dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) (09/24/88)
Recently, I flamed an Apple II owner in the Apple users group because they were complaining about lack of suuport from Apple Corp. The gist of it was that an 8 bit machine can only be made so fast before something had to give and the owner would have to move to a more powerful architecture. I made a side remark that they couldn't expect things to be all that much better from other manufacturers. I cited the fact that Commodore made the Amiga 2000 with an IBM slot as something that Amiga users did not want. I contended that what Amiga owners really wanted was a more powerful Amiga machine, ie more colors in normal res-modes and higher resolution with NO INTERLACE. Someone replied with a letter that IBM compatibility is a MUST, citing a Macintosh magazine as proof. So what is it Amiga owners? Do you want a more powerful Amiga or IBM compatibility? It seems to me that Commodore's wooing of the business market is a complete flop in this regard. If they saw excellent software on an excellent machine some people might change their minds. Witness of this phenomena is the fact that Macintosh owners had MacCharlie from Dayna Corpopration years ago. Has anybody heard of them lately? Moral to this story: Build a better computer machine, and the world will beat a path to your door (especially if the machine is cheaper)
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (09/27/88)
In message <661@wsccs.UUCP>, dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) says: >fact that Commodore made the Amiga 2000 with an IBM slot as something >that Amiga users did not want. I contended that what Amiga owners >really wanted was a more powerful Amiga machine, ie more colors in >normal res-modes and higher resolution with NO INTERLACE. Someone >replied with a letter that IBM compatibility is a MUST, citing a >Macintosh magazine as proof. So what is it Amiga owners? Do you want a >more powerful Amiga or IBM compatibility? Actually, if you're wanting to do weird off-the-wall applications, IBM compatibility is almost the only way to do them right now. For example, image processing -- you can either do PC/AT bus, VME bus, or Apple Nubus, take your pick, you aren't getting the hardware on the Amiga bus (mostly because of lack of market -- the medical folks know only enough about computers to buy name brands, while the industrial folks are pretty well intrenched in VAX/VME...). Boy, I sure would rather chomp on 750K of data with a 68020 than with a 80286 in 8088 emulation.... -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 "Freedom's just another word/for nothing left to lose" -- Janis
bmacintyre@watsol.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre) (09/27/88)
In article <661@wsccs.UUCP> dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes: > Moral to this story: Build a better computer machine, and the > world will beat a path to your door > (especially if the machine is cheaper) No, they won't. Tell me, why do so many Corporations buy IBM hardware ( personal computers, not IBM's *real* computers ... ) when you can get better, cheaper fully compatible clones???? Because it has the three magic letters: I B M As my boss at a job I had a couple of years ago told me, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM". Better machines, in terms of personal computers, will only sell to individuals, developers, small business, hackers, musicians, etc ... small, specialized markets. Computer preference is more a matter of just that - preference and prejudice - than anything else. I am prejudiced against IBM: I admit it, and even if they did come out with a truely amazing machine, which I doubt they ever will :-) ( talking micros, here ), I don't know if I'd buy it. Why? I don't like IBM. It's called human nature, and it ain't logical. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = Mr. Blair MacIntyre (bmacintyre@watsol.waterloo.edu) = = Using computers is like parachuting ... if you don't get it the first time, = = chances are you won't try it again. =
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (09/28/88)
In article <661@wsccs.UUCP> dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes:
)
) Recently, I flamed an Apple II owner in the Apple users group
)because they were complaining about lack of suuport from Apple Corp.
)The gist of it was that an 8 bit machine can only be made so fast before
)something had to give ...
) .... So what is it Amiga owners?
Please don't post a message like this (or followups to it) in
amiga.tech. It is perfect for comp.sys.amiga.
) Moral to this story: Build a better computer machine, and the
) world will beat a path to your door
) (especially if the machine is cheaper)
Welcome, but beat it to next door (comp.sys.amiga).
jimm
--
Jim Mackraz, I and I Computing
amiga!jimm BIX:jmackraz
Opinions are my own. Comments regarding the Amiga operating system, and
all others, are not to be taken as Commodore official policy.pnelson@antares.UUCP (Phil Nelson) (09/28/88)
Even though I have had some compatibility problems, I use the BridgeBoard
often. In my opinion, it is an effective and economical means of maintaining
compatibility. I would very much like increased resolution and no flicker,
but I will not trade my BridgeBoard for it.
-Phil Nelson
(BridgeBoard is a tm of Commodore-Amiga, OK?)
--
{ames|pyramid}oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson | Parallel IQ (the IQ of a group)
OnTyme: NSC.P/Nelson POTS: (408)922-7508 | may be easily calculated given
Disclaimer: Not officially representing | the IQ of each member - use the
McDonnell Douglas Corporation policy. | formula for parallel resistance.Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (09/28/88)
I would rather have a more powerful Amiga System, I could care less about
IBM compatability.
- Doug -
Doug_B_Erdely@Portal.Cup.Comtrn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) (09/28/88)
In article <661@wsccs.UUCP> dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes: > >... >I contended that what Amiga owners >really wanted was a more powerful Amiga machine, ie more colors in >normal res-modes and higher resolution with NO INTERLACE. Someone >replied with a letter that IBM compatibility is a MUST, citing a >Macintosh magazine as proof. So what is it Amiga owners? Do you want a >more powerful Amiga or IBM compatibility? Given the expense, neither. However, given some extra cash to throw around, I'd sooner see a more powerful Amiga with "a software emulator that can run IBM software, providing IBM compatibility for under $100." (Maybe paraphrased, but how many others of the early A1000 crowd heard something similar to this in Amiga's infancy?) I could care less if the IBM software runs 1/2 as fast as it could with special hardware. Of course, it would have been nice if the Amiga had been designed with a little more compatibility with off-the-shelf hardware products, e.g. hard disks, tape drives, ... > Moral to this story: Build a better computer machine, and the > world will beat a path to your door > (especially if the machine is cheaper) Amended moral: Build a better computer machine, and the world will snub it until it's obsolete and IBM puts it in a PC. ============================================================================== ARPA: @aplvax.jhuapl.edu:trn@warper \ nardo%str.decnet@capsrv.jhuapl.edu } one of these should work UUCP: {backbone!}mimsy!aplcen!aplcomm!warper!trn / USnail: c/o Johns Hopkins University/APL, Room 7-53 Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, Md. 20707 50% of my opinions are claimed by various federal, state and local governments. The other 50% are mine to dispense with as I see fit. ==============================================================================
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (09/28/88)
That bridge card is an interesting add-on to the machine. Yeah sure
it cost 'em some development effort to put in, does cost some in
the machine itself (4 slot amiga vs. 8 slot amiga -- a world of diff'ence).
[I've been waiting for the 80286 card before deciding if I want
one of those cards].
But do I really want it? Wee-eell, if someone had asked me a couple
of years ago if I'd have wanted such a machine I woulda said no.
I also definitely do not want a standalone pc compatible. HOWEVER,
as a 'cheap' access to that backwards technology I'm somewhat interested.
It'd be better if they sold the bridge card w/o the 5 1/4" floppy
'cause I've alread got some lying around from older computers.
--
<-- David Herron; The official MMDF guy of the 1988 Olympics <david@ms.uky.edu>
<-- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
<-- What does the phrase "Don't work too hard"
<-- have to do with the decline of the american 'work ethic'?ralph@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (Ralph Hightower) (09/28/88)
In article <8709@watdragon.waterloo.edu> bmacintyre@watsol.waterloo.edu (Blair MacIntyre) writes: >Tell me, why do so many Corporations buy IBM hardware ( personal computers, >not IBM's *real* computers ... ) when you can get better, cheaper fully >compatible clones???? > >Because it has the three magic letters: > I B M Don't forget that there's also "FUD", Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. -- ralph@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM <Ralph M. Hightower> NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC Home of THE USC! South Carolina had a University 49 years before California was a state.
wilson@nova.laic.uucp (Robin Wilson) (09/29/88)
While it may be true that MOST large corporations but I-B-M because of the way they spell their name, it is not true that ALL large corporations buy I-B-M. Here at Lockheed (a VERY LARGE corp.) we buy lots of many different machines, from Apples to Amigas, to PC Clones. But we don't buy anymore I-B-M PeeCees than we buy Amigas. We buy more Clones. And now, Macs are beginning to be the machines of choice for most workgroups, because they do a good job of text/DTP processing. So I-B-M doesn't have a LOCK on the Large Corps. R.D.Wilson (Just the facts 'mam.)
jmdavis@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Davis) (09/30/88)
It may well be the case that most current Amiga owners would rather have "disgustingly obese" Agnes chips instead of IBM compatability. However, I expect that most POTENTIAL Amiga buyers see IBM compatability as a plus. -- ________________________________________ | Mike Davis | ..!att!ihlpm!jmdavis |_________________________
sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) (10/02/88)
In Message <1981@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>, trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes: >In article <661@wsccs.UUCP> dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes: >> >>... >>I contended that what Amiga owners >>really wanted was a more powerful Amiga machine, ie more colors in >>normal res-modes and higher resolution with NO INTERLACE. Someone >>replied with a letter that IBM compatibility is a MUST, citing a >>Macintosh magazine as proof. So what is it Amiga owners? Do you want a >>more powerful Amiga or IBM compatibility? > >Given the expense, neither. > >However, given some extra cash to throw around, I'd sooner see a more >powerful Amiga with "a software emulator that can run IBM software, providing >IBM compatibility for under $100." (Maybe paraphrased, but how many others >of the early A1000 crowd heard something similar to this in Amiga's infancy?) >I could care less if the IBM software runs 1/2 as fast as it could with >special hardware. > Lets see a software emulator that will run MS-DOS, easy. Under $100, sure. Run at 1/2 the speed, +- 20% yea we can do that. Matter of fact "Transformer" can and does do all that & more! It allows you to use your serial port as com1: - your parallel port as lpt1: - and more! Use 5.25" drive(s), 3.5" drive(s), boot from any drive (A: - B: - C: - D:). So I suggest you throw that extra cash into Transformer, it has what you want & it really does work very nicley. Of course it CBM only supports it on the 500 & 1000, but if your lucky (I wont waste bandwith with all the details of what makes you 'lucky') it will run on your 2000..... >Of course, it would have been nice if the Amiga had been designed with a >little more compatibility with off-the-shelf hardware products, e.g. hard >disks, tape drives, ... This is the same thing people said about the IBM-PC or the Apple Mac when they were new. And given a few years and half the support those machines received, people will buch the Amiga in that group too. -= And now for something almost different =- Personally I need MS-DOS capability for work and Transformer is just to slow. (I used to use Transformer on my 1000. Thats where I learned MS-DOS. But that was for a hobby, this is work.) So I have a BridgeBoard w/hard-card, expanded memory, 5.25" & 3.5" drives. Why? Because there just isnt enough room for another computer on this desk (2 - 2000's are enough!). Plus the ability to do direct file copies with Aread & Awrite allow me to do alot of my UUCP/UseNet work on my MS-DOS Zenith laptop wile sitting in the living room with the family. So for me MS-DOS is what I need. But hey I also want a stronger, more powerful Amiga. Hows does this sound *IN ADDITION* to the above mentioned MS-DOS capabilities? A2000 - 020 w/math co-processor & MMU -plus- 4meg 32 bit memory 1 meg Agnus w/1meg chip ram on the mother board 2 meg fast ram in an expansion slot built in genlock (for watching TV while you program ;-) 2090A auto-boot hard drive controller & 1.3 Kickstart ROM (No more floppy boots or Virus worries) Multi-Start board to allow use of 1.1 Kickstart 80 to 100 megs of hard drive storage *Plus (and this is the kicker!) Unix! Sound good? Well with the new items that CBM has already announced *ALL* of this will be possible & more! So why choose between MS-DOS capability or a more powerful Amiga? Have your cake and eat it too!!!! -- Dan "Sneakers" Schein {alegra|amiga|rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!heimat!sneakers Sneakers Computing 2455 McKinley Ave. Of course heimat is an Amiga. West Lawn, PA 19609 Doesn't everyone run UUCP & UseNet on an Amiga? Call: BERKS AMIGA BBS - 40 Meg - 24 Hrs - 3/12/2400 Baud - 215/678-7691
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/03/88)
In article <3618.AA3618@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: > *Plus (and this is the kicker!) > Unix! Unless I can run Deluxe Music (or whatever) under it, why should I get Amiga UNIX? I can take the (not inconsiderable) cost of the hardware necessary to put a killer UNIX on an Amiga and invest it in a 386 clone with UNIX. That way I get all the advantages of UNIX, a multiport card, *AND* I can run Sculpt-3d. Stick it all in a 2000 if I have one. Yes, if you get the idea I don't see the market for the 2500UX, you're right... -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
space@sns.UUCP (Lars Soltau) (10/04/88)
In article <2741@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > I can take the (not inconsiderable) cost of the hardware >necessary to put a killer UNIX on an Amiga and invest it in a 386 clone >with UNIX. > >Yes, if you get the idea I don't see the market for the 2500UX, you're >right... I for one definitely want to run UN*X on my Amy 2000. The reason is that with the exception of the MC68851 PMMU every single piece of hardware I have to buy to be able to run UN*X also increases throughput if I run AmigaDOS. I have to buy a 68020 card (hopefully I will be able to buy it soon -- CATS?) with a 68881 (optionally) and some (>= 2MB) 32bit RAM. All of this will also make the machine fly under AmigaDOS. So I get UN*X for the cost of the software, say (hopefully) somewhere below $1000. -- Lars Soltau UUCP: uunet!unido!sns!spcnet!space BIX: -- no bucks -- Here's looking at you, kid! -- the Medusa
sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) (10/05/88)
In Message <2741@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <3618.AA3618@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: >> *Plus (and this is the kicker!) >> Unix! > >Unless I can run Deluxe Music (or whatever) under it, why should I get >Amiga UNIX? I can take the (not inconsiderable) cost of the hardware >necessary to put a killer UNIX on an Amiga and invest it in a 386 clone >with UNIX. That way I get all the advantages of UNIX, a multiport card, >*AND* I can run Sculpt-3d. Stick it all in a 2000 if I have one. > What are you getting at Peter? Do you want a Un*x version of Deluxe Music? Or do you just want to run AmigaDOS & Un*x at the same time (like we do with the bridgeboard & Messy-DOS)? I think a 386 clone & Un*x would cost you more than the Amiga Un*x (but until its released thats up for debate). Plus im not sure how your going to run Sculpt-3d on Un*x unless they have a version im not aware of. Finally im sure that you are well aware of the multi-serial ports discussions a few months back. Regarding this issue im sure it will not be much longe before something becomes available. >Yes, if you get the idea I don't see the market for the 2500UX, you're >right... I get the idea your not happy with something, but im not sure what or why. -- Dan "Sneakers" Schein {alegra|amiga|rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!heimat!sneakers Sneakers Computing 2455 McKinley Ave. Of course heimat is an Amiga. West Lawn, PA 19609 Doesn't everyone run UUCP & UseNet on an Amiga? Call: BERKS AMIGA BBS - 40 Meg - 24 Hrs - 3/12/2400 Baud - 215/678-7691
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/06/88)
In article <3678.AA3678@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: > What are you getting at Peter? Do you want a Un*x version of Deluxe Music? Be nice, but no. > Or do you just want to run AmigaDOS & Un*x at the same time (like we do > with the bridgeboard & Messy-DOS)? Give the man a cigar. Yes, this is what I want to do. To be precise, I want to run UNIX *under* AmigaDOS. I want a real-time UNIX. This technology has been demonstrated (BSD under Mach, for example) and I believe that everything UNIX needs is provided by AmigaDOS. > I think a 386 clone & Un*x would cost > you more than the Amiga Un*x (but until its released thats up for debate). Maybe, maybe not. But within a few months of introduction, if chip prices fall the way they usually do, a 386 clone + UNIX will definitely be cheaper. Quantity, quantity, quantity. You should be spending your resources on stuff that Only The Amiga (tm) can do. > Regarding [serial-ports] im > sure it will not be much longe before something becomes available. Information. We want... Information. You are number 6. > I get the idea your not happy with something, but im not sure what or why. I want something so revolutionary that it will bring the Amiga back to the front of the pack. It's like a drag-racer... it was way ahead at first, but it's beginning to run out of gas and the bad guys on their mopeds are catching up. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
bm17+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bruce R. Miller) (10/07/88)
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Give the man a cigar. Yes, this is what I want to do. To be precise, I want > to run UNIX *under* AmigaDOS. I want a real-time UNIX. This technology has > been demonstrated (BSD under Mach, for example) and I believe that everythin > UNIX needs is provided by AmigaDOS. Mach is definitely not a real-time kernel. A real-time version will be available soon (in a year or so). I know, it's my job. I may, of course, be completely wrong. -bruce (brm@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu)
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (10/07/88)
in article <2741@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) says: > Xref: killer comp.sys.amiga:24520 comp.sys.amiga.tech:2384 > > In article <3618.AA3618@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: >> *Plus (and this is the kicker!) >> Unix! > > Unless I can run Deluxe Music (or whatever) under it, why should I get > Amiga UNIX? I can take the (not inconsiderable) cost of the hardware > necessary to put a killer UNIX on an Amiga and invest it in a 386 clone The (not inconsiderable) cost of the hardware is the exact same amount that you would spend to get killer AmigaDOS. Watching Mandelbrots on a 68020 machine is not the slow meditation that it is on a 68000 machine. I doubt that many people will get the 68020 card to run Unix. Rather, I suspect most of them will get it to run killer Amiga. (as for me: Yes, I'd run it, but mostly because of all the PD Unix-based software such as GNU Emacs, which most Amigans would not be aquainted with). -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 Q: How is Amigaworld like a (void) function? A: Neither returns anything of value.
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/08/88)
In article <QXGv0Vy00WA5A=x3dz@andrew.cmu.edu>, bm17+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bruce R. Miller) writes: > Mach is definitely not a real-time kernel. A real-time version will be > available soon (in a year or so). I know, it's my job. Really? I'm disappointed. But the principle still applies, and Mach certainly has all the hooks needed for real-time, such as multiple asynchronous waits and lightweight processes. What's real-time Mach going to be like? Maybe AmigaDOS can actually steal a march on mach? (many smileys). -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/08/88)
In article <5741@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: > I doubt that many people will get the 68020 card to run Unix. Rather, > I suspect most of them will get it to run killer Amiga. Yeh, that I can dig. But I don't need a SV binary license for that. Besides, I don't wanna reboot! Rebooting is for PCs. (you can tell the man is getting a little crazed here) -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto) (10/08/88)
In article <2756@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Give the man a cigar. Yes, this is what I want to do. To be precise, I want >to run UNIX *under* AmigaDOS. I want a real-time UNIX. Running Unix under AmigaDOS would certainly not make it real-time Unix; it would be less real-time than if it were running directly on the machine. If a real-time Unix did exist for the Amiga, then it would make more sense to run Exec under Unix than the other way around. > This technology has >been demonstrated (BSD under Mach, for example) and I believe that everything >UNIX needs is provided by AmigaDOS. ... except reliability. It could work, but it would give me the willies. All that nice memory protection gone to waste as soon as you run a buggy AmigaDOS program. (Oops! Guru meditation!? Now I have to sit through another fsck!) Another possibility is to run Exec under Unix in a virtual machine... sounds awful, but that's what the Ms.Dos folks do with VP/IX and such. Real-time would be almost out of the question if this were done under "standard" Unix. Yet another possibility is to run them almost side-by-side -- have Unix at the core, but Exec tasks could be Unix processes. The Exec tasks could all run in the same context (like the current Exec) or in separate memory spaces with a big chunk of MEMF_PUBLIC shared memory. If enough of the graphics library & intuition were in the Unix kernel, they could achieve real-time response. And the best part ... if you run a buggy program, the worst that would happen is you might crash *one* of your virtual Amigas. (So you just go type "!!" on Unix and your in business again :-). And there are at least half a dozen other interesting ways to combine Unix and Amiga software... the above is just idle speculation. I agree with Peter da Silva that something really exciting could and should be done in this area, but I suppose we have to start with the essentials. -- -=] Ford [=- "The number of Unix installations (In Real Life: Mike Ditto) has grown to 10, with more expected." ford@kenobi.cts.com - The Unix Programmer's Manual, ...!sdcsvax!crash!elgar!ford 2nd Edition, June, 1972. ditto@cbmvax.commodore.com
sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) (10/09/88)
In Message <2756@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <3678.AA3678@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: >> What are you getting at Peter? Do you want a Un*x version of Deluxe Music? > >Be nice, but no. > Somehow the idea of Deluxe Music under Unix reminds me of the difference (sound wise) between Flight Simulator on the Amiga and a MS-DOS machine. >> Or do you just want to run AmigaDOS & Un*x at the same time (like we do >> with the bridgeboard & Messy-DOS)? > >Give the man a cigar. Yes, this is what I want to do. To be precise, I want >to run UNIX *under* AmigaDOS. I want a real-time UNIX. This technology has >been demonstrated (BSD under Mach, for example) and I believe that everything >UNIX needs is provided by AmigaDOS. > Mike Ditto has explained (rather well) why this is not the ideal choice. And I could not agree more. >> I think a 386 clone & Un*x would cost >> you more than the Amiga Un*x (but until its released thats up for debate). > >Maybe, maybe not. But within a few months of introduction, if chip prices >fall the way they usually do, a 386 clone + UNIX will definitely be cheaper. >Quantity, quantity, quantity. > Well when a 386 machine w/Unix becomes cheaper than Unix for the Amiga, guess I can have a backup system :-) For some reason I just don't see where someone can produce an entire machine (hd, monitor, ect) and include Unix for less that CBM can sell a HD and Unix. Im basing this on *not including* a 020 board because some of us already have them ;-) -=- but even with a 020 board it shouldnt cost more. Remember when ram prices drop for a 386, they also drop for a 020. And as the 386 increases in popularity and prices drop, the same thing is happening for the 020 as well. >You should be spending your resources on stuff that Only The Amiga (tm) can >do. > I agree to a point. Yes there are things that the Amiga would just be better at than other computers, but just as important is the ability to do the things that other computers *CAN* do. >> Regarding [serial-ports] im >> sure it will not be much longe before something becomes available. > >Information. We want... Information. You are number 6. > #6 for what ?!? >> I get the idea your not happy with something, but im not sure what or why. > >I want something so revolutionary that it will bring the Amiga back to the >front of the pack. It's like a drag-racer... it was way ahead at first, but it's >beginning to run out of gas and the bad guys on their mopeds are catching up. Maybe im beginning to see the problem here..... What are mopeds (and bad guys) doing on a drag strip? -- Dan "Sneakers" Schein {alegra|amiga|rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!heimat!sneakers Sneakers Computing 2455 McKinley Ave. Of course heimat is an Amiga. West Lawn, PA 19609 Doesn't everyone run UUCP & UseNet on an Amiga? Call: BERKS AMIGA BBS - 40 Meg - 24 Hrs - 3/12/2400 Baud - 215/678-7691
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/09/88)
In article <4964@cbmvax.UUCP>, ditto@cbmvax.UUCP (Michael "Ford" Ditto) writes: > In article <2756@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Give the man a cigar. Yes, this is what I want to do. To be precise, I want > >to run UNIX *under* AmigaDOS. I want a real-time UNIX. > Running Unix under AmigaDOS would certainly not make it real-time Unix; it > would be less real-time than if it were running directly on the machine. I'm not talking about having a big program that was the UNIX kernel running under AmigaDOS. I'm talking about making each process a seperate Exec task, subject to Exec scheduling, but with protection. Make each a big contiguous lump of memory with a virtual zero origin, etc... but handled by Exec. > If a real-time Unix did exist for the Amiga, then it would make more sense > to run Exec under Unix than the other way around. The only way to get a *real* real-time UNIX is to replace MOST of the UNIX kernel with a real-time executive. Abandon the UNIX coroutine model, make device drivers tasks (not UNIX processes, maybe, but tasks within the kernel). Make UNIX processes protected tasks. Protected from each other, at least. Why look, the Amiga Exec is a real-time kernel! What a convenient happenstance... > ... except reliability. It could work, but it would give me > the willies. All that nice memory protection gone to waste as soon as > you run a buggy AmigaDOS program. (Oops! Guru meditation!? Now I > have to sit through another fsck!) So if you want reliability don't run buggy AmigaDOS software. I have never gurud since I've gotten 1.2 except when I was running a known buggy program, such as something I'm developing or Manx VI. > Another possibility is to run Exec under Unix in a virtual machine... > sounds awful, but that's what the Ms.Dos folks do with VP/IX and such. This is totally out of the question. The Amiga Exec's primary advantage is that it's small and fast. Running it in a virtual machine is unreasonable. I would not WANT AmigaDOS on these terms... all its advantages would be gone. > Yet another possibility is to run them almost side-by-side -- have Unix at > the core, but Exec tasks could be Unix processes. Again, out of the question. UNIX tasks have too much overhead. > If enough of the graphics > library & intuition were in the Unix kernel, they could achieve real-time > response. Sticking more things in the UNIX kernel is a bad thing to do. There's too much pure garbage in there already. The UNIX kernel is a nightmare. The UNIX programming environment is a dream. On the other hand, the Amiga Exec is beautiful and the Amiga programming environment is, well, too many pizzas before bedtime. You'd get something, but real-time response isn't it. Look at a Sun some time. I'm not bashing Suns, but the display can be slow. This isn't their fault, it's UNIX's. There really hasn't been any fundamental change in how UNIX works in 10 years. And the AT&T/Sun merge, or the OSF effort, is just more of the same. > And there are at least half a dozen other interesting ways to combine Unix > and Amiga software... the above is just idle speculation. I agree with > Peter da Silva that something really exciting could and should be done > in this area, but I suppose we have to start with the essentials. The essentials are there already. A good real-time kernel. If you've ever done unprotected realtime work you would be amazed how *stable* the Amiga Exec is. It's a *lot* less likely to toss its cookies than even some protected realtime systems I've used. Don't throw out the best parts of this system just for the sake of a buzzword. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (10/10/88)
in article <219@sns.UUCP>, space@sns.UUCP (Lars Soltau) says: > Xref: cbmvax comp.sys.amiga:25850 comp.sys.amiga.tech:2656 > I for one definitely want to run UN*X on my Amy 2000. The reason is that > with the exception of the MC68851 PMMU every single piece of hardware I have > to buy to be able to run UN*X also increases throughput if I run AmigaDOS. Actually, if you consider all of your ROM Kernel libraries running out of 32 bit, 14.3 MHz memory rather than 16 bit, 7.16 MHZ memory, a throughput increase (hint -- try it and you will), then even the PMMU will help you when running the Amiga OS. > I have to buy a 68020 card (hopefully I will be able to buy it soon -- CATS?) > with a 68881 (optionally) and some (>= 2MB) 32bit RAM. Not sure if the '881 is optional or required. The RAM configurations are 2Meg and 4Meg. > So I get UN*X for the cost of the software, say (hopefully) somewhere below $1000. Starts to make sense, then, eh? > Lars Soltau UUCP: uunet!unido!sns!spcnet!space BIX: -- no bucks -- -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {ihnp4|uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy "I can't relax, 'cause I'm a Boinger!"
elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) (10/12/88)
in article <3590.AA3590@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) says: >>> I think a 386 clone & Un*x would cost >>> you more than the Amiga Un*x (but until its released thats up for debate). >>Maybe, maybe not. But within a few months of introduction, if chip prices >>fall the way they usually do, a 386 clone + UNIX will definitely be cheaper. >>Quantity, quantity, quantity. >> > Well when a 386 machine w/Unix becomes cheaper than Unix for the Amiga, guess > I can have a backup system :-) For some reason I just don't see where someone > can produce an entire machine (hd, monitor, ect) and include Unix for less > that CBM can sell a HD and Unix. It's called VOLUME. The three biggest mail order outlets probably sell more hard drives in an hour than Commodore Unix would ship in a year. I have seen complete 80386 clones selling for $2200. I'll leave the cost of the 4mb of RAM out for the moment, since both computers would need that 4mb. But: 80mb hard drive, $600. Bell Technologies Unix, $400. So that's $1,000 total. $3200 before 4mb is added in (which at current DRAM prices would be maybe $1500, alas). The cost of an equivalent Amiga Unix would be: A-2000: $2200 (monitor & computer, "street" cost). Hard drive interface: $300 68020 board: $1000 or so. Hard drive (SCSI, 80mb): $800 (unless you figure some way of mouting a full-height ST4096 in an Amiga!). Amiga Unix: let's be charitable and say $300. Already, we're up to $4600, and still rising. There's advantages: you have a windowing environment, and you can run Killer Amiga when you're not running Unix. But if you want a full-time Unix environment for a low cost (e.g. a public access Unix system), the 80386 is definitely the way to go. > Im basing this on *not including* a 020 > board because some of us already have them AH, but those of us who already have 020 boards can't use them with Amiga Unix! So the cost of the '020 board is a definite part of the expense of running Amiga Unix. >>Information. We want... Information. You are number 6. >> > #6 for what ?!? Poor confused Dan, has never encountered the underground classic series "The Prisoner". Watch it, Dan. It has been ten years since I last saw it (on PBS), and it still gives me shivers just thinking about it.... a hint: I am officially #433-xx-xxxx to the University of Southwestern Louisiana. -- Eric Lee Green ..!{ames,decwrl,mit-eddie,osu-cis}!killer!elg Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 It's understandable that Mike Dukakis thinks he can walk on water. He's used to walking on Boston harbor.
kgschlueter@violet.waterloo.edu (Kevin Schlueter) (10/12/88)
I'm concerned with the speed of native amiga implementations when run (on the same processor) simultaneously with UNIX. When I run SunTools on a Sun 3/50, the first thing I notice is how slow and unresponsive it is compared to my Amiga. I realize that running SunTools on a Sun and running native Amiga applications with Unix are not exact analogs. The lesson we should get from this, I think, is that we had better not forgot that the average user really doesn't care if Unix is running but certainly does care if his (or her) machine becomes unuseably slow. NB: The above is not a flame at Sun.
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/13/88)
In article <3590.AA3590@heimat>, sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) writes: > For some reason I just don't see where someone > can produce an entire machine (hd, monitor, ect) and include Unix for less > that CBM can sell a HD and Unix. You're comparing apples and cinammon. AmigaDOS and UNIX are complementary. If I buy a 386 clone and UNIX I won't have to ever say "Hey, I can't show you "Boing-V: The Debate" because I've finally got on UUNET after 3 nights of trying". Rebooting to switch operating systems is for weenies with Macs and PCs. > Im basing this on *not including* a 020 > board because some of us already have them ;-) -=- but even with a 020 board > it shouldnt cost more. I'm basing it on a complete Amiga 2000, because some of us don't already have them. Like, for example, most of the potential UNIX market. An Amiga 2000 running UNIX isn't going to give them much that a 386 plus a 500 won't, and the 386-plus-500 will be more versatile. Yes, I'd like UNIX for my Amiga. But unless it does something UNIX for a 386 doesn't... while running UNIX... it's not something hat will sell that many *new* Amigas. > >Information. We want... Information. You are number 6. > #6 for what ?!? Never seen the British TV show "The Prisoner"? > Maybe im beginning to see the problem here..... What are mopeds (and bad guys) > doing on a drag strip? Hey, I didn't invite them. But they're there. Don't you remember, one of them tried to sabotage you while you were setting up? Jack T. was his name. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
d7pernb@dtek.chalmers.se (Nicklas Pernblad) (10/14/88)
In article <5777@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> elg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Eric Green) writes: > Hard drive (SCSI, 80mb): $800 (unless you figure some way of mouting >a full-height ST4096 in an Amiga!). > By pure coincidence (sp?) I did just that today! It takes some tinkering to put df0: and df1: outside the A2000, but it is possible. Nicklas Pernblad d7pernb@hacke0.chalmers.se