ... Trouble is, I can't see spending $500+ to play games! The Amiga needs In article <717@rocky.STANFORD.EDU> ali@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Ali Ozer) writes: >How about graphics/animation/video? The Amiga has a large collection > We're talking 4096 colors at once, One of the biggest advantages of the Mac over the 'Miga, when it first came out (and even now as far as I know) was the printer support. Even my 128K doorstop (before it became a 1M mutt) could print stuff out "jest like it looks right 'cher on the screen" (usually ...multi-column docs in Word 1.0x notwithstanding). I've seen dot-matrix color harcopy for the Amiga and it stinks. As for laser machines, I suppose it's just a matter of the Amiga speaking PostScript. But the point is that Mac applications are generally WYSIWYG from launch to hardcopy, and I think it's that last WYSIWYG step to hardcopy which made (and still makes) a big difference to a lot of people. Take care, UUCP: {ihnp4, harvard}!ut-sally!brad Brad Blumenthal ARPA: brad@sally.utexas.edu "Oh hell, what do I know. I'm just a begonia."
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (11/09/87)
In article <305@fairlight.oz> gary@fairlight.UUCP (Gary Evesson) writes: > 2) Appletalk costs a fortune - for no good reason as far as I can see. > I spoke to a dealer here in Australia who wanted to sell me 100m of > cable for over A$1,000 ($US650) - he was embarrased, but that's how > much Apple wanted for it. Why bother with "official" AppleTalk at all? We use PhoneNet from Faralon (now OEM'ed under various brand names by various people at inflated prices). Each connector costs us $39 (US) and you use regular RJ-11 modular phone cables between connectors. For longer runs, you can use dirt-cheap twisted-pair 24 guage solid phone cable in the wall. We already have several hundred meters in use; adding additional connections is trivial since we wire to punch-down blocks using existing spare phone trunks. PhoneNet can run over arbitrary topology (star, bus, branched trunk, whatever; we have sort of a branching star mutating towards a blob with no apparant problems). As far as I can tell, PhoneNet is 100% compatible with AppleTalk and you can freely intermix the two. As an added bonus, the RJ-11 connectors are much more secure than the new style "push in and hope they don't fall out" AppleTalk connectors. I can't imagine trying to administer a big AppleTalk net; I'd go nuts tracking down which connector got kicked loose 3 times a week. Anybody who specs any non-positive-attachement connector for any kind of network should be shot. One minor hitch; I don't know how common RJ-11 (modular phone) connectors are outside North America. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
dwb@apple.UUCP (David W. Berry) (11/09/87)
In article <305@fairlight.oz> gary@fairlight.UUCP (Gary Evesson) writes: >In article <6613@apple.UUCP> dwb@apple.UUCP (David W. Berry) writes: >> Sorry, I can't buy this one. Given that every Mac ever made has >>the AppleTalk hardware built in, and that the driver/protocol software >>is all builtin to the system software it would seem as if all the basics >>are in place. The amiga requires extra hardware (=$, probably significant >>amounts thereof) > >Ahem.... > > 1) There is no special hardware in the Mac for Appletalk - it plugs into > the serial port. Precisely the point. It's all that's needed when combined with the software provided. Contrasted with networking boards for the PC which run upwards of $200 (and probably closer to $500) each. If you have more than three things on your network you can even buy the 100m of cable mentioned below. Or you can get phonenet and phone wire for: 100 m phone cable (@ .30/m) $30 30 Taps (@ $20) $600 Total $630 For less than $30 more, you configured 10 times the number of nodes for networking. > 2) Appletalk costs a fortune - for no good reason as far as I can see. > I spoke to a dealer here in Australia who wanted to sell me 100m of > cable for over A$1,000 ($US650) - he was embarrased, but that's how > much Apple wanted for it. I believe we're once again seeing the infamous international/ domestic price differential. And yes, I agree that Apple's cabling is on the expensive side, but there are much cheaper compatible alternatives. > > gary@fairlight.oz > Gary Evesson -- David W. Berry dwb@well.uucp dwb@Delphi dwb@apple.com 973-5168@408.MaBell Disclaimer: Apple doesn't even know I have an opinion and certainly wouldn't want if they did.
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (11/10/87)
In article <6684@apple.UUCP>, dwb@apple.UUCP (David W. Berry) writes: > In article <305@fairlight.oz> gary@fairlight.UUCP (Gary Evesson) writes: > >In article <6613@apple.UUCP> dwb@apple.UUCP (David W. Berry) writes: > > 2) Appletalk costs a fortune - for no good reason as far as I can see. > > I spoke to a dealer here in Australia who wanted to sell me 100m of > > cable for over A$1,000 ($US650) - he was embarrased, but that's how > > much Apple wanted for it. > I believe we're once again seeing the infamous international/ > domestic price differential. And yes, I agree that Apple's > cabling is on the expensive side, but there are much cheaper > compatible alternatives. What you're also seeing is the cost of teflon-insulated cable. The stuff ain't too cheap here in the states, either (but it meets every fire code you've never heard of. You can get by with Farallon Systems' (I think it's called) PhoneNet cabling and taps. Lots cheaper, works just fine...although it might not meet fire code in some cases. seh
harald@ccicpg.UUCP ( Harald Milne) (11/10/87)
In article <6613@apple.UUCP>, dwb@apple.UUCP (David W. Berry) writes: > In article <8711030308.AA01230@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: >>>Networking, which is becoming more and more important to businesses, is not >>>nearly as easy an option on an Amiga as it is on the macintosh; furthermore, >>>the spreadsheet and accounting software available for the Amiga is (in my >>>opinion) severely lacking--this will really hurt business sales. The screen >> >> Actually, Networking is quite a bit easier to do on the Amiga than >>on the macintosh, especially integration into the filesystem. > Sorry, I can't buy this one. > The amiga requires extra hardware (=$, probably significant > amounts thereof) Well for the price of a hard disk, my Amiga has gigabytes of mass storage available to me. It's called NFS. I rlogin to multiple UNIX superminis simultaneously. No apples around here, just IBM PCs used as workstation front ends to VLSI CAD software. Not to mention SUN, Apollo, Mentor, etc. I run diskless, except to boot. As in no disk, hard or otherwise. I talk to $50,000.00 plotters, emulate Tek 4014 terminals to view raw raster bitmaps. All for less than Mac II with nothing. And yes, we are a business. Just what does apple have to offer in this direction? NFS? Anything? > There are several network filesystem packages readily available >for the mac/appletalk (Tops, AppleShare, others) So how about NFS? UNIX? Ethernet? Does appletalk hold a candle? >All the Macintosh user has to do is buy the cable and applications he wants >plug in the cables and go. Perhaps you can tell me what appletalk is good for? We are are not into desktop publishing, although that's trivial with UNIX tools. After all with UNIX, you are camera ready with phototype of a book, of which many UNIX books are already done. Guess you shouldn't tell anyone about that. >While as a programmer I can laud the extreme >modularity of the Amiga System Software which allows me to replace the file >system code and easily implement network file systems, the average user >really doesn't care, he just wants to be able to get his work done in a >consistent environment. That's a neat idea if you live in Macland. Who does? Just NFS spoken here. -- Work: Computer Consoles Inc. (CCI), Advanced Development Group (ADG) Irvine, CA (RISCy business! Home of the CCI POWER 6/32) UUCPf cingsingsiing sosfeo
clarkm@tekig4.TEK.COM (Clark Morgan) (11/11/87)
In article <4120@ccicpg.UUCP> harald@ccicpg.UUCP ( Harald Milne) writes: ... > Perhaps you can tell me what appletalk is good for? We are are not into >desktop publishing, although that's trivial with UNIX tools. After all with >UNIX, you are camera ready with phototype of a book, of which many UNIX books >are already done. Guess you shouldn't tell anyone about that. Sorry, I can't let this comment pass. First, let me say that I do not suffer from the "my computer/OS is better/bigger/faster than yours." However, when possible, I do try to use the most efficient tool for the job at hand. And in my opinion, the term "Unix desktop publishing tools" is an oxymoron at best. These tools are certainly not WYSIWYG and they have severe limitations with respect to producing embedded graphics within text. I've used the Unix tools on many occasions and they do a great job producing a memo or a long document ... just so long as that memo/document doesn't need graphics. If it does, it's time to pull out scissors, ruler, scotch tape, and the almighty photocopier. That's not "trivial," in my estimation. That's drudgery. >-- >Work: Computer Consoles Inc. (CCI), Advanced Development Group (ADG) > Irvine, CA (RISCy business! Home of the CCI POWER 6/32) >UUCP: uunet!ccicpg!harald This is my opinion, not my employer's. -- Clark Morgan, Tektronix Lab Instruments Engineering (503) 627-3545 clarkm@tekig4.TEK.COM or {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!clarkm US Mail: Tektronix, P.O. Box 500, DS 39-087, Beaverton, OR 97077
korn@apple.UUCP (Peter "Arrgh" Korn) (11/13/87)
In <4120@ccicpg.UUCP>, harald@ccicpg.UUCP ( Harald Milne) said: >>> >>> Actually, Networking is quite a bit easier to do on the Amiga than >>>on the macintosh, especially integration into the filesystem. >> Sorry, I can't buy this one. >> The amiga requires extra hardware (=$, probably significant >> amounts thereof) > > Well for the price of a hard disk, my Amiga has gigabytes of mass >storage available to me. It's called NFS... A $500 hard disk? A $5,000 hard disk? With appletalk it costs $50.00 to add a CPU to the network. >> There are several network filesystem packages readily available >>for the mac/appletalk (Tops, AppleShare, others) > > So how about NFS? UNIX? Ethernet? Does appletalk hold a candle? Might want to check out the products you are flaming before you flame them... Tops speaks NFS (or will shortly...), talks to UNIX systems (currently). With the Knetics FastPath boxes you can convert AppleTalk cabling to Ethernet cabling, or put a mac CPU directly onto ethertalk (via the SCSI port). Does ~200,000 baud hold a candle to 10,000,000 baud? Does a VW Bug hold a candle to a Ferrari? Depends upon whether your objective is to outrun the Highway patrol or go to the corner grocery for the least $ to get there. >>All the Macintosh user has to do is buy the cable and applications he wants >>plug in the cables and go. > > Perhaps you can tell me what appletalk is good for? Appletalk is excellent for sharing printers, and for small volume file transfer and file service. Appletalk works nicely for e-mail (whether or not the e-mail programs out there work well for e-mail is another question, but for messages between a group of 20-30 people, 200,000 baud is perfectly reasonable). Appletalk works nicely for other shared devices, like Shiva's Appletalk modem, or any shared serial devices (or parallel devices) that might be connected to a box/node on an Appletalk LAN. And if you really need performance, go ahead and purchase the Ethertalk cards for your MacII, and have the speed of the Ferrari. And if for some reason not all of your workstations happen to be MacIIs with Ethertalk cards, you can still connect them to your MacII server (thanks to Knetics). >>While as a programmer I can laud the extreme >>modularity of the Amiga System Software which allows me to replace the file >>system code and easily implement network file systems, the average user >>really doesn't care, he just wants to be able to get his work done in a >>consistent environment. > > That's a neat idea if you live in Macland. Who does? Just NFS spoken >here. Who 'lives in Macland'? With some 1.5 million macintosh CPUs out there, there are far more mac CPUs than UNIX CPUs... All mac CPUs talk Appletalk. Far from all UNIX CPUs talk NFS. And while you may feel that since you and all the people that *you* work with use strictly NFS that thus by extension all the world must use NFS, dream on. Just a few hours ago I was in a store in Berkeley that had 8 Mac SEs, two LaserWriters, and two hard drives connected up with AppleTalk and AppleShare 1.1. I needed to print out a page that I had on floppy, using MS-Word, which resided on their server. So I ran MS-Word remotely over Appletalk, printed the file over Appletalk, and in 5 minutes I was done, with my output in my hand. How much would this have cost on a Unix system running NFS? How much for the WYSIWYG word processing software for my one page document? How much overhead for the Unix guru to run the system? How much for the Ethernet boards and cabling? *Real* people with *real* tasks don't always need the speed of Ethernet and the file service of NFS to do what they need to do. And if they need to do what I just described, they'd have a *harder* time doing it on the Amiga. I never said that they couldn't. I never said that it wasn't possible to construct a system using Amiga workstations that wasn't faster than Appletalk. But if someone doesn't need that, then why should they spend lots of $$ to get it. The market realities are proving that a large number of people are doing just the sorts of tasks I outlined. This is one of the reasons that the Macintosh is doing so well. This is one market segment that the Amiga isn't doing so well in. Small wonder. Peter Disclaimer: In my comments on e-mail systems, I don't mean to criticize any of the e-mail software currently available for the macintosh, but merely to point out the Appletalk's ability to handle such relatively small-volume tasks as e-mail service for 20-30 people is purely a function of the 200,000 baud rate, and not a function of any e-mail software in particular. -- Peter "Arrgh" Korn korn@apple.com !hplabs!amdahl!apple!korn "Hi mom!"
kurt@doodah.UUCP (Kurt VanderSluis) (11/14/87)
> In article <305@fairlight.oz> gary@fairlight.UUCP (Gary Evesson) writes: > > 2) Appletalk costs a fortune - for no good reason as far as I can see. > > I spoke to a dealer here in Australia who wanted to sell me 100m of > > cable for over A$1,000 ($US650) - he was embarrased, but that's how > > much Apple wanted for it. > Several readers have commented on the utility and cost of PhoneNet. I want to add my name to this list. This stuff is GREAT. We buy bulk RJ-11 wire and cut to length. You can crimp on connectors in seconds. We also use their Star Controller, another great product. For anyone who is administering an AppleTalk net out there, I suggest you give Farallon a call. They have tremendous products and service. -- Kurt VanderSluis ********************************* Boeing Computer Services * These opinions are mine, * M/S 6R-37 P.O. 24346 * not the Boeing Company's. * Seattle, WA 98124 *********************************
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (11/15/87)
In article <2133@tekig4.TEK.COM> clarkm@tekig4.UUCP (Clark Morgan) writes: >In article <4120@ccicpg.UUCP> harald@ccicpg.UUCP ( Harald Milne) writes: >... >> Perhaps you can tell me what appletalk is good for? We are are not into >>desktop publishing, although that's trivial with UNIX tools. After all with >>UNIX, you are camera ready with phototype of a book, of which many UNIX books >>are already done. Guess you shouldn't tell anyone about that. > >Sorry, I can't let this comment pass. Oh, do try. Harald missed his thorazine shot. He's better now. Nobody needs to defend the Mac as a publishing tool. And face it, you can NFS damn near anything these days. Next topic ? >>UUCP: uunet!ccicpg!harald >Clark Morgan, Tektronix Lab Instruments Engineering (503) 627-3545 -- Richard J. Sexton INTERNET: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!richard "It's too dark to put the keys in my ignition..."
john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert) (11/24/87)
In article <4120@ccicpg.UUCP> harald@ccicpg.UUCP ( Harald Milne) writes: > Well for the price of a hard disk, my Amiga has gigabytes of mass >storage available to me. It's called NFS. I rlogin to multiple UNIX superminis >simultaneously. No apples around here, just IBM PCs used as workstation >front ends to VLSI CAD software. Not to mention SUN, Apollo, Mentor, etc. >I run diskless, except to boot. As in no disk, hard or otherwise. I talk to >$50,000.00 plotters, emulate Tek 4014 terminals to view raw raster bitmaps. >All for less than Mac II with nothing. And yes, we are a business. >Just what does apple have to offer in this direction? NFS? Anything? Please! I need to know where I can purchase multiple UNIX superminis for the price of a hard disk! :-} Seriously, should you be allowed to make such a claim and not factor in the cost of the superminis??? I mean, you would be SOL without the hardware you are talking to, I don't care HOW it's connected! -- John Gilbert !trwrb!felix!john
harald@ccicpg.UUCP ( Harald Milne) (11/25/87)
In article <13812@felix.UUCP>, john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert) writes: > Please! I need to know where I can purchase multiple UNIX superminis > for the price of a hard disk! :-} > > Seriously, should you be allowed to make such a claim and not factor in > the cost of the superminis??? I mean, you would be SOL without the hardware > you are talking to, I don't care HOW it's connected! > This is VERY snipped up from my original reply to someone from Apple. What steamed me was the comment on how expensive NFS would be on the Amiga. Nothing like calling the kettle black. A slightly vested interest here. I couldn't dream of having a Mac II working the way I have my Amiga working currently for anywhere near the same price. As to connections to superminis, thats nice but not necessary. For the price of a Mac II with UNIX, NFS, etc, I can be served by non other than another Amiga as a file server, two for the same price. The comment about multiple rlogins running is simply testament to the fact that the Amiga is multitasking straight out of the box, always was, and always will be. And you can get that for $600.00 sans monitor. Ya fantastic. I can't afford fantastic Mac prices. Even at student discounts, which I'm not. For me the choice was obvious. I work for a living. For the price of a full blown Mac, I can buy a couple of brand new cars, and I don't even have a car. > -- > John Gilbert > !trwrb!felix!john -- Work: Computer Consoles Inc. (CCI), Advanced Development Group (ADG) Irvine, CA (RISCy business! Home of the CCI POWER 6/32) UUCP: uunet!ccicpg!harald
korn@apple.UUCP (Peter "Arrgh" Korn) (11/29/87)
Keywords: Disclaimer: I wasn't hired to give Apple's opinions [I knew it. I shouldn't have posted my original posting. I knew it would generate flames, I knew it I knew it I knew it...] In article <6086@ccicpg.UUCP> harald@ccicpg.UUCP ( Harald Milne) writes: >> >> [several people chiding Mr. Milne about a quote in his response to my >> original posting, wherein he said that under NFS on his Amiga he could >> get a very large amount of storage space for about the cost of a small >> hard drive] (please excuse minor inaccuracies; these details aren't the >> important part) >> > This is VERY snipped up from my original reply to someone from Apple. >What steamed me was the comment on how expensive NFS would be on the Amiga. >Nothing like calling the kettle black. A slightly vested interest here. I >couldn't dream of having a Mac II working the way I have my Amiga working >currently for anywhere near the same price. I feel compeled to respond to this, if only for the insinuation that my original posting on the matter came out of any vested interest in convincing a group of people in a Macintosh related forum that the macintosh is better than some other machine (in this specific case, the Commodore Amiga). As I stated in my original posting, there exists a relatively inexpensive networking solution for the Macintosh that is relatively easy to set up, maintain, and use; and furthermore that this solution is very widely supported by nearly all of a relatively large Macintosh software base (including a number of products specific to the network for such tasks as electronic mail, file service, file transfer, shared hardware [modems and other serial devices, not just a shared LaserWriter], etc.). Additionally I said that the same cannot be said of the Amiga. NFS costs more than Appletalk, isn't very widely available in retail stores, requires far more knowledable a user to maintain and use, and doesn't have nearly the wealth of software to support it on the Amiga (not merely in the sense of 'the software uses high level filing protocalls so it will work over the network', but in the sense of products designed specifically to work over it, like TOPS, or MacServe, or AppleShare, or InterMail, or InBox,...). Lastly I cited this as a possible reason why the Amiga wasn't selling as well in the business market as the Macintosh was. Certainly if I'm only looking out for any vested interest I wouldn't be trying to point out publicly areas in which I felt a competitor could improve it's market position. Yet it seems that I stand accused of acting in my own vested interests in this matter. I have said in another posting on this matter that clearly a NFS system at Ethernet speeds is superior to an Appletalk system running on 200K baud cabling; I doubt that there is any debate on this subject (though perhaps I go too far with that statement...). But let me state again that not everyone *needs* to go at that speed, and for those that don't, Apple has a solution that a competitor doesn't really have. By saying this to a group of people that include a large number of hardware and software developers I'm to be interpreted as perpretrating lies or half-truths in an attempt to increase Apple's market share? Certainly an Amiga NFS system should cost less than a Macintosh II NFS system (although why Mr. Milne assumes that A/UX would be required on the MacII for NFS is beyond me). I never stated the contrary before, though perhaps there might have been some confusion on the part of someone who read more meaning into my words than was genuinely there. For the record, my original posting came from my experiences selling both the Amiga and Macintosh in a retail store in Berkeley (in addition to Ataris and PC compatibles), and my evaluation of the market share that each of these machines took in the various different market areas that we sold to. Certainly there was a lot of praise for the Amiga in my posting. The Amiga is a very powerful machine with quite a number of points to recommend it. It is not a Macintosh, and doesn't do a number of things that the Macintosh does; most especially it doesn't do the things that I need my Macintosh to do, which is why I own a Macintosh and not an Amiga. Reasoning similar to mine is partly why (I feel) far more people own Macintoshes than Amigas (I won't reiterate my reasons on this; this posting is long enough as it is). Lastly, to lay the 'vested interest' issue to rest, let me state that I am NOT an Apple Employee. I do NOT own any stock in Apple (foolish me), and my only interest in Apple's success from a monetary point of view is that they pay the company that I work for to do contract work for them; if Apple goes out of business than I will have to contract elsewhere. However, at this point, the Amiga isn't a threat in that reguard, and certainly pointing out marketing faults isn't making it any less of a threat. Peter "whew" Korn -- Peter "Arrgh" Korn korn@apple.com !hplabs!amdahl!apple!korn "Hi mom!"