Sonny.Shrivastava@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sonny Shrivastava) (10/13/90)
Of course, the Amax-II only runs on 128k Mac ROMs, and only in monochrome.
So any performance test done on a Mac should be done in monochrome mode. I
have a IIci and will post results from Speedometer shortly. Amax-II is
silly, in my opinion - it's just there in name to give the Amiga supposed
Macintosh compatibility.
Tell me, what can you do with a black/white 640x400 INTERLACED flickering
screen display? Next to nothing. All new Macs will have 512k 32-bit clean
ROMs. That will render newly written software practically useless on the
Amax. I think your Amiga friend is suffering from Mac envy, even though
he'll never admit it.
--
Sonny Shrivastava - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!Sonny.Shrivastava
INTERNET: Sonny.Shrivastava@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORGSonny.Shrivastava@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sonny Shrivastava) (10/13/90)
Ok, I got the results of the Speedometer tests. Unfortunately, the latest
version of Speedometer that I have is version 2.0. I will post the results I
got with that. The figures you quoted seem way off to me. Som of them make
sense, but others are totally ridiculous, like the math results. Speedometer
2.0 compares its results to a stock Mac SE with a 20 MB hard disk. Here are
those comparison numbers:
CPU: 6.62 x speed of Mac SE
Math: 13.97
Disk: 5.05
Overall: 7.78
Now...
Kwhetstones/sec: 108.108
Dhrystones/sec: 5008.347
Sieve (Sec. for 10 times): .583
Savage Cum. Error: 2.29745e-0111
Savage Time: 22.950
Savage Iterations: 5000
Unfortunately, some of these results are incredibly low. That is because
Speedometer 2.0 was not compiled and optimized for the 68882 FPU. In the
documentation of 2.0, I found that the author wrote a version (which I don't
have, natch) that is optimized for and takes full advantage of the 68881.
This is slower than a 68882, mind you. With that, he got over 600
Kwhetstones/second, and the above "Math: 13.97" jumped to 118!! I will try
to get my hands on a copy of Speedometer 2.5, so we can do an accurate
comparison. I provided the above results because I had them, but don't use
them or quote them, because they aren't accurate or representative. When I
get 2.5, I'll post a message to you with the results.
--
Sonny Shrivastava - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!Sonny.Shrivastava
INTERNET: Sonny.Shrivastava@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORGes1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (10/21/90)
In article <7876.271B9F29@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> Sonny.Shrivastava@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sonny Shrivastava) writes: > >Tell me, what can you do with a black/white 640x400 INTERLACED flickering >screen display? Next to nothing. All new Macs will have 512k 32-bit clean >ROMs. That will render newly written software practically useless on the >Amax. I think your Amiga friend is suffering from Mac envy, even though >he'll never admit it. > Admittedly, the AMax compatibility is only Mac Plus compat., however you should realize that flicker-fixers are built-in to Amiga 3000's and are available for Amiga 2000's. AMax will also work fine on Amigas with accelerators just fine. Also, most software does work on Mac Pluses with enough memory and a hard drive. I would never recommend someone get an Amiga just for the Mac compatibility, nor for the IBM compatibility. However, they give people who want Amigas for other reasons but also need compatibility with other machines the ability to get the best of both worlds. There is no need for senseless flames. Amigas and Macs both have advantages for different people. Have you seen Amiga 3000s, or even an Amiga with a flicker-fixer? The Amiga's native multitasking and very responsive OS are it's primary advantages to non-video/multimedia people. However, although the Amiga may not currently have the greatest proffesional software, not everyone needs the highest quality. The Amiga has some excellent word processors, spreadsheets and databases. Unfortunately there is no WordPerfect 5.1, Excel or FoxBase. This doesn't make the system suck, just make it inappropriate for someone doing heavy duty spreadsheets. >-- >Sonny Shrivastava - via FidoNet node 1:125/777 > UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!Sonny.Shrivastava >INTERNET: Sonny.Shrivastava@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu GorbachevAwards++; free (SovietUnion); IndependentRepublics += 15;
cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland) (10/22/90)
To: Sonny.Shrivastava@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG Subject: Re: Surely A Iifx Blows An Amiga 3 Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc In-Reply-To: <7876.271B9F29@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> Organization: University of California, San Diego Cc: Bcc: In article <7876.271B9F29@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> you write: >Of course, the Amax-II only runs on 128k Mac ROMs, and only in monochrome. >So any performance test done on a Mac should be done in monochrome mode. I >have a IIci and will post results from Speedometer shortly. Amax-II is >silly, in my opinion - it's just there in name to give the Amiga supposed >Macintosh compatibility. > >Tell me, what can you do with a black/white 640x400 INTERLACED flickering >screen display? Next to nothing. All new Macs will have 512k 32-bit clean >ROMs. That will render newly written software practically useless on the >Amax. I think your Amiga friend is suffering from Mac envy, even though >he'll never admit it. > >-- >Sonny Shrivastava - via FidoNet node 1:125/777 > UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!Sonny.Shrivastava >INTERNET: Sonny.Shrivastava@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG Whoop whoop, watch that there, let's talk reality: Amax II. Good product. There's a lot of little programs, particularly short scientific programs and niche stuff like that, that simply aren't on the Amiga yet. And some serious software, like Mathematica (we have Maple, but that's one level below Mathematica). Amax II brings that to the person who needs Amiga power but also needs software that isn't yet out for Amiga. I'm impressed with Amax II's speed, very impressed indeed. It's largely a software product and as such really ought to be quite slow, ROM chips notwithstanding. It has no business standing up to Mac IIci's and IIfx's, though the fact that it matches the former is testimony to good developers. But Amax II isn't Mac II, even on a 3000. It's a bloody Mac Plus emulator. Stuff designed for Mac II only can be competed with on the Amiga proper; contrary to Sonny, though, I think that most software will continue to be compatible with Mac Classic et al machines and the user base of Pluses and SEs. Just to fill in the cracks until Amiga's been around as long as Mac. Amax is quite good compatibility, you should try it sometime. I eagerly await the results of Apple's Amiga 500 emulator ;'} Oh, BTW, flicker is way old news. And don't knock interlace, that's why we can do such screaming video work. The 3000 has no-flicker built in, and similar products are there for all Amiga models now. Me? I'm in hi-res on a lowly 500 from years ago without even a new Agnus chip, looking through a $19 screen filter onto a high-contrast screen. I detect no flicker. Jeez, why don't we take on IBM. How's that Micro Channel for a bus, eh? The bus that even the clone makers wouldn't emulate. Thom p.s. I'd be curious why one can't do anything on a B/W screen display, just like a regular mac's except with more resolution. Many people I know are quite happy with compact Macs. Mac envy? Ain't no such varmint.
wieser@cs-sun-fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) (10/23/90)
Does anyone know what amax announces itself as? I would like to have my software NOT run when it sees an emulator. Bernie Wieser Someone somewhere at U of C Working and being educated somewhere at some time sometimes
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (10/23/90)
In-Reply-To: message from Sonny.Shrivastava@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG
If you'll look at the title of the post you responded to, you'll notice that
it's refering to the Amiga 3000.
^^^^^^^^^^
The Amiga 3000 has TWO, count'em, TWO video ports out the back. One is for
video applications, and has the appropriate 15.75kHz freq. The other is for
use with a multiscan or VGA moniter and is 31.5kHz...flicker-free! I'd also
like to add that Amax supports the ECS, so you have several choices for screen
mode and resolution...640 x 400, 640 x 480, 640 x 960, etc., etc.
Get your facts straight...
Sean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .SIG v2.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^)
ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | Dual A3000 based, custom
Help keep the | computer graphics,
RealWorld: Sean Cunningham competition // | animation, presentation,
Voice: (512) 994-1602 under \X/ | simulation, accident-
| scene re-creation, and
...better life through creative computing... | recreation...(whew!)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) (10/24/90)
In a previous article, Sonny.Shrivastava@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Sonny Shrivastava) says: >Tell me, what can you do with a black/white 640x400 INTERLACED flickering >screen display? Next to nothing. All new Macs will have 512k 32-bit clean >ROMs. Mac's have Interlaced video also. The video runs at 90Mhz so you don't notice the flicker, but its interlaced none the less. The 90Hhz video is one reason the Mac is hard to use for video, the Amiga video runs at standard NTSC rates. BTW I have a Mac at work and any software that I've run on a real Mac runs just fine on the AMAX I have at home. No offense but I've heard its not hard to emulate a Mac on the Amiga but it would be nearly impossible to emulate an Amiga on the Mac. -- /// Pete Babic - pab@po.cwru.edu | /// /\ Integrated Library Systems | \\\ /// /--\MIGA Case Western Reserve University | \\\/// The future is here now!
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (10/25/90)
In article <1990Oct22.203332.29159@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wieser@cs-sun-fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: >Does anyone know what amax announces itself as? I would like to have >my software NOT run when it sees an emulator. > It announces itself as a Mac Plus. I don't think you want to get rid of all Mac Pluses. Why would you care if it ran on an emulator? You'd make more sales that way. Is there a "purity" issue here that you wouldn't want your software running on one of those ICKY Commodore or Atari machines? They both make very nice Macs. 8) >Bernie Wieser >Someone somewhere at U of C >Working and being educated somewhere at some time sometimes -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu GorbachevAwards++; free (SovietUnion); IndependentRepublics += 15;
dave@imax.com (Dave Martindale) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct23.193646.8067@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) writes: > >Mac's have Interlaced video also. The video runs at 90Mhz so you don't notice >the flicker, but its interlaced none the less. The 90Hhz video is one reason >the Mac is hard to use for video, the Amiga video runs at standard NTSC rates. Where did you get this information? Any Mac video that I have ever looked at was NOT interlaced. The frame rate is typically somewhere around 70 Hz. Do you have any actual measured numbers for any Mac video card - horizontal and vertical frequency, or pixel clock. Or data sheets that claim this? It is not possible to provide "workstation" quality in screen images while using NTSC-standard (actually EIA RS-170A) video timing. Amiga chose to use RS-170 timing, and so it fits in the low-cost video world very well. The Mac family chose to be a workstation, with video suitable for that world. As a result of these choices, the Amiga suffers from interlace flicker and the Mac doesn't. I have heard of a device called the FlickerFixer for the Amiga - but if it eliminates flicker, it also eliminates NTSC compatibility.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct30.171538.14327@imax.com> dave@imax.com (Dave Martindale) writes: > >As a result of these choices, the Amiga suffers from interlace flicker and the >Mac doesn't. I have heard of a device called the FlickerFixer for the Amiga - >but if it eliminates flicker, it also eliminates NTSC compatibility. The Amiga 3000 comes with a chip which does the work of a flicker-fixer. There are three companies which make flicker-fixer addons for the A2000, including Commodore. The Commodore board can be found for under $250. And these boards do not eliminate NTSC compatibility. The simply add a second video port with the same picture coming out both, so you can have your video equipment hooked up to the old port and the monitor on the new. -- Ethan Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu GorbachevAwards++; free (SovietUnion); IndependentRepublics += 15;
davids@ucscf.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct30.171538.14327@imax.com> dave@imax.com (Dave Martindale) writes: [...] >It is not possible to provide "workstation" quality in screen images >while using NTSC-standard (actually EIA RS-170A) video timing. Amiga chose >to use RS-170 timing, and so it fits in the low-cost video world very well. >The Mac family chose to be a workstation, with video suitable for that world. Wait a minute, I think you changed definitions of 'video' between the third and fourth line :-). If your goal is to produce NTSC output, then you need interlacing. There's no such thing as "low-cost" video vs. "workstation" video (at least in the area of timing, which is what you seem to be implying). I agree that the Mac is currently better at such things as 1024x768 w/16M colors, but that's not video (your term "screen images" is a better one). >As a result of these choices, the Amiga suffers from interlace flicker and the >Mac doesn't. I have heard of a device called the FlickerFixer for the Amiga - >but if it eliminates flicker, it also eliminates NTSC compatibility. You're assuming that the FlickerFixer affects the entire machine. Actually, the FlickerFixer works as a separate entity. A 15.75Khz video signal comes in, and a 31.5Khz (scan-doubled or de-interlaced) signal comes out through a separate port. In theory, you can hook up your multisync monitor to the FlickerFixer and your genlock to the regular Amiga video port and have the best of both worlds (almost; you won't have the genlocked video displayable on your multisync, but you should have some NTSC display deviced hooked into all this along with your VCR anyway). In practice, this has not been true because a genlock hooked up to an Amiga alters the timing of the computer just enough to keep the FlickerFixer from working. The makers of the FlickerFixer have produced a $50 hardware fix for this, and I believe the new Commodore flickerfixer doesn't suffer from this problem at all. -- Dave Schreiber davids@slugmail.ucsc.edu or (but not both) davids@ucscb.ucsc.edu "It was fun learning about logic, but I don't see where or when I will ever use it again."
dave@imax.com (Dave Martindale) (11/05/90)
In article <8350@darkstar.ucsc.edu> davids@ucscf.UCSC.EDU (Dave Schreiber) writes: > >In article <1990Oct30.171538.14327@imax.com> dave@imax.com (Dave Martindale) writes: > >[...] > >>It is not possible to provide "workstation" quality in screen images >>while using NTSC-standard (actually EIA RS-170A) video timing. Amiga chose >>to use RS-170 timing, and so it fits in the low-cost video world very well. >>The Mac family chose to be a workstation, with video suitable for that world. > >Wait a minute, I think you changed definitions of 'video' between the third >and fourth line :-). If your goal is to produce NTSC output, then you need >interlacing. There's no such thing as "low-cost" video vs. "workstation" >video (at least in the area of timing, which is what you seem to be >implying). I agree that the Mac is currently better at such things as >1024x768 w/16M colors, but that's not video. Not at all. As I use it, "video" is any signal or set of signals used to drive a raster-scan display device. This includes NTSC/RS-170, but also includes HDTV (all variations), plus all of the unique formats put out by Sun workstations, SGI workstations, VGA boards, and everything else. I could have said "low-cost NTSC video" in the third line, but I thought that was obvious. When I talk about the Mac as a "workstation", I mean that its video frequencies and bandwidth are at least up in the lower range of that used by computers sold as workstations. The thing that most obviously distinguishes NTSC-compatible video from what I refer to "workstation" video is the horizontal sweep rate. Current workstations mostly use a H frequency of about 50-70 kHz, and even hardware built many years ago was using 30 kHz, while NTSC is 15.7 kHz. Video bandwidth for NTSC is about 4 MHz, while workstations need 25-100 MHz. All that extra bandwidth goes towards displaying more pixels and eliminating flicker by refreshing the whole display faster. >You're assuming that the FlickerFixer affects the entire machine. Actually, >the FlickerFixer works as a separate entity. A 15.75Khz video signal >comes in, and a 31.5Khz (scan-doubled or de-interlaced) signal comes >out through a separate port. In theory, you can hook up your multisync >monitor to the FlickerFixer and your genlock to the regular Amiga video >port and have the best of both worlds. Ok, so the FlickerFixer is a separate frame buffer that doesn't affect the NTSC output. So you have two frame buffers that show the same image, and which are limited to a 30 Hz update rate. Does the FlickerFixer plug into the Amiga, or is it a separate outboard box? It still seems rather silly to have a whole second framebuffer's worth of video memory and not be able to display a second image. (It makes about as much sense as buying a second microprocessor called a "print buffer" because your operating sytem can't multitask.) Anyway, if you're willing to pay for a second framebuffer, you can have non-interlaced video on an Amiga. By the same token, buying a second framebuffer can give you genlock NTSC capability on the Mac. (Or a second high-res screen - the Mac is more flexible that way). That's somewhat beside the point. Most users use the standard video. The Amiga's standard video is well-suited to "desk top video", and the applications available for it reflect that. The Mac's video is unusable for DTV, but fine for "desk top publishing", and that's why there is so much DTP software for the Mac. Dave Martindale