en2j@vax1.UUCP (Thomas Purcell) (12/02/87)
For those who might have opinions:
This is a request for advice: I'm trying to put together a very respectable
personal system for the next couple of years (till the Super-engineering
workstations come down to $5k.). Its uses would include some commercial
applications (that is, business type stuff) and software development.
Preferred characteristics are:
o Unix -- now or very soon (avail. within 1 yr.)
o desktop publishing at least up to mac quality level
ooo multiple operating system capability, even if this
anticipates additional processor cards (methinks
this is better than buying 4 different machines.?.)
o speed. don't want my hair to turn grey while I'm
waiting for something running on a hardware simulator,
for example, to execute a single instruction
o color graphics better than IBM cga, cheaper than a
$50k Silicon Graphics workstation
o full-page display would be pretty handy.
o Big harddrive; ample memory
(80 meg, 2 Meg is a nice starting point, bigger better)
o Don't need (right now) state of the art CAD/CAM
facilities. Can't go much over the $10k limit.
Or, need to aim for near to $5k for a
stripped machine if I'm to afford the bells
& whistles.
Multiple OS support is a goody and a biggy that I'd really like.
(Seems like this would depend on architecture and vendor's economics...)
Here's my reasoning:
I can afford to buy ONE flexible machine, and equip it
with some REALLY nice goodies: a very good display,
a massive (for one user) hard drive, similarly generous
RAM, a backup system, and so on.: All the goodies that
make an environment more fun! But, once I've invested in
all those nice things, I want to be able to work with (read/write)
and write code for Unix, MS-DOS, and Mac's OS. (For
starters.) I CAN'T afford to buy three or four
vendor's machines and equip each one of them as nicely
as the single hypothetical machine above.
So, even if I have to install some extra processor boards
{which had better be REAL ones that are available or will be --
hypothetical boards don't run real software }, AND
suffer some slowdown, I think I'm much better off
with one multifaceted machine.
If YOU can recommend (or sell to me) something that will approach
my Pipe-Dream as above, please let me know what it is and how much
it'll cost. I welcome the suggestion of a machine which hasn't been
released yet, if it fits the bill, and WILL be released within 6 mos. to
a year. Or, If you'd find my reasoning faulty, I invite criticisms.
Please send a copy of your response directly to me.
-thomas
en2j@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu
en2j@crnlvax1.bitnetsmith@NRL-AIC.ARPA (Russ Smith) (12/02/87)
[Pardon the response to this list for non-IRIS material, but that's from whence the original query came...] [To Thomas Purcell:] You may want to look into the Amiga 2000. It allows multiple (two...) cards in it for IBM *and* Amiga processors which can run in parallel. There very shortly will be a '386 card for the IBM-compatible side of the 2000. Right now I believe the IBM side is XT-compatible (with expansion slots so inexpensive IBM-compatible peripherals can be added (such as hard disks...)). The Amiga-side memory can be expanded up to at least 8 megabytes. One can install a 5.25" IBM compatible floppy disk drive which can be read/written by the Amiga-side (plus it comes with a 3.5" drive). A hard drive can be internally installed on the Amiga side. AmigaDOS is a true multi-tasking operating system somewhat similar to UNIX in that it has a heirarchical file system, etc. (it does not, however, have memory management built-in). Tasks never have to be written to KNOW about multi-tasking, for example, something that many available "task-switching" systems for other machines need. Most everything on the AMIGA (except for the system itself...) is written in C. There are extensive graphics capabilities (with hardware chips to handle them and software packages to access the chips). Commercial C compilers are available (and produce quite good code (I'd recommend Aztec C)). The most popular wordprocessor package, WordPerfect, is also available. The graphics are definitely better than IBM *BUT* can *INCLUDE* IBM (in fact, an "IBM window" can be displayed on the AMIGA screen...). Of course, you could plug an IBM vga graphics board into the IBM side for "high speed" graphics that don't use the Amiga monitor. Resolution of the Amiga 2000 can vary from 320x200x5bits to 640x400x4 bits (actually, the 320x200 can use 6 bits per pixel, but that is a special feature called Hold and Modify, allowing up to 4096 colors at once under certain restrictions). The system comes with 1 megabyte. In essence, the A2000 is two different computers that are intimately hardware connected. The Amiga side starts up the IBM side, then the two communicate through shared memory. The Amiga side allows (indeed, insists on!) multitasking. The IBM side is XT compatible. Both machines run in parallel. For the price range you quote you should be able to get a VERY fully equipped A2000 machine complete with multiple megabytes of memory, IBM compatibility, hi-res color monitor, hard disk (or two), printer, and more. The hi-res mode of the Amiga is higher (AND in 16 colors) than the Mac, but there is NO Mac compatibility currently available. Bells and Whistles: There is an Ethernet card available for the A2000, allowing the A2000 to be networked to other Ethernet machines. Russ <Smith@nrl-aic.arpa> JAYCOR Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence (whew!)