rtc@westford.ccur.com (Robert Chesler) (02/25/91)
I've been thinking about buying one of the 3000UX systems to develop an X-based software system. Commodore finally told me how much it would cost me to get a system as a commercial developer, but hasn't been able to answer fully. I also realized that their idea of "X" might be different than mine. Please tell me why I shouldn't give in to my second thoughts against buying one... What is the software installation format that they use? I know that the systems come pre-loaded, but a reinstallation might become necessary in the future, and I'll most likely reinstall it just to get rid of the Amiga DOS stuff they seem to feel I'll want. I'm pretty sure the installation media is a cartridge tape. Is it a quarter inch cartridge (QIC) or their own standard. They couldn't even tell me the price of a tape drive! Anyone know the density or capacity, or the price of the tape drives? I've heard that additional memory chips must be surface-soldered to the main board. I've also heard that memory is user upgradable, and that expansion boards are available. What really is the largest amount of memory that I can cram into the system? How much does it cost to get the system with 16 Mb or more memory? They could only tell me the price with 9Mb. What does Commodore mean by "choice of monitors?" The price CATS quoted me allows for my choice of monitors. Well I want to run an X server, and I'd want color, and resolution greater than 1024 X 864. I see 1280 X 400 listed (I assume this isn't a joke) and I see an expansion graphics board listed as 1024 X 1024. Well if I need to get that expansion board, so be it, but how much does it cost? How many of them can be put on a system? Does the SCSI implementation allow for connecting and using: - scanners - fixed-block tapes - other tapes - disks (native scsi, or adaptec, OMTI, or other bridge boards) - CD-ROM's and other removable optical disks Does the system truly come with ethernet? Does the running system support booting X terminals on the network? Does it support all of the major booting protocols? What's the deal with getting a 50Mhz CPU clock speed? What's the deal with getting a 68040 CPU? Are they really available? How much more cost? Could someone post the output of a recursive "ls" on a system? Is there a comprehensive list of what UNIX software comes with it, or at least is available to put on it? I want some sort of database for example. How will third party sotware products be distributed? (see tape drive question above!) Please reply by email, and I'll post a summary. Thanks in advance, --Robert rtc@westford.ccur.com or decvax!chesler!rob w: (508) 392-2702 h: (603) 881-5456
ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) (02/26/91)
In article <61751@masscomp.westford.ccur.com> rtc@westford.ccur.com writes: >What is the software installation format that they use? The system is pre-loaded and comes with a QIC-150 cartridge tape. >Anyone know the density or capacity, or the price of the tape drives? No idea of the price. Talk to sales people. >I've heard that additional memory chips must be surface-soldered to >the main board. I've also heard that memory is user upgradable, and that >expansion boards are available. What really is the largest amount of >memory that I can cram into the system? How much does it cost to get the >system with 16 Mb or more memory? They could only tell me the price with 9Mb. With the A3000 16mb of fast memory can be put on board 2mb(?) of chip. A memory card be put in the system to allow more memory but none exist at this time. >What does Commodore mean by "choice of monitors?" The price CATS >quoted me allows for my choice of monitors. Well I want to run an X >server, and I'd want color, and resolution greater than 1024 X 864. >I see 1280 X 400 listed (I assume this isn't a joke) and I see an >expansion graphics board listed as 1024 X 1024. Well if I need to >get that expansion board, so be it, but how much does it cost? How >many of them can be put on a system? The two main choices are A2024 and the 1950. The A2024 implements hedley high res with a 1024x1024x2 (in PAL mode) bit display. It is monochrome not color. This is probably what you are looking for. >Does the SCSI implementation allow for connecting and using: > - scanners > - fixed-block tapes > - other tapes > - disks (native scsi, or adaptec, OMTI, or other bridge boards) > - CD-ROM's and other removable optical disks There is a generic SCSI device that allows for user level code to get to the SCSI bus. Good luck. >Does the system truly come with ethernet? Yes. >Does the running system support booting X terminals on the network? >Does it support all of the major booting protocols? Sadly, no. >What's the deal with getting a 50Mhz CPU clock speed? An outside company (GVP) offers a 030/50Mhz card for the A2000. >What's the deal with getting a 68040 CPU? Are they really available? >How much more cost? There is no 040 card currently available. >Could someone post the output of a recursive "ls" on a system? I doubt it. >Is there a comprehensive list of what UNIX software comes with it, or >at least is available to put on it? I want some sort of database for >example. This has been posted to the net (and I think comp.newprod). Talk to jesse@cbmvax.commodore.com for more information. >How will third party sotware products be distributed? (see tape >drive question above!) There is an ABI standard for the 60k family. This standard declares 60mb QIC-24 format. Pax, Keith -- "[...] a POSIX implementation that | Keith Gabryelski returns errors for practially every| Amiga Unix Software Development operation is conformant (useless, | ag@amix.commodore.com but conformant)." -- Chris Torek| ...!cbmvax!amix!ag
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (02/26/91)
In article <61751@masscomp.westford.ccur.com>, rtc@westford.ccur.com (Robert Chesler) writes: > I've been thinking about buying one of the 3000UX systems to develop an > X-based software system. Commodore finally told me how much it would > cost me to get a system as a commercial developer, but hasn't been able > to answer fully. I also realized that their idea of "X" might be different > than mine. I am not sure what your idea of X is but as far as I can tell, X appears to be X on a Amiga 3000UX. > > Please tell me why I shouldn't give in to my second thoughts against > buying one... > Cuz its a neat machine???? > > > What is the software installation format that they use? I know that > the systems come pre-loaded, but a reinstallation might become necessary > in the future, and I'll most likely reinstall it just to get rid of > the Amiga DOS stuff they seem to feel I'll want. > > I'm pretty sure the installation media is a cartridge tape. Is it a > quarter inch cartridge (QIC) or their own standard. They couldn't even > tell me the price of a tape drive! Anyone know the density or capacity, > or the price of the tape drives? It does use a QIC-150 Tape drive. The drive is $699 education I believe. > > I've heard that additional memory chips must be surface-soldered to > the main board. I've also heard that memory is user upgradable, and that > expansion boards are available. What really is the largest amount of > memory that I can cram into the system? How much does it cost to get the > system with 16 Mb or more memory? They could only tell me the price with 9Mb. You heard _incorrectly_. Simply plug in the chips and go. 9MB is the system they sell, but the motherboard will allow a upgrade to a total of 18MB of memory. (16MB fast memory, 2MB chip memory). > > > What does Commodore mean by "choice of monitors?" The price CATS quoted me > allows for my choice of monitors. Well I want to run an X server, and I'd > want color, and resolution greater than 1024 X 864. I see 1280 X 400 listed > (I assume this isn't a joke) and I see an expansion graphics board listed as > 1024 X 1024. Well if I need to get that expansion board, so be it, but > how much does it cost? How many of them can be put on a system? > They are referring to the yet to be released University of Lowell board. With this board you can connect a variety of mega-pixel displays, according to Paul Van Reed at Commodore. > > Does the SCSI implementation allow for connecting and using: > - scanners > - fixed-block tapes > - other tapes > - disks (native scsi, or adaptec, OMTI, or other bridge boards) > - CD-ROM's and other removable optical disks YES. > > Does the system truly come with ethernet? Does the running system support > booting X terminals on the network? Does it support all of the major booting > protocols? It sure does! Both thick and thin. I had it hooked into my VAX network with not a single problem. > > > What's the deal with getting a 50Mhz CPU clock speed? What's the deal with > getting a 68040 CPU? Are they really available? How much more cost? The _deal_ is that _currently_ there are no 68040 boards available for the A3000, nor a 68030 replacement. I don't recall Commodore promising one. > > Could someone post the output of a recursive "ls" on a system? > Is there a comprehensive list of what UNIX software comes with it, or at least > is available to put on it? I want some sort of database for example. > > How will third party sotware products be distributed? (see tape drive question > above!) > > > Please reply by email, and I'll post a summary. Nah, I think you should read comp.unix.amiga. :-) I suspect you spoke to somebody in CATS Administration. These folks are not necessarily "UNIX" techies. I think CATS is in the process of hiring a UNIX person. You might want to try to get a hold of Paul Van Reed at Commodore. > > Thanks in advance, > --Robert > > rtc@westford.ccur.com or decvax!chesler!rob > w: (508) 392-2702 h: (603) 881-5456 -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ==================================================
scotte@applix.com (Scott Evernden) (02/26/91)
In article <61751@masscomp.westford.ccur.com> rtc@westford.ccur.com writes: > >I've been thinking about buying one of the 3000UX systems to develop an >X-based software system. ... >.. and I'll most likely reinstall it just to get rid of >the Amiga DOS stuff they seem to feel I'll want. In my opinion, if you have no need for the AmigaDOS stuff, then you've eliminated the only good reason to get the 3000UX. I myself need to do a lot of X work, and altho I've been an Amiga fan from the outset, I could not justify getting an underpowered machine for unix and X software development. Anything less than a dozen mips, and I get antsy trying to get things done. I need 16 megs, and for unix/X development, anything less than at least 300 megs of disk is a squeeze. You certainly can operate with a lesser config., but I can't imagine doing this with any enjoyment for 10 hours a day. In the end, I decided to brew myself a 486/33 box. It has up to now, satisified these requirements (and others) for X and unix development purposes. -scott Flames, anyone?
ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith "Cheese Whiz" Gabryelski) (02/27/91)
In article <1135@applix.com> scotte@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: >I need 16 megs, and for unix/X development, anything less than at >least 300 megs of disk is a squeeze. You certainly can operate with >a lesser config., but I can't imagine doing this with any enjoyment >for 10 hours a day. I don't see how using an A3000UX prevents you from having the above. Pax, Keith -- "[...] a POSIX implementation that | Keith Gabryelski returns errors for practially every| Amiga Unix Software Development operation is conformant (useless, | ag@amix.commodore.com but conformant)." -- Chris Torek| ...!cbmvax!amix!ag
tbissett@nstar.rn.com (Travis Bissett) (02/27/91)
scotte@applix.com (Scott Evernden) writes: > In the end, I decided to brew myself a 486/33 box. It has up to now, > satisified these requirements (and others) for X and unix development > purposes. > > -scott > > Flames, anyone? Damned right! Flame (1): Ya should a got da SPARC 2 with extra goodies. Dat 486 jest ain't got da right stuff. Fame (2): after payin' all dat moola for a fast 486 you'r gonna wish ya saved it and got a '3500/ux with dat 68040 an' symmetric coprocessin' an' all dat. Ya coulda used da cash you'd a saved to buy even bigger hard drive -- nobody ever had too mcuh scuzzy. Like, you coulda bought a separate scuzzy controller and drive and had the swap area on its own parallel channel -- big improvement there for extra cash! OK, I know the 68040 machine has yet to be roomered let alone announced -- and a person can gradutate from a vic20 to an A3000 and grow a beard in the time it has taken C=A to go from concept to production for most things. That was then. Maybe now things will pick up the pace? How 'bout an A4000/UX with a couple of MC88K chips in it? All opinions above are humbly mine and due to their inflammatory nature I will not sign my name....(gawk! hit the sigline off! argh!... -- Travis Bissett NSTAR conferencing site 219-289-0287 internet: tbissett@nstar.rn.com 1300 newsgroups - 8 inbound lines uucp: ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!tbissett 99 file areas - 4300 megabytes --- backbone news & mail feeds available - contact larry@nstar.rn.com ---
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (02/27/91)
In article <61751@masscomp.westford.ccur.com> rtc@westford.ccur.com writes: I won't answer the stuff others have already. >I've heard that additional memory chips must be surface-soldered to >the main board. I've also heard that memory is user upgradable, and that >expansion boards are available. What really is the largest amount of >memory that I can cram into the system? How much does it cost to get the >system with 16 Mb or more memory? They could only tell me the price with 9Mb. Adding memory is a matter of dropping in 1Mx4 ZIPs, up to 16M total system memory (plus either 1 or 2 Meg chip (video) ram). >What does Commodore mean by "choice of monitors?" The price CATS quoted me >allows for my choice of monitors. Well I want to run an X server, and I'd >want color, and resolution greater than 1024 X 864. I see 1280 X 400 listed >(I assume this isn't a joke) and I see an expansion graphics board listed as >1024 X 1024. Well if I need to get that expansion board, so be it, but >how much does it cost? How many of them can be put on a system? 1280x400 (interlaced) is really mainly for video work (allows more exact placement of color changes for character generators, etc). The a2410 (developed mainly for the Amiga Unix boxes) is 1Kx1K, 256 out of 16M colors, TI34010 processor, and runs color X under unix. Not available yet, but RSN (it's been in development quite a while, almost as long as Unix, and has been shown at most every show where the A3000UX was shown, I think). >Does the system truly come with ethernet? Does the running system support >booting X terminals on the network? Does it support all of the major booting >protocols? Yup, thin and thick. I don't know about booting protocols (I'm an AmigaDos person, not a Unix person). >What's the deal with getting a 50Mhz CPU clock speed? What's the deal with >getting a 68040 CPU? Are they really available? How much more cost? Well, the CPU slot is there, ad was designed with them in mind. There are 50Mhz '030's available for Amiga 2000's, and several companies have announced that they will be making '040 boards. Commodore has not said anything official (nor will I). >Is there a comprehensive list of what UNIX software comes with it, or at least >is available to put on it? I want some sort of database for example. Lots and lots of stuff, including lots of GNU stuff, many many PD/ redistributable things that the unix guys pulled off the nets, etc and brought up (Elm as a small example), etc. I thought this might be of enoughh interest to post the response. -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com BIX: rjesup The compiler runs Like a swift-flowing river I wait in silence. (From "The Zen of Programming") ;-)
cleland@sdbio2.ucsd.edu (Thomas Cleland) (02/27/91)
>In article <61751@masscomp.westford.ccur.com>, rtc@westford.ccur.com (Robert Chesler) writes: >> What's the deal with getting a 50Mhz CPU clock speed? What's the deal with >> getting a 68040 CPU? Are they really available? How much more cost? > >The _deal_ is that _currently_ there are no 68040 boards available >for the A3000, nor a 68030 replacement. I don't recall Commodore >promising one. > >> Thanks in advance, >> --Robert > The current 68040 situation to the best of my knowledge is third-party. Three boards "exist": I have heard of the GVP board, seen the Supra 040 board in its little box, and seen the Progressive Peripheral's 040DC board running at blazemonger speeds. (bonus: the 040DC employs real-time storage data compression). I've seen none of these on any dealers' shelves. The PP 040DC board listed at about $1200, or $950 or so without the data compression part.
thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) (02/27/91)
In article <1135@applix.com> scotte@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: >[...] >In my opinion, if you have no need for the AmigaDOS stuff, then you've >eliminated the only good reason to get the 3000UX. >[...] >Flames, anyone? You asked for it! :-) Your comment (re: need for AmigaDOS re: 3000UX) sounds like you're parroting the Apple party-line regarding their (development team) responses to me: "If you didn't want the MacOS, why did you get A/UX?" My reply to them (and to you, now) is: I simply want UNIX on the hardware available to me. Sheesh. I've a whole buncha Amigas and I *like* the Amiga for what it does, but when I want UNIX on a given platform I don't want excess baggage. Your statement is a non sequitur; to date, I've seen no official comments that AmigaDOS operates "under" Amiga SVR4. In time I'm sure the fine people at CBM will do it correctly IF there's a need (contrasted to the kludge from Apple). Thad Floryan [ thad@btr.com (OR) {decwrl, mips, fernwood}!btr!thad ]
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (02/28/91)
In article <1135@applix.com> scotte@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: > In the end, I decided to brew myself a 486/33 box. It has up to now, > satisified these requirements (and others) for X and unix development > purposes. Are you sure you got the better box? It's got more CPU than a 3000/25, but unless the video RAM is on the motherboard and not going through the slow slow slow IBM-PC bus the overall system is likely to be slower for X work. Have you compared the X speed of the two boxes? If anything, X is the big reason to go with the 3000 rather than a [34]86 box. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (02/28/91)
[Excuse the length of this. It's late and my writing gets more verbose as I get tired. Though, it does reveal some nice things about the 3000UX.] In article <1135@applix.com> scotte@applix.com (Scott Evernden) writes: > In my opinion, if you have no need for the AmigaDOS stuff, then you've > eliminated the only good reason to get the 3000UX. A very common misconception! The 3000UX makes a great Unix box on its own. First of all, it's a very complete Unix. Nothing is left out (though you can disable anything you want :-) ). That alone makes it a step ahead of many other systems. [description of the X performance you want, among other things.] > In the end, I decided to brew myself a 486/33 box. It has up to now, > satisified these requirements (and others) for X and unix development > purposes. You spend that much to get the performance you wanted? Ugh! You really should look into a Amiga 3000UX. You'll get the same performance (no, not on CPU-bound tasks... but you were talking about development and X windows; both are disk & video i/o intensive). Here's why: I was recently at a "normal" party (not too many computing professionals there) and found myself participating in a discussion about how SVR4 was slow and what could be done about it. A person there explained what was done to speed SVR4 up, and what things were added that resulted in slowing it down. The conclusion was that to get the best performance you HAD to have a really good I/O system. You *can* have a good I/O system on a 486 or 386 box, but not if you use a machine designed for MS-DOS use. In other words, 486/386 SVR4 Unix must be on a totally "designed-for-Unix" box. [I believe NCR's new line is like this.] This tuning/performance information was according to the person at the party. Then I described the Amiga 3000UX's I/O system. How memory was quite fast and I/O was on this blindly fast system, DMA, 32-bits, etc. etc. She said that such a system would beat a 486 on I/O so much so that all the "speed problems" of SVR4 would diminish, and you could get the performance you want. In other words, the Amiga 3000UX would make for one of the best possible SVR4 boxes. SVR4 wants a machine with a superior DMA system and fast RAM. (Most 386/486 boxes disable their DMA because it doesn't work or isn't standard.) Lack of a good DMA system and horridly slow video-ram on the 486/386 is a major problem for SVR4. The system works the worst on the machine with the biggest market! This all seemed strange to me. How could a person at some random party know so much about this? Well, I asked her for some credentials. It turned out she is on the performance and tuneing enhancement team for SVR4. The party happen to be at a house only 25 minutes from the (new) home of Unix, Short Hills, New Jersey. Strange thing about living in Morris County. You never know who you'll find yourself talking to at a party. > -scott > > Flames, anyone? Hmmm... I'm not sure if this was a flame. I guess I feel sad for you because you spent so much money on a 486 machine; you paid for a lot of CPU power to offset a bad I/O system. -Tom P.S. The conclusion was that the best SVR4 system would have to have superior DMA for all I/O, very fast video ram, (get this!) the Unix file system (she said that her tests showed that a well-tuned UFS was actually faster than a well-tuned Berkeley FFS!), a disk block size and page size had to be equal, and a couple things that don't come to mind right now. Basically, in my mind, she unintentionally described the Amiga 3000UX.
dmw@prism1.UUCP (David Wright) (03/01/91)
In article <61751@masscomp.westford.ccur.com> rtc@westford.ccur.com writes: > >I'm pretty sure the installation media is a cartridge tape. Is it a >quarter inch cartridge (QIC) or their own standard. They couldn't even >tell me the price of a tape drive! Anyone know the density or capacity, >or the price of the tape drives? It is an industry standard QIC 150 meg (DC6150 type). On the 3000UX I have not found anything that isn't industry standard. > >I've heard that additional memory chips must be surface-soldered to >the main board. I've also heard that memory is user upgradable, and that Whoever told you this was lying. No C= or Amiga equipment has ever required soldering of any type. >expansion boards are available. What really is the largest amount of >memory that I can cram into the system? How much does it cost to get the >system with 16 Mb or more memory? They could only tell me the price with 9Mb. You will pay about $35-40 per megabyte you wish to add. The maximum RAM on the motherboard is 18 Meg, and the addressable range is at least 1.7 gigabytes. > >1024 X 1024. Well if I need to get that expansion board, so be it, but >how much does it cost? How many of them can be put on a system? Why would you want more than one? I have never seen any PC clone system running more than one VGA card, and in fact, I believe there might be a conflict with more than one VGA card in the system. > >Does the SCSI implementation allow for connecting and using: > - scanners Yes > - fixed-block tapes Yes > - other tapes Yes > - disks (native scsi, or adaptec, OMTI, or other bridge boards) Yes > - CD-ROM's and other removable optical disks Yes. And any other device that is available for the SCSI bus or for which there exists a <non SCSI bus> to SCSI adapter. > >Does the system truly come with ethernet? Does the running system support >booting X terminals on the network? Does it support all of the major booting >protocols? Yes, it really does, and with TCP/IP and NFS. About the rest I can't say since we never do that. > >Could someone post the output of a recursive "ls" on a system? >Is there a comprehensive list of what UNIX software comes with it, or at least >is available to put on it? I want some sort of database for example. It comes with much PD and GNU software, other than that I can't say. > >How will third party sotware products be distributed? (see tape drive question >above!) I don't know, considering that I have never received ANY Unix software on anything other than floppy disks in the SCO/Interactive 386 world. I would not think that C+ would distribute it any differently. Dave Newsgroups: comp.unix.amiga Subject: Re: second thoughts on buying a 3000UX References: <61751@masscomp.westford.ccur.com> Distribution: world Organization: Prism Computer Applications In article <61751@masscomp.westford.ccur.com> rtc@westford.ccur.com writes: > >I'm pretty sure the installation media is a cartridge tape. Is it a >quarter inch cartridge (QIC) or their own standard. They couldn't even >tell me the price of a tape drive! Anyone know the density or capacity, >or the price of the tape drives? It is an industry standard QIC 150 meg (DC6150 type). On the 3000UX I have not found anything that isn't industry standard. > >I've heard that additional memory chips must be surface-soldered to >the main board. I've also heard that memory is user upgradable, and that Whoever told you this was lying. No C= or Amiga equipment has ever required soldering of any type. >expansion boards are available. What really is the largest amount of >memory that I can cram into the system? How much does it cost to get the >system with 16 Mb or more memory? They could only tell me the price with 9Mb. You will pay about $35-40 per megabyte you wish to add. The maximum RAM on the motherboard is 18 Meg, and the addressable range is at least 1.7 gigabytes. > >1024 X 1024. Well if I need to get that expansion board, so be it, but >how much does it cost? How many of them can be put on a system? Why would you want more than one? I have never seen any PC clone system running more than one VGA card, and in fact, I believe there might be a conflict with more than one VGA card in the system. > >Does the SCSI implementation allow for connecting and using: > - scanners Yes > - fixed-block tapes Yes > - other tapes Yes > - disks (native scsi, or adaptec, OMTI, or other bridge boards) Yes > - CD-ROM's and other removable optical disks Yes. And any other device that is available for the SCSI bus or for which there exists a <non SCSI bus> to SCSI adapter. > >Does the system truly come with ethernet? Does the running system support >booting X terminals on the network? Does it support all of the major booting >protocols? Yes, it really does, and with TCP/IP and NFS. About the rest I can't say since we never do that. > >Could someone post the output of a recursive "ls" on a system? >Is there a comprehensive list of what UNIX software comes with it, or at least >is available to put on it? I want some sort of database for example. It comes with much PD and GNU software, other than that I can't say. > >How will third party sotware products be distributed? (see tape drive question >above!) I don't know, considering that I have never received ANY Unix software on anything other than floppy disks in the SCO/Interactive 386 world. I would not think that C+ would distribute it any differently. I have found that the C= implementation of SVR4 to be one of the better releases of Unix on ANY machine (I normally use SCO Unix 3.2.2), and you certainly get your money's worth on the included software. If you were to buy everything from SCO you would spend almost as much on the software as the entire 3000UX package. Add up TCP/IP (the development package too), NFS (the development package too, which SCO doesn't even support), X (development package too), the development system (with both the AT&T compilers and the GNU compiler (SCO only gives you the cruddy MS compiler)), the text proccessing system, full man pages, etc. etc. If you take a look at how much the basic 3000 costs (less Unix) you will see just how inexpensive all this software really is if you buy it as a package. Maybe about the price of SCO Unix alone. Dave
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (03/02/91)
>P.S. The conclusion was that the best SVR4 system would have to have >superior DMA for all I/O, very fast video ram, (get this!) the Unix >file system (she said that her tests showed that a well-tuned UFS was >actually faster than a well-tuned Berkeley FFS!), Err, umm, the file system that comes with S5R4 under the name "UFS" *IS* the Berkeley FFS. (The "U" doesn't stand for anything. Truly. Don't ask.) Did she (or you) mean "System V file system" (S5FS)? (And also, did she describe the circumstances under which it's faster - for big sequential I/O the FFS may be faster in any case - or how easy it is to tune the two file systems, or how the performance for both falls off as they get less well tuned?) >a disk block size and page size had to be equal, and a couple things that >don't come to mind right now. Basically, in my mind, she unintentionally >described the Amiga 3000UX. I assume the 3000UX supports UFS, and not just S5FS; I'm willing to put up with some performance loss in exchange for not having to keep the number "14" in mind....
mls@cbnewsm.att.com (mike.siemon) (03/02/91)
In article <6387@auspex.auspex.com>, guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: > I assume the 3000UX supports UFS, and not just S5FS; I'm willing to put > up with some performance loss in exchange for not having to keep the > number "14" in mind.... SVR4 (and hence 3000UX which bills itself as including eveything we (USL) put in) does indeed support files systems of your choice. I don't know what comes preconfigured with the Amiga; when I install SVR4 on my machine (a 386; don't ask) as I have to do repeatedly for tracking the OS side of development, I make my root file system UFS. It outperforms S5FS in MOST situations -- the only contraindication is for very full disks, or systems with SCADS of little files (i.e., traditional UNIX :-)) when you might want an S5FS configured with smaller block sizes. Actually, there are several other file system types -- a BFS (Boot File System) and what has already been mentioned here before, a PFS (Process File System). For normal files, the choice is S5 versus Berkeley -- and the latter has more to recommend it than just the filename length. -- Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must m.siemon@ATT.COM love the truth we know, and we must ...!att!attunix!mls act according to the measure of our love. standard disclaimer -- Thomas Merton
scotte@applix.com (Scott Evernden) (03/04/91)
In article <5PR9W6D@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1135@applix.com> scotte@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: >> In the end, I decided to brew myself a 486/33 box. > >Are you sure you got the better box? It's got more CPU than a 3000/25, Yes. Absolutely. I spent a very long time making this decision. >but unless the video RAM is on the motherboard and not going through the >slow slow slow IBM-PC bus the overall system is likely to be slower for >X work. Have you compared the X speed of the two boxes? I dunno. 8 plane windows move around fast enough. How quickly can the 3000 blitter process 8 plane images? :-) >If anything, X is the big reason to go with the 3000 rather than a [34]86 >box. If I spent all day just running X programs then the A3000 might make more sense. But, I spend all day compiling code. I need max. disk and cpu speed. 90% of the time graphics thruput contributes zip to my productivity. The rest of the time, I'm maybe moving windows, which the 486 can do faster on a 12MHz bus than the Amiga blitter on it's slow slow slow 7.14 MHz bus. -scott
ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug Dyer) (03/04/91)
scotte@applix.com (Scott Evernden) writes: >In article <5PR9W6D@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>In article <1135@applix.com> scotte@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: >>> In the end, I decided to brew myself a 486/33 box. >> >>but unless the video RAM is on the motherboard and not going through the >>slow slow slow IBM-PC bus the overall system is likely to be slower for >>X work. Have you compared the X speed of the two boxes? >I dunno. 8 plane windows move around fast enough. How quickly can >the 3000 blitter process 8 plane images? :-) I thought amiga unix didn't use the blitter, but CPU for graphics. >>If anything, X is the big reason to go with the 3000 rather than a [34]86 >>box. >If I spent all day just running X programs then the A3000 might make more >sense. But, I spend all day compiling code. I need max. disk and cpu >speed. 90% of the time graphics thruput contributes zip to my productivity. >The rest of the time, I'm maybe moving windows, which the 486 can do faster >on a 12MHz bus than the Amiga blitter on it's slow slow slow 7.14 MHz bus. The blitter isn't used under UNIX (see below). The CPU is. He he he ----------------------- From daveh@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com Mon Feb 25 19:17:13 1991 ... run for the money. Under UNIX, they use the 68030 alone for graphics manipulation. They claim it's faster than the blitter for X windows, and it probably is, since X was designed with CPU access in mind. However, they originally chose to use the CPU because the old AMIX window manager claimed exclusive of the Amiga-specific features of the system, and therefore X could not use it. That window manager is no longer a part of the system, but that was the original reason they went for CPU-only on the Amiga-resident UNIX X. -Dave Haynie -- 2B|!(2B) => ? Can a perfect being create an object ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu Heavier than it can lift?
scotte@applix.com (Scott Evernden) (03/04/91)
In article <13376@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug Dyer) writes: >scotte@applix.com (Scott Evernden) writes: >>The rest of the time, I'm maybe moving windows, which the 486 can do faster >>on a 12MHz bus than the Amiga blitter on it's slow slow slow 7.14 MHz bus. > >The blitter isn't used under UNIX (see below). The CPU is. He he he This, I wasn't aware of. I stand corrected... -scott
ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith "Cheese Whiz" Gabryelski) (03/05/91)
In article <1145@applix.com> scotte@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: >The rest of the time, I'm maybe moving windows, which the 486 can do faster >on a 12MHz bus than the Amiga blitter on it's slow slow slow 7.14 MHz bus. X11R3 under Amiga Unix doesn't use the blitter because for most operations this would be slower. So the point above is moot. We are looking into using the blitter for operations that it is suited for. There is no reason for us to use the blitter in operations that would only run slower with it [`DUH' sound goes here]. Pax, Keith -- "[...] a POSIX implementation that | Keith Gabryelski returns errors for practially every| Amiga Unix Software Development operation is conformant (useless, | ag@amix.commodore.com but conformant)." -- Chris Torek| ...!cbmvax!amix!ag
ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith "Cheese Whiz" Gabryelski) (03/05/91)
In article <13376@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug Dyer) writes: >From daveh@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com Mon Feb 25 19:17:13 1991 >... >run for the money. Under UNIX, they use the 68030 alone for graphics >manipulation. They claim it's faster than the blitter for X windows, >and it probably is, since X was designed with CPU access in mind. >However, they originally chose to use the CPU because the old AMIX >window manager claimed exclusive of the Amiga-specific features of >the system, and therefore X could not use it. That window manager is >no longer a part of the system, but that was the original reason they >went for CPU-only on the Amiga-resident UNIX X. Dave is somewhat correct. The (Rico) windowing system was never actually used while X was in development. Said windowing system was not ported to SVR4 and so was not in the design decision of X itself. A quick one bitplane port was the first task at hand; optimization was second. When optimization came around the blitter turned out to be the wrong way to go (or atleast not the first way to go). Pax, Keith "Vitality Magazine is the Oracle of of all knowledge" -- David Ballman -- Keith Gabryelski Advanced Products Group ag@amix.commodore.com ...!cbmvax!amix!ag
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (03/05/91)
In article <13376@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug Dyer) writes: >>If I spent all day just running X programs then the A3000 might make more >>sense. But, I spend all day compiling code. I need max. disk and cpu >>speed. 90% of the time graphics thruput contributes zip to my productivity. >>The rest of the time, I'm maybe moving windows, which the 486 can do faster >>on a 12MHz bus than the Amiga blitter on it's slow slow slow 7.14 MHz bus. > >The blitter isn't used under UNIX (see below). The CPU is. He he he Also note that most all existing VGA-etc boards have a LOT of wait- states, so regardless of CPU/bus speed, you're card-limited. The 3000 has pretty efficient access to chip memory (with the 32-bit bus). It does need to sync to the slower bus, but I wouldn't be suprised if the bandwidth available to the CPU (MB/s, gfx-mem to gfx-mem) was considerably higher on the A3000 than on most or all VGA boards. Plus you can run the blitter in parallel with the CPU - even if it's slower at some things, overall throughput is higher (and it is faster at non-nice conditions, I suspect). Also you get the the rest of the display hardware (copper, etc), which makes virtual screens easy and very fast. Note: I haven't measured these things, I'm going on reports from IBM- types about the number of wait-states to access video ram (I've heard numbers as high as 12). -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com BIX: rjesup The compiler runs Like a swift-flowing river I wait in silence. (From "The Zen of Programming") ;-)
david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (03/05/91)
In article <19512@cbmvax.commodore.com> jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes: > Also note that most all existing VGA-etc boards have a LOT of wait- >states, so regardless of CPU/bus speed, you're card-limited. The 3000 has >pretty efficient access to chip memory (with the 32-bit bus). It does >need to sync to the slower bus, but I wouldn't be suprised if the bandwidth >available to the CPU (MB/s, gfx-mem to gfx-mem) was considerably higher on >the A3000 than on most or all VGA boards. Plus you can run the blitter in >parallel with the CPU - even if it's slower at some things, overall throughput >is higher (and it is faster at non-nice conditions, I suspect). Also you >get the the rest of the display hardware (copper, etc), which makes virtual >screens easy and very fast. >-- >Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. >{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com BIX: rjesup I am using X11 and Motif on a 386/25 and an ATI VGA Wonder board (faster than most). Compred to the A3000UX, it is a DOG with Video-- although everything else seemed faster (compiling, math, etc). I am using X11r3, but many folks have told me that X11r4 is much faster. The other thing to consider is that the PC's display LOOKS BETTER. 1024x768x256 is becomming normal for a Intel based UNIX box with VGA-- and it is not interlaced! Color even. (we have yet to figure out who C= made a B&W Xwindows. We think that EXTRA EFFORT was needed to make it B&W!) I also just read in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware that there is a new ATI VGA Wonder board that is 3.5 times faster than mine. Also 34010 boards are now down to about $600, where fast SVGA boards are $300+. (Can someone tell me how much the U of L 34010 board is expected to be?) But the bottom line is that a VGA based X11 is BARELY fast enough on my 386/25 (I have not tried it on a 486). However, when running UNIX, display speed is not everything since there are many other things that can be happening like other users logged in via RS-232, CPU bound tasks (Ray tracing anyone?), News/UUCP feeds, and the list goes on... - 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);
hill@evax.arl.utexas.edu (Adam Hill) (03/05/91)
In article <1229@amix.commodore.com> ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith "Cheese Whiz" Gabryelski) writes: >We are looking into using the blitter for operations that it is suited >for. There is no reason for us to use the blitter in operations that >would only run slower with it [`DUH' sound goes here]. HEY KEITH!! I know what we need to show those SPARC-A/UX-AIX-Sequent people. The perfect use of the blitter under X is: 64 color animated POINTERS!!!!!! Imagine a 64 color 3D image of the object of your choice. A Bill The Cat rotating in random directions, THWPTT!! 'ing you when you click on it... Now if you could hook it into the Paula under X you could have this nifty sound that goes like....... Nahhhhh Never mind... >-- >"[...] a POSIX implementation that | Keith Gabryelski >returns errors for practially every| Amiga Unix Software Development >operation is conformant (useless, | ag@amix.commodore.com >but conformant)." -- Chris Torek| ...!cbmvax!amix!ag -- adam hill -- hill@evax.uta.edu I programmed for three days Make Up Your Own Mind.. AMIGA! And heard no human voices. Amiga... Multimedia NOW! But the hard disk sang. - TZoP Born To Run SVR4
lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (logan shaw) (03/06/91)
In article <13376@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug Dyer) writes: >scotte@applix.com (Scott Evernden) writes: > >>In article <5PR9W6D@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>>In article <1135@applix.com> scotte@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: >>>> In the end, I decided to brew myself a 486/33 box. >>>X work. Have you compared the X speed of the two boxes? >>I dunno. 8 plane windows move around fast enough. How quickly can >>the 3000 blitter process 8 plane images? :-) >I thought amiga unix didn't use the blitter, but CPU for graphics. I thought that if you had 8 plane Xwindows, that you used the 34010 which is on the A2410 board. Bound to be faster than a blitter, a 68030, an 80386, or an 80486... -- =----------------------------------------------------------------= | /\/ Logan Shaw "Come to Me, all who are weary and -+- \/\ lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu heavy-laden, and I will give you rest." | =----------------------------------------------------------------= |
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/12/91)
In article <1145@applix.com> scotte@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: >In article <5PR9W6D@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>In article <1135@applix.com> scotte@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: >>> In the end, I decided to brew myself a 486/33 box. >>If anything, X is the big reason to go with the 3000 rather than a [34]86 >>box. >If I spent all day just running X programs then the A3000 might make more >sense. But, I spend all day compiling code. I need max. disk and cpu >speed. 90% of the time graphics thruput contributes zip to my productivity. >The rest of the time, I'm maybe moving windows, which the 486 can do faster >on a 12MHz bus than the Amiga blitter on it's slow slow slow 7.14 MHz bus. The A3000 disk and CPU stuff all happens on the A3000's 25MHz, 32-bit wide bus. Most '486s use relatively slow PIO driven hard disks. When it comes to moving windows under X, blitter speed is probably not the issue. While the blitter does process at the equivalent of a 14.3MHz ISA bus, the main point of X on an A3000UX would be that the CPU has a 32 bit path to a 7.16MHz that runs with no wait states (at least in the monochrome X that programmer's use). Regardless of the video mode, the typical VGA card takes 20-30 wait states per access, and if you stick to original VGA compatible operations, you're stuck at 8 bits per access, whether on an ISA/AT or XT bus. Of course, X on a PC vs. X on an Amiga is a fair test. Windows on a PC vs. Intuition on an Amiga is so skewed in the Amiga's favor, if you have any decent comparative performance on the PC setup, you're extremely lucky, and you paid for it. >-scott -- 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) (03/12/91)
In article <19512@cbmvax.commodore.com> jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes: > Note: I haven't measured these things, I'm going on reports from IBM- >types about the number of wait-states to access video ram (I've heard numbers >as high as 12). Dr. Dobbs had an in-depth article on these VGA toys a few months ago. They had PC-AT bus wait-states in the 20-30 range, which would translate to a mean of 12 XT bus wait-states, to VGA memory. The other interesting thing about the VGA register set is that everything is intrinsically 8 bits wide. So you don't get an AT bus version of a VGA card for its bus width, but generally because the board runs at AT bus rates (4 cycle 8MHz clock) rather than XT bus rates (4-5 cycle 4.77MHz clock). There are a number of non-standard additions to VGA boards that gives you a more reasonable CPU to memory bandwidth, but to use such features requires special code; a generic VGA-X wouldn't do much for you. This architectural ugliness accounts for the big speedup IBM is claiming with XGA, even though VGA and XGA use the same generation memory. >Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. -- 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
scotte@applix.com (Scott Evernden) (03/12/91)
In article <19754@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > >When it comes to moving windows under X, blitter speed is probably not the >issue. While the blitter does process at the equivalent of a 14.3MHz ISA >bus, the main point of X on an A3000UX would be that the CPU has a 32 bit >path to a 7.16MHz that runs with no wait states (at least in the monochrome >X that programmer's use). Regardless of the video mode, the typical VGA card >takes 20-30 wait states per access, ... Well, this just isn't true these days. It might almost be true if you've always got the VGA-mode rotate registers set. Why would anyone use such a VGA for X if they didn't have to? ET4000 VGA cards, for example, can run with no wait states. Aside from a co-p., they are the only sensible thing to put on an ISA bus. So, an end to this VGA wait state rumor, okay? And, about this 32bit CPU access to chip memory- I would be very suprised to find the low level graphics and blit routines making thorough use of this capability. Generally, you read 16 bits, shift 32, and write 16, etc. >... and if you stick to original VGA compatible >operations, you're stuck at 8 bits per access, whether on an ISA/AT or XT bus. With original VGA compatible operations (4 planes), that 8 bits per access is modifying 8 color pixels (32 bits) all at once. The Amiga blitter needs to write to 4 bytes to achieve the same effect. Also, even for simple operations like filling an area, the blitter eats cycles and is not producing destination bytes on every clock. But the blitter is not the issue... >Of course, X on a PC vs. X on an Amiga is a fair test. Windows on a PC vs. >Intuition on an Amiga is so skewed in the Amiga's favor, if you have any decent >comparative performance on the PC setup, you're extremely lucky, and you paid >for it. Windows vs. Intuition: You're right, I've never denied this. The original question had nothing to do with Windows or Intuition. It was, "If I throw AmigaDOS away, how compelling are the reasons to get the A3000UX for UNIX software development." In my case, I was able to arrive at a substantially more powerful solution by going with a 486/33, for nearly the same money. Arguments about 32bits at 7.16MHz vs 16bits at 12MHz, and my wait states are fewer than yours, and blah blah blah are silly and haven't caused me to think any differently. Bottom line, I work radically faster in my daily edit-compile-go grind than I would on a 3000. Period. The Amiga is great at the doing the stuff it was born to do. And it also happens to do a nice job as a UNIX application box, too... -scott
dmw@prism1.UUCP (David Wright) (03/18/91)
In article <1152@applix.com> scotte@applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes: >Well, this just isn't true these days. It might almost be true if you've >always got the VGA-mode rotate registers set. Why would anyone use such a >VGA for X if they didn't have to? ET4000 VGA cards, for example, can run ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Maybe because 90% of the people out there DO have to, since they already own cruddy PC-compatible equipment designed with DOS in mind? And these same units are the only affordable ones? >with no wait states. Aside from a co-p., they are the only sensible thing >to put on an ISA bus. So, an end to this VGA wait state rumor, okay? It's not a rumour, it's a fact. And even if VGA didn't have wait states, it STILL can't go any faster than the PC's slow bus in the first place. >Arguments about 32bits at 7.16MHz vs 16bits at 12MHz, and my wait states >are fewer than yours, and blah blah blah are silly and haven't caused me to The bus is not 7,14Mhz, it is 14, even on the 68000 units. Dave