robin@niksula.hut.fi (Jarto 'Robin' Tarpio) (02/07/91)
I won't include the misleading information, because some of you read
them as facts. Here's some facts from a developer:
- WB2.0 does run perfectly on A500, A2000, A2500, A3000 etc
- WB2.0 does run perfectly with old chipset.
- WB2.0 is not released yet, because Commodore is debugging.
As long as developers keep sending bug-reports, the WB2.0
will be delayed. When it will be released, it will be
extremely bug-free. Why can't anybody appreciate it ???
- WB2.0 is extremely compatible with old software
Then I want to include some warnings:
- Don't believe in rumors.
- Don't believe in bug reports sent here.
Every posted problem has been in old ROM-versions. The last
versions have only been sent to developers.
Be patient. We are doing our best to create a wonderful future for Amiga.
--
Jarto Tarpio StarSoft Ky, Finland Commercial Developer ECO101
robin@niksula.hut.fibsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) (02/08/91)
In article <ROBIN.91Feb7120542@robin.hut.fi> robin@niksula.hut.fi (Jarto 'Robin' Tarpio) writes: > As long as developers keep sending bug-reports, the WB2.0 > will be delayed. When it will be released, it will be > extremely bug-free. Why can't anybody appreciate it ??? BECAUSE ITS BEEN FOREVER AND A DAY IN COMING SO FAR AND SHOWS NO SIGNS OF APPEARING WHATSOEVER! HOW BUG RIDDEN IS IT!!! -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> Brian Syme <> Why make things difficult, when with just a <> <> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk <> little more effort you could make them <> <> <> impossible. <> <><><><><> *WARNING* Signature dying of old age... ><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
algoa@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Gregory Bowers) (02/08/91)
bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) writes: >In article <ROBIN.91Feb7120542@robin.hut.fi> robin@niksula.hut.fi (Jarto 'Robin' Tarpio) writes: >> As long as developers keep sending bug-reports, the WB2.0 >> will be delayed. When it will be released, it will be >> extremely bug-free. Why can't anybody appreciate it ??? > BECAUSE ITS BEEN FOREVER AND A DAY IN COMING SO FAR > AND SHOWS NO SIGNS OF APPEARING WHATSOEVER! HOW BUG > RIDDEN IS IT!!! >-- ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ><> Brian Syme <> Why make things difficult, when with just a <> ><> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk <> little more effort you could make them <> ><> <> impossible. <> ><><><><><> *WARNING* Signature dying of old age... ><><><><><><><><><><><><><> As far as I know the developers must report bugs NOW or they'll be stuck with them. I guess this means KS 2.0 ROM can't be too far off. Anyway I for one would rather wait for bug free ROMs, than get something that we'll all bitch and moan about until KS 2.1 or 3.0. Amiga is die beste! 'n IBM is 'n rekenaar? Die Mac is net 'n vrot appel! algoa@eecs.cs.pdx.edu Portland TrailBlazers now 39-9 and KICKING ASS!
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/08/91)
In article <5542@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) writes: >In article <ROBIN.91Feb7120542@robin.hut.fi> > robin@niksula.hut.fi (Jarto 'Robin' Tarpio) writes: > >> As long as developers keep sending bug-reports, the WB2.0 >> will be delayed. When it will be released, it will be >> extremely bug-free. Why can't anybody appreciate it ??? > BECAUSE ITS BEEN FOREVER AND A DAY IN COMING SO FAR > AND SHOWS NO SIGNS OF APPEARING WHATSOEVER! HOW BUG > RIDDEN IS IT!!! So you would rather have a ga-zillion buggy versions of 2.0 floating out there than waiting a little longer for a (nearly) bug-free version? Personally, I would rather wait. I can think of so many bugs in 1.3 that weren't fixed for years. Remember the infamous screen-flipping bug? That was only fixed in the final version of 1.3. There are many other things that don't work right under 1.3. Certified Amiga Developers around the world are busy _trying_ to break the latest betas of 2.0. When they find a bug, or simply think of an enhancement, there are some very organized and efficient ways of informing the SE's at Commodore about it. Once these reports get to Commodore, you can expect something to be done about it -- and fast. Many people don't remember how buggy AmigaOS 1.0 was. I didn't own an Amiga back then, but a friend has had one since the very beginning. I remember thinking, "Gee, what a neat machine. It crashes a lot, though." I was a programmer even back then and I knew that bug-fixes and updates would be done, but the point is that most people don't think about that when they're buying a machine. Most people want bugless functionality NOW, not semi-buggy functionality now & bug-fixes later. Would you buy a game that crashed on the third level with a promise from the software developer to send you a bug fix 'RSN'? With many more Amigas being sold and used in the home and office, the Amiga needs a clean, efficient, NON-BUG-RIDDEN OS. If you really want to see the Amiga go far, you should be able to wait a little longer for 2.0. Commodore is taking an 'Ernest and Julio Gallo' approach to 2.0, and I'm glad they're doing it. As for "NO SIGNS OF APPEARING WHATSOEVER," well, 2.0 is already available on the A3000, and the ROMed general release will be forthcoming. To say more would be to violate a non-disclosure clause I'm sworn to uphold. Greg -- -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu------- "Confutatis maledictus "When the accursed have been counfounded Flammis acribus addictis, == And given over to the bitter flames, Voca me cum benedictis." -- Mozart Call me with the blessed."
bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) (02/08/91)
Yes, I *WOULD* rather have 2.0 NOW bugs and all! People have been wittering on about 1.3 bugs for years, and I don't doubt that they exist, but as far as I know I've never been bitten by one! [don't bother replying with *aha!*'s about that comment, I can think of them myself] Bugs will be located pretty damm fast by the user community, and the Amiga's OS seems pretty happy to accept patches. How long between 1.3 and 2.0? How long has SVR4 been in development? Unix is now on public release! After five years writing for this machine, I've just about had it - a nice fast 386 with unix looks like a damm good buy next to even the A3000 now. Even the PD market for the machine is starting to rely on 2.0 - do you think all the companies with serious applications are going to wait forever - Windows/M must be looking good to many.. The only conclusion I can draw is that 2.0 is SERIOUSLY bug-ridden with some deep problems, or that CBM are restricting it's availability for non-tech reasons. Get a move on. And get the manuals and autodocs out on public release on the same day. -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> Brian Syme <> Why make things difficult, when with just a <> <> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk <> little more effort you could make them <> <> <> impossible. <> <><><><><> *WARNING* Signature dying of old age... ><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
consp13@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Marcus Cannava) (02/09/91)
Personally, I'm not complaining about the delay for a finalized version
of WB2.0. Take a look over in the Macintosh world. How long has System 7
been promised? Is it here yet? No. System 7 is 2 years overdue.
I think Commodore's doing a pretty good job, comparitively.
Just my $.02
\marc
====
consp13@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu Marcus N. Cannava
@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu SUNY-Binghamton
---------------------------------- Student Consultant
'I do not fear computers..
I fear the lack of them' -- I. Asimov RNMtorrie@cs.stanford.edu (The Ghost Who Walks) (02/09/91)
consp13@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Marcus Cannava) writes: >Personally, I'm not complaining about the delay for a finalized version >of WB2.0. Take a look over in the Macintosh world. How long has System 7 >been promised? Is it here yet? No. System 7 is 2 years overdue. While I don't want to defend the debacle of System 7.0, it isn't 2 years overdue. The technology for System 7.0 was announced in May 1989. At the time, Apple refused to give a date of when it would be released, but most people expected it to be around March-May of 1990. Apple then gave a date of around Christmas 1990. That was then revised to before the summer of 1991. So if you ask Apple, they will say it's only 6 months late (compared to when they actually said they would have it available). If you ask most developers, they'll say it's about a year late (when it ships this May). Of course, if you're a developer, you've already had System 7.0 for six months. Now, if I recall, I've been reading about WorkBench 2.0 (or was it 1.4 :-)) in Amiga magazines since late 1989. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Fame, fame, fame... What's it good for? Ab-so-lute-ly nothing
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/09/91)
In article <5547@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) writes: >Yes, I *WOULD* rather have 2.0 NOW bugs and all! People have been wittering on >about 1.3 bugs for years, and I don't doubt that they exist, but as far as I >know I've never been bitten by one! [don't bother replying with *aha!*'s about >that comment, I can think of them myself] Bugs will be located pretty damm fast >by the user community, and the Amiga's OS seems pretty happy to accept patches. That's _really_ a bad idea. I personally have been bitten by 1.3 bugs quite a bit. You may not notice anymore. The screen-flipping bug I mentioned was one of the worst. (Use 3 screens, one of them interlaced and the others not. Flip between them for a while and the interlaced one will die.) Most people have not even _heard_ of updates to 1.3. How many of you have _heard_ about version 1.3.3? Do you realize that you've had a program around called Setpatch to patch the bugs in the 1.3 ROM? I look forward to the day that I can pop a 2.0 ROM into my Amiga, but I don't want to have to replace that ROM because some major bug slipped through. Bug patches make the OS look flawed and unprofessional. >After five years writing for this machine, I've just about had it - a nice fast >386 with unix looks like a damm good buy next to even the A3000 now. Even the >PD market for the machine is starting to rely on 2.0 - do you think all the >companies with serious applications are going to wait forever - Windows/M must >be looking good to many.. You're very welcome to buy that 386. You'll realize what kinds of things you have to deal with when developers don't properly test and retest their software. You can't use Windows 3.0 for 4 hours straight without a crash. Intel themselves has a habit of releasing buggy chips. MSDOS 5.0? Don't make me laugh... [BTW, I am a software developer with a LOT of experience on DOS machines. I am not jsut randomly flaming DOS machines.] >The only conclusion I can draw is that 2.0 is SERIOUSLY bug-ridden with some >deep problems, or that CBM are restricting it's availability for non-tech >reasons. CBM's reasoning is neither of the above two wild suggestions. They want a bugless release. _Every_ little detail is being checked and double-checked. 2.0, when released, will be one of the most solid OSes around. >Get a move on. And get the manuals and autodocs out on public release on the >same day. These people are working _hard_. Unfortunately, Commodore doesn't have a workforce the size of Microsoft. However, compared to Microsoft's credibility so far, I think our friends in West Chester, PA and developers all over the world are doing a tremendous job! Honestly, if you think you can get better results with DOS machines or whatever else, feel free to give them a try. You're in for a _big_ disappointment. Greg -- -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu------- "Confutatis maledictus "When the accursed have been counfounded Flammis acribus addictis, == And given over to the bitter flames, Voca me cum benedictis." -- Mozart Call me with the blessed."
GKZ117@uriacc.uri.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (02/09/91)
On 8 Feb 91 23:44:22 GMT Greg Harp said: >In article <5547@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme > IE88) writes: >>Yes, I *WOULD* rather have 2.0 NOW bugs and all! People have been wittering on >>about 1.3 bugs for years, and I don't doubt that they exist, but as far as I >>know I've never been bitten by one! [don't bother replying with *aha!*'s about >>that comment, I can think of them myself] Bugs will be located pretty damm >fast >>by the user community, and the Amiga's OS seems pretty happy to accept >patches. > >That's _really_ a bad idea. I personally have been bitten by 1.3 bugs quite a >bit. ... [Chomp, chomp ...] I've heard from a number of people that they'd rather have a buggy version of 2.0 than wait. This is mostly frustration, but I can't say I don't feel the same way myself sometimes. One thought would be for Commodore to releast the ROMs on disk ala A1000 along with a way to boot back to kickstart for people who really want to bother with it. I realize that there are a lot of problems with doing that, but it is food for thought. > >I look forward to the day that I can pop a 2.0 ROM into my Amiga, but I don't >want to have to replace that ROM because some major bug slipped through. Bug >patches make the OS look flawed and unprofessional. > I don't feel that bug patches like SetPatch are all that unprofessional, as long as the ROM is reasonably solid to begin with. > >>The only conclusion I can draw is that 2.0 is SERIOUSLY bug-ridden with some >>deep problems, or that CBM are restricting it's availability for non-tech >>reasons. > >CBM's reasoning is neither of the above two wild suggestions. They want a >bugless release. _Every_ little detail is being checked and double-checked. >2.0, when released, will be one of the most solid OSes around. > Sometimes I wonder if they will lose a large chunk of the market because of waiting. Then again, they did get a bad reputation for putting out 1.0 and 1.1 when it wasn't bug free. I still feel that Workbench should have been (If you'll forgive the phrasing) jazzed up for 1.3. Just Workbench. It's basically useless and is estetically unattractive. -------- F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet GKZ117 at URIACC.URI.edu Though you'd like to know.
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/09/91)
In article <44170@nigel.ee.udel.edu> GKZ117@uriacc.uri.edu (F. Michael Theilig) writes: >On 8 Feb 91 23:44:22 GMT Greg Harp said: >>That's _really_ a bad idea. I personally have been bitten by 1.3 bugs quite a >>bit. ... > > [Chomp, chomp ...] > > I've heard from a number of people that they'd rather have a buggy > version of 2.0 than wait. This is mostly frustration, but I can't say I > don't feel the same way myself sometimes. Like I said (gee, right below here :) I'd love to have 2.0 in ROM right now, but I understand why it's still not out. > One thought would be for Commodore to releast the ROMs on disk > ala A1000 along with a way to boot back to kickstart for people who > really want to bother with it. I realize that there are a lot of > problems with doing that, but it is food for thought. Hmmm... Other than the current way the developer version is done (I ain't tellin'. :), which is very hardware-specific and the 3000 way of doing it, which is not only hardware-specific but also uses a bootstrap ROM, I don't see a feasible way to distribute the ROMs on disk. Nice idea, but you're right -- too many problems. >>I look forward to the day that I can pop a 2.0 ROM into my Amiga, but I don't >>want to have to replace that ROM because some major bug slipped through. Bug >>patches make the OS look flawed and unprofessional. >> > I don't feel that bug patches like SetPatch are all that unprofessional, > as long as the ROM is reasonably solid to begin with. Well, Setpatch may end up being used under 2.0 (speculation -- not developer knowledge, mind you) to pick up a couple of last-minute bugs, I'd prefer it to be completely solid. Commodore has taken a strict stance lately about buggy releases of their products, and I don't think they should break down now. The beta-testing is very wide-spread and thorough. I think you may appreciate it more when the ROMs hit the market. >>CBM's reasoning is neither of the above two wild suggestions. They want a >>bugless release. _Every_ little detail is being checked and double-checked. >>2.0, when released, will be one of the most solid OSes around. >> > Sometimes I wonder if they will lose a large chunk of the market because > of waiting. Then again, they did get a bad reputation for putting out 1.0 > and 1.1 when it wasn't bug free. I still feel that Workbench should have > been (If you'll forgive the phrasing) jazzed up for 1.3. Just Workbench. > It's basically useless and is estetically unattractive. Exactly. I don't see a large loss of the market, since most users buying them for personal reasons will likely be willing to upgrade. Businesses will likely be buying 3000s anyway, so they'll get 2.0 _now_. BTW, have you spent an extended period of time using the 2.0 Workbench? It's very nicely done, and quite useful. Under 1.3, I hardly use the Workbench at all (in fact, I use Jazzbench and _only_ when I need to). You're hearing from a strict CLI-user who loves the new Workbench. Greg -- -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu------- "Confutatis maledictus "When the accursed have been counfounded Flammis acribus addictis, == And given over to the bitter flames, Voca me cum benedictis." -- Mozart Call me with the blessed."
bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) (02/11/91)
In article <43921@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > >Most people have >not even _heard_ of updates to 1.3. How many of you have _heard_ about >version 1.3.3? Do you realize that you've had a program around called >Setpatch to patch the bugs in the 1.3 ROM? Games users are unlikely to be affected or really notice OS bugs for the simple reason that almost all big name games kill the OS, the rest of us would be better served by a SERIOUS OS patch service (i.e. register and get sent disks). Yes I do know about setpatch! There are PD fixes for the interlace bug (which I've never been bitten by, though I dont doubt it exists.) > >I look forward to the day that I can pop a 2.0 ROM into my Amiga, but I don't >want to have to replace that ROM because some major bug slipped through. Bug >patches make the OS look flawed and unprofessional. They also make it look actively supported - I`m quite sure that there will be plenty of bugs in 2.0 when it is released, and the patches will surely follow.. >You can't use Windows 3.0 for 4 hours straight without a crash. Want a bet? 'fraid that's what I've been doing for months now. Oh, if only Intuition was a patch on Windows 3! Even the 2.0 intuition looks (can't speak for the internals) poorer than W3 (to me anyway.) >MSDOS 5.0? Don't make me laugh... Not much more than a program loader anyway, it's what you run on top that counts. However we stray from the point, I would run Unix/X11 and I *KNOW* there are bugs and problems with both but the pace of development is good. >_Every_ little detail is being checked and double-checked. >2.0, when released, will be one of the most solid OSes around. And triple, and quadruple, and, and,.... all well and good, I want it checked, but the point of diminishing returns rushes towards us.. >Honestly, if you think you can get better results with DOS machines or >whatever else, feel free to give them a try. You're in for a _big_ >disappointment. The simple fact is that "DOS" machines are improving at a superb rate. They are CHEAP and FAST. There is a MASSIVE market. Two years ago I wouldn't have touched a PC with a barge pole, the relative pace of development has changed that. The Amiga stagnated, the PC's surged... -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> Brian Syme <> Why make things difficult, when with just a <> <> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk <> little more effort you could make them <> <> <> impossible. <> <><><><><> *WARNING* Signature dying of old age... ><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) (02/11/91)
In article <43944@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > >Well, Setpatch may end up being used under 2.0 (speculation -- not developer >knowledge, mind you) to pick up a couple of last-minute bugs, I'd prefer it >to be completely solid. OH COME ON!! You *really* expect 512K of code to be *completely* bug free! Wise up! It isn't going to happen! >Exactly. I don't see a large loss of the market, since most users buying >them for personal reasons will likely be willing to upgrade. Businesses >will likely be buying 3000s anyway, so they'll get 2.0 _now_. Oh, very clever. Release the buggy OS to the very people that won't tolerate or know how to live with the bugs. Nice to know CBM are only thinking of us 'hackers'.. >BTW, have you spent an extended period of time using the 2.0 Workbench? It's >very nicely done, and quite useful. Under 1.3, I hardly use the Workbench at >all (in fact, I use Jazzbench and _only_ when I need to). You're hearing >from a strict CLI-user who loves the new Workbench. Rub it in, why don't you. -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> Brian Syme <> Why make things difficult, when with just a <> <> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk <> little more effort you could make them <> <> <> impossible. <> <><><><><> *WARNING* Signature dying of old age... ><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) (02/11/91)
In a previous article, torrie@cs.stanford.edu (The Ghost Who Walks) says: > > So if you ask Apple, they will say it's only 6 months late (compared >to when they actually said they would have it available). > If you ask most developers, they'll say it's about a year late (when >it ships this May). > > Of course, if you're a developer, you've already had System 7.0 for >six months. > > Now, if I recall, I've been reading about WorkBench 2.0 (or was it >1.4 :-)) in Amiga magazines since late 1989. Yes, but System 7.0 is only available to developers. WorkBench 2.0 is available to anyone who buys a 3000, therefore 2.0 IS out - its just not in ROM form yet. -- Pete Babic - pab@po.cwru.edu /// I'd rather be SKIING!! | /// /\ Member of A.C.E. | \\\ /// /--\MIGA (American Coaster Enthusiasts) | \\\/// The future is here now!
griff@anvil.intel.com (Richard Griffith) (02/12/91)
[ stuff deleted ] > I look forward to the day that I can pop a 2.0 ROM into my Amiga, but I don't > want to have to replace that ROM because some major bug slipped through. Bug > patches make the OS look flawed and unprofessional. total agreement... > > >After five years writing for this machine, I've just about had it - a nice fast > >386 with unix looks like a damm good buy next to even the A3000 now. Even the > >PD market for the machine is starting to rely on 2.0 - do you think all the > >companies with serious applications are going to wait forever - Windows/M must > >be looking good to many.. Sure we'll sell you a `386 - tell you what - trade me a 3000 for one, dude :-). > > You're very welcome to buy that 386. You'll realize what kinds of things you > have to deal with when developers don't properly test and retest their > software. You can't use Windows 3.0 for 4 hours straight without a crash. > Intel themselves has a habit of releasing buggy chips. MSDOS 5.0? Don't Nah! we don't do that! (big :-) > make me laugh... You know something? I'm sitting here in leading-edge MS-DOS development land at *ntel, and we WON'T TOUCH anything beyond MSDOS 3.3. Why? 4.0 and beyond breaks too much software, MS changed so much of the file system that most development SW won't run, or crashes. > [BTW, I am a software developer with a LOT of experience on DOS machines. > I am not jsut randomly flaming DOS machines.] (BTW - I'm with the "Code Builder" team ... (sshh! don't tell..:-) > > >The only conclusion I can draw is that 2.0 is SERIOUSLY bug-ridden with some > >deep problems, or that CBM are restricting it's availability for non-tech > >reasons. > > CBM's reasoning is neither of the above two wild suggestions. They want a > bugless release. _Every_ little detail is being checked and double-checked. > 2.0, when released, will be one of the most solid OSes around. Good! get on it! and complete it (although, in all my memory, I have yet to see an absolutely bug-free program of any kind, short of "Hello World...") > > >Get a move on. And get the manuals and autodocs out on public release on the > >same day. > > These people are working _hard_. Unfortunately, Commodore doesn't have a > workforce the size of Microsoft. However, compared to Microsoft's credibility > so far, I think our friends in West Chester, PA and developers all over the > world are doing a tremendous job! > > Honestly, if you think you can get better results with DOS machines or > whatever else, feel free to give them a try. You're in for a _big_ > disappointment. good luck. :Richard E. Griffith, "griff" : iNTEL, Hillsboro Ore. :griff@anvil.hf.intel.com :SCA!: Cyrus Hammerhand, Household of the Golden Wolf, Dragons' Mist, An Tir :These are MY opinions, if iNTEL wanted them, They'd pay for `em!
mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (02/12/91)
In article <43944@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
Well, Setpatch may end up being used under 2.0 (speculation -- not developer
knowledge, mind you) to pick up a couple of last-minute bugs, I'd prefer it
to be completely solid.
It's actually speculation about naming, not about whether setpatch
will be used.
Given the way CBM is acting about bugs, I'd be surprised if the ROM
version of 2.0 used setpath on release.
Given the complexity of what's in ROM, and the nature of complex
software, I'd be equally surprised if there were no bugs found between
the 2.0 ROM release and the next ROM release.
So I expect that there will be systems sold with the 2.0 ROM release
that use SetPatch. Whether they will be called 2.0 or not is an open
question.
And for those who want to leap on this and say "Ah HAH, they have to
use setpatch anyway, why not release it with bugs!" - you're wrong.
There's a difference between releasing it with "no known bugs" and
releasing it with bugs. Doing the latter is unavoidable. Burning ROMs
with bugs that will be fixed before the software gets to the dealers
is silly.
<mike
--
Teddies good friend has his two o'clock feast Mike Meyer
And he's making Teddies ex girl friend come mwm@pa.dec.com
They mistook Teddies good trust decwrl!mwm
Just for proof that Teddy was dumb.greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/12/91)
In article <5569@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) writes: >In article <43921@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >> >>Most people have >>not even _heard_ of updates to 1.3. How many of you have _heard_ about >>version 1.3.3? Do you realize that you've had a program around called >>Setpatch to patch the bugs in the 1.3 ROM? > > Games users are unlikely to be affected or really notice OS bugs > for the simple reason that almost all big name games kill the OS, > the rest of us would be better served by a SERIOUS OS patch service > (i.e. register and get sent disks). Yes I do know about setpatch! > There are PD fixes for the interlace bug (which I've never been > bitten by, though I dont doubt it exists.) But game users have no need for 2.0, either. As for Commodore sending disks to the users for patches, that creates a headache for and money drain that Commodore doesn't need. Besides, there would be mistakes and customers would be omitted. Commodore would just gain a repuation as a poor supplier of customer service. PD fixes for OS bugs don't go over well with businesses, either. >>I look forward to the day that I can pop a 2.0 ROM into my Amiga, but I don't >>want to have to replace that ROM because some major bug slipped through. Bug >>patches make the OS look flawed and unprofessional. > > They also make it look actively supported - I`m quite sure that > there will be plenty of bugs in 2.0 when it is released, and the > patches will surely follow.. Compared to 1.3, I think you will be surprised. >>You can't use Windows 3.0 for 4 hours straight without a crash. > > Want a bet? 'fraid that's what I've been doing for months now. > Oh, if only Intuition was a patch on Windows 3! Even the 2.0 > intuition looks (can't speak for the internals) poorer than W3 > (to me anyway.) How much money do you want to put on it? (Actually, I don't gamble.) I was severely unimpressed with the solidity of Windows 3.0. (Also, and this is only MHO, it looks a bit trite after extended time with AmigaOS 2.0.) >>MSDOS 5.0? Don't make me laugh... > > Not much more than a program loader anyway, it's what you run > on top that counts. However we stray from the point, I would > run Unix/X11 and I *KNOW* there are bugs and problems with both > but the pace of development is good. Well, once you get into Unix you have to learn to accept bugs. Some things are just sloppily done, unfortunately, even with by the best s/w developers. Personal computers have to be a bit more reliable, since they aren't nearly as crash-proof. >>_Every_ little detail is being checked and double-checked. >>2.0, when released, will be one of the most solid OSes around. > > And triple, and quadruple, and, and,.... all well and good, I > want it checked, but the point of diminishing returns rushes > towards us.. Well, none of us can make decisions for Commodore such as when the point of diminishing returns has been reached, but I feel they are still doing the right thing. Most single users interested in the Amiga will continue to wait for 2.0, and the businesses interested are mostly buying 3000s anyway. >>Honestly, if you think you can get better results with DOS machines or >>whatever else, feel free to give them a try. You're in for a _big_ >>disappointment. > > The simple fact is that "DOS" machines are improving at a > superb rate. They are CHEAP and FAST. There is a MASSIVE > market. Two years ago I wouldn't have touched a PC with a > barge pole, the relative pace of development has changed > that. The Amiga stagnated, the PC's surged... Well, I don't know how you're measuring improvement, but I do agree that they are cheap and somewhat fast. Windows is certainly a boon to their market, but it's still doesn't supply the power of the new Amiga or even the new Mac OS. In addition, you have to be _pretty_ committed to Windows in order to develop for it, considering the cost. Any Joe off the street is welcome to develop for the Amiga, so s/w prices are very nice. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I don't know what it is I like about you, but I like it a lot." -- Led Zeppelin, Communication Breakdown -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu-------
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/12/91)
This has gone on long enough that I'm setting the Followup-To line to c.s.a.advocacy. Please respect it. In article <5570@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) writes: >In article <43944@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >> >>Well, Setpatch may end up being used under 2.0 (speculation -- not developer >>knowledge, mind you) to pick up a couple of last-minute bugs, I'd prefer it >>to be completely solid. > >OH COME ON!! You *really* expect 512K of code to be *completely* bug free! >Wise up! It isn't going to happen! I said I'd _prefer_ it that way. I don't think I'm being unrealistic in saying that it will be _very_ close to bug-free. There is always the change of something slipping through, but this version of the OS has seen quite a large number of people _trying_ to make it break. It's possible that a small bug could be discovered somewhere between the ROM masking date and the release date, but I wouldn't be surprised in seeing 2.0 out without a SetPatch. I can't speculate on if they will intentionally leave some bug fix out for some reason or another, though. >>Exactly. I don't see a large loss of the market, since most users buying >>them for personal reasons will likely be willing to upgrade. Businesses >>will likely be buying 3000s anyway, so they'll get 2.0 _now_. > >Oh, very clever. Release the buggy OS to the very people that won't tolerate >or know how to live with the bugs. Nice to know CBM are only thinking of us >'hackers'.. C'mon. Have you checked into how the 3000's ROMs are set up? It only has a bootstrap in actual ROM. The Kickstart image is loaded into memory and jumped to by that bootstrap. The people who bought 3000s in this setup were aware of this. When the ROMs are ready, they go right into the machine. And before you say something about why they didn't do that for the other machines, it's because the 3000 is the only machine on which that is feasible to do. They knew that every 3000 sold would have memory in the same place, so they could plan on it being there to hold the ROM image. Customers are made aware of this before they buy, so they can know what to expect. Until then, every release version of the OS (I believe they now have released 2.02 for the 3000) has been distributed to the customers through their dealer. >>BTW, have you spent an extended period of time using the 2.0 Workbench? It's >>very nicely done, and quite useful. Under 1.3, I hardly use the Workbench at >>all (in fact, I use Jazzbench and _only_ when I need to). You're hearing >>from a strict CLI-user who loves the new Workbench. > >Rub it in, why don't you. Hey, you're not totally incapable of getting to a machine running 2.0, you know. You can buy a 3000. You can become a developer (although I question the morality of becoming a developer just for the benefits). If you're so impatient then do something about it. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I don't know what it is I like about you, but I like it a lot." -- Led Zeppelin, Communication Breakdown -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu-------
jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) (02/13/91)
mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: >In article <43944@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > Well, Setpatch may end up being used under 2.0 (speculation -- not developer > knowledge, mind you) to pick up a couple of last-minute bugs, I'd prefer it > to be completely solid. >It's actually speculation about naming, not about whether setpatch >will be used. >Given the way CBM is acting about bugs, I'd be surprised if the ROM >version of 2.0 used setpath on release. Actually, no matter how much debugging you do, there will always be more of them CATS people realize this. I think (I don't know for sure) that C:SetPatch is a permanent thing. In the initial release of a new OS, SetPatch will do nothing. As new bugs are found and fixed, CBM will distribute a new SetPatch that takes care of them. Ideally, this saves a lot of hassle for users. By makeing SetPatch standard, and puting it in the standard S:Startup-Sequence, nobody would actually ever have to modify that file. (Unless they want to get rid of junk they know they don't want).
bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) (02/13/91)
In article <44055@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > >you have to be to be _pretty_ committed to Windows >in order to develop for it, considering the cost. Any Joe off the street >is welcome to develop for the Amiga, so s/w prices are very nice. > I don't have the figures around & I'm curious.. What's the cost of the Windows 3 SDK + (say) Microsoft C, vs SAS C and the Manual Mound.. I've heard that microsoft are going to open up the interface standards for W3 so the price of the SDK might well drop,.. The amiga will probably remain cheaper to develop for though. Something to bear in mind when listening to a UK programmer slagging off CBM is the standard of support provided by CBM UK - it (was) terrible, and from speaking to various developers it hasn't improved much - the DSP here seems to be geared solely to the game producers (not surprising though because that's what shifts boxes here.. remember also that the disposable income of UK is said to be lower - sales of the 3000 here are likely to be a lower percentage of total.) After a few years of wasted phone calls and being able to provide better answers to my own questions than they could, I didn't take up the offer to shell out hundreds of pounds for the same... >Greg > Brian > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >"I don't know what it is I like about you, but I like it a lot." -- > Led Zeppelin, Communication Breakdown >-------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu------- -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> Brian Syme <> Why make things difficult, when with just a <> <> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk <> little more effort you could make them <> <> <> impossible. <> <><><><><> *WARNING* Signature dying of old age... ><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (02/16/91)
In article <5569@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) writes: > Want a bet? 'fraid that's what I've been doing for months now. > Oh, if only Intuition was a patch on Windows 3! Even the 2.0 > intuition looks (can't speak for the internals) poorer than W3 > (to me anyway.) And what are you DOING with it? Win3 crashes terribly often, compared to AmigaDOS, all it takes is running a rude DOS program that happens to trash some part of the Win3 code, or assumes it owns the machine and trips up Win3. Plus, you are still limited to MS-DOS's file naming and disk structure. If you think Win3 looks better than AmigaDOS 2.0 you need your eyes checked. Windows (and PM) both look almost exactly the same as they did back in '88 or '89. They STILL have seperate front & back gadgets, like the Amiga used to, and most programs STILL don't have icons for them, and creating them requires you to mess around with profile files for each program. AmigaDOS 2.0 looks very Motif'ish, in fact, if some of the gadgets imagery were only slightly changed, it could pass for Motif, if you just looked at it. Does Win3 support seperate screens? No. Does it support slideable screens (No, since it doesn't support seperate screens). > > The simple fact is that "DOS" machines are improving at a > superb rate. They are CHEAP and FAST. There is a MASSIVE > market. Two years ago I wouldn't have touched a PC with a > barge pole, the relative pace of development has changed > that. The Amiga stagnated, the PC's surged... The PC has surged? In what way? The ONLY way that there is even a SLIGHT advantage to the PC is the availability of VGA cards at low cost. The hardware they plug into still sucks, is still 16-bit in at least 80% of the clones still being made, and VGA itself is dog slow and a very poor board for doing any kind of animation. All most PC's today are is a faster version of an XT, with almost no use made of the more powerfull chips, and most users are still using MS-DOS, which right there is a waste of your RAM and hard drives. Clones don't even make really good Unix boxes, since again, most of them are limited to a very slow (compared to the Amiga 2000 bus) 16-bit bus, and are almost always limited to 16 megs of RAM. As someone who SELLS these pieces of crud as Unix boxes, I KNOW the performance is bad compared to systems that use the Intel line of chips in non-ISA/PC compatible configurations. Dave
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/17/91)
In article <1991Feb16.014403.11533@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: > If you think Win3 looks better than AmigaDOS 2.0 you need your eyes > checked. I disagree. The Microsoft Windows user interface is one of the best I've seen: the menus are always available, attached to the window, and don't require the mouse. All sides of a window are available for dragging, and there are keyboard commands to bring a window to the front so you don't have to dig around for the front gadget or push a bunch of other windows to the back. I can see why Apple's scared of it... it makes Finder look sick. > The PC has surged? In what way? The ONLY way that there is even a SLIGHT > advantage to the PC is the availability of VGA cards at low cost. You can buy a 386SX box with VGA and room for 8 MB on the motherboard for $875. That's big enough to run UNIX, easily. In fact you can probably get the box, a big disk, and the UNIX license (V.3.2) for the neighborhood of $2000. Makes even the base NeXT educational price look sick. > The hardware > they plug into still sucks, is still 16-bit As is the Amiga 2000, remember. Zorro-II is a 16-bit bus. VGA is way slow, and for a windowing system the A3000 is way better. But for a base UNIX box -- fileserver or terminal server/timeshare system -- it's hard to beat a 386SX. > AM. As someone who SELLS these > pieces of crud as Unix boxes, I KNOW the performance is bad compared to > systems that use the Intel line of chips in non-ISA/PC compatible > configurations. Yes, the Intel 520 is a nice box: Multibus-II, runs 2-headed UNIX on 486 cards. A real honker. But we still use PCs for network capability servers (tapes, terminals, etc). -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
nsw@cbnewsm.att.com (Neil Weinstock) (02/17/91)
In article <1991Feb16.014403.11533@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: [ ... ] > Does Win3 support seperate screens? No. Does it support slideable >screens (No, since it doesn't support seperate screens). [ ... ] Quick question: Has there *ever* existed another machine that supports draggable screens a la the Amiga? I've never seen one... Just curious, - Neil --==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==-- Neil Weinstock @ AT&T Bell Labs // What was sliced bread att!edsel!nsw or nsw@edsel.att.com \X/ the greatest thing since?
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/17/91)
In article <1991Feb17.004210.5827@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > [In MS-Windows] all sides of a window are available for dragging, [...] ^^^^^^^^ Hey, bozo, don't you mean resizing? > Oh, you're right, I mean resizing. That's better. > Sorry. Apology accepted. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/17/91)
In article <1991Feb17.033014.14347@cbnewsm.att.com> nsw@cbnewsm.att.com (Neil Weinstock) writes: > Quick question: Has there *ever* existed another machine that supports > draggable screens a la the Amiga? I've never seen one... Unless you count the two-port terminal emulator I wrote for the IBM-PC, neither have I. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
pochron@cat28.cs.wisc.edu (David Pochron) (02/22/91)
In article <1991Feb17.033014.14347@cbnewsm.att.com> nsw@cbnewsm.att.com (Neil Weinstock) writes: > >Quick question: Has there *ever* existed another machine that supports >draggable screens a la the Amiga? I've never seen one... > >Just curious, Well, way back in 1986 I did write a windowing/icon/graphical text system for my Atari 800 in 8K of assembly. One of the things it supported was draggable screens. Jaws hit the floor at the Atari meeting I demoed it at and people realized the 800 could do more than the ST...graphics-wise. Of course, we can all thank Jay Miner once again for making draggable screens possible! :-) >--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==-- >Neil Weinstock @ AT&T Bell Labs // What was sliced bread >att!edsel!nsw or nsw@edsel.att.com \X/ the greatest thing since? -- -- David M. Pochron | "Life's a blit, | and then you VBI." pochron@garfield.cs.wisc.edu |
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (02/22/91)
In article <1991Feb17.004210.5827@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Feb16.014403.11533@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: >I disagree. The Microsoft Windows user interface is one of the best I've >seen: the menus are always available, attached to the window, and don't >require the mouse. All sides of a window are available for dragging, and >there are keyboard commands to bring a window to the front so you don't >have to dig around for the front gadget or push a bunch of other windows >to the back. I can see why Apple's scared of it... it makes Finder look >sick. Appearence is a matter of personaly taste, and I should have said so. But *personally* I don't like the "drag/resize from any side/corner features of Win3/Motif. I prefer one set are to move, one set area to resize, etc. Also, Motif wastes far too much space on the border to support these features. I mis the Amiga's nice, beutiful, and slender window borders whenever I have to work in Win3 or X. > >You can buy a 386SX box with VGA and room for 8 MB on the motherboard >for $875. That's big enough to run UNIX, easily. In fact you can probably >get the box, a big disk, and the UNIX license (V.3.2) for the neighborhood >of $2000. Sure you can, and it will be: 16-bit, with no way to ever go to 32-bit. Be a slower model (for $875 retail you won't get a 25Mhz SX from any name brand worth buying). > >Makes even the base NeXT educational price look sick. If you are willing to settle for such a limited amount of power. >As is the Amiga 2000, remember. Zorro-II is a 16-bit bus. Sure it is, but is is much faster than the ISA bus, supports multiple bus masters, and is even more important, an autoconfig bus. The ISA and EISA buses suck for a heavily used Unix system. Once you start sticking in 7 or 8 cards you have to really fight to find a free interupt, I/O port, etc. > >VGA is way slow, and for a windowing system the A3000 is way better. But >for a base UNIX box -- fileserver or terminal server/timeshare system -- >it's hard to beat a 386SX. This is not true at all. A 3886SX sucks, no way around it. Perhaps if you could find a 386SX box that was not an IBM compatible, it would be quite good. But nomatter what kind of CPU you throw at the ISA bus it will never compete with tha Zorro II/III bus. And as someone who knows quite a bit about Unix, I am suprised you would even consider a bus that has such severe overhead to be a viable alternative to the Zorro II bus, in any way but price. >Yes, the Intel 520 is a nice box: Multibus-II, runs 2-headed UNIX on >486 cards. A real honker. But we still use PCs for network capability >servers (tapes, terminals, etc). Using an ISA device for your server when you have faster machines on the network is silly. Why load the most accessed resources like the storage and network server on a slower machine? You should put them on the fastest machine, so your more expensive hardware isn't always waiting for the slower machine to service it. Dave
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (02/22/91)
In article <1991Feb17.033014.14347@cbnewsm.att.com> nsw@cbnewsm.att.com (Neil Weinstock) writes: >Quick question: Has there *ever* existed another machine that supports >draggable screens a la the Amiga? I've never seen one... I haven't either. But I would hate to have to go back to a system that doesn't have them. Just like multitasking, they are impossible to do without once you have used them. Dave
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/01/91)
I said: > You can buy a 386SX box with VGA and room for 8 MB on the motherboard > for $875. That's big enough to run UNIX, easily. In fact you can probably > get the box, a big disk, and the UNIX license (V.3.2) for the neighborhood > of $2000. In article <1991Feb22.014212.681@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: > Sure you can, and it will be: > 16-bit, with no way to ever go to 32-bit. What do you mean by this? The 80386SX is *purely* a 32-bit CPU inside. This is strictly a performance consideration... the VGA sucks from that viewpoint too. The point I'm making is that it *is* available, and *does* work. And the 80386 is far enough up the curve of intels slugfest with real processors that you won't be hurting too much. Me, I spent the money on a 3000 running Intuition. But I *have* a cheesy cheapo UNIX box already. > >Makes even the base NeXT educational price look sick. > If you are willing to settle for such a limited amount of power. Well, I have a *smaller* machine than this (16 MHz 80386 with Hercules and only 4M on the motherboard) and it's more of a usable UNIX box than a base NeXT simply because there's less disk/CPU spent on the interface. > >As is the Amiga 2000, remember. Zorro-II is a 16-bit bus. > Sure it is, but is is much faster than the ISA bus, supports multiple > bus masters, and is even more important, an autoconfig bus. The ISA and EISA > buses suck for a heavily used Unix system. Once you start sticking in 7 or > 8 cards you have to really fight to find a free interupt, I/O port, etc. Once you stick in 7 or 8 cards you're looking at a whole different type of system. Neither the NeXT nor your ISA bus based machine are suitable for the sort of heavy use you're talking about. A 3000 might be. We use Multibus II. > >VGA is way slow, and for a windowing system the A3000 is way better. But > >for a base UNIX box -- fileserver or terminal server/timeshare system -- > >it's hard to beat a 386SX. > This is not true at all. A 3886SX sucks, no way around it. It's 32 bit internally and it's *cheap*, spelled "I can buy more boxes than you". > And as someone who knows quite a bit > about Unix, I am suprised you would even consider a bus that has such severe > overhead to be a viable alternative to the Zorro II bus, in any way but price. An alternative for *what*? You place computers by what you need done and what you can afford to use in that slot. Also... the RAM isn't on the ISA bus, so it's not so bad. > >Yes, the Intel 520 is a nice box: Multibus-II, runs 2-headed UNIX on > >486 cards. A real honker. But we still use PCs for network capability > >servers (tapes, terminals, etc). > Using an ISA device for your server when you have faster machines on the > network is silly. Why? Should we load down the 520 with real-time control stuff like terminals or streaming tapes when we can buy a PC for that for about the same cost as 4 dumb terminals? > Why load the most accessed resources like the storage and > network server on a slower machine? The big disks are on the 520. All the boxes are on the network. The slow or infrequently used devices (terminals and printers are *not* high speed devices) are on the slow boxes. These are our capability servers. > You should put them on the fastest machine, > so your more expensive hardware isn't always waiting for the slower machine to > service it. That's exactly what we do. The right box in the right place. And there are plenty of right places for PCs. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/02/91)
In article <1991Mar1.120528.2418@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Makes even the base NeXT educational price look sick. > If you are willing to settle for such a limited amount of power. Well, I have a *smaller* machine than this (16 MHz 80386 with Hercules and only 4M on the motherboard) and it's more of a usable UNIX box than a base NeXT simply because there's less disk/CPU spent on the interface. Are Amiga users feeling a little threatened by the Next? This is the second time you've made a negative comment about the Next. Have you used the new 68040 Nexts? How much of the CPU is used by the interface when you aren't dragging a window around on the screen? Continuously dragging a window back and for acrossed the screen would impact performance, but it's not something that most users are going to do. As for the 386 vs. the 040, the 040 is at at least 4 times faster(at the same clock speed) doing integer operations than the 386, and since the 386 doesn't have a FPU, it definitely beats the 386 doing floating-point. To speed up the base NeXTstation, spend $400 and get 8 more megs of RAM. This will reduce the amount of swapping. -Mike BTW: I'm typing on an 8MB system right now, and I'm loving it.
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (03/02/91)
In article <1991Mar1.120528.2418@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Feb22.014212.681@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: >> Sure you can, and it will be: >> 16-bit, with no way to ever go to 32-bit. > >What do you mean by this? The 80386SX is *purely* a 32-bit CPU inside. This >is strictly a performance consideration... the VGA sucks from that viewpoint >too. The point I'm making is that it *is* available, and *does* work. And the >80386 is far enough up the curve of intels slugfest with real processors that >you won't be hurting too much. So what if the SX is 32 bits internally? The 68k is too, and that doesn't make it fast. I think the point here is that if you get into an ISA bus system, even if it has a true 32-bit 386 in it, you're going to have to deal with the slowness of the 16-bit bus. The 386SX is a crippled chip that Intel made to satisfy a market need for cheap, low-end architectures. It's not even competitive with a real 386. If internal 32 bit, external 16 bit was an acceptable setup Sun would still be making and selling Sun 2/50's and the like. Greg -- Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two |lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found? s609@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd
GKZ117@uriacc.uri.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (03/03/91)
On 2 Mar 91 00:05:36 GMT Michael D Mellinger said: >In article <1991Mar1.120528.2418@sugar.hackercorp.com> > peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > > >Makes even the base NeXT educational price look sick. > > If you are willing to settle for such a limited amount of power. > > Well, I have a *smaller* machine than this (16 MHz 80386 with Hercules and > only 4M on the motherboard) and it's more of a usable UNIX box than a base > NeXT > simply because there's less disk/CPU spent on the interface. > >Are Amiga users feeling a little threatened by the Next? This is the >second time you've made a negative comment about the Next. Have you >used the new 68040 Nexts? > Many are. It's a nice package. If I had the cash for an A3000, I'd have to seriously consider a low-end Next. I'd lean toward the A3000 because I'm already into the system, and I despise the artsey, new-age, bohemian <%&*#^&@!!> image they are trying to market. Even worse than the Macintosh. I want a computer, not a "cube". Aside from that, hardware to hardware, it is an attractive piece. -------- F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet GKZ117 at URIACC.URI.edu Though you'd like to know.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/03/91)
In article <46349@nigel.ee.udel.edu> "F. Michael Theilig" <GKZ117@uriacc.uri.edu> writes: > >Are Amiga users feeling a little threatened by the Next? This is the >second time you've made a negative comment about the Next. Have you >used the new 68040 Nexts? > Many are. It's a nice package. If I had the cash for an A3000, I'd have to seriously consider a low-end Next. I'd lean toward the A3000 because I'm already into the system, and I despise the artsey, new-age, bohemian <%&*#^&@!!> image they are trying to market. Even worse than the Macintosh. I want a computer, not a "cube". Aside from that, hardware to hardware, it is an attractive piece. Image is very important. It's the reason the Amiga never made it into corporate America, and as we all know, the hardware is as good as the Mac's. As far as the cube goes, it's for expandability. NeXT Dimension, 33 MHz 040, multiple CPU boards(I have seen a DSP board), a couple of gigs worth of internal disk space, etc. -Mike
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (03/03/91)
>[NeXT, 386X, A3000, etc. comparisons]
Take it to c.s.a.ADVOCACY, please!!
Dankholland@hydra.unm.edu (Kiernan Holland) (03/05/91)
Did anyone see the the CRACK FISH demo on PBS a few weeks ago (On the new show called the "90's"). It was a Say No to Drugs commercial. Though it was a serrious animation, it was quite humurous. You know the guy who did the Clerk demos!!?? Ther may be more coming from that show in the future. Also, it is more of a 30-40 something show. For YUPS and HIPS. Later
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (03/08/91)
In article <1991Mar1.120528.2418@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >I said: >> You can buy a 386SX box with VGA and room for 8 MB on the motherboard >> for $875. That's big enough to run UNIX, easily. In fact you can probably >> get the box, a big disk, and the UNIX license (V.3.2) for the neighborhood >> of $2000. >In article <1991Feb22.014212.681@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: >> Sure you can, and it will be: >> 16-bit, with no way to ever go to 32-bit. > >What do you mean by this? The 80386SX is *purely* a 32-bit CPU inside. This >is strictly a performance consideration... the VGA sucks from that viewpoint >too. The point I'm making is that it *is* available, and *does* work. And the >80386 is far enough up the curve of intels slugfest with real processors that >you won't be hurting too much. What I mean is that you are getting a basically 16-bit machine to run Unix with X, and you will have no way to ever go to 32-bit without replacing the entire machine. Who cares what it is inside. It's the I/O interfaces (which are 16-bit) and the RAM interfaces (which are usually 32-bit, but require special, nonstandard RAM boards, and only go to 16 meg anyway). Plus, at least right now, you can only get 25 Mhz 386SX's, which is certainly a dog when compared to a 3000 of the same speed. >> >Makes even the base NeXT educational price look sick. >> If you are willing to settle for such a limited amount of power. > >Well, I have a *smaller* machine than this (16 MHz 80386 with Hercules and >only 4M on the motherboard) and it's more of a usable UNIX box than a base NeXT >simply because there's less disk/CPU spent on the interface. Absolutely. Now take a look at what a machine with the vastly better Zorro III bus would give you, running in a real, full-32 bit environment. >Once you stick in 7 or 8 cards you're looking at a whole different type of >system. Neither the NeXT nor your ISA bus based machine are suitable for the >sort of heavy use you're talking about. A 3000 might be. We use Multibus II. Exactly. The 3000 makes an EXCELLENT Unix box. So far ahead of a box designed to be DOS compatible that it isn't funny. There are many reasons to go with a 3000 other than running AmigaDOS. It is simply a better platform for Unix than any ISA or EISA system. >> This is not true at all. A 3886SX sucks, no way around it. > >It's 32 bit internally and it's *cheap*, spelled "I can buy more boxes than >you". So what. You would need more of them to accomplish the same thing, and for every box you buy you need a monitor, hard drive, and the same amount of RAM. And the performance, which is more important, is far below that of the 3000. I really don't see what the big deal is about the 386SX being 32-bits internally. It's not your internal speed that usually limits Unix operations, but rather the speed of your I/O subsystem. In any case, the 68030 in the 3000 is 32-bits inside and out, and is a faster CPU at the same speeds anyway (when compared against the 386DX). > >Also... the RAM isn't on the ISA bus, so it's not so bad. But RAM access is not that big of a deal. On any machine on a network or being used by more than one person the main limiting factor is the speed at which things can pass over the bus. And on ISA and EISA systems this is very much a limiting factor. Plus the design of the bus itself requires more work on the part of the main CPU to handle and drive it, unlike the Zorro bus systems, which are capable of working in a multiple bus master situation reliably. >The big disks are on the 520. All the boxes are on the network. The slow or >infrequently used devices (terminals and printers are *not* high speed devices) >are on the slow boxes. These are our capability servers. I understood you to mean that you had located most of your other work on the other machines, and were for some reason using the machine with the faster CPU as a computing box. > >That's exactly what we do. The right box in the right place. And there are >plenty of right places for PCs. And just as many for Amigas serving the same purpose as the PC. Only on the Amiga you would have a better windowing system (if you were using the native Amiga mode), or at least a faster local end to work with as well. Dave
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/09/91)
In article <44970@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > So what if the SX is 32 bits internally? The 68k is too, and that doesn't > make it fast. Fast enough for me. The system speed is more related to the operating system, and for UNIX it's also highly correlated with amount of RAM and the speed of the hard disk subsystem. The NeXTstep overhead costs you, and both the ISA machines and the NeXT get the same disk throughput out of the disk drive. > I think the point here is that if you get into an ISA bus > system, even if it has a true 32-bit 386 in it, you're going to have to deal > with the slowness of the 16-bit bus. The 386SX is a crippled chip that Intel > made to satisfy a market need for cheap, low-end architectures. It's not > even competitive with a real 386. You can make the overall system cheaper by leveraging off the slower speed and narrower bus. If it's fast enough for what you want to do (and for a UNIX system it is) and you have a limited budget then it's a viable option. It's still faster than an 11/780, remember. > If internal 32 bit, external 16 bit was an acceptable setup Sun would > still be making and selling Sun 2/50's and the like. Acceptable to who? 8088 based machines are still selling. Commodore-64s are still selling. You're like an audiophile wondering why someone would ever buy a boom-box. People have different needs and different budgets... and the lower the budget the bigger the market. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/09/91)
In article <1991Mar8.044302.28835@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: > What I mean is that you are getting a basically 16-bit machine to > run Unix with X, and you will have no way to ever go to 32-bit without replacing > the entire machine. Who cares what it is inside. No, that goes "who cares what it is outside?". Once you're running UNIX and X the only difference is performance. Even on a beer budget, I prefer Guinness Stout... but there are a lot more people who are satisfied with Oly. > Absolutely. Now take a look at what a machine with the vastly > better Zorro III bus would give you, running in a real, full-32 bit > environment. Since I can't afford it, it can give me nothing. And I have a lot more disposable income than the average. > Exactly. The 3000 makes an EXCELLENT Unix box. So far ahead of a > box designed to be DOS compatible that it isn't funny. There are many reasons > to go with a 3000 other than running AmigaDOS. It is simply a better > platform for Unix than any ISA or EISA system. Sure. If you can afford it. > So what. You would need more of them to accomplish the same thing, Who says I'm trying to do the same thing? Who says the same thing actually needs all that power? > and for every box you buy you need a monitor, hard drive, and the same > amount of RAM. Yep, but a mono monitor and 4 Meg of RAM is a lot cheaper. > And the performance, which is more important, is far below > that of the 3000. I really don't see what the big deal is about the 386SX > being 32-bits internally. It's not your internal speed that usually limits > Unix operations, but rather the speed of your I/O subsystem. You're hung up on quantitative differences. Tell the people who bought Microport UNIX System V/AT that there's no big deal about the 386SX being 32-bits internally. It *can* run real UNIX. No smaller processor or cheaper box I know of can. That's the bottom line. > And just as many for Amigas serving the same purpose as the PC. We can't afford Amigas in those places. The PCs give us all the performance we need and can justify. And a box sitting in a computer room just doesn't benefit from fancy graphics. People buy computers to solve problems. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.