logan@netxcom.netx.com (Jim Logan) (06/08/91)
Please note the Followup-To line!!! Please note the Followup-To line!!! Please note the Followup-To line!!! In article <1991May7.142305.7287@watserv1.waterloo.edu> mathnew2@watserv1.waterloo.edu (mathNOOS [mathNEWS editors]) writes: # I was wondering if somone could help me. I am looking at purchasing an # AMIGA 3000UX (100 MG HD, 5MB RAM), and I had a few questions about it. # # 1) What documentation/manuals come with it? Three manuals. One is installing UNIX, one is learning UNIX, and I don't recall the third. Others should feel free to correct me! # 2) How stable is the current version of UNIX, and what is the upgrade # policy/costs for new versions of UNIX? Let me put it this way: if you want to use the serial port or the UFS filesystem, wait until release 2.0 comes out this summer. I think C= said that the upgrade cost will be the cost of the media. ($50?) # 3) How does one switch between AMIGA DOS and UNIX, and is it possible # set the machine to default to one of them on boot up? You hold down the outer mouse buttons and a menu will appear when you boot. If automatically defaults to the last OS used, unless you booted from a floppy. # 4) Is there a list of programs that do not have DOS 2.0 compatability # problems out there? If there is could someone mail it to me? The only programs I've had problems with are games that do strange things with my floppy drive for copy-protection purposes. Any other program that I've tried will work under 1.3 if not under 2.0. Sometimes the programs look ugly and chunky because they use the lowest resolution graphics. I usually don't buy programs that look chunky, so I can't say I've had too much experience using older programs on the A3000. # If there are any other tidbits of info. out there that I should know # about, I would appreciate hearing them. If you want to use X windows, you will not be satisfied with the internal graphics chips. I can really only fit one 80x25 window on the screen with a small clock in the corner. You will have to buy a U Lowell board if you want to be able to have more than one 80x25 screen open at the same time. The response time is better than what I've seen under ISC UNIX for the 386. C= says the new X11R4 server in AMIX 2.0 is faster than that. I'm still not 100% sure that the U Lowell board will work with my 1950 monitor. Does anyone else know? Commodore? I'd love it if I could get 1024x768 (or whatever the highest resolution of the board is) on my 1950 monitor with 256 colors. I realize that the monitor only provides 800x600, but it seems that the board should be able to display the 1024x768-pixel image on my lower-res monitor. Not every dot will be mapped to one RGB cell on my monitor, but it should still look okay, right? I heard a rumor that you can change the oscillator for the type of monitor you want to use. I hope it's true. -- Jim Logan Home: logan%gimlet@uunet.uu.net Consultant Work: logan@netx.com Net Express, Inc. Phone: (703) 749-2269
storch@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Matthew Storch) (06/09/91)
Do you have any idea where I can get more info on the ULowell board? (particularly price and availability). It's been talked about some in the magazines but I had no idea it's being sold... Any info would be appreciated. Matt
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (06/10/91)
In article <448@netxcom.netx.com> logan@netxcom.netx.com (Jim Logan) writes: >Let me put it this way: if you want to use the serial port or the >UFS filesystem, wait until release 2.0 comes out this summer. I >think C= said that the upgrade cost will be the cost of the >media. ($50?) You can also use an A2232 7-port serial board under the current kernel. >You hold down the outer mouse buttons and a menu will appear when >you boot. If automatically defaults to the last OS used, unless >you booted from a floppy. Actually, it defaults to whichever has the higher boot priority. >If you want to use X windows, you will not be satisfied with the >internal graphics chips. I can really only fit one 80x25 >window on the screen with a small clock in the corner. You will You ought to be able to get an 80x50 window on there (of course it does depend on font size). >have to buy a U Lowell board if you want to be able to have more >than one 80x25 screen open at the same time. You can also use the A2024 monitor: 1Kx800 (US, 1Kx1K europe), 4-grey level (plus dithers for more in lower resolutions). 60Hz refresh, but 10 or 15Hz update rate. In reality, the update rate is rarely noticable except when doing animations or large-window scrolling. The monitor isn't gigantic (14?15?"), though it's fairly inexpensive. A moniterm viking (the same thing essentially, as a separate card for the video slot, with a 19" moniterm monitor) is rather more expensive (though nice). >I'm still not 100% sure that the U Lowell board will work with my >1950 monitor. Does anyone else know? Commodore? Yes, at least in the lower resolutions, perhaps (I'm unsure) in the higher. -- Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com BIX: rjesup Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion. "No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) (06/10/91)
logan@netxcom.netx.com (Jim Logan) writes: > # If there are any other tidbits of info. out there that I should know > # about, I would appreciate hearing them. > > You will have to buy a U Lowell board if you want to be able to have > more than one 80x25 screen open at the same time. Wrong. The A2024 (Hedley Monitor) allows up to 1024x1024 resolution. > I'm still not 100% sure that the U Lowell board will work with my > 1950 monitor. Does anyone else know? Commodore? I does. > I'd love it if I could get 1024x768 (or whatever the highest > resolution of the board is) on my 1950 monitor with 256 colors. You may change the oscillators. There are two, actually, and you may switch between them. Pax, Keith -- Keith Gabryelski Advanced Products Group ag@amix.commodore.com ...!cbmvax!amix!ag
skrenta@amix.commodore.com (Rich Skrenta) (06/10/91)
logan@netxcom.netx.com (Jim Logan) writes: > I'm still not 100% sure that the U Lowell board will work with my > 1950 monitor. Does anyone else know? Commodore? Yes, it does. -- skrenta@amix.commodore.com
ahh@moji.uucp (Andy Heffernan) (06/11/91)
In article <448@netxcom.netx.com> logan@netxcom.netx.com (Jim Logan) writes: [...] >I'm still not 100% sure that the U Lowell board will work with my >1950 monitor. Does anyone else know? Commodore? All of the pictures in brochures or advertisements show an A2410 display up on a 1950 monitor, so it appears to be possible. I haven't counted the pixels yet to see if you get 1024x768. -- $BJ8;z(J Andy Heffernan This is Unix ( )- ahh@moji.uucp (uunet!glyph!moji!ahh) This is your brain on Unix (o)- Any questions?
brett@visix.com (Brett Bourbin) (06/11/91)
In article <448@netxcom.netx.com>, logan@netxcom.netx.com (Jim Logan) writes: |> |> Please note the Followup-To line!!! Ok, Ok, I did. |> I'm still not 100% sure that the U Lowell board will work with my |> 1950 monitor. Does anyone else know? Commodore? Well, I am not from C=, but I have been told by a person very involved with the AMIX project that the 1950 will work with the U of Lowell card, but only in 800x600. |> I'd love it if I could get 1024x768 (or whatever the highest |> resolution of the board is) on my 1950 monitor with 256 colors. |> I realize that the monitor only provides 800x600, but it seems |> that the board should be able to display the 1024x768-pixel image |> on my lower-res monitor. Not every dot will be mapped to one RGB |> cell on my monitor, but it should still look okay, right? I |> heard a rumor that you can change the oscillator for the type of |> monitor you want to use. I hope it's true. I don't know, it doesn't seem likely. What I would like to see is support for the Lowell card in AmigaDOS. I'm sure the wizards at C= could make it work, if they weren't so busy. 8^) |> Jim Logan Home: logan%gimlet@uunet.uu.net -- __ Brett Bourbin \ / /(_ /\/ 11440 Commerce Park Drive ..!uunet!visix!brett \/ / __)/ /\ Reston, Virginia 22091 brett@visix.com Software Inc (703) 758-2733
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (06/15/91)
In article <2519@amix.commodore.com> ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) writes: >logan@netxcom.netx.com (Jim Logan) writes: >> # If there are any other tidbits of info. out there that I should know >> # about, I would appreciate hearing them. >> >> You will have to buy a U Lowell board if you want to be able to have >> more than one 80x25 screen open at the same time. > >Wrong. The A2024 (Hedley Monitor) allows up to 1024x1024 resolution. ?!?!?HUH?!?!?!?!? **EVERY** description of the A2024 I've seen said: 1008x800. ?!?!?HUH?!?!?!?!? One of my gripes about C= is that it focusses itself on providing capabilities for doing Video. I completely understand this attitude, from their standpoint, because they are selling well into the video market and want to cover that market Really Well. However I do not do video, I do programming. I want to have a workstation at home. Part of the requirement is: screen >= 1024x1024 and (because it's cheaper) monochrome. My understanding all along has been that C= did not provide that resolution. The only choice which I knew that C= would provide is the Lowell board. Forget, for the moment, that it's not available (yet). It is advertised as doing up to 1024x1024 & 256 colors out of 16 million. This is fine, but I do not find color *necessary* enough to justify the cost. It also hasn't been clear that a normal joe-blow multisync monitor would display that resolution. At the only demonstration I have seen it was set at 1024x768, which is just too small. The person giving the demo (a C= marketing person who didn't know the machine very well at all) did not know if the drivers would ever allow greater resolutions. At any rate.. from here this route seems very expensive. I've heard prices for the board between $700 up to $1500. I understand that equivalent boards for PC's & Mac's are in the $500-$700 range so the $1500 price should be way out of line (equiv board == 34010, enough memory, 8 bit color). And the cost of required for a monitor sufficient to drive 1024x1024 is an unknown quantity, possibly requiring one of the >$1000 models. This makes the price for a reasonable screen: <cost-of-system> + $2500 Compare to this that I can find SPARCstations for $4200 (an SLC, no disk, and 8 Megs of memory) which is less than <cost-of-system> ... Why should I buy an A3000UX?? Loyalty??? >> I'm still not 100% sure that the U Lowell board will work with my >> 1950 monitor. Does anyone else know? Commodore? > >I does. Ok, it should since 1950 is multi sync. But at 1024x1024?? >> I'd love it if I could get 1024x768 (or whatever the highest >> resolution of the board is) on my 1950 monitor with 256 colors. > >You may change the oscillators. There are two, actually, and you may >switch between them. This sounds like hardware hacking. Can you explain in more detail? Is it simply changing a switch that is on the outside of the cabinet or does it involve opening it up and soldering? -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- <- <- "MS-DOS? Where we're going we don't need MS-DOS." --Back To The Future
doconnor@srg.UUCP (Dennis O'Connor x4982 room 6-230N) (06/17/91)
People with pixelphilia ( lov of pixels ), such as myself ( you can never get too many pixels on a screen ) should temper their lust with the realization that the eye can only resolve to a certain small angle, and that pixels smaller than this are of little practical benefit execpt in certain rarefied extremes like X-Ray vieing systems that require 2K on a side (gray scale) at a minimum, and that this means making good use of lots of pixerls requires a larger monitor and these cost money, especially for color. For Example : IMHO 1K by 768 is wasted on anything less than a 20" monitor like the Mitsubishi Diamond Scan I view as a write this missive. Said monitor costs $2000. Monochrome monitors are of course much cheaper. So before you DEMAND tons-of-pixels at a pounds-of-pixels price ( only Amiga ! ), temper your demands with the realization of what you'll need to effectively utilize such a copious bounty. And remember, Commodore is not primarily a monitor manufacture, nor a major player in that business. Infer what you will ... -- -- Dennis O'Connor, uunet!srg!titania!doconnor non-representative.
ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) (06/18/91)
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >In article <2519@amix.commodore.com> I wrote: >>The A2024 (Hedley Monitor) allows up to 1024x1024 resolution. > >**EVERY** description of the A2024 I've seen said: 1008x800. In PAL mode which can be switched to by a simple jump switch you can get 1024x1024. You must suffer with 50hz refresh. >>> I'm still not 100% sure that the U Lowell board will work with my >>> 1950 monitor. Does anyone else know? Commodore? >> >>I does. > >Ok, it should since 1950 is multi sync. But at 1024x1024?? No, you will need a better monitor for 1024x1024 on the Lowell board. >>You may change the oscillators. There are two, actually, and you may >>switch between them. > >This sounds like hardware hacking. Can you explain in more detail? >Is it simply changing a switch that is on the outside of the cabinet >or does it involve opening it up and soldering? There are two sockets for two oscillators on the U of Lowell Board. You may, using software, change which oscillator is used for screen update. For instance: you may have the crystal that is needed for 1024x1024 in the first socket and one for 1024x768 in the second socket. If you have the 1024x1024 monitor hooked you can send a command to the board to use either crystal so you may use either resolution without taking the machine apart. I think the board comes standard with four crystals. I haven't spec's on hand or I would post them. Pax, Keith -- Keith Gabryelski Advanced Products Group ag@amix.commodore.com ...!cbmvax!amix!ag
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/19/91)
In article <9087@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >In article <2519@amix.commodore.com> ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) writes: >>Wrong. The A2024 (Hedley Monitor) allows up to 1024x1024 resolution. >?!?!?HUH?!?!?!?!? >**EVERY** description of the A2024 I've seen said: 1008x800. That's the original AmigaOS configuration, but not a monitor limitation. The Hedley monitors can support up to 1024x800 with 60Hz refresh or 1024x1024 with 50Hz refresh. 1008 is the maximum size of a 512K Agnus blit, which explains that number. If you're not using the blitter (X under UNIX does not use the blitter) or if you have an ECS blitter (all A3000s do, the maximum blit there is around 32K), 1024 is the Hedley-limited number. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
saunders@triton.unm.edu (Richard Saunders CIRT) (06/20/91)
In article <22561@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >That's the original AmigaOS configuration, but not a monitor limitation. The >Hedley monitors can support up to 1024x800 with 60Hz refresh or 1024x1024 with >50Hz refresh. 1008 is the maximum size of a 512K Agnus blit, which explains >that number. If you're not using the blitter (X under UNIX does not use the >blitter) or if you have an ECS blitter (all A3000s do, the maximum blit there >is around 32K), 1024 is the Hedley-limited number. > Just out of curiousity, why doesn't X under UNIX use the blitter? It seems this would be a "selling point" for X/Unix on the Amiga over the PC Unix boxes. I mean, isn't this what the blitter chips are for? Speeding up window systems like X? Of course, I have heard that the X source is an absolutely monstrous amount of C code. I imagine just getting the source to compile and work was a task in itself. > > >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M. * saunders@triton.unm.edu * "This is _NOT_ Mel Torme!" - Top Secret
filbo@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) (06/21/91)
Dennis O'Connor wrote: >For Example : IMHO 1K by 768 is wasted on anything less than a >20" monitor like the Mitsubishi Diamond Scan I view as a write >this missive. Said monitor costs $2000. Come now. Maybe your eyes are that bad; mine certainly aren't. This is being written on a 19", 1280x1024 greyscale monitor on which I can *clearly* distinguish single-pixel differences. The "/" character in a tiny font looks very choppy, for instance. I think it would take a resolution of around 6000x4000 to make these pixel jaggies disappear. (And an expen$ive CPU and memory system to push the pixels around...) Bela Lubkin * * // filbo@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us Witty quote omitted... @ * * // belal@sco.com ...ucbvax!ucscc!{deeptht!filbo,sco!belal} R Pentomino * \X/ Filbo @ Pyrzqxgl +1 408-476-4633 and XBBS +1 408-476-4945
ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) (06/23/91)
saunders@triton.unm.edu (Richard Saunders CIRT) writes: > Just out of curiousity, why doesn't X under UNIX use the blitter? > It seems this would be a "selling point" for X/Unix on the Amiga > over the PC Unix boxes. I mean, isn't this what the blitter chips > are for? Speeding up window systems like X? The answer is simply that the 68030 can do the job faster and better than the blitter chip. You must remember the blitter chip was made to enahance a 7mhz 68000 with bus accesses of only 16bits wide. Pax, Keith -- Keith Gabryelski Advanced Products Group ag@amix.commodore.com ...!cbmvax!amix!ag
s8922967@ipc07.mqcs.mq.oz.au (Murray John GILBERT) (06/24/91)
In article <272.filbo@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us> filbo@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) writes: >Dennis O'Connor wrote: > >>For Example : IMHO 1K by 768 is wasted on anything less than a >>20" monitor like the Mitsubishi Diamond Scan I view as a write >>this missive. Said monitor costs $2000. > >Come now. Maybe your eyes are that bad; mine certainly aren't. This >is being written on a 19", 1280x1024 greyscale monitor on which I can >*clearly* distinguish single-pixel differences. The "/" character in I'd like to echo that. The Sun IPCs that I use at uni (which I am logged onto right now via modem (Maestro 2400ZXR) and JrComm) are 16" beasts with resolution of 1152x900 and I can just distinguish individual pixels but no more. I get the impression that 1024x768 on a 20" monitor would look just a little 'grainy'. I prefer to look at the stuff on the screen and not be noticing the jaggies on it (or scan lines for that matter). That's I suppose why the Mac originally (512x342 res) came with a 9" screen - so that you'd think that it was real hires even though it wasn't really anything special (yes there was also the 72dpi screen to printer thingy). si ya, Murray ======================================================================= Murray Gilbert s8922967@mackay.mqcs.mq.oz.au D "Hands off the Antarctic!" =======================================================================
jburnes@swbatl.sbc.com (Jim Burnes - 235-7444) (06/24/91)
ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) writes: > saunders@triton.unm.edu (Richard Saunders CIRT) writes: > > Just out of curiousity, why doesn't X under UNIX use the blitter? > > It seems this would be a "selling point" for X/Unix on the Amiga > > over the PC Unix boxes. I mean, isn't this what the blitter chips > > are for? Speeding up window systems like X? > > The answer is simply that the 68030 can do the job faster and better > than the blitter chip. You must remember the blitter chip was made to > enahance a 7mhz 68000 with bus accesses of only 16bits wide. > Geee...after running X on a an A3000 UXD anything would be an improvement over the blit algorithms you guys have installed now. Also I thought that the point was that the CPU didnt have to do the screen management, leaving it free to actually run programs. I know X is a resource hog, but Amigados /Intuition runs rings around it. The other question is, of course, why hasnt CBM stepped up the blitter performance to match the rest of the system architecture. BTW: Why doesnt somebody compile a virtual window manager for Amix. With the seriously limited screen real-estate without the lowell card, anything would be an improvement. -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- Jim Burnes, UNIX SysAdmin ! "The Nineties SWBell Advanced Technology Labs ! are gonna make the Sixties (314) 235-7444 ! look like the Fifties..." jburnes@swbatl.sbc.com ! Dennis Hopper in 'Flashback' -----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) (06/28/91)
jburnes@swbatl.sbc.com (Jim Burnes - 235-7444) writes: > Geee...after running X on a an A3000 UXD anything would be an improvement > over the blit algorithms you guys have installed now. Our R4 server is much better. We have run it along side GfxBase's X server that uses the blitter under AmigaDos and find it to be very close (maybe faster) in the blitting. > I know X is a resource hog, but Amigados /Intuition runs rings > around it. They are two entirely different beasts. X could be castrated to intuition's functionality and programmed in assembler then you what would you have? ... well, intuition. This is not to say intuition is not good and useable. It is to say that it is more contricting than X and can take advatages of such things. Intuition is also much more tied to the Amiga Hardware than X will every be. > The other question is, of course, why > hasnt CBM stepped up the blitter performance to match the rest of the > system architecture. Sounds like a good idea. > BTW: Why doesnt somebody compile a virtual window manager for Amix. > With the seriously limited screen real-estate without the lowell card, > anything would be an improvement. You mean like the virtual terminal screens, or X? There are alternatives to a 1950 monitor and the lowell card. The A2024 monitor is quite useable and has 1024x1024 resolution. Pax, Keith -- Keith Gabryelski Advanced Products Group ag@amix.commodore.com ...!cbmvax!amix!ag