jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) (09/22/90)
In article <15362@yunexus.YorkU.CA> philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: >In article <9009200536.AA27514@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >> >>>Faster computers,etc... are not what everyone needs/wants. >> >>It's what I need and what I want. The speed (or shall I say, LACK OF) is >>probably the biggest reason so many software companies have pulled. Even >>though new companies are being started, more are >>pulling out. How many GS specific (or //e) games have come out in the last >>year? How many for the Amiga? > >If it is speed you want, then why not get a 486. The 386/486 are probably >the best price/performance computers you will find if speed is the only >issue, which I do not agree with. Why do people keep bringing up the Amiga? >I'm frankly getting annoyed at the analogy. There is more to computing >than games. In fact the percentage of games worth buying is very small. WHOA! I hope you have your flame retardant suit ready. There are a million Amiga owners who 1) Produce TV commercials with their amiga 2) Emulate every known useful computer system 3) Publish magazines (the entire contents of Info are done on an Amiga with Pagestream, one of the better Page Layout programs available) 4) The Amiga runs full Unix with networking support. Ethernet cards are $200-$300 for the Amiga. I've seen a zillion games that I'd buy for Amiga if I had one. There are a few people who buy the Amiga 500 to buy games, but $3000 machines such as the Amiga 3000 are used for more noteworthy pursuits. Note that at least Commodore HAS a $500 machine. And this $500 box still multitasks (unlike ANY Apple), can still be upgraded (unlike the PS/1). I'm not bashing Apple- I'm bashing "Anti-Amiga". >There are excellent opportunities for people to come out with a whole new >approach to computer games, now that we have CD-ROM's, Hypermedia,etc... The Amiga has CD-ROM based multimedia, and the equivalent of the VOC has been standard since day one. [[ PS/1 stuff removed ]] >Philip McDunnough >University of Toronto >philip@utstat.toronto.edu >[my opinions] -- Jawaid Bazyar | Blondes in big black cars look better wearing Senior/Computer Engineering | their dark sunglasses at night. (unk. wierdo) jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | The gin, the gin, glows in the Dark! | (B O'Cult)
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (09/22/90)
>In article <15362@yunexus.YorkU.CA> philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: >>If it is speed you want, then why not get a 486. The 386/486 are probably >>the best price/performance computers you will find if speed is the only >>issue, which I do not agree with. Why do people keep bringing up the Amiga? >>I'm frankly getting annoyed at the analogy. There is more to computing >>than games. In fact the percentage of games worth buying is very small. > WHOA! I hope you have your flame retardant suit ready. > I've seen a zillion games that I'd buy for Amiga if I had one. > There are a few people who buy the Amiga 500 to buy games, but > $3000 machines such as the Amiga 3000 are used for more noteworthy > pursuits. Note that at least Commodore HAS a $500 machine. And this > $500 box still multitasks (unlike ANY Apple), can still be upgraded > (unlike the PS/1). I'm not bashing Apple- I'm bashing "Anti-Amiga". I will second this! How about SLIP? I'm to understand that you can run that on an Amiga, or that someone is working on it. And anybody who says that serious stuff isn't getting done on the Amiga, well, I can refer you to somebody who can roast you alive with the truth. Where is the Apple II system that can call up a Unix system and have a transparent mount to the filesystem, as if it was just another drive? Or where are the Apple II programmers working on networking? TCP/IP? I know folks who are working on this for the Amiga. Or how about having multiple windows with different resolutions? I'm to understand you can pull up text windows, and different resolutions windows on the screen at the same time (major Amiga hacker was telling me). Although 'great games = Amiga', 'Amiga != games', not anymore. Note: I'm not an Amiga fan, I just know people here that are working on this kinda stuff. I wish some Apple II programmers were, or that there was some incentive too! -k
jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) (09/22/90)
TCP/IP IS being worked on for the Apple //. And the Apple // already
HAS a networking system, which allows remote volumes to be mounted and
appear as if they were local, except for access time. It's called
APPLETALK and APPLESHARE. Although I think Apple's support for the II
is lacking, I do have to give them credit for making AppleTalk standard
on the Apple IIgs.
-----------------
Jeffrey Hutzelman
America Online: JeffreyH11
Internet/BITNET:jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu, jhutz@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
>> Apple // Forever!!! <<cbdougla@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Collin Broad Douglas) (09/22/90)
I guess what really upsets me most is I think the GS has a lot of potential. In article <5588@mace.cc.purdue.edu> asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) writes: >>In article <15362@yunexus.YorkU.CA> philip@yunexus.yorku.ca (Phil McDunnough) writes: > >>>If it is speed you want, then why not get a 486. The 386/486 are probably >>>the best price/performance computers you will find if speed is the only >>>issue, which I do not agree with. Why do people keep bringing up the Amiga? >>>I'm frankly getting annoyed at the analogy. There is more to computing >>>than games. In fact the percentage of games worth buying is very small. I'd rather have an Amiga than an IBM compatible just about any day... >> WHOA! I hope you have your flame retardant suit ready. > >> I've seen a zillion games that I'd buy for Amiga if I had one. >> There are a few people who buy the Amiga 500 to buy games, but >> $3000 machines such as the Amiga 3000 are used for more noteworthy >> pursuits. Note that at least Commodore HAS a $500 machine. And this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Amen. >> $500 box still multitasks (unlike ANY Apple), can still be upgraded >> (unlike the PS/1). I'm not bashing Apple- I'm bashing "Anti-Amiga". > >I will second this! How about SLIP? I'm to understand that you can run >that on an Amiga, or that someone is working on it. And anybody who >says that serious stuff isn't getting done on the Amiga, well, I can >refer you to somebody who can roast you alive with the truth. Where is >the Apple II system that can call up a Unix system and have a >transparent mount to the filesystem, as if it was just another drive? that's what the Appleshare FST is for. GS/OS has the capability for accessing different file systems easily through FSTs. The GS can boot from an Appleshare file server (the Mac can't) and the server shows up as a disk drive on the desktop. >Or where are the Apple II programmers working on networking? TCP/IP? I >know folks who are working on this for the Amiga. Or how about having ever heard of ProLine? >multiple windows with different resolutions? I'm to understand you can >pull up text windows, and different resolutions windows on the screen at >the same time (major Amiga hacker was telling me). Although 'great >games = Amiga', 'Amiga != games', not anymore. the GS can mix 320 and 640 modes on the same screen. > >Note: I'm not an Amiga fan, I just know people here that are working >on this kinda stuff. I wish some Apple II programmers were, or that >there was some incentive too! same here. I want MINIX for the GS. First, the Byte Works needs to make Orca C even better. > >-k Collin Douglas cbdougla@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (09/22/90)
In <1990Sep22.055242.20803@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> cbdougla@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Collin Broad Douglas) writes: > I guess what really upsets me most is I think the GS has a lot of potential. Ditto here! Much too much potential that isn't being exploited! >I'd rather have an Amiga than an IBM compatible just about any day... Ditto. Especially with what kind of energetic support from regular programmers/hackers can be expected on the Amiga. >>refer you to somebody who can roast you alive with the truth. Where is >>the Apple II system that can call up a Unix system and have a >>transparent mount to the filesystem, as if it was just another drive? >that's what the Appleshare FST is for. GS/OS has the capability for >accessing different file systems easily through FSTs. The GS can boot >from an Appleshare file server (the Mac can't) and the server shows up >as a disk drive on the desktop. Okay, can you just call up a Unix machine and use Appleshare FST to mount the system as a drive? Can you do that using a regular modem? Without any extra hardware? (given modem) Is it FREE?????? If the answers to these are ALL yes, then tell me about it, I'd like to use it! And yup, the GS has the *capability* to use other file systems, but where is the ACTUAL capability to use em? You only get the ProDOS, AppleShare, and the High Sierra format. Hmm, NeXT is gonna offer a High Sierra type CD-ROM, maybe I could just hook my GS up to that.... Did I miss any formats or mix em up? Where is the support for Mac HFS? MS-DOS? Unix? etc.. The *capability* for support doesn't mean SQUAT if you don't GET/HAVE that capability (except somewhat thru AppleShare). >>Or where are the Apple II programmers working on networking? TCP/IP? I >>know folks who are working on this for the Amiga. Or how about having >ever heard of ProLine? For what? $200+? Uh, ever heard of public domain? That's what this stuff is gonna be. >>the same time (major Amiga hacker was telling me). Although 'great >>games = Amiga', 'Amiga != games', not anymore. >the GS can mix 320 and 640 modes on the same screen. Interesting, I've never heard about this. From what my Amiga-hacking friend was telling me, having multiple types of windows was simple, and easy, and supported by the OS (I think). >>Note: I'm not an Amiga fan, I just know people here that are working >>on this kinda stuff. I wish some Apple II programmers were, or that >>there was some incentive too! >same here. I want MINIX for the GS. First, the Byte Works needs to make >Orca C even better. Absolutely! Networking support (tcp/ip or slip (which I don't know much about, but works over modems i'm to understand)) would be a nice bonus also! Why should Amiga folks have all the fun with innovative programming? And it's about 3+ years overdue that we had a machine that could stand up against Amiga. Bought the only thing impressive on my GS versuses an Amiga is the sound. Too bad I don't do sound programming. Ooops, that sounded like a flame. Just sorta gets me pissed when folks say the Amiga doesn't have any REAL software, where it is really kicking our butts by support from programmers on it. We should be kicking THEIR butts. After all, who's been around longer, had more company support (?), or did at least, and have more machines in the market place (or do we?)? -k
cse0507@desire.wright.edu (09/23/90)
> Where is > the Apple II system that can call up a Unix system and have a > transparent mount to the filesystem, as if it was just another drive? > Or where are the Apple II programmers working on networking? TCP/IP? I > know folks who are working on this for the Amiga. Or how about having > multiple windows with different resolutions? I'm to understand you can > pull up text windows, and different resolutions windows on the screen at > the same time (major Amiga hacker was telling me). Unfortunatly since Apple doesn't support the II line, you can only do such things with a Mac. Apple has had for some time a package called A/UX whch supplies a transparent interface to Unix based systems as well as X-Window support. Will this ever appear on the GS, I doubt it. What do you mean by different resolutions in different windows? The hardware controlling the screen normally prevents having more than one resolution active at a time. This is probably some hack to get around it, but that seems to happen a lot on the Amiga. I guess you could simulate it by going into a higher resolution mode and then make fat pixels when displaying a lower resolution graphic in a certain window. All then that would be needed is a way to produce the usually grater color palette of a low resolution graphic in a higher resolution mode. As far as multi-tasking, I really am not sure if the GS does or not. We do have the ability to multiprocess with the standard desk accessories, and some programs take advantage of this ability internaly. I debated with a friend of mine over multitasking before and we basicly came to the conclusion that it just depended on your definition. For example Appleworks GS will allow me to Download in the background while doing wordprocessing, pagelayout, illustration, or spreadsheet calculations since they are all in the same package. On top of this I could have many DAs up and running performing various tasks such as showing my processor loading, memory usage etc. Somewhere in the system software is a task manager which passes out time slices from the processor to all the different things running. Because it is not straightforward like the '&' in Unix, I would guess that it's hard to say if a GS is truly multitasking or not. Apparently the Mac which deos have Multifinder to do multitasking does not have this Taskmanager and Mac programers have to do the same thing from scratch.
philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) (09/23/90)
In article <1990Sep21.225236.26561@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Desdinova) writes:
[lot's of stuff re the Amiga and my reference to it]
I just have to respond to this, as too many implications have been left
floating re my comments on the Amiga.
There are basically 2 Amigas. The Amiga500 and the Amiga3000. They aren't for
me but they are interesting computers( particularly the 3000).
The Amiga received of lot a attention when the 1000 came out. Since then, it
has largely been focused on games and pre-video work( let's get one thing
straight here. The Amiga does not have the processing capabilities of an
Iris graphics' workstation, and can't really do interactive 3-D work). So
you have a computer with very little educational software( check out one of
the recent AmigaWorld issues re that), productivity software of questionable
quality( except in the video area) but a interesting platform for arcade
games( this is not a bad thing- it says something good about the computer).
For academics there is AmigaTeX, XLISP( a pd stat program), Maple,...and
not much else. The multitasking, while preemptive, does not have hardware
protection between tasks so I discount that aspect other than one of
convenience. I wouldn't dare assign an important job to a task.
The GS is not competing with the 030 Amiga 3000, or even the Amiga 500 in
my view. It's competition may be found in the PS/1, the Tandy,etc...
As for the Amiga running Unix, I assume you are talking about UnixV rel 4.0
in BETA. Given the choice between a MacIIci and an A3000, I doubt many
would have a hard time deciding.
In any case, the Amiga is nice, has its place,etc...So are many micros. I
wouldn't be losing sleep if I were Apple with what happens in the Amiga
world. I would, however, be very concerned about losing the target base
of the GS which is education to IBM. That is the issue.
Philip McDunnough
University of Toronto
philip@utstat.toronto.edu
[my opinions]cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) (09/24/90)
>What do you mean by different resolutions in different >windows? The hardware controlling the screen normally >prevents having more than one resolution active at a >time. Each scan line has a seperate byte (200 in all, one for each line) that controls such things as the resolution (640x2 bit vesus 320x4 bit), which color palette to use, whether "fill" mode is active, etc. You normally set all of these bytes to the same value, so that you use the same palette, resolution, etc. But, you don't have to. If you set these scan line bytes differently, you can combine different graphics modes on the same screen. A demo called FillMaze uses this to produce 3D graphics animation, in both 640 and 320 mode, producing about 60 colors on the screen at once, with a frame rate of better than 50 frames per second!!! I watched this program run and had to collect the pieces of my jaw of the floor. :-) It is VERY impressive! >As far as multi-tasking, I really am not sure if the >GS does or not. We do have the ability to multiprocess >with the standard desk accessories, and some programs >take advantage of this ability internaly[sic]. >Somewhere in the system software is a task manager >which passes out time slices from the processor to all >the different things running. Because it is not >straightforward like the '&' in Unix, I would guess >that it's hard to say if a GS is truly multitasking or >not. Apparently the Mac which does have Multifinder >to do multitasking does not have this Taskmanager and >Mac programers have to do the same thing from scratch. Without arguing ovcer the exact meaning of multitasking, the //gs does not have the ability to multitask seperate processes. Neither do Macs running multifinder, although a Mac // can run other programs (like Mac-Mach) that will do multitasking. The ability of the //gs to do background tasks (like print spooling, background file loading, some others) is entirely interrupt based. The //gs has a fairly sophisticated interrupt handler that is able to recognize the source of the interrupt (via polling through the interrupt chain). So, when the printer buffer is empty, it causes an interrupt that halts the current program, runs a very short routine that MUST NOT disturb things that the program it interrupted was using, refills the printer buffer, and returns from the interrupt to the previous program. The reason that the //gs cannot do more is because it lacks the memory management unit required to provide "memory protection." For example, say a program is running, and it tries to use a pointer to a memory location that is in the middle of another program that you are trying to run at the same time. On the //gs, the computer has no way of protecting the second program's memory area from being corrupted. On a computer with the MMU required, that pointer reference would generate an error called a "segmentation violation," which halts execution of the program with the bad pointer, and leaves the other program(s) untouched. >cse0507@desire.wright.edu (By the way, what is your name?) -- Charles William Swiger cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu
IMS103@psuvm.psu.edu (Ian Matthew Smith) (09/24/90)
In article <1266.26fbd120@desire.wright.edu>, cse0507@desire.wright.edu says: >What do you mean by different resolutions in different windows? The hardware >controlling the screen normally prevents having more than one resolution >active >at a time. This is probably some hack to get around it, but that seems to >happen a lot on the Amiga. I guess you could simulate it by going into a >higher >resolution mode and then make fat pixels when displaying a lower resolution >graphic in a certain window. All then that would be needed is a way to produce >the usually grater color palette of a low resolution graphic in a higher >resolution mode. The Amiga hardware has the capability of displaying any number of diffrent resolutions at the same time. This is supported by the OS. It take up virtually no CPU time as it is handled by one of the Amiga's cp-processor chips. The Amiga handles virtual "screens" that can have different resolutions or number of colors and can be displayed simultaneously. on the same monitor. Ian Smith <ims103@psuvm.bitnet>
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (09/29/90)
In article <YazED5m00VpdR6ikYq@andrew.cmu.edu> cs4w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles William Swiger) writes: >Without arguing ovcer the exact meaning of multitasking, the //gs does >not have the ability to multitask seperate processes. ... The reason that >the //gs cannot do more is because it lacks the memory management unit >required to provide "memory protection." This isn't really correct. The IIGS does have a centralized memory management facility that is capable of keeping track of memory utilized by multiple concurrently resident processes. Hardware protection would be necessary only for "demand paging", which even UNIX did not require (until quite recently). While it is true that the lack of protection permits a coding error to affect other processes, that is already true even for "desk accessories", as many of us can attest. It is not an issue for correct code. Note also that interrupts are not necessary for multitasking; the scheme known as "preemptive scheduling", such as is used in a time-slice scheduler, requires regular interrupts, but they are not necessary for a voluntary scheduling scheme where processes are suspended only at the system-service request point. (The "Blit" family of multitasking terminals relies on this method, and it works quite well.)