robbins@arcadien.rice.edu (Thomas Robbins) (03/04/91)
First of all, this is not intended to start a flame-war, merely some observations I've noted with a request for informative comments. I have been a die-hard Macintosh user for five years now, leading me to drop $5 K for a new Mac IIsi (the 20MHz 68030). I have been very pleased with _productivity_ software for what I do, which is university engineering work. I'm very pleased with: -Mac OS -Microsoft Word 4.0 -Excel 2.2 -MacDraw II -Matlab (Mac II version) -Mathematica (Mac II version) -Cricket Graph 1.3 However, I'm disappointed with the entertainment/sound/video. I have just been shocked at seeing a friend's Amiga 500, with its mere 7MHz 68000, for crying out loud, BLOW AWAY my 68030 Mac with the Amiga video clippings, sound/music emulation, and GAMES. (The color version of Falcon put my Mac version to shame!) And he had *hundreds* of cool games compared to maybe 4 comparable Mac games. What's the deal? My friend says that it's because it has built-in graphics co-processors. I'm actually considering buying one of these, to supplement my mac. (Heaven help me--a machine with DOS!) IS IT WORTH IT? I would use it only for games, but I worry at buying a machine that's already four years old, what with computer equipment being obsolete even before the ink on your check is dry. And heck, it's only about the price of a good modem! Thanks in advance for your help. -- Tom Robbins | "No, it's 'Blessed are the meek.' I think robbins@owlnet.rice.edu | that's nice, 'cause they really have a hell Senior, Chemical Engineering | of a time." Rice University | - someone in the crowd in "The Life of Brian"
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar3.223546.12173@rice.edu> robbins@arcadien.rice.edu (Thomas Robbins) writes:
However, I'm disappointed with the entertainment/sound/video. I have
just been shocked at seeing a friend's Amiga 500, with its mere 7MHz
68000, for crying out loud, BLOW AWAY my 68030 Mac with the Amiga video
clippings, sound/music emulation, and GAMES. (The color version of
Falcon put my Mac version to shame!) And he had *hundreds* of cool
games compared to maybe 4 comparable Mac games.
What's the deal? My friend says that it's because it has built-in
graphics co-processors.
What's even more amazing is that the Amiga has been around since 1984.
I guess that's why people start up flame wars. It's 1991 and your
just getting the news. Personally, I can't believe Commodore made it
this far.
-Miketesst4@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Tobish E Smith) (03/04/91)
Wow. Bet you're going to get a lot of replies on this one! Anyway, my
roommate had an Amiga 2000 w/ 40 meg HD and I have a Mac II (8 meg RAM,
100 meg HD). My personal feelings after using his extensively is that
the Amgia just doesn't _feel_ right. I don't know how to quantify this.
Hardware-wise, I thought, "Wow, maybe I made a mistake," since the Amiga
cost so much less. But then I used the thing. A feeling of amateurishness
pervaded the entire system: the keyboard, the mouse, the operating system,
the speed of the hard drive. After using it, I realized _why_ the Mac costs
so much more. I would have killed for this machine when I was in high school,
being a way-cool hacker dude on my Apple ][. Indeed, this seems like a
prime use for Amigas, based on the plethora of swollen-ego, flashy-graphics
pirates' intros to crcked games ("KRACKED BY THE MUTILATOR!!!!!" in zillions
of colors flashing on the screen while some rockin' tune blasts out of the
speakers). And now, I suppose, I'm finally getting to the point of the
posting, namely, should you get one for games use? Guess it depends on what
you want to play. The upside of the Amiga, of course, is its ability to do
wondrous games. The downsides are 1. the infuriatingly slow disk drives,
and 2. the copy protection on _everything_. It's not bad enough that Steve's
hard drive seemed scarcely faster than my floppies. We couldn't even
install most games on the hard drive due to the copy-protection! Battle
Squadron, a great game, took minutes to start a new game after you died.
Got you pretty grumpy real quick. If you want to play adventures or RPGs
(Drakken is wonderful!), and you can live with the miserable i/o speed,
sure, get an Amiga. If, however, you're more interested in exploiting
its abilities to control many sprites and do great arcade games, go for
a Genesis, TG-16, or hell, even a Neo Geo instead. The loading of the games
is instantaneous, the controllers are better, and it's cheaper (except for
the NeoGeo ;-) ). In conclusion, I don't want to be too critical of the
Amiga itself. The hardware inside is very nice. However, almost all aspects
of the user interface (hardware and software), coupled with the slow drives,
really turned me off on the machine for now. If these things improve (and
if the _standard_ screen resolution ever evolves beyond 320X200) I think the
Amiga will be a great machine. Oh yeah. The users should start being
tres bitchy like Mac users about copy protection. The amount of CP in the
Amiga world is staggering.
Tob
tesst4@unix.cis.pitt.edu
gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) (03/04/91)
robbins@arcadien.rice.edu (Thomas Robbins) asks about the Amiga: > >What's the deal? My friend says that it's because it has built-in >graphics co-processors. The Amiga has built into it graphics and sound coprocessors. They make an Amiga with a 7 mhz 68000 equivalent to a 25mhz 68030/68882 Mac when it comes to video games. In other applications, the machine is slightly faster than a clasic Mac (or Mac Classic). It would not be very difficult to write (or port) the same games to a Mac II with a 68030 and 68882. A Mac IIfx would be an ideal machine. Since the people that buy games usually own "cheap" machines, it does not make a lot of sense to write a game for an $8000. computer. How many games do you think would sell if they had "For the Mac IIfx only" on the box. Since game developers know that every Amiga has these facilities, and there are more than 2 million Amiga's out there it makes a lot of sense (and cents) to develop these "whiz-bang" games for the Amiga and not the Mac. If these games are your cup of tea, then I would recommend getting an Amiga. There are many more of these games than will appear on the Mac market until the Mac LCx :-) with the optional 68882 board becomes popular. Before I bought an Amiga though, I would recommend looking at the soon to be shipped CDTV. In all forms it is an Amiga with a CD-ROM drive. The cheapest form will be a CD player box with an Amiga 500 under the covers. You have to add a keyboard, floppy drive, etc if you want to "compute" with it. I think that Commodore will have an external CDTV upgrade for the 500 also. > >I'm actually considering buying one of these, to supplement my mac. >(Heaven help me--a machine with DOS!) IS IT WORTH IT? Amiga-Dos as it is called is not MS-DOS. It is a very good multitasing operating system with a built in window interface. It also has a command line interface for people who prefer to type. Many people have switched from Macs to Amigas and vice versa because they prefered one over the other. Being a Mac person, you will be happier with an Amiga than with an IBM clone. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Geoffrey S. Mendelson | Computer Software Consulting | Dr. | | (215) 242-8712 | IBM Mainframes, Unix, PCs, Macs | Who | | uunet!gsm001!gsm | | Fan too!| ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | WANTED: PAL VIDEO TAPES (VHS or BETA) inquire within. | | Especialy "missing" Dr Who Episodes. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
blgardne@javelin.es.com (Blaine Gardner) (03/04/91)
tesst4@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Tobish E Smith) writes: >cost so much less. But then I used the thing. A feeling of amateurishness >pervaded the entire system: the keyboard, the mouse, the operating system, >the speed of the hard drive. After using it, I realized _why_ the Mac costs Yes, Workbench 1.3 and earlier leave a lot to be desired, but Workbench 2.0 is at least the equal of any GUI on the market. As to the hard drive speed, surely you jest! Unless someone managed to get a dog-slow HD and controller on the Amiga (Possible, there are some bad ones out there), the Amiga simply flies compare to the Mac's pokey hard drive speeds. With the Quantum and Wren drives I've got on my A3000 I get between 900 and 1000 KBytes per second transfer rates, through the file system. And I've measured 1.9 MEGABYTES/second on a Fujitsu 1.2 GB drive I had on loan. As this line of discussion is going to burst into unrestrained flames, I've set the followup-to comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, is there a similar Mac group? -- Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 blgardne@javelin.sim.es.com or ...dsd.es.com!javelin!blgardne DoD #0046 My other motorcycle is a Quadracer. BIX: blaine_g
ullevig@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Ullevig Zachary A) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar3.223546.12173@rice.edu> robbins@arcadien.rice.edu (Thomas Robbins) writes: >However, I'm disappointed with the entertainment/sound/video. I have >just been shocked at seeing a friend's Amiga 500, with its mere 7MHz >68000, for crying out loud, BLOW AWAY my 68030 Mac with the Amiga video >clippings, sound/music emulation, and GAMES. (The color version of >Falcon put my Mac version to shame!) And he had *hundreds* of cool >games compared to maybe 4 comparable Mac games. > >What's the deal? My friend says that it's because it has built-in >graphics co-processors. > >I'm actually considering buying one of these, to supplement my mac. >(Heaven help me--a machine with DOS!) IS IT WORTH IT? I would use it >only for games, but I worry at buying a machine that's already four >years old, what with computer equipment being obsolete even before the >ink on your check is dry. And heck, it's only about the price of a good >modem! > >Thanks in advance for your help. > Think about the target market for each machine. The Amiga computers are not designed to be great computers, but they are designed to take a big chunck out of the game market. They don't have much power, but they are given great graphics and sound to make for good game machines. Macs are too expensive to buy simply as a game computer, so less games are made for the macs and most mac users don't care that there are no graphics co-processors. ______________________________________________________________________________ | Zach Ullevig | "I like maxims that don't | | University of Colorado | encourage behavior modification." | | ullevig@tramp.colorado.edu | --Calvin | |____________________________________________________________________________|
fstuart@eng.auburn.edu (Frank Stuart) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar4.013846.26519@gsm001.uucp> gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: >>I'm actually considering buying one of these, to supplement my mac. >>(Heaven help me--a machine with DOS!) IS IT WORTH IT? > > >Amiga-Dos as it is called is not MS-DOS. It is a very good multitasing >operating system with a built in window interface. It also has a command >line interface for people who prefer to type. Many people have switched >from Macs to Amigas and vice versa because they prefered one over the other. > >Being a Mac person, you will be happier with an Amiga than with an IBM >clone. >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >| Geoffrey S. Mendelson | Computer Software Consulting | Dr. | >| (215) 242-8712 | IBM Mainframes, Unix, PCs, Macs | Who | >| uunet!gsm001!gsm | | Fan too!| >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >| WANTED: PAL VIDEO TAPES (VHS or BETA) inquire within. | >| Especialy "missing" Dr Who Episodes. | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't forget AMAXII and bridgeboards. These allow you to actually "be" either a Mac (running slightly faster than a Mac Plus) or an I*M clone (for those of you with a keen interest in spreadsheets ;>) --Frank fstuart@eng.auburn.edu
dbert@mole.ai.mit.edu (Douglas Siebert) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar4.013846.26519@gsm001.uucp> gsm@gsm001.uucp (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: >robbins@arcadien.rice.edu (Thomas Robbins) asks about the Amiga: >> >>What's the deal? My friend says that it's because it has built-in >>graphics co-processors. > >The Amiga has built into it graphics and sound coprocessors. They make an >Amiga with a 7 mhz 68000 equivalent to a 25mhz 68030/68882 Mac when it comes >to video games. In other applications, the machine is slightly faster than >a clasic Mac (or Mac Classic). I don't see why anyone thinks this is very unusual....after all, many of the same people who designed the Amiga and made it what it is today also designed the 8-bit Ataris. Both were designed with co-processors to take the workload off the main CPU, and both were designed to be great with both graphics and sound. Both similiarly have ignored getting their computers recognized as being intended for very "serious" use. I still have a working 8-bit Atari which I still used occasionally up until a couple months ago when I got my Mac. One of the main reasons I chose a Mac and not an Amiga w/Mac emulation is that I remembered that trying to find *anything* software or hardware wise for the Atari became all but impossible a couple years ago, while the old Apple IIs are still alive (though barely!) Macs have found their way into businesses and Universities, while Amigas, with few exceptions, have not. Ten years from now, when the Mac "Classic" is a box containing a 80MHz 68040, 64M RAM and a 4G HD, Amigas will probably sit down in basements like my 8-bit Atari does. With it's color graphics and co-processors to support it's 1.79MHz 6502, it can play better games than my Mac Plus can. But when I want to do serious work.... -- ________________________________________________________________________ Doug Siebert dbert@albert.ai.mit.edu MBA Student (2nd year) The University of Iowa
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (03/04/91)
This is all a very nice & civilized discussion, but could I ask everyone who feels obligated to follow up a favor? This thread is currently being cross-posted to *4* different groups, which IMHO is at least 2 too many. I'm setting followups of this post to comp.sys.amiga.advocacy (the Amiga group where this most properly belongs), and comp.sys.mac.misc. Please, please, pretty please with a 68040 on top, please set followups!! Thank you for your support. -- Dave Schaumann dave@cs.arizona.edu 'Dog Gang'! Where do they get off calling us the 'Dog Gang'? I'm beginning to think the party's over. I'm beginning to think maybe we don't need a dog. Or maybe we need a *new* dog. Or maybe we need a *cat*! - Amazing Stories
david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (03/04/91)
In article <98707@unix.cis.pitt.edu> tesst4@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Tobish E Smith) writes: >Wow. Bet you're going to get a lot of replies on this one! Anyway, my >roommate had an Amiga 2000 w/ 40 meg HD and I have a Mac II (8 meg RAM, >100 meg HD). My personal feelings after using his extensively is that >the Amgia just doesn't _feel_ right. I don't know how to quantify this. >Hardware-wise, I thought, "Wow, maybe I made a mistake," since the Amiga >cost so much less. But then I used the thing. A feeling of amateurishness >pervaded the entire system: the keyboard, the mouse, the operating system, >the speed of the hard drive. (stuff deleted) >Tob - tesst4@unix.cis.pitt.edu Although I am not a Mac fan, and not anti-Amiga-- I have to agree with this observation. The windowing system isnt as refined as other computers, especally on the low-res screens. The mouse is a bit clunky, and the new mouse that comes with the A3000UX is not much better. The software is a bit remanicent of the C-64 where everyone has their own way of doing things, with flashy logos and "cute" touches. All of these combine to give the Amiga a less-than-professional _feel_. And can leave the user with a negative opinion of the computer. There are many useful programs that are worthwhile (on the Amiga), now their programers should refine them. Workbench 2.0 is a nice start, but there is a long way to go. Notice how none of this says anything about ther usefullness of the computer. But just how it presents itself. Here is where the other computers have a big benifit-- like the Mac, Sparcs, NeXT, and even MS-Windows. These problems will improve over time, but it will go faster if it is publicly acknoledged. - David K -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | do { 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | . . . This is my system so I can say any damn thing I want! | } while( jones);
jmunkki@hila.hut.fi (Juri Munkki) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar3.223546.12173@rice.edu> robbins@arcadien.rice.edu (Thomas Robbins) writes: >However, I'm disappointed with the entertainment/sound/video. I have >just been shocked at seeing a friend's Amiga 500, with its mere 7MHz >68000, for crying out loud, BLOW AWAY my 68030 Mac with the Amiga video >clippings, sound/music emulation, and GAMES. > >What's the deal? My friend says that it's because it has built-in >graphics co-processors. This group has been through this discussion a few times, but I feel that it might be time to talk about these things again. The real bottleneck on our fast 68030-based machines is NuBUS. NuBUS video cards have an effective RAM access time of 300 ns. Compare this with 120 ns on the Mac II and 80 ns on the IIci. There is no way to get faster access to the video card, so changing a large area on the screen is quite hard to do without a coprocessor sitting on the video card. The Amiga is much more powerful for game graphics for several reasons. First, it has the grahics coprocessor chips that allow easy double buffering and quick access to bitmaps. Second, it doesn't use "chunky" pixel maps. The amiga has separate bitplanes for each bit in the pixel. If you want to change 32 pixels on the screen and you want to do it really quickly, you do not need to change more than 32 bits. Of course one has hardware sprites to work with too. While they are somewhat limited, they are just fine for most games. (Disclaimer: I've never programmed the Amiga. I was just _very_ interested when I first read about the Lorraine computer from Amiga Inc.) This doesn't mean that you can't develop good games for the Macintosh. It just means that if a games programmer wants to write games, he/she will more probably either choose the amiga, because it's so nice to work with or the PC, because you can make more money with PC games. >I'm actually considering buying one of these, to supplement my mac. >(Heaven help me--a machine with DOS!) IS IT WORTH IT? I would use it >only for games, but I worry at buying a machine that's already four >years old, what with computer equipment being obsolete even before the >ink on your check is dry. And heck, it's only about the price of a good >modem! A graphics accelerator will probably make your normal applications work faster, but most games will not benefit from it. People will certainly not start developing games just because you bought a graphics accelerator. Let me tell you about Project STORM. I said that you can't modify large areas on the screen. The Mac also comes in a large variety of screen sizes and depths. The most typical depth on color macs is probably 8 bits/pixel, so that's what STORM currently supports. The remaining problem is to limit the amount of data to move to and from the card and to make the game scale up nicely on a 19" high resolution monitor. The solution that was chosen for STORM was to use vector graphics. Vectors are thin lines, so only a small percentage of the pixels on the screen need modification even when a large amount of animation appears to be happening on the screen. Vector games are also extremely easy to scale to any screen size. Project STORM works equally well on a 320x200 screen (who knows, maybe there will be a PC or Amiga version with low resolution support) as on a two page 2048x1024 monitor. (A faster processor is recommended for large screens, but you can do very well without.) We are now very close to completion. The game does 20 frames of double buffered color animation. We are compatible with multifinder background tasks running or even under A/UX. All you need is an 8 bit video card. (IIci, si and LC internal video cards work too, of course.) We are going to look for a publisher for STORM, the first demo copy will go out on Friday. (To beta testers: don't worry, I'll send you a new version soon [tomorrow or Wednesday]. You haven't been forgotten.) It is quite possible that the animation toolkit that I wrote will be available as shareware (with a license agreement for commercial stuff). It's possible to support the Sega 3D glasses with the animation kit, so after STORM is ready, I'll start working on a game that allows you to use the glasses for stereo 3D. (I have a few ideas, but nothing concrete yet...maybe a tank game.) One more thing: If you want more games for the Mac, start buying what there is now. Remember to pay for shareware games too. By supporting Mac game developers, you will increase the odds of them writing more games. So, use your money for the games, not the accelerator. Macintosh graphics accelerators are very different from the amiga chips anyway. ____________________________________________________________________________ / Juri Munkki / Helsinki University of Technology / Wind / Project / / jmunkki@hut.fi / Computing Center Macintosh Support / Surf / STORM / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar4.022332.8904@csn.org> ullevig@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Ullevig Zachary A) writes:
Think about the target market for each machine. The Amiga computers are not
designed to be great computers, but they are designed to take a big chunck out
of the game market. They don't have much power, but they are given great
graphics and sound to make for good game machines. Macs are too expensive to
buy simply as a game computer, so less games are made for the macs and most
mac users don't care that there are no graphics co-processors.
Having dedicated hardware to handle graphics, sound, DMA, etc. is a
great idea. That's why Apple and several third party companies sell
graphic accelerators for the Mac. Apple even put a 6502 in the Mac
IIfx so that it can have DMA. Of course you need Unix to actually use
it. You would think that the Amiga would be more expensive than the
Mac since it has all that extra hardware.
Try thinking of other things you can do with great graphics besides
games. Multimedia ring a bell? Hypercard 2.0 might include direct
color support if the Mac had graphics hardware. MacroMind Director...
-Mike
BTW: I'm not an Amiga weenie, I'm a NeXT weenie. But you do have to
give credit where it is due.talso@leo.unm.edu (Daniel Talso) (03/04/91)
What the fuck is this? They guy already have a Mac, he wanted your opinions on Amiga as a game machine, that was all he wanted to know not something like my Mac is better than your Amiga, or My Amiga is faster than your Mac!!!!
raible@cbmvax.commodore.com (Bob Raible - LSI Design) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar4.030134.7183@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dbert@mole.ai.mit.edu (Douglas Siebert) writes: > >I don't see why anyone thinks this is very unusual....after all, many of the >same people who designed the Amiga and made it what it is today also >designed the 8-bit Ataris. Both were designed with co-processors to take >the workload off the main CPU, and both were designed to be great with both >graphics and sound. Both similiarly have ignored getting their computers >recognized as being intended for very "serious" use. I still have a working >8-bit Atari which I still used occasionally up until a couple months ago when >I got my Mac. One of the main reasons I chose a Mac and not an Amiga w/Mac >emulation is that I remembered that trying to find *anything* software or >hardware wise for the Atari became all but impossible a couple years ago, >while the old Apple IIs are still alive (though barely!) Macs have found their >way into businesses and Universities, while Amigas, with few exceptions, >have not. > In fact Jay Miner (former Atari guru) and Co. designed the Amiga to be the ultimate game machine. It wasn't until CBM came along that the decision was made to make a personal computer out of it. Soon afterwards it got kinda silly with certain influential upper management types deciding to take the Amiga upscale. The result was a marketing fiasco, the A1000. This was to some extent corrected by the subsequent design and release of the A500 and A2000. Though both machine shared almost identical guts, they did a better job of addressing the needs of two different market segments. Oh yeah, before I get flamed by the 150K diehard A1000 fans out there, I think the A1000 is as neat as you all do. I just feel it was marketed all wrong. The A500 did much better in the marketplace and the revenue it has produced has in large part made it possible for us to keep pumping out new high end machines. It also makes it financially feasible for the software developers to write all kinds of really neat game software. Also since the architecture has been around for five years they have gotten really sophisticated about wringing out the maximum performance out of our hardware. I worked for TI consumer before I joined Commodore, and I've seen this phenomenon occur with the 99/4 as well as CBM's C64. It takes a while for the game writers to write good code on new hardware and figure out the shortcuts. >________________________________________________________________________ >Doug Siebert dbert@albert.ai.mit.edu >MBA Student (2nd year) >The University of Iowa
mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) (03/04/91)
In article <98707@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, tesst4@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Tobish E Smith) writes: [stuff about Amiga HD's being as slow as Mac's floppy deleted] I have the same feeling, but just the opposite! When I use the Mac at school, I am amazed at how slow it is! It seems like my amiga's floppies are as fast as the Mac's hard drives! > hard drive seemed scarcely faster than my floppies. We couldn't even > install most games on the hard drive due to the copy-protection! Battle I agree with you on the CP, it's insane but with the number of pirate dirtbags out there, some people go to extremes! > Amiga itself. The hardware inside is very nice. However, almost all aspects > of the user interface (hardware and software), coupled with the slow drives, Your roomy must have had a slow controller and/or HD because the Amiga beats the pants off of Mac when it comes to HD speed. > if the _standard_ screen resolution ever evolves beyond 320X200) I think the You really should get your facts straight and try to nail down what you mean by "standard", because all of my apps run in 640*200 default, unless I set them to 640*400. There are 4 standard resolutions - 320*200, 320*400,640*200 640*400, not to mention the overscan modes, but then I bet you didn't know that. > Tob > tesst4@unix.cis.pitt.edu Matt Pierce
mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar4.022332.8904@csn.org>, ullevig@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Ullevig Zachary A) writes: > In article <1991Mar3.223546.12173@rice.edu> robbins@arcadien.rice.edu (Thomas Robbins) writes: [stuff about how friends A500 w/ 68000 blows away own MacII in games deleteed.] > > Think about the target market for each machine. The Amiga computers are not > designed to be great computers, but they are designed to take a big chunck out > of the game market. They don't have much power, but they are given great > graphics and sound to make for good game machines. Macs are too expensive to > buy simply as a game computer, so less games are made for the macs and most > mac users don't care that there are no graphics co-processors. It's ignorant statements made by ignorant bozo's like the one above that get flame wars going, so let me oblige you...bozo... The amiga runs the same CPUs as the Macs, so there is no power lacking there. With the coprocessors working in parrallel with the cpu, it's like two people working on a job instead of one. Now you can't tell me that you by your little ol' lonesome can stack a truck of hay faster than me and my able bodied brother, so don't go tellin' me that your computer can draw stuff, access drives, access comunication ports, or what have you faster than my computer with multiple processors on the job. Now what do you think that great game playing machines have to be to be real fun??? They got to have performance, the more the better!! If your computer can't perform as well at games, while it's running a better CPU, you tell me - which machine is lacking in the power area??? I'll give you a hint - it starts with M, and its name is part of the name of a big ol' greasey burger you can get at a place that also starts with an 'M'. Got that.....bozo Oh, here's the smiley so that I don't get flamed :^) > ______________________________________________________________________________ > | Zach Ullevig | "I like maxims that don't | > | University of Colorado | encourage behavior modification." | > | ullevig@tramp.colorado.edu | --Calvin | > |____________________________________________________________________________|
jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) (03/04/91)
In article <98707@unix.cis.pitt.edu> tesst4@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Tobish E Smith) writes: >Wow. Bet you're going to get a lot of replies on this one! Anyway, my >roommate had an Amiga 2000 w/ 40 meg HD and I have a Mac II (8 meg RAM, >100 meg HD). My personal feelings after using his extensively is that >the Amgia just doesn't _feel_ right. I don't know how to quantify this. You are welcomed to this opinion. That's why we have the "BIG THREE" of the personal computers -- Apple, Commodore, and IBM. However, my personal feelings are how can someone feel comfortable with a machine that doesn't have a CLI or arrow keys? >Hardware-wise, I thought, "Wow, maybe I made a mistake," since the Amiga >cost so much less. But then I used the thing. A feeling of amateurishness >pervaded the entire system: the keyboard, the mouse, the operating system, >the speed of the hard drive. I use the "Big Three" extensively at home and at work. I don't see the "amateurishness" in any of the three you've mentioned. The keyboard is solid enough for me to maintain a sustained typing speed of 80 CPS. The mouse tracks quite well, and having two buttons (or the option of three) allows more choices in a GUI (especially X-Windows.) And I have to call you out on your insult of the OS. The Amiga is the only PC with a native real-time multitasking pre-emptive OS. There is hardly anything amateurish about it, especially with the power of the message ports within Intuition. Let's take the hardware a step further. Rather than burdening the CPU with maintaining the display, a co-processor generates the graphics. Want to do animation on a Mac? Better have an 030, else you'll have time to run to the corner store for some IBC rootbeer. :) >After using it, I realized _why_ the Mac costs so much more. Now wait a minute. The Mac series could be sold for *MUCH* less. It has simply been Apple's policy since the Apple II to charge a high profit. Come on, the Apple //e still lists for over $800, and it's a highly limited 8bit micro. For that price, one can purchase a 286 clone or an Amiga 500. (Not to mention almost puchasing a Mac Classic.) >Indeed, this seems like a >prime use for Amigas Sure, hacking is one of the uses on an Amiga. But it's not the only. It's *the* machine for desktop video, especially with the advent of the Video Toaster. It is also the most efficient system for running a multi-line BBS (due to it's native OS.) The Amiga does a pretty damn good job at running System V R4 as well. >, based on the plethora of swollen-ego, flashy-graphics >pirates' intros to crcked games ("KRACKED BY THE MUTILATOR!!!!!" in zillions >of colors flashing on the screen while some rockin' tune blasts out of the >speakers). Tich Tich. I've seen pirated cracked games on the Mac with "flashy screens" as well. >And now, I suppose, I'm finally getting to the point of the >posting, namely, should you get one for games use? I couldn't answer this, since I use my Amiga for running a BBS and developing C code at the same time. >The downsides are 1. the infuriatingly slow disk drives, This is the one point I'll grant you. The floppies are slow, although that's been alleviated under AmigaDOS 2.0 with the fast filing system on floppies. >and 2. the copy protection on _everything_. Wrongo. None of the software I run is copy protected. >It's not bad enough that Steve's >hard drive seemed scarcely faster than my floppies. Sounds like Steve didn't have his system set up correctly. I get 820 kilobytes per second transfer rates on my HD. A friend gets 1.5 MB/second on his, but then he has 700 meg HDs opposed to my 40 and 105 meggers. >We couldn't even >install most games on the hard drive due to the copy-protection! Battle >Squadron, a great game, took minutes to start a new game after you died. >Got you pretty grumpy real quick. If you want to play adventures or RPGs >(Drakken is wonderful!), and you can live with the miserable i/o speed, >sure, get an Amiga. Oh, so now you are only moaning about the *GAMES* being copy protected. Big deal. I could care less about the games. >In conclusion, I don't want to be too critical of the >Amiga itself. The hardware inside is very nice. However, almost all aspects >of the user interface (hardware and software), coupled with the slow drives, >really turned me off on the machine for now. If these things improve (and >if the _standard_ screen resolution ever evolves beyond 320X200) I think the >Amiga will be a great machine. Oh yeah. The users should start being >tres bitchy like Mac users about copy protection. The amount of CP in the >Amiga world is staggering. Perhaps you ought to try another round with someone else's Amiga. Oh, Steve might want to take his machine in. I regularly run mine in 660x540 mode. -- John M. Adams --****-- Professional Student /// Internet: jma@reef.cis.ufl.edu Genie: vlad /// Only the Amiga Sysop of The Beachside, Amiga BBS, Paragon 2.0858 \\V// Makes it Possible Fido Net 1:3612/557. 904-492-2305 (Florida) \X/
jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar4.022332.8904@csn.org> ullevig@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Ullevig Zachary A) writes: > >Think about the target market for each machine. The Amiga computers are not >designed to be great computers, but they are designed to take a big chunck out >of the game market. They don't have much power, but they are given great >graphics and sound to make for good game machines. Macs are too expensive to >buy simply as a game computer, so less games are made for the macs and most >mac users don't care that there are no graphics co-processors. The Amiga, with it's open architecture, is made to be anything one makes of it. How can you say they don't have much power what with the Agnus, Paula and Denice custom DMA co-processors. The Amiga 3000 can hardly be called low power with it's 030 and 882. If that's not fast enough, an 030 clocked at 50MHz is available for the 2000 series and the 3000 series has a slot waiting for the 040. It costs half as much to run a 3000UX (System V R4) vs. a IIFX with A-UX 2.0. And if the Mac had a graphics co-processor, EVERY user would notice since everything on the Mac is dependent on the graphics! Gawd, I should have known it would be a mistake subscribing to the Mac groups. All I'm reading are incorrect statements about the Amiga. Equipiping an Amiga 2000 with an 030 card costs a lot less than an 0 > > >______________________________________________________________________________ >| Zach Ullevig | "I like maxims that don't | >| University of Colorado | encourage behavior modification." | >| ullevig@tramp.colorado.edu | --Calvin | >|____________________________________________________________________________| -- John M. Adams --****-- Professional Student /// Internet: jma@reef.cis.ufl.edu Genie: vlad /// Only the Amiga Sysop of The Beachside, Amiga BBS, Paragon 2.0858 \\V// Makes it Possible Fido Net 1:3612/557. 904-492-2305 (Florida) \X/
felixh@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu (Felix Hack) (03/04/91)
Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: /etc/organization Keywords: Well, at the risk of ignoring all these flames and things, let me just point out that last year a friend of mine, who has a Mac SE, saw my Amiga 500, was impressed, very impressed, and then bought a 500 for himself. He uses it only for games, but we can't fault him too much, can we? He's not a computer hacker, nor is he interested in learning another OS after the Mac's (I know, I know, the Mac is for idiots, oops, no it's the most elegant thing around, no WB 2.0 is, is not, is too . . . .) Put simply, if you can get a good price, buy an Amiga 500. You'll like it a lot.
amhartma@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Andy Hartman - AmigaMan) (03/05/91)
God, I said that I wouldn't get into this... In article <1991Mar4.030134.7183@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dbert@mole.ai.mit.edu (Douglas Siebert) writes: >I don't see why anyone thinks this is very unusual....after all, many of the >same people who designed the Amiga and made it what it is today also >designed the 8-bit Ataris. Both were designed with co-processors to take >the workload off the main CPU, and both were designed to be great with both >graphics and sound. Both similiarly have ignored getting their computers >recognized as being intended for very "serious" use. I still have a working >8-bit Atari which I still used occasionally up until a couple months ago when >I got my Mac. One of the main reasons I chose a Mac and not an Amiga w/Mac >emulation is that I remembered that trying to find *anything* software or >hardware wise for the Atari became all but impossible a couple years ago, >while the old Apple IIs are still alive (though barely!) Macs have found their >way into businesses and Universities, while Amigas, with few exceptions, >have not. Kind of agree on this, but not really. The Amiga and the Mac both have different places in business. The Mac is used by companies as a PC while the Amiga is used by universities as a UNIX box and by cable companies to control what you see on TV. Each has their place, but they are different. >Ten years from now, when the Mac "Classic" is a box containing a 80MHz >68040, 64M RAM and a 4G HD, Amigas will probably sit down in basements >like my 8-bit Atari does. With it's color graphics and co-processors to >support it's 1.79MHz 6502, it can play better games than my Mac Plus can. >But when I want to do serious work.... Boy, do I dare respond to this?!? YES! Do you really think that Apple is going to spend their money on upgrading the classic? I'm sure that that statement was meant in jest, but c'mon... This just shows the kind of infantile response as to a question of their computer's adequacy. As an reader of the Amiga boards, I've changed the distribution to the two main groups (c.s.a.m, and c.s.m.m) and redirected followups to comp.sys.amiga.advocacy. I would appreciate other posters doing the same. >Doug Siebert dbert@albert.ai.mit.edu AMH -- * Andy Hartman | I'd deny half of this crap anyway!| "Somedays, you just * Indiana University | amhartma@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | can't get rid of a * // Amiga Man | AMHARTMA@rose.ucs.indiana.edu | bomb!" * \X/ At Large! | or just "Hey putz!" | - Batman (original)
maxc1553@ucselx.sdsu.edu (InnerTangent - human1) (03/05/91)
I noticed that the mac people in this discussion always compare their more expansive equipments with amiga 500. Why don't you mac-heads be fair for a change and compare the still-more- expansive mac plus with A500; and compare A3000 with your high-end-macs. Personally, I know that I prefer A500. My reasons are: I like graphics, music, and awsome demos/games. They are pleasant to watch/hear, and fun to play. I believe that my A500 is good/fair in almost everything. and for you business-only macintosher types, let me point out that Business if fine, but it's not everything. I uses my Amiga500 at home, as a 'Personal Computer'. a personal computer is NOT only a business computer. It should be personal enough to entertain you, please you, help you remember, help your school work, and of course, help you simplify your business work. My Macintosh emulator let me do almost everything a overpriced-macSE can do, with some inconvience (like loading up the emulator first). But it will do just fine. I use the emulator mainly for school work - LightSpeed Pascal, LightSpeed C. (But I feel so boxed-in when the emulator is running - I missed the flexabilities of amiga's multitasking environment. I am sorry that fellow mac'ers can't share this, because multifinder is a joke - not meant as an insult) I'm sure you must have a reason for owning your computer. We all do. But, please make sure you are fair in your arguments. And, learn enough about the other computer before you immaturely comment about it. Thank you. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain. + +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + (*) Maxc1553@ucselx.sdsu.edu (*) Billy - InnerTangent - Human1 +
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/05/91)
In article <98707@unix.cis.pitt.edu> tesst4@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Tobish E Smith) writes: >Wow. Bet you're going to get a lot of replies on this one! Anyway, my >roommate had an Amiga 2000 w/ 40 meg HD and I have a Mac II (8 meg RAM, >100 meg HD). My personal feelings after using his extensively is that >the Amgia just doesn't _feel_ right. I don't know how to quantify this. >Hardware-wise, I thought, "Wow, maybe I made a mistake," since the Amiga >cost so much less. But then I used the thing. A feeling of amateurishness >pervaded the entire system: the keyboard, the mouse, the operating system, >the speed of the hard drive. After using it, I realized _why_ the Mac costs >so much more. I would have killed for this machine when I was in high school, The person may have bought a very cheap 40MB HD, but the one that Commodore sells is a 19ms Quantum and the speed is excellent. Depending on how old the HD/controller of your roommate's was, or cheap, that could've affected it. The mouse and keyboard are personally taste, but a lot of people like them and a lot of people don't. Those are things that just can't satisfy everyone. Too personal. As to the OS, 2.0 has been out on 3000s and for developers since last summer and should be burned into rom for all Amigas this spring. -- Ethan Upon leaving office, Ronald Reagan began renting an office in the penthouse of the Fox Plaza, the Los Angeles high-rise used as the location for the terrorist movie "Die Hard".
kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) (03/05/91)
In article <1991Mar4.184750.27373@ucselx.sdsu.edu> maxc1553@ucselx.sdsu.edu (InnerTangent - human1) writes: >I noticed that the mac people in this discussion always compare their more >expansive equipments with amiga 500. > >Why don't you mac-heads be fair for a change and compare the still-more- >expansive mac plus with A500; and compare A3000 with your high-end-macs. Because we mac-heads are talking about the Amiga 500 as a game machine. It's great for games -- specifically for the reasons stated. The built-in coprocessors make graphics and sound fly. I only wish that Apple would do the same for the mac. Even a simple bit-blitter in hardward would enable the mac to do some cool games. The demo of OIDS comes as close as I've seen to decent annimation on the mac. Ken -- Ken Hancock | INTERNET: kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Isle Systems | Compuserve: >INTERNET:kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Macintosh Consulting | AOL: KHancock | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, | your opinions are yours. Simple, isn't it?
dsherif@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Darin D Sheriff) (03/05/91)
> >Think about the target market for each machine. The Amiga computers are not >designed to be great computers, but they are designed to take a big chunck out Come again??!! Are you for real? Could you explain how you arrived at your conclusion? >of the game market. They don't have much power, but they are given great >graphics and sound to make for good game machines. Macs are too expensive to Obviously an opinion based on little or no knowledge of the subject at hand. As for 'game machines'. If people wants to make games for these machines becuase their built in goodies makes them ideal for games, that's their affair. The point I am trying to make is that their talents for graphics and sounds can be, and are used for other purposes other than games. >buy simply as a game computer, so less games are made for the macs and most >mac users don't care that there are no graphics co-processors. This is an assumption on your part. > >______________________________________________________________________________ >| Zach Ullevig | "I like maxims that don't | >| University of Colorado | encourage behavior modification." | >| ullevig@tramp.colorado.edu | --Calvin | >|____________________________________________________________________________| A list of all known amigas out there for those not in the know. Commodore makes their amigas in several flavors, Amiga 1000. Discontinued but very usable. (I still have and use one) Amiga 500 (made for the average user in mind, though many professionals use them as well. Amiga 2000 For the professional though many induviduals use them also. Amiga 2500 and Amiga 3000 and Amiga 3000UX - These are very powerfull machines comparable to the Mac II line. There are many powerfull pieces of software and hardware that make use of these machines' capabilities. Not that everything in Amigaland is a bed of roses; its not, but in no respect are these machines inferior. So my misguided friend, do some research before you post. -- Darin Sheriff; Amiga 1000 owner. dsherif@csserv2.ic.sunysb.edu People don't pirate software. Computers pirate software. Disclaimer: It wasn't me. It was Chucky. He did it.
t22918@ursa.calvin.edu (Matt Ranney) (03/05/91)
maxc1553@ucselx.sdsu.edu (InnerTangent - human1) writes: >I'm sure you must have a reason for owning your computer. We all do. >But, please make sure you are fair in your arguments. And, learn enough >about the other computer before you immaturely comment about it. >Thank you. Thank _you_ This is a voice of reason that we've all been in need of. "Micro Bashing" as it's been called, has taken place for quite a while, among several different computers. The fact is: different computers are for different things. If you want to you use your computer for something, and an IBM is the best computer to do the job, by all means, go buy a clone. For what I do, the Amiga is the best computer. (Yes, that does include alot of gaming and music qriting/listening) -- Matt Ranney mranney@wybbs.mi.org t22918@ursa.calvin.edu mranney@mole.ai.mit.edu (or any other FSF machine)
farren@sat.com (Michael J. Farren) (03/05/91)
robbins@arcadien.rice.edu writes: >What's the deal? My friend says that it's because it has built-in >graphics co-processors. It's partly that, and partly the fact that there hasn't been a great effort to do whiz-bang games for the Mac for the simple reason that they do not sell. Great sales figures for the Mac, for a game, are anything above 5,000 copies. A good Amiga game will sell that many copies in a week. The market for games for the Mac, for many reasons, is very limited compared to that for the Amiga - and the biggest reason is sheer cost. Yeah, your IIsi _could_ run games like "Lemmings" just fine - but how many of them are there out there, and how many of _those_ will buy a game? >I'm actually considering buying one of these, to supplement my mac. >(Heaven help me--a machine with DOS!) IS IT WORTH IT? I would use it >only for games, but I worry at buying a machine that's already four >years old, what with computer equipment being obsolete even before the >ink on your check is dry. And heck, it's only about the price of a good >modem! All the more reason to buy one - and don't be too surprised if, once you have your hands on it, you find that it does a lot of things better than the Mac does - as well as not doing a lot of things as well. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael J. Farren farren@sat.com | | He's moody, but he's cute. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
farren@sat.com (Michael J. Farren) (03/05/91)
raible@cbmvax.commodore.com writes: >In fact Jay Miner (former Atari guru) and Co. designed the Amiga to be >the ultimate game machine. It wasn't until CBM came along that the >decision was made to make a personal computer out of it. Oy vey! Perhaps Commodore should print a little pamphlet for its employees, with a little history in it... The Amiga was evolved into a personal computer some time before Commodore ever got their hands on it. I have in my possession a complete set of Amiga documentation from 1983-1984, when Amiga, Inc. was simply that, and it shows an Amiga with a keyboard, 5-1/4" floppy drive, memory expansion slot (on the top of the case, so that expansion modules could be "stacked"), and several other attributes of a personal computer. While it might have started out as a simple game machine, it was much more than that before the advent of CBM. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael J. Farren farren@sat.com | | He's moody, but he's cute. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
raible@cbmvax.commodore.com (Bob Raible - LSI Design) (03/05/91)
In article <1991Mar05.010601.18832@sat.com> farren@sat.com (Michael J. Farren) writes: >raible@cbmvax.commodore.com writes: >>In fact Jay Miner (former Atari guru) and Co. designed the Amiga to be >>the ultimate game machine. It wasn't until CBM came along that the >>decision was made to make a personal computer out of it. > >Oy vey! Perhaps Commodore should print a little pamphlet for its employees, >with a little history in it... > >The Amiga was evolved into a personal computer some time before Commodore >ever got their hands on it. I have in my possession a complete set of Amiga >documentation from 1983-1984, when Amiga, Inc. was simply that, and it shows >an Amiga with a keyboard, 5-1/4" floppy drive, memory expansion slot (on >the top of the case, so that expansion modules could be "stacked"), and >several other attributes of a personal computer. While it might have >started out as a simple game machine, it was much more than that before >the advent of CBM. >-- >+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >| Michael J. Farren farren@sat.com | >| He's moody, but he's cute. | >+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Vat do you vant already, good chips or good history? Obviously there are a few gaps in my education, and the metamorphosis started earlier than I had related. All I learned about the early history of Amiga & Co. was anecdotal, gleaned from conversations with BArt,Dale etal. As far as CBM supplying history lessons, the situatin was quite the opposite with a news blackout imposed on all CBM employees who were not directly involved in the project. Copies of the Lorrine spec had serial numbers on them and were tightly controlled. It was like working for the military. Certainly not the good old days from my perspective.
nwickham@carina.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (03/05/91)
Geese ....I don't know how anyone could argue that Mac is better than Amiga
when an Amiga can emulate (nearly perfectly) a Mac. I heard just today that
the new AMax is going to support color and the new system 5 (?) for Mac. I
also tested today two machines side by side ...Amiga (68000) ...Mac (68020) on
how fast they would pop up a window and the Amiga was more than twice as fast.
Apple is not what it was. It is now a bunch of market oriented money grubbing
fast timers who bought a name. I think all the BS about Mac is simply a
testement to the power of mass subliminal advertising and the gulability of
american consumers. I too am tired of hearing just how damn much more
"prfessional" Mac is or how Mac just ..."feels" better. So why don't
you Mackers just keep your unresolved psychosexual feelings to your selves!
You can keep buying Mac and we will keep buying Amiga and will put our savings
into Apple stock.
NCW
nwickham@carina.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (03/05/91)
In article <1991Mar05.070007.11494@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@carina.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >the new AMax is going to support color and the new system 5 (?) for Mac. I > >also tested today two machines side by side ...Amiga (68000) ...Mac (68020) on > >how fast they would pop up a window and the Amiga was more than twice as fast. > ...I didn't mention that is was the same Mac windows since the Amiga was under the Amax emulator poping up the windows twice as fast. > > NCW >
darkstar@wam.umd.edu (Martin Walser) (03/06/91)
In article <1991Mar05.070007.11494@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@carina.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >Geese ....I don't know how anyone could argue that Mac is better than Amiga >when an Amiga can emulate (nearly perfectly) a Mac. I heard just today that >the new AMax is going to support color and the new system 5 (?) for Mac. I >also tested today two machines side by side ...Amiga (68000) ...Mac (68020) on >how fast they would pop up a window and the Amiga was more than twice as fast. >Apple is not what it was. It is now a bunch of market oriented money grubbing >fast timers who bought a name. I think all the BS about Mac is simply a >testement to the power of mass subliminal advertising and the gulability of >american consumers. I too am tired of hearing just how damn much more >"prfessional" Mac is or how Mac just ..."feels" better. So why don't >you Mackers just keep your unresolved psychosexual feelings to your selves! >You can keep buying Mac and we will keep buying Amiga and will put our savings >into Apple stock. > NCW I was going to stay out of this stupid flame war, but now I must vent. I don't give a flying F$#@ whose damned machine is better. I don't care if the Amiga has AMAX or if it will support system7 or if it's faster or if a pink and green elephant comes free with every purchase! KEEP IT OUT OF MY NEWSGROUPS!!! I like my Mac... You may like your Amiga. FINE! I don't give a sh*t. But don't you rag on my machine because I chose it for my needs. I looked at both Macs and Amigas when I went to buy. I chose Mac. I like it. End of statement. You chose Amiga. You like it. Fine. But don't give me any of this crap about unresolved psychosexual feelings because of the computer I chose. You obviously are hypocritical because you are doing the same thing back. (i.e.- "My computer is better than yours... Nyah! Nyah!"). Take it somewhere else... I subscribe to the Mac groups to read about things for my MAC. So quit using up MY bandwidth. I don't mind intelligent debate about the usefulness of certain hardware additions or deficiencies, but keep the damn opinions out of it. And this isn't just directed at the Amiga people. Some of you Mac people are no better. If you want to scream all day at each other about how your computer is better, TAKE IT TO EMAIL. <steps off soapbox> Mart <darkstar@cscwam.umd.edu>
elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) (03/06/91)
From article <19467@cbmvax.commodore.com>, by raible@cbmvax.commodore.com (Bob Raible - LSI Design): > In fact Jay Miner (former Atari guru) and Co. designed the Amiga to be > the ultimate game machine. It wasn't until CBM came along that the > decision was made to make a personal computer out of it. Soon afterwards Wrongo. One of the original Amiga guys wrote a story about the history of Amiga Corporation (RIP). A bunch of doctors wanted to build a game machine, and hired Miner & friends to do it. Then the bottom dropped out of the game machine market, around '83 or so. So then they re-worked it into a personal computer. Jerry Pournelle saw one of the original prototypes, which was a bunch of TTL stuffed onto a couple of huge circuit boards and kludged onto a Sage Microsystems 68000-based machine's bus, & wrote about it in Byte in '84 or so. This was long before Commodore came into the picture. Commodore's contribution was to force the developers to release it to the public before the OS was finished. Commodore was a bit strapped for cash, at the time, and there were rumors of bankruptcy. Thus the popular conception that Amigas are unreliable... in the early days, they WERE. As you'd suspect, given that the developers told Commodore that they'd need six more months and Commodore gave them two, releasing the code un-finished. > deciding to take the Amiga upscale. The result was a marketing fiasco, > the A1000. This was to some extent corrected by the subsequent design Too true. I flamed Commodore myself back then, saying that if they expected to be taken seriously with no hard drive interface, they were deluding themselves. A machine with no hard drive interface is a game machine. Period. Of course Commodore pointed to Tecmar, but Tecmar never shipped. It was over ten months before hard drive interfaces started shipping in quantity for the Amiga. And now the problem in the Amiga hard drive interface market is glut :-). (I can think of over a dozen SCSI interfaces, ranging from awefully slow programmed I/O capable of maybe 200K/second, to the super-fast DMA designs capable of 2MB/sec or more). -- Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg Looking for a job... tips, leads appreciated... inquire within...
ccastcr@prism.gatech.EDU (Russo, Chris A.) (03/06/91)
robbins@arcadien.rice.edu (Thomas Robbins) writes: >First of all, this is not intended to start a flame-war, merely some >observations I've noted with a request for informative comments. Not intended to start a flame war, but it definitely will. It's been discussed before. >I have been a die-hard Macintosh user for five years now, leading I'm a die hard Mac user too, doesn't mean it's untouchable, tho. >However, I'm disappointed with the entertainment/sound/video. I have >just been shocked at seeing a friend's Amiga 500, with its mere 7MHz >68000, for crying out loud, BLOW AWAY my 68030 Mac with the Amiga video >clippings, sound/music emulation, and GAMES. (The color version of >Falcon put my Mac version to shame!) And he had *hundreds* of cool >games compared to maybe 4 comparable Mac games. There are no comparable Mac games. Sadly, that's the total truth. >What's the deal? My friend says that it's because it has built-in >graphics co-processors. That's it exactly. Its graphics coprocessor does all of the memory moves required to animate. The Mac on the other hand, uses its cpu for _EACH_ cryin' out loud memory move. >I'm actually considering buying one of these, to supplement my mac. >(Heaven help me--a machine with DOS!) IS IT WORTH IT? I would use it >only for games, but I worry at buying a machine that's already four >years old, what with computer equipment being obsolete even before the >ink on your check is dry. And heck, it's only about the price of a good >modem! Nah, buy one of the newer game systems like Genesis or Turbografx. They're pretty awesome too. Or better yet, wait until the Super Nintendo comes out later this year. I think it's called Super Famicom now. Don't despair too much, tho. I bet you Apple puts a graphics coprocessor in one of their machines before the turn of the century. -- Russo, Chris A. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!ccastcr Internet: ccastcr@prism.gatech.edu
rubin@ganymede.cis.ohio-state.edu (daniel j rubin) (03/06/91)
There is no comparison between the Amiga and the Mac when it comes to games. The graphics power on the Amiga is overwhelming. I love the Mac for its user friendliness and its ability to support super-simple menu and button type screens so the user can relate to the computer. The Mac is way to slow to support any kind of serious fast-paced graphic programs, there is so much overhead going on to support the idea that Apple has to make all future machines compatible with old ones ect.... For instance, there is no way to move the screen memory pointer on the Mac, the area in memory used for the screen is fixed (ok, mabey earlier versions had two screen memory areas, but that certainly was not too versital anyway). You have to be able to do tricks and do things that are not normal to create good graphics and hence good games. I remember programming on the Atari 8-bits and using the screen memory pointers to scroll at fast speeds even though the machine itself was not that fast, the same thing goes with VBlank interrupts, altering the display list, being able to turn off the screen and rotate colors by messing with memory registers. All of this stuff made it possible to make hi-speed, relitivly good graphics on a slooowwww computer. The Mac, on the other hand, is a faster computer, but not nearly fast enough to do all that without the graphics co-processor chips and those neat little tricks that you need to be able to play on the computer itself. Apple does not want you to touch the computer guts without interfaces, which is a great idea to support the purpose of the Mac. If I was buying a computer for graphics, games are just one little part of all the graphics applications out there, I would most certainly buy a Amiga. - Dan Rubin
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (03/06/91)
Yep, ...I'm sorry that I didn't realize that I was posting to any Mac groupes.
I thought I was responding only to the comp.sys.amiga.games and to Mac usrers
posting to it. I've only been reading the News sinc January and should have
been a little more sure of what I was doing before I got all "critical".
NCWbruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) (03/06/91)
In article <1991Mar4.022332.8904@csn.org> ullevig@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Ullevig Zachary A) writes: >Think about the target market for each machine. The Amiga computers are not >designed to be great computers, but they are designed to take a big chunck out >of the game market. They don't have much power, but they are given great >graphics and sound to make for good game machines. Macs are too expensive to >buy simply as a game computer, so less games are made for the macs and most >mac users don't care that there are no graphics co-processors. I'll match my Amiga 3000 against any MacII except the MACIIfx anyday. It's faster, and cheaper. The only drawback is that there's a lot more business oriented software for the Mac than the Amiga. On the other hand, since I can't afford much software for the Amiga, I'd be able afford much less for the Mac, since the Mac commercial software tends to be pricier. -- bruce@zuhause.mn.org
bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) (03/06/91)
In article <1991Mar4.030134.7183@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> dbert@mole.ai.mit.edu (Douglas Siebert) writes: >Ten years from now, when the Mac "Classic" is a box containing a 80MHz >68040, 64M RAM and a 4G HD, Amigas will probably sit down in basements >like my 8-bit Atari does. With it's color graphics and co-processors to >support it's 1.79MHz 6502, it can play better games than my Mac Plus can. >But when I want to do serious work.... Ten years from now, the Amiga 500 equivalent will probably be a 80 MHz 68040, etc., but sells for two-thirds the price of the Mac. Today's stock Amiga 3000 contains a 25 MHz 68030+68882 FPU (extra on most MacIIs), 2 Mbytes RAM (expandable to 18 Mbytes on the motherboard), 50 Mbytes SCSI HD, for less than the cost of a slower MacII without an FPU. The Amiga 3000 was designed so one can add a 68040 card to the machine. There are several important applications where the ones available for the Amiga pale in comparison to the Mac apps (spreadsheets, for example), there are others like WP/DTP where the Amiga ones are just as good, and are cheaper. As to doing serious work on the Mac, its lack of a command line interface makes it painful to do anything that can and should be automated. bruce@zuhause.mn.org
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (03/06/91)
farren@sat.com (Michael J. Farren) writes: >raible@cbmvax.commodore.com writes: >>In fact Jay Miner (former Atari guru) and Co. designed the Amiga to be >>the ultimate game machine. It wasn't until CBM came along that the >>decision was made to make a personal computer out of it. > >Oy vey! Perhaps Commodore should print a little pamphlet for its employees, I agree. I have a transcription of a lecture given by RJ Mical (one of the founders of the Amiga) that was circulated several times on the net. he claims that the Amiga was ALWAYS intended to be a killer computer, however they had to convince the original investors it was going to be a game machine in order to get cash out of them. >with a little history in it... > >The Amiga was evolved into a personal computer some time before Commodore >ever got their hands on it. I have in my possession a complete set of Amiga >documentation from 1983-1984, when Amiga, Inc. was simply that, and it shows >an Amiga with a keyboard, 5-1/4" floppy drive, memory expansion slot (on >the top of the case, so that expansion modules could be "stacked"), and >several other attributes of a personal computer. While it might have >started out as a simple game machine, it was much more than that before >the advent of CBM. >-- >+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >| Michael J. Farren farren@sat.com | >| He's moody, but he's cute. | >+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org
tope@enea.se (Tommy Petersson) (03/06/91)
In article <27263@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) writes: >In article <1991Mar4.022332.8904@csn.org> ullevig@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Ullevig Zachary A) writes: (I don't really care) COMP.SYS.AMIGA.ADVOCACY! Yes, take it to comp.sys.amiga.advocacy!
carter@cat27.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) (03/07/91)
My computer comes with a mouse to kill you know, I just got done gutting the thing, kinda a mess but it works neato, and its got a soft coat too. None of your computers have this I bet. Mine is better..ca cause its got a real mouse, not a fake one and aaand its a white mouse too, I named him George, and even though I had to kill George, I smashed his brains before I gutted him, he is still kinda cute in a Frankenstein sort of way.. So thats why I bought my Brand X computer. There. --Greggy
elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) (03/07/91)
From article <23550@hydra.gatech.EDU>, by ccastcr@prism.gatech.EDU (Russo, Chris A.): > robbins@arcadien.rice.edu (Thomas Robbins) writes: >>only for games, but I worry at buying a machine that's already four >>years old, what with computer equipment being obsolete even before the >>ink on your check is dry. And heck, it's only about the price of a good >>modem! > Nah, buy one of the newer game systems like Genesis or Turbografx. They're > pretty awesome too. Or better yet, wait until the Super Nintendo comes > out later this year. I think it's called Super Famicom now. Don't despair > too much, tho. I bet you Apple puts a graphics coprocessor in one of their > machines before the turn of the century. The problem with all those newer game systems is that none of them have the number of games available for the Amiga 500. If you're buying a system to play games on, it's hard to beat the Amiga 500. There will always be more games for the 500, because it takes much fewer resources for a developer to WRITE games for the 500... I remember one developer who wrote a decent game using his Amiga 1000 with two floppy drives, 512K, and Aztec C 3.4. Then he got jacked out of his royalties by the publisher, but that's life... anyhow, it's not like with the dedicated game systems, where you have to buy a very expensive developer setup in order to get things done. (My current Amiga setup, about $3,000 worth, is more than enough to do Amiga development). I've seen hundreds of good, playable games for the Amiga. You'll have a hard time convincing me that the Super Nintendo will have hundreds of games anytime in the near future. As for obsolescence... game machines don't become obsolete. Commodore sold over 250,000 Commodore 64's in Germany alone last year. We're talking about a limited 8-bit computer that's MUCH older than the Amiga 500 (which was released in ?'88?). The only thing that will make the Amiga 500 obsolete will be some other computer with much better graphics selling for the same price. And they'll have to be MUCH better, because otherwise it won't overcome the difference in available games software. -- Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg Looking for a job... tips, leads appreciated... inquire within...
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) (03/07/91)
In article <27261@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> jma@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John 'Vlad' Adams) writes: - STUFF DELETED - >I use the "Big Three" extensively at home and at work. I don't see the >"amateurishness" in any of the three you've mentioned. The keyboard >is solid enough for me to maintain a sustained typing speed of 80 CPS. ^^^^^^^ Wow!!! I've owned dot matrix printers a lot slower!!! Man, what a great skill. If you can *think* this fast, you could fire off major applications in an afternoon!!! ;-] Eric -- ========================================================================== Eric Mitchell | "We're Screwed!!!" Ph. 604-278-3411 Fax. 604-278-2936 | email !uunet!van-bc!mdavcr!ewm | - Spaced Invaders. or ewm%mda.ca@wimsey.bc.ca | or ewm@mda.ca | ==========================================================================
zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) (03/07/91)
Holy MACerel! This thread just ran out out of control. It's time for
those magic words:
TAKE IT TO .ADVOCACY!!
(Damn, that felt good.)
Yes, that's right. This thread is just about to lose any informative
value whatsoever (I can see it coming). It should not be discussed in
any Amiga group except comp.sys.amiga.advocacy. Therefore, I am
directing all followups away from the other Amiga group. Until
comp.sys.mac.advocacy shows up, I'm not sure where followups on that
end should go....
When you feel a need to respond, please direct your own followups to
comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, and away from the other Amiga groups. This
is done by putting a message in your header like:
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Many people will appreciate this and worship your very toenails if you
do it properly.
"Thank you for your cooperation."
-Robocop
Dan Zerkle zerkle@iris.eecs.ucdavis.edu (916) 754-0240
Amiga... Because life is too short for boring computers.steve@wildcat.UUCP (Steve Holland) (03/07/91)
>In article <23550@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccastcr@prism.gatech.EDU (Russo, Chris A.) writes: >robbins@arcadien.rice.edu (Thomas Robbins) writes: >[Bunch of stuff deleted] >>However, I'm disappointed with the entertainment/sound/video. I have >>just been shocked at seeing a friend's Amiga 500, with its mere 7MHz >>68000, for crying out loud, BLOW AWAY my 68030 Mac with the Amiga video >>clippings, sound/music emulation, and GAMES. (The color version of >>Falcon put my Mac version to shame!) And he had *hundreds* of cool >>games compared to maybe 4 comparable Mac games. >There are no comparable Mac games. Sadly, that's the total truth. Yes. this is NEWS! It has been common knowledge for years. that the Amiga has the fastest graphics and best games around >>What's the deal? My friend says that it's because it has built-in >>graphics co-processors. > >That's it exactly. Its graphics coprocessor does all of the memory moves >required to animate. The Mac on the other hand, uses its cpu for _EACH_ >cryin' out loud memory move. Even worse: the first Macs didn't even have a display chip or anything. Not only did they do all graphics moves with the processor, but THE VIDEO OUTPUT was done by the processor. The neat trick they used was to load a word of graphics memory into a processor register, then connect one of the data bus's lines DIRECTLY to the monitor. It outputed this word, and then did a binary shift-right. This was repeated for each of the 16 bits. This is what made the early Macs so SLOOOOWWWWWWWW. >>I'm actually considering buying one of these, to supplement my mac. >>(Heaven help me--a machine with DOS!) IS IT WORTH IT? I would use it >>only for games, but I worry at buying a machine that's already four >>years old, what with computer equipment being obsolete even before the >>ink on your check is dry. And heck, it's only about the price of a good >>modem! Actually the A500 can be brought all the way up to 68030/25mhz capability with currently available boards, and certain sources indicate that an '040 board may be on the way soon. >Nah, buy one of the newer game systems like Genesis or Turbografx. They're >pretty awesome too. Or better yet, wait until the Super Nintendo comes >out later this year. I think it's called Super Famicom now. Don't despair >too much, tho. I bet you Apple puts a graphics coprocessor in one of their >machines before the turn of the century. Game machines like the Genesis and Turbografix pale in comparison. ----------->Steve Holland<----------- Internet: wildcat!steve@alfalfa.com | "I never let my schooling get in the USENET: ...!alphalpha!wildcat!steve | way of my education" -Mark Twain <if alfalfa doesn't work, try alphalpha>
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (03/08/91)
>In article <1991Mar4.022332.8904@csn.org> ullevig@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Ullevig Zachary A) writes: >>Think about the target market for each machine. The Amiga computers are not >>designed to be great computers, but they are designed to take a big chunck out >>of the game market. They don't have much power, but they are given great >>graphics and sound to make for good game machines. Macs are too expensive to I would like to know what this assertion is based on. There were several posts on comp.sys.amiga several months ago comparing an Amiga 3000 with all of the Macs. The Amiga was under the Amax emulator running a Mac program called Speedometer which measures computer speed in several different ways. The Amiga 3000 turned out to run faster than all of the Macs except the fx which costs nearly three times as much. Also, Commodore is now after the Scientific and Higher Education markets. No one will ever catch up with IBM in the business market. I listened to a prominent engineer speak yesterday and he said that one thing you'd better bring with you to the engineering field is knowlege in the use of computers, and, he said, especially in computer graphics! So, graphics and graphics co-processors are important in more than just games. Also, while I'm on my soapbox. ...there was some German guy on Computer Cronicles (sp?) awhile back and he was making comparisons between the german and american markets. He that in America, Joe Sixpack will hop out of his car, run into a coputer store, look around for 15 minutes, and will buy a Mac with his credit card. In Germany, the german buyer will shop around for at the very least, a month or two before spending that kind of money. The german buyer will ask each representive for technical specifications, techinical evaluations, and will get third party technical evaluations, and he will read all of the above before buying a computer. All computer stores in Germany, keep plenty of specifications and evaluations around due to the constant demand for them. ....well Amiga is the largest selling computer in Germany as it is in the UK and in europe in gereral. That has to tell you something. And I also believe it will do better here amoung technically oriented people who will also base their purchases, at least in part, on a technical evaluation rather than ...a 30 second TV comercial or something. The software will follow. There is already a lot of good stuff coming out of europe and else where. Some guy from New Zealand (sp?) just this week came out with IBeM which is an XT emulator for only $30. Gad! NCW
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (03/08/91)
Just wanted to point out to Eric Green that Tecmar did in fact ship a HD for the Amiga. I saw, and worked with one myself. So they did make and ship such a beast. Not that it was the greatest... in my opinion, Tecmar did the Amiga a favor when they got out of Amiga peripherals. - Doug - Doug_B_Erdely@Cup.Portal.Com
jph@ais.org (Joseph Hillenburg) (03/08/91)
In article <00668212609@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM> elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) writes: >From article <19467@cbmvax.commodore.com>, by raible@cbmvax.commodore.com ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ (Bob Raible - LSI Design): >> In fact Jay Miner (former Atari guru) and Co. designed the Amiga to be >> the ultimate game machine. It wasn't until CBM came along that the >> decision was made to make a personal computer out of it. Soon afterwards > >Wrongo. Check who you're following up on next time. >-- >Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 >elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg > Looking for a job... tips, leads appreciated... inquire within... -- // Joseph Hillenburg, Secretary, Bloomington Amiga Users Group \X/ joseph@valnet.UUCP jph@irie.ais.org jph@albert.ai.mit.edu "Only Apple could slow down a 68030 chip" --Computer Shopper
avatar@MAPLE.CIRCA.UFL.EDU (03/09/91)
I shouldn't begin on this thread, and I will not say much. I am about to do a little unbacked up Mac bashing. All these people who talk about the benefits of a Mac. Sure, it's cute, but there is no real difference, IMHO, between the Mac 'OS' and Workbench. The Mac's looks a little better, but it can sometimes be a pain to use, just because of low responsiveness sometimes. On the other hand, opposite the Mac, is a useful computer, the IBM/clones(even though clones will be gone and the prices will go back up way out of my price range). The IBM runs much better software, has better hardware, etc. just because it has a MUCH wider spread. This has been IBM's success, the non patenting, which will all change, now. Sure, you don't have menu's and stuff, unless you have windows, which is IBM's standard poor imitation of an Amiga,\ but dos is still extremely easy to use. Then you slide back over to the middle. This is where you find the Amiga. The Amiga(maybe not the 500 as much, but look at the XT's out at the time) rests fairly in the middle. It also has the problem of being run by one company, but its low cost opens it to everyone. It has the best features of the IBM with the good feature of the MAC, the graphic interface. So this is how I place the three computers: Mac: Minor applications stuff for not-necessarily-gifted people in departments of corporations. IBM: Hardcore business applications and programming for businesses and corporations. Amiga: Multimedia businesses and most important in my case, the Home. (note: this does not include the good computers like mini's and mainframes) (further note: this is off the top of my head) AVATAR@maple.circa.ufl.edu
mmcnew@pro-odyssey.cts.com (Monty McNew) (03/09/91)
>I didn't mention that is was the same Mac windows since the Amiga was >under the Amax emulator poping up the windows twice as fast. Pulllleeeeeze! Spare us from blatant lies... (I have used the Amax emulator and it don't compare to a 68020 Mac against a 68000 Amiga). ---- ProLine: mmcnew@pro-odyssey Monty S. McNew Internet: mmcnew@pro-odyssey.cts.com @ Pro-Odyssey UUCP: crash!pro-odyssey!mmcnew 707/437-4734 ARPA: crash!pro-odyssey!mmcnew@nosc.mil Fairfield, CA
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (03/09/91)
In-Reply-To: message from david@kessner.denver.co.us This is going to be my only post on this topic, because it really is quite frivolous...but I had to speak up when you commented about WB2.0 There is nothing about AmigaDOS 2.0 that isn't up to snuff. In appearance alone it beats Finder (although this is really an opinion...if you like a 2D flat interface, you're welcome to it). AmigaDOS is much easier to maintain than the MacOS (just ask Jerry Pournelle). I use it every day, and while your comments may apply to WorkBench under 1.3, they couldn't be more laughable when applied to the new interface. If you don't like the Amiga's STANDARD keyboard, then get a NorthGate...you guys are probubly used to having to pay for'em (you mean you want a steering wheel on that car?). And as for mice, well...the standard two button mouse might be alittle lightweight, but it doesn't have as great a tendency to rattle when it rolls around (every Mac mouse I've used that's seen ANY action feels like you're rolling it on gravel)...are you sure it isn't a problem with having to use more than one finger at a time? :) As an owner of an A3000, I'm happy to say that I'm content with the fact that I own one of the most technically advanced pieces of hardware on the market, and the only other platforms I see as peers would be a NeXTStation, and various mid-low end dedicated UNIX workstations (the built in limitations of the IIfx keep me from even considering it...oh it's fast, as far as CPUs go, but the rest of the system is one big bottleneck. You can upgrade the CPU on an A3000...but you can't upgrade the bus on a IIfx :) Reply if you must, but I won't be here to hear the flames...go on, fire away. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc RealWorld: Sean Cunningham ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil Voice: (512) 992-2810 INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com ____________________________________ // | * All opinions expressed herein | HELP KEEP THE COMPETITION UNDER \X/ | Copyright 1991 VISION GRAPHICS | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (03/09/91)
In-Reply-To: message from farren@sat.com Also, Jay Miner never worked for Atari...they put up some money, but "Padre" was always an AMIGA employee. Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc RealWorld: Sean Cunningham ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil Voice: (512) 992-2810 INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com ____________________________________ // | * All opinions expressed herein | HELP KEEP THE COMPETITION UNDER \X/ | Copyright 1991 VISION GRAPHICS | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (03/09/91)
In-Reply-To: message from bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG I know...I said I wasn't going to post another...but... Any notion that the Mac Classic is of any concern is totally absurd. That ANY of the new "cheapies" are any kind of achievement. 50% of all of the new systems reaching the local Connecting Point have to be serviced, reworked, sent back, or otherwise coersed into working. The internals are hobby, and Apple QC must be taking a nap when they go out. If anything, the future will hold a time when the A3000 takes the place of the A500 as entry level computing... Sean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc RealWorld: Sean Cunningham ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil Voice: (512) 992-2810 INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com ____________________________________ // | * All opinions expressed herein | HELP KEEP THE COMPETITION UNDER \X/ | Copyright 1991 VISION GRAPHICS | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
U28037@uicvm.uic.edu (03/10/91)
I decided to post after reading all of the garbage on this subject here and on comp.sys.amiga over the last few days. Why does everyone always want to compare systems? Especially when these people obviously haven't used both systems before! Some of the things I have read on the Amiga board are so stupid I just had to laugh. People certain machines are good for certain things. The Amiga is a graphics machine and it's the best one out there in terms of price versus performance. Just look at the Video Toaster. Sure you can get the same kinds of software and hardware for other machines but not in one board and not the same price ($1500). I was at a store the other day and some guy was trying to convince me that you could get the same type of things done on the IBM for $2000. What a load of crap! The Amiga is best suited for graphics work, the IBM for business software and the Mac I don't know; I've never used one before so I won't comment on it's strengths or bad points (and don't try to say that the Mac doesn't have any bad points cause every machine does). I have been reading comments about the Amiga Work Bench versions 1.3 and 2.0 and have seen people saying how bad they are. Sure 1.3 may look pretty childish but it has been very stable for me. As far as 2.0 is concerned there isn't any competition from Windows 3.0. The people who make comments saying that Windows is better obviously haven't used 2.0 on the Amiga. Last but not least people lets stop comparing machines. Can't we just let it be known that all machines have their good and bad points? I like IBM's because of the great business software like the data base program Paradox. I like Mac's especially for their MIDI and music software (you don't have to try to make me believe that the Mac is way ahead of the AMiga and IBM in this area, I already believe it). I like AMiga's for their graphics and sound (The Amiga is way ahead of the other machines in the area of 3D modeling and animation). Well, just thought I would throw in my two cents into this conversation. Any comments? Jason Kratz - U28037@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (03/10/91)
In article <7887@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from farren@sat.com > > >Also, Jay Miner never worked for Atari...they put up some money, but >"Padre" was always an AMIGA employee. > >Sean Sorry, but you are incorrect. 'Lest we forget, Jay Miner worked for Atari in the late 1970s, when he designed the extremely impressive (especially for the time) custom graphics chips in Atari 400 and 800 computers. Possibly way before your time, but we do need to keep our history straight. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900
mmcnew@pro-odyssey.cts.com (Monty McNew) (03/10/91)
In-Reply-To: message from seanc@pro-party.cts.com
| Also, Jay Miner never worked for Atari...
Jay Miner was the principle designer for the custom chip set in the Atari
400/800 while employed by Atari... just ask him.
----
ProLine: mmcnew@pro-odyssey Monty S. McNew
Internet: mmcnew@pro-odyssey.cts.com @ Pro-Odyssey
UUCP: crash!pro-odyssey!mmcnew 707/437-4734
ARPA: crash!pro-odyssey!mmcnew@nosc.mil Fairfield, CAmitroo@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Varun Mitroo) (03/11/91)
In article <27373@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> AVATAR%oak.decnet@pine.circa.ufl.edu writes: >I shouldn't begin on this thread, and I will not say much. I am about to do >a little unbacked up Mac bashing. > >All these people who talk about the benefits of a Mac. Sure, it's cute, but >there is no real difference, IMHO, between the Mac 'OS' and Workbench. The >Mac's looks a little better, but it can sometimes be a pain to use, just >because of low responsiveness sometimes. Okay, I'd like to see any mac lover justify this: Last year, I was working on an important paper on a mac. I was using WordPerfect, I think. Anyway, I loaded in my paper off the disk, and gave the disk to a friend who had some of her things on it. No problem, I thought - I'll just save the updated file onto another disk or on the hard drive. Wrong!! When I tried saving the file, a requester came up asking for "such and such disk" to be replaced in the drive!?! Why? I wanted to save the file on another disk. No problem, I thought, I'll just click the "cancel" box. Wait a minute... There is no cancel box! The machine was completely dead until I replaced THAT SAME DISK into the drive. I had to go running around campus trying to find my friend with that disk just so I could stick it into that stupid drive for that precious second until it changed disks. I don't know. To me this is not what computing is all about. Trying to put the cursor over a word with the mouse on a puny flickering black & white 9" screen is not my idea of advanced word processing. When I tried printing the file, I had to WAIT 20 MINUTES for the printout. The proctor working there told me this is normal, AppleTalk is just slow. Remember: "Only a Macintosh gives you so much power to do so many things so quickly and so easily." Varun Mitroo mitroo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu PS - When was the last time Apple actually came out with anything innovative rather than a rehash of old technology? What other company is bringing a new product with a 68000 in it for $1000?
trotter@ENUXHA.EAS.ASU.EDU (Russell T. Trotter) (03/11/91)
I agree being forced to insert a disk with no cancel box is a bit inconveinent....maybe more in your case but anyway..just for future reference you can "cancel" that dialog by typing Command - period , or hold the open apple button down and press the "." Also I don't think it's fair for you to note isolated instances such as your slow appletalk and apply this to your opinion of Macs. At our university we have Mac and PC networks. Our Mac network is quite efficient and relatively fast, whereas some PC net setups are much slower, but I still don't hate PC's })
jon@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Deutsch) (03/11/91)
In article <1991Mar10.182432.9314@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> mitroo@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Varun Mitroo) writes: >In article <27373@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> AVATAR%oak.decnet@pine.circa.ufl.edu writes: >> > >Okay, I'd like to see any mac lover justify this: Last year, I was working >on an important paper on a mac. I was using WordPerfect, I think. Anyway, >I loaded in my paper off the disk, and gave the disk to a friend who had some >of her things on it. No problem, I thought - I'll just save the updated file >onto another disk or on the hard drive. Wrong!! When I tried saving the file, >a requester came up asking for "such and such disk" to be replaced in the >drive!?! Why? I wanted to save the file on another disk. No problem, I >thought, I'll just click the "cancel" box. Wait a minute... There is no >cancel box! The machine was completely dead until I replaced THAT SAME DISK >into the drive. I had to go running around campus trying to find my friend >with that disk just so I could stick it into that stupid drive for that >precious second until it changed disks. Well, there is a quick-n-easy solution to that particular problem. But, I have a feeling that THAT is not what you are upset about. I think that you are upset about the fact that the Mac has a shell about 1-mile-thick. You can't do anything unless it wants IT wants you to. You might cringe at this idea, but it is probably the best idea for office work, where people generally don't know what they are doing, and probably don't care. This kind of protection is good for a particular type of user. The same goes for the average college shmoe who just wants to type in a paper, and doesn't want to be bothered with 'computer jargon'. So, for people like you and me, who can't stand not being able to do what we want to do with our computer, there is the Amiga. So, why bash Macs? > Varun Mitroo > mitroo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu > >PS - When was the last time Apple actually came out with anything innovative >rather than a rehash of old technology? What other company is bringing a new >product with a 68000 in it for $1000? When's the last time C= came out with anything *really* innovative? 68000 for under $1000? Besides C=? How about Apple and Atari? If Macs are so bad, don't use them. That's how I handle IBMs. X-------------------+--------------+-----------------------X | | |\ |>jon@brahms.udel.edu<| "For my 2 cents, | | \|on |/eutsch |>>-----------------<<| I'd pay a dollar" | X------+--------------------+--------------------+---------X
aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sriram Ramkrishna) (03/11/91)
In article <1991Mar10.182432.9314@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> mitroo@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Varun Mitroo) writes: > >drive!?! Why? I wanted to save the file on another disk. No problem, I >thought, I'll just click the "cancel" box. Wait a minute... There is no >cancel box! The machine was completely dead until I replaced THAT SAME DISK >into the drive. I had to go running around campus trying to find my friend >with that disk just so I could stick it into that stupid drive for that Yeah, I have had this problem happen to me a lot, it is very annoying. However, did you know that you can do a <command> <.> and it should get rid of the requester? Amiga handles it better of course. :-) Still, things like that is not very productive in my opinion. >precious second until it changed disks. > >I don't know. To me this is not what computing is all about. Trying to put >the cursor over a word with the mouse on a puny flickering black & white 9" I can certainly agree with you there! I don't like small monitor, and that is too small for me. Most of the time I am squinting at the screen. Thats why I use the MacIIs in the lab. Much better..Yeah yeah I know you can replace the monitor with something else...big deal. Extra cost. >screen is not my idea of advanced word processing. When I tried printing the >file, I had to WAIT 20 MINUTES for the printout. The proctor working there >told me this is normal, AppleTalk is just slow. Remember: "Only a Macintosh >gives you so much power to do so many things so quickly and so easily." Hmmm, we run an apple talk system here, and I don't find it slow at all. We have about 35 MacII under appletalk and they are quite fast. Better than the novell network we have. > >PS - When was the last time Apple actually came out with anything innovative >rather than a rehash of old technology? What other company is bringing a new >product with a 68000 in it for $1000? Agreed. I don't think Apple has really come up with anything. One of my largest complaints that I have about the Mac is data integrity. I have had cases where I would insert a mac disk, find it is okay then take out and put it back in and it wouldn't work. Also for no reason, a Mac could crash without any sort of explanation of why. Users would bitch and moan to me and I could not give them an explanation of why they lost a part of their file or anything like that. One funny case was when I had a friend who complained that his disk was not working. I took his disk, shook it like hard and gave it a small tap and inserted into the drive. Meanwhile, my friend is looking at me with complete disbelief. Needless to say, the disk was recognized. :-) Sri (aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu) Sri
epayne@x102a.harris-atd.com (payne edward 01471) (03/11/91)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Payne | Harris, GASD | If I only had more than epayne@x102a.ess.harris.com | Melbourne, Fl | 3 lines....
elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) (03/11/91)
From article <3$P-B6-@irie.ais.org>, by jph@ais.org (Joseph Hillenburg): > In article <00668212609@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM> elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) writes: >>From article <19467@cbmvax.commodore.com>, by raible@cbmvax.commodore.com > (Bob Raible - LSI Design): >>> In fact Jay Miner (former Atari guru) and Co. designed the Amiga to be >>> the ultimate game machine. It wasn't until CBM came along that the >>> decision was made to make a personal computer out of it. Soon afterwards >>Wrongo. > Check who you're following up on next time. I *KNOW* who I'm following up to :-). Actually, it's not Bob's fault. Most of Commodore's present engineers came on board long after the original Amiga team had been laid off/dispersed/quit/whatever. Not to mention that Bob is an LSI designer, not a programmer, and thus is probably a hobbiest, at best, when it comes to Amiga software etc. (Not that there's anything wrong with that... Dave Haynie's a hardware guy, but his DiskSalv, a hobby software project, has saved many people's hard drives). Not to mention that I talked to a Commodore engineer oh, a month or so ago, who confides that he's a Unix guy basically, a latecomer to the Amiga. Of course, the guy had also produced a decent-selling Amiga utility before joining Commodore... but he wasn't there when the Amiga was introduced, he doesn't know. -- Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (03/12/91)
In article <1991Mar10.182432.9314@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> mitroo@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Varun Mitroo) writes: >Okay, I'd like to see any mac lover justify this: Last year, I was working >on an important paper on a mac. I was using WordPerfect, I think. Anyway, >I loaded in my paper off the disk, and gave the disk to a friend who had some >of her things on it. No problem, I thought - I'll just save the updated file >onto another disk or on the hard drive. Wrong!! When I tried saving the file, What do you mean "you loaded in [your] paper off the disk"? Just because you opened a file does NOT mean the entire document is in memory. >a requester came up asking for "such and such disk" to be replaced in the >drive!?! Why? I wanted to save the file on another disk. No problem, I Could it be that it needed part of the file to save to the other disk? Hmm. >thought, I'll just click the "cancel" box. Wait a minute... There is no >cancel box! The machine was completely dead until I replaced THAT SAME DISK >into the drive. I had to go running around campus trying to find my friend Well, if you spent some time reading the basic Mac docs learning that the command-period key cancels most operations you'd have been able to get out of that situation. There isn't a computer around without some of those "gotchas". >with that disk just so I could stick it into that stupid drive for that >precious second until it changed disks. That annoying feature saves many users from overwriting information on disks they inadvertantly swapped out. >I don't know. To me this is not what computing is all about. Trying to put >the cursor over a word with the mouse on a puny flickering black & white 9" >screen is not my idea of advanced word processing. When I tried printing the Poor thing, I bet you have the same problem opening your mailbox. That little door is soooo much smaller than your front door (even though the keys are roughly the same size.) Get a clue. 10 point type is 10 point type. >file, I had to WAIT 20 MINUTES for the printout. The proctor working there >told me this is normal, AppleTalk is just slow. Remember: "Only a Macintosh >gives you so much power to do so many things so quickly and so easily." So your proctor is brain-dead about Mac stuff. AppleTalk is slow for many users printing to ImageWriters. It is not slow for one. Your situation is typical for lab setups where they have tens of people accessing network resources all at once. >PS - When was the last time Apple actually came out with anything innovative >rather than a rehash of old technology? What other company is bringing a new >product with a 68000 in it for $1000? What utter bullshit. Go post in forum where you know something about what you're talking. Apple is selling you a machine with a 512k ROM, good sound output, built-in networking, hi-density floppy drive, SCSI interface, and and extensible keyboard/mouse bus for list price of $1000 (who pays list?) Please describe to me the comparable product you were thinking of.
dinn@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael "Moose" Dinn) (03/12/91)
In article <45435@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >>PS - When was the last time Apple actually came out with anything innovative >>rather than a rehash of old technology? What other company is bringing a new >>product with a 68000 in it for $1000? > >What utter bullshit. Go post in forum where you know something about what >you're talking. Apple is selling you a machine with a 512k ROM, good >sound output, built-in networking, hi-density floppy drive, SCSI interface, >and and extensible keyboard/mouse bus for list price of $1000 (who pays list?) > >Please describe to me the comparable product you were thinking of. Well, How about an A500 with execllent sound output (4 voice stereo), 880K floppy, 4096 colors and greater speed than the Mac? SCSI can be added for ~$150, and the networking for about the same. Mouse too. The CPU with drive costs $500 or so... so, add it all up and get $900 list out of it. The only thing the MAc has over that is the keyboard/mouse bus. And we have Color, far superior sound, and besides, I can run all Mac stuff on my Amiga too. Sound superior? I think so. -- Michael Dinn, Sysop of the Moose's Swamp - Nova Scotia's largest Amiga BBS +1 (902) 463-0483, 3/12/24/48/96/14,400 baud * 170 Megabytes online School: mdinn@ac.dal.ca, dinn@ug.cs.dal.ca | These are my opinions and Work: 01Moose@ac.dal.ca, 01Moose@dalac.bitnet| noone else's. (blame me :-)
djm@pro-odyssey.cts.com (David McDowell) (03/12/91)
In-Reply-To: message from darkstar@wam.umd.edu I agree. ---- ProLine: djm@pro-odyssey Internet: djm@pro-odyssey.cts.com UUCP: crash!pro-odyssey!djm ARPA: crash!pro-odyssey!djm@nosc.mil
jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) (03/13/91)
In article <45435@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: > >What do you mean "you loaded in [your] paper off the disk"? Just because you >opened a file does NOT mean the entire document is in memory. Well, the average user is probably not going to expect pseudo-virtual-memory in his word processor! Besides, doesn't this make scrolling through the file slower? >Well, if you spent some time reading the basic Mac docs learning that the >command-period key cancels most operations you'd have been able to get out of >that situation. There isn't a computer around without some of those "gotchas". When I was in college, if I walked into a Mac lab to do something (this was before I owned an Amiga!) I usually couldn't find any manuals if my life depended on it. I certainly never saw the actual Mac system manuals, as opposed to the applications manuals. Why not put a "cancel" button in the requester? And I thought one of the selling points of the Mac was that end-users didn't have to know anything about the OS? >That annoying feature saves many users from overwriting information on disks >they inadvertantly swapped out. The Amiga also tracks disks by volume name, but it also has a "cancel" button right in the open where you can see it. And for some reason, the times I've had to replace an Amiga floppy have never been as annoying (or as frequent) as the times I've had to replace a Mac floppy. >What utter bullshit. Go post in forum where you know something about what >you're talking. Apple is selling you a machine with a 512k ROM, good >sound output, built-in networking, hi-density floppy drive, SCSI interface, >and and extensible keyboard/mouse bus for list price of $1000 (who pays list?) But what are they doing with that 512k ROM? They're not even multi-tasking! Good sound output? I assume you mean through the built-in speakers? Or have they added RCA jacks now? And what about color? (I admit you've got me on the networking and SCSI, but I can't think of any reason I'd need an "extensible keyboard/mouse bus." Plus, Apple's attitude toward their "rights" to their look-and-feel is repulsive, to put it kindly. Please note, followups to comp.sys.amiga.advocacy! -- * From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | "There's UFOs over New Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | York, and I ain't too 37 Brook Street | uunet!cbmvax!amix!vanth!jms | surprised." Montgomery, PA 17752 | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | (John Lennon)
cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu (CS220X) (03/13/91)
>onto another disk or on the hard drive. Wrong!! When I tried saving the file, >a requester came up asking for "such and such disk" to be replaced in the >drive!?! Why? I wanted to save the file on another disk. No problem, I >thought, I'll just click the "cancel" box. Wait a minute... There is no >cancel box! The machine was completely dead until I replaced THAT SAME DISK >into the drive. I had to go running around campus trying to find my friend >with that disk just so I could stick it into that stupid drive for that >precious second until it changed disks. > >I don't know. To me this is not what computing is all about. Trying to put >the cursor over a word with the mouse on a puny flickering black & white 9" >screen is not my idea of advanced word processing. When I tried printing the >file, I had to WAIT 20 MINUTES for the printout. The proctor working there >told me this is normal, AppleTalk is just slow. Remember: "Only a Macintosh >gives you so much power to do so many things so quickly and so easily." > > Varun Mitroo > mitroo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu > >PS - When was the last time Apple actually came out with anything innovative >rather than a rehash of old technology? What other company is bringing a new >product with a 68000 in it for $1000? I realize this is a Mac games conference and not supposed to support this kind of debate, but I couldn't let such erroneous comments go by. 1) The reason WordPerfect did not satisfy you is because it is simply a port over from the DOS version. If it implemented the user interface in the way that Apple specifies, you would have had a "Cancel" box, etc., etc. (WordPerfect 2.0 seems much better though). Don't blame the Mac for WordPerfect putting out a sorry product, just switch to Word or MacWrite II. 2) APPLETALK IS NOT MEANT TO COMPETE WITH ETHERNET. It is intended to be an economical (built-in even) networking solution for the small business or other network. You are not supposed to say, wire a university with AppleTalk, though some people, like yourself, think that's what Apple intended. If you want EtherNet speed...BUY ETHERNET! 3) Apple comes out with more innovative products than any other computer company. What company has slashed prices like Apple? What company has introduces new models almost every single year? Face it, Apple is on the cutting edge. Yes, it needs to add a graphics coprocessor, but considering a 16 mhz SE/30 doing all its own graphics can outpreform a 20 mhz 386 running Windows with a separate processor, it's obvious Apple does some amazing technology tricks. Finally, let's move this debate to some other conference...say the Mac miscellaneous or the Amiga advocate. Just tell me where it goes, because those who flame the Mac the most are those who don't use them much. Wade Williams cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (03/13/91)
In article <91MAR12.134551@ducvax.auburn.edu> cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: >2) APPLETALK IS NOT MEANT TO COMPETE WITH ETHERNET. It is intended to be an >economical (built-in even) networking solution for the small business or other >network. You are not supposed to say, wire a university with AppleTalk, >though some people, like yourself, think that's what Apple intended. If you >want EtherNet speed...BUY ETHERNET! Huh? WHat use is it in Education, if you can't say, wire up a classroom to one printer. >3) Apple comes out with more innovative products than any other computer >company. What company has slashed prices like Apple? What company has >introduces new models almost every single year? Face it, Apple is on the >cutting edge. Yes, it needs to add a graphics coprocessor, but considering a >16 mhz SE/30 doing all its own graphics can outpreform a 20 mhz 386 running >Windows with a separate processor, it's obvious Apple does some amazing >technology tricks. Oh come on, wake up. The reason Apple releases new models every year is because the Mac doesn't have an open architecure to expand. The Amiga 2000 is so expandible, it's still a useful machine, even with the introduction of the A3000. Apple's slashed prices? GET REAL. All Apple did was lower the prices to what they should have been years ago! Apple's been overpricing their products for years! The Mac Classic is nothing more than a repackaged Mac (e.g. Old technology) with a slightly lower price and a new name. Apple release more innovative products than any computer company? NAME THEM. Not a single Mac computer is ahead of it's time, nor does it deliver hardware power for a low price. The 7mhz Amiga 1000 can outperform the Mac IIfx at graphics sound and animation, and it was released in 1985. >Finally, let's move this debate to some other conference...say the Mac >miscellaneous or the Amiga advocate. Just tell me where it goes, because >those who flame the Mac the most are those who don't use them much. I'd altered the followup's line to comp.sys.amiga.advocacy. >Wade Williams >cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (03/13/91)
In article <91MAR12.134551@ducvax.auburn.edu> cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: >3) Apple comes out with more innovative products than any other computer >company. What company has slashed prices like Apple? ;^) Yeah, they slashed their prices *SO LOW*, they're almost as reasonable as the Amiga has *always* been. ;^) > ... What company has >introduces new models almost every single year? Yeah, right. Like the Classic is a real advance in the state of the art. Commodore gave Amiga users an open machine, so now we just add on in order to upgrade. We don't have to wait for a new model just to take advantage of new features. How many 16-bit Macs have a direct upgrade path to a 68040 designed into the machine? > ... Face it, Apple is on the >cutting edge. ... of Nazi anti-American litigation against anyone who innovates... > Yes, it needs to add a graphics coprocessor, but considering a >16 mhz SE/30 doing all its own graphics can outpreform a 20 mhz 386 running >Windows with a separate processor, it's obvious Apple does some amazing >technology tricks. Naw, Apple technology is mundane until you spend $10,000. PCs are crippled by IBM's system architecture, so no fair comparing to those poor things. --
mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) (03/13/91)
[stuff deleted about WP requesting user to put missing disk into Mac, with no option but to find the disk, or reboot and lose all. ie NO CANCEL BUTTON ON REQUESTER! > > Varun Mitroo > > mitroo@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu > > > >PS - When was the last time Apple actually came out with anything innovative > >rather than a rehash of old technology? What other company is bringing a new > >product with a 68000 in it for $1000? > 1) The reason WordPerfect did not satisfy you is because it is simply a port over > from the DOS version. If it implemented the user interface in the way that > Apple specifies, you would have had a "Cancel" box, etc., etc. (WordPerfect > 2.0 seems much better though). Don't blame the Mac for WordPerfect putting > out a sorry product, just switch to Word or MacWrite II. I don't know about wordperfect, but I had this same experience with our SE here in the lab - I put in my disk, did some work, and removed it, but its icon remained. I then clicked on the disk, and a requester poped up telling me to put my disk back in, the requester had no cancel button what so ever - my options were to either put the disk back in, or reboot. This is the SYSTEM software, not an app, so what's the deal? [stuff about appletalk not being ethernet deleted] > 3) Apple comes out with more innovative products than any other computer > company. What company has slashed prices like Apple? Name an innovative product that isn't a repackageing of old technology. Slashing prices is not innovative. What company has > introduces new models almost every single year? These new models are repackages, they are not innovative, changing the number of expansion slots is not innovative. Selling a unit with a hard drive already packaged in it is not innovative. Heck, MacWorld even called Apple the least innovative computer comapany of all, the stopped being innovative long ago. > Face it, Apple is on the > cutting edge. Apple is certainly breaking new ground in the legal area, but that's about it. If they spent as much money on innovation, as they do on lawsuits, they would probably be more innovative. Yes, it needs to add a graphics coprocessor, but considering a > 16 mhz SE/30 doing all its own graphics can outpreform a 20 mhz 386 running > Windows with a separate processor, it's obvious Apple does some amazing > technology tricks. No, Motorola does some amazing technonoy tricks. > Wade Williams > cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu Matt Pierce
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/13/91)
In article <91MAR12.134551@ducvax.auburn.edu> cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: > 3) Apple comes out with more innovative products than any other computer > company. The last innovative product that came out of Apple... let's see. How about the original Macintosh? What have they done since then that wasn't just putting faster chips in the same basic box? > 16 mhz SE/30 doing all its own graphics can outpreform a 20 mhz 386 running > Windows with a separate processor, it's obvious Apple does some amazing > technology tricks. My response to this paragraph is in comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, per your request. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/14/91)
In article <1991Mar13.221028.8703@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >>In article <91MAR12.134551@ducvax.auburn.edu> cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: >>> 3) Apple comes out with more innovative products than any other computer >>> company. > >>The last innovative product that came out of Apple... let's see. How about the >>original Macintosh? What have they done since then that wasn't just putting >>faster chips in the same basic box? > > What happens if you apply the exact same reasoning to Commodore? >You could say "The last innovative product to come out of Commodore was >the original Amiga. What have they done since then that wasn't just >putting faster chips in the same basic box?" > This discussion is getting unrealistic on both sides. Apple is still coming out with new and good products, but to call the 3 new machines they just came out with "innovative" is ridiculous too. They are step backwards. They are marketing revolutions, not technical revolutions. This isn't to say that they are unimportant, but they are not steps forward. From what I've seen, the System 7.0 font manager is a technical innovation, with the ability to use scalable fonts for all languages with automatic kerning in the OS and the ability to enter text left-to-right, right-to-left and top-to-bottom. Of course, it is well known that Commodore is working actively on Compugraphic support for the Amiga OS as well. > One could argue that Apple has been more innovative than Commodore >over the last 5 years. Apple started off with a monochrome, one-size >monitor non-expandable system. Since then they've added things like >32-bit colour, expansion slots, RISC graphics coprocessors, monitors >of any size you can afford to pay for - and software like Truetype, >Hypercard, Multifinder and even A/UX [which runs old Mac applications >as a task under Unix...something the Amiga can't do comparably with >Amiga applications]. > Yes, but most people don't consider the A/UX to be Unix. I know the arguments, but the final industry decision was against A/UX. Besides A/UX will be truly hurt by the NeXTs (not that Amigas won't be hurt as well). > What has Commodore done in the same period? Amigas still seem to >have the same old colour restrictions, pretty much the same old >resolutions, pretty much the same old graphics chip set. If >anyone's been resting on their haunches putting out incremental >improvements, it's Commodore, not Apple. > Admittedly, over the first appr. 2.5-3 years Commodore floundered. They were coming from the highs of the C=64 and the Amiga wasn't yet a significant entity. Commodore wasn't used to the concept of R&D. Given that, I think it is fair to consider what they've done since then. In 1990, they came out with a whole range of networking hardware and software that follow industry standards. They came out with AmigaVision. They came out with the A3000 and all of its variants. And the A3000 is a significant advance because it comes with a full 32-bit bus running at 25MHz, built in 32-bit SCSI and up to 18MB on the motherboard, as well as a built-in flicker fixer. So far in 1991 they've come out with a deinterlacer for the A2000 line. There is Unix, as well as a Tape-drive system. They will be coming out with CDTV, Workbench 2.0, the University of Lowell board. This is all that we know of. Commodore has placed ads looking for new employees to help with the areas of Device Independant Graphics and scalable fonts, and we already know that they are actively working on new chip sets. So don't count Commodore out. Those are pretty impressive contributions to the state of the Amiga. Commodore is finally working actively on developing the Amiga, I'm hoping that it isn't too late from a marketing perspective. >[Before you flame, read and consider carefully. Ask yourself, "What >has Commodore done over the past 5 years to the Amiga?" ] > This wasn't a flame. 5 years ago there was only the A1000 with 256K, Workbench 1.0 and no software or hardware. I think CBM's come a long way. >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu >"And in the death, as the last few corpses lay rotting in the slimy > thoroughfare, the shutters lifted in inches, high on Poacher's Hill..." -- Ethan Upon leaving office, Ronald Reagan began renting an office in the penthouse of the Fox Plaza, the Los Angeles high-rise used as the location for the terrorist movie "Die Hard".
pwb@newt.phys.unsw.OZ.AU (Paul W. Brooks) (03/14/91)
In article <00668212609@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM>, elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) writes: > > And now the problem in the Amiga hard drive interface market is glut :-). > (I can think of over a dozen SCSI interfaces, ranging from awefully slow > programmed I/O capable of maybe 200K/second, to the super-fast DMA designs > capable of 2MB/sec or more). > Could you post a brief summary of the SCSI interfaces you know about, maybe in order fastest-to-slowest - I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to know which 'dogs' to avoid! Maybe anyone who has info. on others might like to add their collective knowledge? > -- > Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 > elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg > Looking for a job... tips, leads appreciated... inquire within... Paul Brooks |Internet: pwb@newt.phys.unsw.edu.au Uni. of N.S.W. |If you have trouble sleeping, try lying on the end of Kensington NSW 2033| your bed. With a little luck you'll drop off. AUSTRALIA | - Mark Twain.
kpmiller@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Kent P Miller) (03/14/91)
>Well, How about an A500 with execllent sound output (4 voice stereo), 880K >floppy, 4096 colors and greater speed than the Mac? SCSI can be added for >~$150, and the networking for about the same. Mouse too. The CPU with >drive costs $500 or so... so, add it all up and get $900 list out of it. >The only thing the MAc has over that is the keyboard/mouse bus. And we have >Color, far superior sound, and besides, I can run all Mac stuff on my Amiga >too. Sound superior? I think so. I can't handle it. Add the cost of the scsi bus (150), a monitor (250-300), and what do you have? 500+150+300 = 950! Mac Classic. Plus, you'd better add about $50 to replace that cheap piece of crap disk drive button that keeps breaking on all my friends Amiga. (a Mac Classic street price is even less. Can you get a Amiga with a 40Mb HD and monitor for 1100? Maybe, but don't be telling me you can do it for much less) Oh, by the way, if you are thinking of flaming me back, you'd better do it by mail. This subject has now hit my kill file. Trying to keep my blood pressure down, you know. -- ----------------------- Kent Miller KENT@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu Bitnet -> KENT@uokucsvx
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (03/15/91)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > This discussion is getting unrealistic on both sides. >Apple is still coming out with new and good products, but to call >the 3 new machines they just came out with "innovative" is >ridiculous too. They are step backwards. Steps sideways perhaps :-), except they did add sound input as standard (something only NeXTs can otherwise claim to have). And they are innovative in their pricing (for Apple at least). >technical innovation, with the ability to use scalable fonts for >all languages with automatic kerning in the OS and the ability to >enter text left-to-right, right-to-left and top-to-bottom. Actually, the left-to-right stuff etc has been in Apple's system for a number of years via the Script Manager (another Apple innovation) > Yes, but most people don't consider the A/UX to be Unix. >I know the arguments, but the final industry decision was against >A/UX. Was it? I guess we'll have to inform the U.S. Govt of that - they seem to like A/UX a lot. >with a full 32-bit bus running at 25MHz, built in 32-bit SCSI and Is this SCSI-2? SCSI-1 is an 8-bit protocol. >up to 18MB on the motherboard, Well, you can put 128MB on the motherboard of a Mac II today... not that it's really relevant. >They will be coming out with CDTV, Workbench 2.0, the University >of Lowell board. CDTV IS innovative - I forgot about that... but it seems to suffer the age-old Commodore problem of being announced 10 years before it's ready to ship :-) Look at what Apple is doing this year - first the StyleWriter ink-jet, plus a whole new range of high speed Laserwriters due later, System 7.0 (on May 13), 68040 Tower Mac, and at least one notebook Mac. >>[Before you flame, read and consider carefully. Ask yourself, "What >>has Commodore done over the past 5 years to the Amiga?" ] >> > This wasn't a flame. 5 years ago there was only the A1000 >with 256K, Workbench 1.0 and no software or hardware. I think >CBM's come a long way. And 7 years ago, there was only a 128K Mac, System 0.97, Finder 1.0, no software, definitely no hardware... Apple has also come a long way. Neither Commodore nor Apple can be praised for being wildly innovative in their designs - but then we shouldn't expect them to be either given that they have to be compatible with their installed base. When Commodore or Apple break with their Amiga and Macintosh designs respectively, we'll see what innovation means again. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "And remember, whatever you do, DON'T MENTION THE WAR!"
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/15/91)
In article <45597@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <1991Mar13.230616.1544@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >>The reason Commodore doesn't come out with new models everyyear is because >>they don't have to. The A2000/3000 are innovative and open enough to last years! > >Yeah, and I'm sure the expense of coming out with new models has nothing to do >with it. Uhuh. > To end all this petty bickering, Commodore DOES come out with a new model every year. In 1990 they came out with the 3000. In 1989 they came out with the A2000HD and A2500/20 and A2500/30. This year there is CDTV and the Unix Amigas, and probably a tower Amiga called the A3500. > Or how about a SCSI-2 Nubus busmaster SCSI coprocessor. Yes, both Apple and Commodore do that in their high-end machines. -- Ethan A tourist in New York City was overheard asking a New Yorker, "Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to the statue of liberty, or should I go f*ck myself?"
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (03/15/91)
cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu (CS220X) writes: >3) Apple comes out with more innovative products than any other computer >company. What company has slashed prices like Apple? What company has >introduces new models almost every single year? Face it, Apple is on the >cutting edge. Yes, it needs to add a graphics coprocessor, but considering a >16 mhz SE/30 doing all its own graphics can outpreform a 20 mhz 386 running >Windows with a separate processor, it's obvious Apple does some amazing >technology tricks. > >Finally, let's move this debate to some other conference...say the Mac >miscellaneous or the Amiga advocate. Just tell me where it goes, because >those who flame the Mac the most are those who don't use them much. > >Wade Williams >cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu Wrong! the people who flame the mac most are people that use it quite often AND use other computers as well. I use a Mac daily in my duties as Editor of a local magazine, i edit, typeset, keyline, the whole nine yards. while i admit that the support for outline fonts in the OS is a definate advantage, it's the ONLY advantage. The interface is slow, clumsy, and wastes ALOT of time. it's attempt at multi-tasking is so unusable (at least to someone who has REALLY used multi-tasking) that i prefer to single task with it, rather than suffer jerky performance. It's graphics are slow especially when you get into 8 or 24 bits, and other than cute macro programs that i don't trust, there is no way to automate any processes. on our IIcx we've gone through 3 keyboards in 1 year and our dealer (computerland) tells us it's a "common problem". As for "slashing prices" going from outrageous to overpriced is not what i call slashing. you are still not getting a bang for your buck, because cheaper to apple means just that. CHEAP. it took them so long to get the production prices of the classic down so they could still make an outragos profit. for what it is, the classic should cost half of what it does. UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/15/91)
In article <00668668801@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM> elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) writes: >From article <3$P-B6-@irie.ais.org>, by jph@ais.org (Joseph Hillenburg): >> In article <00668212609@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM> elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) writes: >>>From article <19467@cbmvax.commodore.com>, by raible@cbmvax.commodore.com >> (Bob Raible - LSI Design): >>>> In fact Jay Miner (former Atari guru) ... >>>Wrongo. >> Check who you're following up on next time. >I *KNOW* who I'm following up to :-). Actually, it's not Bob's fault. Most >of Commodore's present engineers came on board long after the original >Amiga team had been laid off/dispersed/quit/whatever. Well, a few of us, like me and Bob, have been at C= since before the Amiga. Some of us were among the first to get "into" the Amiga, but it started out on the user or hobby level first. For instance, I started using and programming an Amiga in 1985, but I didn't get to work on the hardware until the very end of 1986. Some of the IC folks now working on Amiga stuff got into it even later. Even old timers get their stories a little mixed up, and of course, we here on the Right Coast got a totally different picture of the goings on at Amiga than those who started the whole thing over there on the Left. Bob's chip designs are far more accurate than his story telling. And it wasn't that far off, anyway. The _stated_ goal, orginally, of the Amiga design team was to make an ultimate game machine, and that's how they started attracting money. That they wanted to, and actually managed to do more was certainly apparent by the time C= got involved. And the term "game machine" really shouldn't be a degradation, anyway. Basically, video games need to do many of the same kinds of things that personal computers need to do, only faster. The guts of many commercial video games, especially back in '85 when the Amiga was introduced, are far more sophisticated than your typical PC. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar14.182414.11033@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >>with a full 32-bit bus running at 25MHz, built in 32-bit SCSI and > Is this SCSI-2? SCSI-1 is an 8-bit protocol. Well, actually, the A3000 ships with SCSI-1 now, but can easily support SCSI-2 with a chip change. SCSI-1, and most SCSI-2 implementations as well, use 8 bit datapaths. So what? AppleTalk and RS-232 use 1 bit data paths, that doesn't mean I'm going to make my computer read each of these in one bit at a time. In most Mac, that's exactly what you're doing with SCSI. In the A3000, data from the SCSI bus goes into a FIFO. When the FIFO is full, the hard disk controller masters the bus and dumps that data to memory, going fast and using the full system bus with of 32 bits. Then it goes away, and waits for the FIFO to fill again. When the transfer is complete, it send the CPU an interrupt. Amiga SCSI works the same on A2000s and A500s, except they use the 16 bit data path on those machines. >>up to 18MB on the motherboard, > Well, you can put 128MB on the motherboard of a Mac II today... not >that it's really relevant. Certainly not MOST Mac IIs. The IIcx here in my lab only has two banks of SIMMs. It supports (at least I think it does...) up to 16Mbit SIMMs, which would give you 32MB, if fully populated. It is a moot point, since the Mac OS can't use more that 16MB (sure, cheap shot, but it was a big target...). > CDTV IS innovative - I forgot about that... but it seems to suffer >the age-old Commodore problem of being announced 10 years before it's >ready to ship :-) Gee, guess I missed that 1981 announcement. Of course, I was kind of out of touch in college... > Look at what Apple is doing this year Well, that's what Apple is announcing this year. Like CDTV, or Mac OS release 7, we'll believe it when it's out. >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/15/91)
In article <7906@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: > >My only point is that the A500 is a rip off. Yes, you can add a drive, case, >and powersupply. But only at a price. For $499 you get a machine without >a monitor, SCSI, HD case, SIMM memory, Appletalk(even cheapo Tandys have this). For $749 you get a classic with SCSI, appletalk, _monitor_, and a killer OS. >There is no better buy today than the Classic. While admittedly it is time the A500 went in for an overhaul, hey, I don't want the Classic's _monitor_. It is a tiny $6 B&W screen. The A500 for $500 comes with the ability to connect it directly to your TV if you really want to save money. And I do agree that most real applications don't need color, still the SIZE of the display is frustrating. It also comes with starter software. Admittedly, there is no SCSI, which would be nice. Admittedly there is no AppleTalk, which can be useful for some, although many people who need networking would do better with Arcnet/Ethernet. And, we won't get into another OS debate. > >They are suing two companies: HP & Microsoft. They are suing over a stolen >look and feel. Commodore and NeXT were not sued, because they _innovated_ when >they wrote their OS. Micosoft saw a good thing and xeroxed (pun intended) it. > >Apple is within their right (and duty) to protect the validity of their >copyright on look and feel. > >Can you imagine a world where anyone could make a functional copy of Excel by >analyzing the operation of it and release it as their own program without >innovating. Look at Windows. Use it. Use a mac. Tell me Microsoft innovated. This is the way I look at it: 1) All VCRs look alike 2) All Blenders look alike 3) All telephones look alike etc. etc. etc. They all have the same look and feel, almost without exception. There is no "innovation" between different brands of blenders. Yet there are no lawsuits there. I think the same should apply here. As long as it isn't duplicated exactly and there is no copying of actually source or binary, so be it. -- Ethan A tourist in New York City was overheard asking a New Yorker, "Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to the statue of liberty, or should I go f*ck myself?"
blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) (03/15/91)
> While admittedly it is time the A500 went in for an >overhaul, hey, I don't want the Classic's _monitor_. It is a tiny >$6 B&W screen. The A500 for $500 comes with the ability to >connect it directly to your TV if you really want to save money. Good point. The 9" screen is small. BUT, for $300 you can add a 640x480 VGA monitor as a second monitor (i.e., use both at once for different data. That $300 is darn close to the ~300 a monitor costs for an Amiga. [stuff deleted] >Admittedly there is no AppleTalk, which can be useful for >some, although many people who need networking would do better >with Arcnet/Ethernet. True, but Appletalk is great for 3 or 4 machine networks (sharing modems, printers, plotters). It's all I've ever used at a non-university location. Ethernet is overkill for most of the small businesses I've seen using macs. Appletalk is flexible and cheap and widely supported.
metahawk@itsgw.rpi.edu (Wayne G Rigby) (03/15/91)
In article <19884@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: [stuff deleted] >Well, that's what Apple is announcing this year. Like CDTV, or Mac OS release >7, we'll believe it when it's out. > I have had the opportunity to use a Beta copy of System 7 fairly extensively. Much of the things that are immediately evident is a reworking of the way the GUI looks. Much of it (like the textured "thumbs" on the sliders) is pretty, and nothing much else. There are some nice new additions like the scripts allowing 'Launcher' like capabilities built into the OS. I found this Beta copy just a little less stable than 6.0.5 with the things that would run on it. It was extremely easy to crash the system at times. (I was really surprised when PSpice crashed the system.) It also was completely incompatible with Apple's 8.24 card (did not work at all). The System file took easily 2 megs (we had over 3 megs for a while) and would not fit/work on anything with less than 2 megs of RAM. I didn't find any real improvement with multitasking; the mouse pointer was smoother than system 6, still couldn't do anything during floppy formatting, and couldn't access 2 or more drives at once. I do like the scalable fonts though. I have heard that a new Beta copy (Gamma?) has been released since I've played with the one I tinkered with, but from the feel I've had so far, it's going to be just a while longer before it's compatible enough to ship (of course, this is just my opinion). It's nice, but I have friends with Macs who've been talking about System 7 for much more than a year now. I didn't know about Workbench 2.0 until the 3000 was out (or there about). Talking about dangling an apple in front of the donkey (puns intended). Now, anybody willing to trade their A3000 for my C128 one for one? I'd really appreciate it, as I can't afford one while paying about $14,000/year in tuition alone (before loans/scolarships). :) > >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett Wayne Rigby - Computer and Systems Engineer (in training) metahawk@rpi.edu
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (03/16/91)
In article <> trotter@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Russell T. Trotter) writes: >I agree being forced to insert a disk with no cancel box is a >bit inconveinent....maybe more in your case but anyway..just for >future reference you can "cancel" that dialog by typing >Command - period , or hold the open apple button down and press >the "." Of course. How intuitively obvious. <sarcasm, folks> You know, there are many instances in the Mac operating system where potentially useful features of the computer are obscurely hidden behind this sort of stuff. For reference -- how do you save the current Mac screen to disk? Where on the disk would that file exist? etc. etc. Not that I am trying to say the Amiga is any better -- to cancel an Amiga requester, you can hit the <cancel> box (which is nice), or you can use Amiga-B (which is not intuitive either). Hasn't anyone ever seen that ESC key? What do people suppose it might be useful for? Geez people, it's part of the Motif spec too... >Also I don't think it's fair for you to note isolated instances such >as your slow appletalk and apply this to your opinion of Macs. At our >university we have Mac and PC networks. Our Mac network is quite >efficient and relatively fast, whereas some PC net setups are much >slower, but I still don't hate PC's }) It is quite fair to quote from experience to support a given conclusion. If that experience is limited, it limits the support for the conclusion, but it does not invalidate the reasoning. It's just as logical for a Mac user to say that in his experience Amiga drives were dog slow, the interface was a piece of non-intuitive <expletive> and he would never buy one, as it is for the Amiga user to say that the Macs he has used had inbuilt networking that would never compel him to buy a Mac. Don't you think? Frankly I think Apple can improve their interface by leaps and bounds, and Commodore *needs* to improve their interface by leaps and bounds. I think Commodore can improve their operating system, and Apple *needs* to improve theirs. I think Apple does not completely address the latter with 7.0, and Cmdre does not address the former with 2.0. Both are still playing to their strengths. That's unfortunate, because I want the best computer for everything that I do, and such a computer does not exist, and is not likely to exist until somebody turns around and fixes their flank. Of course, that's just my opinion, as always. David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu Signature erased, because it used to be something snide against the Mac. undergoing recnstrctn. [Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus]
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (03/16/91)
In article <12014@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: >In article <> trotter@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Russell T. Trotter) writes: >>I agree being forced to insert a disk with no cancel box is a >>bit inconveinent....maybe more in your case but anyway..just for >>future reference you can "cancel" that dialog by typing >>Command - period , or hold the open apple button down and press >>the "." > >Of course. How intuitively obvious. <sarcasm, folks> > >You know, there are many instances in the Mac operating system where potentially >useful features of the computer are obscurely hidden behind this sort of stuff. Command-. documented in the manuals, and is given in many circumstances in which length procedures are taking place. Anyone who has canceled a print job on a Mac knows that. The messages stares you in the face as you print. >For reference -- how do you save the current Mac screen to disk? Where on the >disk would that file exist? etc. etc. Command-shift-3 to dump the screen to disk. Command-shift-4 to print the current window to an ImageWriter. These commands are on the command reference card that comes with the Mac. OK, so they fudged when they said you don't have to RTFM. (The screen dump goes to the root level of the disk with the currently active System, I think.) >Hasn't anyone ever seen that ESC key? What do people suppose it might be >useful for? Geez people, it's part of the Motif spec too... Terminal emulation, of course.
greyfire@ecst.csuchico.edu (Thomas L. Talley) (03/17/91)
In article <45668@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >Command-. documented in the manuals, and is given in many circumstances in >which length procedures are taking place. Anyone who has canceled a print job >on a Mac knows that. The messages stares you in the face as you print. > I see you don't work in a computer lab with typical users day in day out ;). In the lab were I work people just don't bother to read signs, insturctions, manuals, anything. [not compleatly true about 5% of the people do all of the above.] We have people who always ask how to cancel or do something when the instructions are sitting on their screen. We have had someone send 23 copies of their paper to the laserprinter and want to know why there paper hasn't printed out on the Imagewriter yet. The macintosh tells you several times what printer your going to. Sorry people who can't be botherd to at least look at the instructions really irritate me, if their honestly confused after reading the instructions thats a whole nother thing. But most people don't want to read any instructions period. Tom Talley -- Tom Talley greyfire@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (03/19/91)
In article <45668@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >Command-. documented in the manuals, and is given in many circumstances in >which length procedures are taking place. Anyone who has canceled a print job >on a Mac knows that. The messages stares you in the face as you print. Great, but why should I "the idiot user" automatically recognize those instances where command-. can be applied? Why should I "the idiot user" want to read the manual -- isn't that why I bought a M*c to begin with? Sure, the learning curve is more graceful, but it doesn't mean that we can't recognize where improvement can be made, does it? I hope not... >Command-shift-3 to dump the screen to disk. Command-shift-4 to print the >current window to an ImageWriter. These commands are on the command reference >card that comes with the Mac. OK, so they fudged when they said you don't >have to RTFM. (The screen dump goes to the root level of the disk with the >currently active System, I think.) Great -- I actually knew that by the way. We had a discussion in our graduate user-interface course -- not even the Mac *expert* knew where the file ended up. He said that it might depend on the system you were running. Sheesh... The point is, these things should be accessed in a better manner -- at least that's my claim. I'd much rather have a menu bring up a dialog box with these commands. And gee, you might even describe where the file was gonna end up too... [Of course, giggle, you'd have to close the dialog box before you actually printed the screen :) ] >>Hasn't anyone ever seen that ESC key? What do people suppose it might be >Terminal emulation, of course. I do hope there's an implied smiley there... :) David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu Signature erased, because it used to be something snide against the Mac. undergoing recnstrctn. [Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus]
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/20/91)
In article <45668@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: > Command-. documented in the manuals, and is given in many circumstances in > which length procedures are taking place. Anyone who has canceled a print job > on a Mac knows that. The messages stares you in the face as you print. > Command-shift-3 to dump the screen to disk. Command-shift-4 to print the > current window to an ImageWriter. Sounds like Apple has more in common with the FSF than they thought. This stuff sounds just like the control-alt-meta-cokebottle commands Emacs inherited from ITS. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) (03/21/91)
In article <1991Mar20.132545.4147@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <45668@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >> Command-. documented in the manuals, and is given in many circumstances in >> which length procedures are taking place. Anyone who has canceled a print job >> on a Mac knows that. The messages stares you in the face as you print. >> Command-shift-3 to dump the screen to disk. Command-shift-4 to print the >> current window to an ImageWriter. > >Sounds like Apple has more in common with the FSF than they thought. This stuff >sounds just like the control-alt-meta-cokebottle commands Emacs inherited from >ITS. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. Would you prefer a 'dump screen to disk' key located between Shift and Control? -- Don DeVoe \"Every jumbled pile of person has a thinking part that wonders ddev@wam.umd.edu \ what the part that isn't thinking isn't thinking of" -TMBG
minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (03/22/91)
by navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas): |>Command-. documented in the manuals, and is given in many circumstances in |>which length procedures are taking place. Anyone who has canceled a print job |>on a Mac knows that. The messages stares you in the face as you print. | | Great, but why should I "the idiot user" automatically recognize those | instances where command-. can be applied? Why should I "the idiot user" | want to read the manual -- isn't that why I bought a M*c to begin with? | | Sure, the learning curve is more graceful, but it doesn't mean that we | can't recognize where improvement can be made, does it? I hope not... I share your hope. There are some things Apple has done that are about as contrary to the user interface guidlines as you can get. Specifically, hidden options come to mind. How do you zap the PRAM? Well, just hold down this, that, and the key over there and do this and shazam! How do you rebuild the Desktop file? And so on. |>Command-shift-3 to dump the screen to disk. Command-shift-4 to print the |>current window to an ImageWriter. These commands are on the command |>reference card that comes with the Mac. OK, so they fudged when they |>said you don't have to RTFM. (The screen dump goes to the root level of |>the disk with the currently active System, I think.) | | Great -- I actually knew that by the way. We had a discussion in our | graduate user-interface course -- not even the Mac *expert* knew where | the file ended up. He said that it might depend on the system you were | running. Sheesh... | | The point is, these things should be accessed in a better manner -- at | least that's my claim. I'd much rather have a menu bring up a dialog | box with these commands. And gee, you might even describe where the | file was gonna end up too... [Of course, giggle, you'd have to close | the dialog box before you actually printed the screen :) ] I have to point out that the implementation of cmd-shft-3 and cmd-shft-4 are truly hacks. To give them a proper interface would seem a crime when you consider that the code measures a mere 598 and 34 bytes respectively. I suspect a real interface would take quite a bit more code, not to mention working with other printers, etc.. :-) Besides, this is the type of functional gap that Apple purposely leaves to third parties so they can nickel and dime us to death and make their money. |>>Hasn't anyone ever seen that ESC key? What do people suppose it might be | |>Terminal emulation, of course. | | I do hope there's an implied smiley there... :) Well, Apple _did_ specify that the escape key be recognized as having the same effect as a Cancel button, if applicable. This is similar to the guidelines saying F1 F2 and F3 are cut/copy/paste. However, no Macintosh application should depend on the presence of these keys. There are some abilities that are forbidden for Mac applications except for emulators or alternate operating systems such as the ability to distinguish between the left and right shift keys and the control keys. Keep in mind none of these considerations needed any thought since Apple didn't have control or Fx etc keys until the Mac II was released, so a lot of programs were written without them in mind. -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| "I'm not discouraging others from using |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | their power of the pen, but mine will | U | - "Ackphtth" | continue to do the crossword." M. Ho