lmbailey@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Laurana Bailey) (06/02/91)
I am worried. Seems like everyday some new gee-whiz add-on for the IBM comes out to improve it's graphics and sound. Seems the price for faster IBMs is dropping so low that fast Amigas can't compare. The big business software makers continue to ignore us and Commodore shows no signs of putting out an improved chip set or marketing of any major effort. The Amiga is doing well in Europe, but I don't live in Europe. I live in the US where I have to drive 40 mins to get to the nearest Amiga Dealer. As much as I hate using an IBM, it looks like it will eventually come down to that. The most amazing thing I have seen on the Amiga in recent memory is the Video Toaster which I have no use for. All the graphic's add-ons can't be used with Workbench let alone a good game. Maybe my priorities are screwed up, but I'd LIKE to have 256 Colors in my video games. I'd LIKE to have games support the three button Sega Genesis pad (not hard to do, but no one is doing it.) I'd LIKE to have more than 4 voices available when I write songs without resorting to MIDI. None of this stuff is available and none appears to be on the horizon. Back in 1986 when I signed on with the Amiga out of pure amazement at what I saw, I was certain Commodore had caught the ball poised for a major touchdown. They would seem to have fumbled the ball all over the end zone. Even Jay Minor, father of the Amiga, doesn't see the machine as ever becoming anything great now. It's too little too late. We were ahead of the game, but we just sat around and watched the world rush past. It's only a matter of time before Microsoft manages to get Windows working well enough to make it easy to use the IBM. It's a damn shame too. I've tried to be optimistic about it, but the more I wait, the darker the future seems. -- /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ |Just another lemming... | Yet another Amiga maniac set loose | | | on the world...and you thought things| |lmbailey@vela.acs.oakland.edu | couldn't get any worse. |
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (06/03/91)
In article <6678@vela.acs.oakland.edu> lmbailey@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Laurana Bailey) writes: > > > >Back in 1986 when I signed on with the Amiga out of pure amazement at >what I saw, I was certain Commodore had caught the ball poised for a >major touchdown. They would seem to have fumbled the ball all over the >end zone. Even Jay Minor, father of the Amiga, doesn't see the machine >as ever becoming anything great now. It's too little too late. We were >ahead of the game, but we just sat around and watched the world rush >past. It's only a matter of time before Microsoft manages to get >Windows working well enough to make it easy to use the IBM. > >It's a damn shame too. I've tried to be optimistic about it, but the >more I wait, the darker the future seems. > I would give it a little more time. The Toaster just came out. 2.0 and the ECS is about to come out. And I'll bet it cost a lot of money to get CDTV started. You might be right, but I wouldn't place any bets until about a year from now. NCW
murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >I would give it a little more time. The Toaster just came out. 2.0 and >the ECS is about to come out. And I'll bet it cost a lot of money to get I just don't get it. I remember a year ago or so when the A3000 came out. Didn't it have both 2.0 and 1.3 ROMS? Although 2.0 ROMs weren't finalized, Why has it taken C= a year to produce those chips for retrofit into A2000s and A500s? Will the entire ECS be available for <A3000 machines? You would think that C= would get on the ball. This is almost getting to be as bad as Steven Jobs' NeXT initial announcement. Bill Murphy murphy@physics.purdue.edu West Lafayette, IN: Where progress takes a back seat to tradition.
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu>, nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >In article <6678@vela.acs.oakland.edu> lmbailey@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Laurana Bailey) writes: >> >> >> >>Back in 1986 when I signed on with the Amiga out of pure amazement at >>what I saw, I was certain Commodore had caught the ball poised for a >>major touchdown. They would seem to have fumbled the ball all over the >>end zone. Even Jay Minor, father of the Amiga, doesn't see the machine >>as ever becoming anything great now. It's too little too late. We were >>ahead of the game, but we just sat around and watched the world rush >>past. It's only a matter of time before Microsoft manages to get >>Windows working well enough to make it easy to use the IBM. >> >>It's a damn shame too. I've tried to be optimistic about it, but the >>more I wait, the darker the future seems. >> > > >I would give it a little more time. The Toaster just came out. 2.0 and >the ECS is about to come out. And I'll bet it cost a lot of money to get >CDTV started. You might be right, but I wouldn't place any bets until >about a year from now. Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. The ECS isn't going to do much for the Amiga, either, because it was obsolete before it even went into production. The ECS is also 98% identical to the very oldest Amiga chipset. > > > NCW ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ ISU : The Home of the Goon / \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon / -------------------------------------------------------
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/04/91)
In article <5202@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>, murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes: >In article <1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >>I would give it a little more time. The Toaster just came out. 2.0 and >>the ECS is about to come out. And I'll bet it cost a lot of money to get > >I just don't get it. I remember a year ago or so when the A3000 came out. >Didn't it have both 2.0 and 1.3 ROMS? Although 2.0 ROMs weren't finalized, >Why has it taken C= a year to produce those chips for retrofit into A2000s and >A500s? Will the entire ECS be available for <A3000 machines? You would >think that C= would get on the ball. This is almost getting to be as bad >as Steven Jobs' NeXT initial announcement. The A3000 still does not contain either the 2.0 or 1.3 ROMs. The A3000 is still being shipped with a small (64K or something like that) boot ROM to load 1.3 or 2.0 from the hard disk. The version of 2.0 being shipped with the A3000 still has bugs, and Commodore is not quite ready to put 2.0 into ROM. > > >Bill Murphy >murphy@physics.purdue.edu > >West Lafayette, IN: Where progress takes a back seat to tradition. ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ ISU : The Home of the Goon / \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon / -------------------------------------------------------
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/04/91)
tbissett@nstar.rn.com (Travis Bissett) writes: >taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >> >> Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >> the Toaster is totally useless. > > Your argument is emminently logical. however, I have noticed that humans > rarely act from logic. Especially in issues of marketing. > [examples of a killer app bringing in customers, even if they don't use it] Good point. That's the same reason auto companies create low-sale models which are hot and sporty... to bring people into their showroom, where they then buy a more affordable and practical car ;-). Not an exact comparison, but it'll do for now. We all have been put in the position time and again, of promoting system X only to have a potential buyer ask: but does it run software ZZ? All the good arguments you can come up with usually mean diddly to them... as their mind is fixated on being able to run ZZ no matter whether or not they will actually use it. I can only thank goodness that I'm not in marketing <wide grin>. cheers - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: [Where does he get these statistics?] > Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. Marc, are you epileptic? The reason I ask is because everytime you make an arguement against the Amiga you always bring up the flicker. NON-Flicker displays are expensive, NTSC incompatible, and only useful for TEXT processing. In short, if a machine doesn't have an interlaced display mode, it sucks. Removing flicker from the Toaster would be idiotic. For drawing/rendering for broadcast video, flicker is acceptable. It's besides the point anyway, since the A3000/ECS provide non-flickering SHARP displays. > The ECS isn't going to do much for the Amiga, either, because it was >obsolete before it even went into production. The ECS is also 98% >identical to the very oldest Amiga chipset. How do you know this? Have you compared the schematics? Just because it only has slightly improved display modes doesn't mean that it's virtually identical. It may have taken considerable design effort and optimizations to fit those extra features on the already packed chips. I get the feeling you think the engineers merely threw in some new modes over a lunch break and had it ready in a few days. I admit, I'm not an expert on the chip design process, but I'll bet that the ECS is NOT 98% identical to the old chip set. The denise has had many new programmble features added. On the subject of the Amiga's future, it seems multimedia and CD-I are not being taken into account. The Mac has built up considerable fame for Desktop publishing, so what about video publishing/mastering? If CD-I hits America BIG TIME, and as mastering CD's becomes cheaper, people may want to program/design CDs like they do with home video cams now. The Amiga could be the ideal platform for multimedia/designing CD-I applications. I don't even want to hear about the Mac being used for this(cheaply). Read rec.games.programmer some time, Mac programmers are having an incredible time getting even primitive animation working fast. Amiga video software is lightyears(or waves) ahead of the Mac. BTW, I think System 7.0 is a big failure/joke. It is incredibly slow on anything less than an 030 with lots of ram. I've been reading many accounts of users running even a simple application with a clock program in the background and having the system become incredibly jerky and slow. One user in comp.sys.mac.system accounts of running tetris and "superclock" resulting in the game becoming really sluggish (on an LC). This is pathetic, I can run multiple copies of tetris on my A500 with a term program, and a clock and all of them run at near full speed. I've noticed Apple has defined a new interprocessing scripting language which some magazines have hailed "revolutionary". This disgusts me since it sounds suspicously like a rip-off of REXX/(Perl|Awk|etc). IMHO Apple made a bad move not adopting Rexx since ANSI is "standardizing" and IBM is reembracing it. A few months you were complaining about no video cards being availible for the Amiga, now the situation has changed (Toaster, HAM-E, DCTV, Colorburst, DMI's Card, Firecracker/24, A2410, A2024(well sorta), VideoMaster/32(not out yet),Video Blender(not out yet),Harlequin, etc. BTW, DMI and Firecracker both have higher resolution than Apple's 8/24 card. They require very expensive monitors(DMI) for the high resolution modes (megapixel 24bit color).) After all this, you are now back to picking on the custom chip set and flicker again? Remember, it took the Mac 6 _years_ to finally overcome the PC market, the Amiga is not going become a success overnight however it is gaining ground. Technical specs don't define success either, since the Amiga has had better specs than both the Mac and the IBM when the Amiga was released. Advertising and software availibility are the key. Marc, do you actually own an Amiga? Everytime someone posts an "Amiga's future/success in business/new display availible" you respond with a "Doom and Gloom" post. If you're this down on the Amiga, why don't you just buy a Mac and be over with it? Myself, I won't settle for anything less than an Amiga or a Unix box. [Why did I bring up the Mac? Well Marc would have brung it up anyway, and I happen to despise the Mac environment (too confining) and it's condescending interface. ] >> >> >> NCW > ------------------------------------------------------------- > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / >/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / >------------------------------------------------------------ >\ ISU : The Home of the Goon / > \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon / > ------------------------------------------------------- -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
tbissett@nstar.rn.com (Travis Bissett) (06/04/91)
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > > Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, > the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the > Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few > Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the > flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. > > The ECS isn't going to do much for the Amiga, either, because it was > obsolete before it even went into production. The ECS is also 98% > identical to the very oldest Amiga chipset. > Your arguement is emminently logical. however, I have noticed that humans rarely act from logic. Especially in issues of marketing. The applications that established particular kinds of microscomputers as serious, respectible machines were not particularly useful to 95% of the market. 1-2-3 made the original IBM PC a thing to notice and more IBM compatibles have since been sold for non-business uses. How many cloneheads out there actually use 1-2-3 to balance their checkbooks, track their stocks, or computer their taxes? IMHO less than 95%. And how 'bout the Mac, which PageMaker made a market called DTP? How many Macs get actually used for DTP overall? Same with Amiga. The number of people that use Toaster is less important than the "quality" of media excitement it generates. It may very well prove to be the killer app that Amiga has been waiting for. Most people may not NEED a Toaster in their lives, but the Amiga needs this kind of thing -- any kiond ///// kind of thing -- to get noticed as a serious machine. If professionals and elite types put their money in this machine then maybe I can safely do likewise, the true logic goes. People start to see what were once gimmicks are now features. Obsolete? So what. It may or may not be important. Once market momentum builds it is no longer a question of how long you make it -- it's how you make it long. The ECS technology is far less obsolete than the basic architecture that beats at the heart of the vast majority of computers sold today -- from micro all the way up to mainframe. After all, every corporate data center in America "wisely" buys new and faster ways to emulate System 370 -- mid 60's stuff -- because of their "huge" investment in a software installed base. But that's for another soap box . . . -- Travis Bissett NSTAR conferencing site 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 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 ---
don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. > For most Amiga users, the Toaster is useless, yes, especially since most Amigas out there are 500s. There are a large number of Ami users, though, who can use it. But that's really irrelevant. The people who really _can_ use the Toaster, and there are lots of them, are waking up to the Amiga like never before. The Toaster is not of huge significance to many current Amiga owners except by the fact that it sells _lots_ of Amigas. I spent about 4 hours at a local dealer Saturday getting things ready for a big CDTV demo we're putting on here. During that time, one person bought a 2000 with the intention of adding a Toaster later; one person came in and played with it, was very impressed, and took home all the pricing info and apparently planned on coming back. Two people from a local private school came to see it, and are going to try to get it on their budget for next year (starting July 1). A CDTV unit was also old, as well as some software. The only non-CBM hardware I saw leave the store (a store filled with Macs and various DOS machines) was an HP printer. The Toaster, CDTV, etc, are certainly boosting public awareness of the Amiga. Four new faces showed up at our users' group meeting this weekend. Response to our mailed invitations to our CDTV demo has been much higher than we expected. I guess I strayed off the original subject here, but my point is, in any case, that despite the words of the doomsayers here and elsewhere, the Amiga is not a dead or dieing machine. Progress is slow, but it's there. -- Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork is spoken fork() be Amiga Student On-Campus Consultant, U of D here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.
dingebre@imp.sim.es.com (David Ingebretsen) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun4.004200.3771@news.iastate.edu>, taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > In article <5202@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>, murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes: > >In article <1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: > >>I would give it a little more time. The Toaster just came out. 2.0 and > >>the ECS is about to come out. And I'll bet it cost a lot of money to get > > > >I just don't get it. I remember a year ago or so when the A3000 came out. > >Didn't it have both 2.0 and 1.3 ROMS? Although 2.0 ROMs weren't finalized, > >Why has it taken C= a year to produce those chips for retrofit into A2000s and > >A500s? Will the entire ECS be available for <A3000 machines? You would > >think that C= would get on the ball. This is almost getting to be as bad > >as Steven Jobs' NeXT initial announcement. > > The A3000 still does not contain either the 2.0 or 1.3 ROMs. The A3000 > is still being shipped with a small (64K or something like that) boot > ROM to load 1.3 or 2.0 from the hard disk. The version of 2.0 being > shipped with the A3000 still has bugs, and Commodore is not quite ready > to put 2.0 into ROM. > > > > > > >Bill Murphy > >murphy@physics.purdue.edu > > > >West Lafayette, IN: Where progress takes a back seat to tradition. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / > / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / > ------------------------------------------------------------ > \ ISU : The Home of the Goon / > \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon / > ------------------------------------------------------- I've just started using an X windows mail reader and found a KILL AUTHOR button. Good-bye Marc. David David Ingebretsen Evans and Sutherland Computer Corporation 600 Komas Drive Salt Lake City, UT 84108 (801) 582-5847 x3758 dingebre@es.com
galpin@bill.ucsc.edu (Daniel Abram Galpin) (06/04/91)
There has been talk about the future of the Amiga recently. The Amiga 3000 is fantastic. I have used them a great deal and have found them a joy to work with compared to the A500 and A1000 systems that I currently possess. However, I find myself doing things more often on the PC or MAC that just cannot be done as easily (or as nicely) on Amigas. The Amiga needs better printer support with built-in full Postscript support, scalable font technology, and a more dynamic printer driver system. The Mac System 7.0 and MS Windows 3.1 BOTH have TrueType and support TrueImage. The only program that I have used for the Amiga that produces truly fantastic Deskjet output is TeX. TeX is not for everyone. It is far more power then most people need, and the versions that I have seen barely run on a 1 meg Amiga 500.. which I consider to be the standard Amiga. In order to get copy that is comparable to the output from System 7.0 and Microsoft Word.. or JUST ABOUT ANY OTHER MAC PROGRAM, I would have to buy a dedicated desktop-publishing system such as PageStream or Professional Page. The Amiga just doesn't have enough processor power to handle many of the newer applications (and games..) There is no real midstream Amiga.. The A2000 just doesn't cut it anymore. How about an Amiga 500 that can run at 14Mhz with some small amount of cache memory, with a socket for a 68881 math co-processor and a bit more RAM expandability on board? The Amiga market is too sharply divided, with the high-end Amiga 3000 including just about everything and the 500's and 2000's including nothing. For most users, the 2000 is just not enough power anymore. How about a "segmented" system that allows users to add on options simply (as cartridges or something)? Video-enhancer here... RAM here... co-processor here... PC emulator here, etc... How about a built in SCSI interface on a low-cost Amiga, or an all-in-one low cost solution such as an Amiga 500 with a built in MIDI interface, SCSI interface, 68881 socket, and 8 megs of possible expansion on the motherboard, combined with a speed-switchable 68000? These kinds of options are available to Macintosh and PC people, and I cannot understand why C= is ignoring the pre-built Mid-Range market. Commodore should embrace one of the graphics expansion options for the Amiga, such as the Colorburst or HAM-E, and offer Workbench support. Both of these solutions are admittedly "hacks," but that hasn't stopped Commodore before (witness the A2024 monitor). How about a simple graphics device, or at least a Commodore graphics specification? If Commodore really wants to push Multimedia, give Amiga the power it needs to at LEAST rival LOW END Mac II or VGA graphics. An Amiga enhancement such as HAM-E or Colorburst would also work with CD-TV, and enable it to have better graphics realism as well... the "Graphics Enhancement Cartridge" from Commodore... Commodore should make CD-ROM available to ALL Amiga owners as soon as possible. A relatively low cost CD-ROM peripheral for the Amiga would be an excellent selling point. Finally, Commodore should do something similar to what it has done with CD-TV -- have a software division that can support the Amiga in areas where there is little software being produced. I guess it is time to step down from the pedistal. I love the Amiga and want it to continue, and feel that many of these options represent the BEST chance for the Amiga to survive and thrive far into the 90's. - Dan Galpin galpin@ucscb.ucsc.edu galpin@cats.ucsc.edu " Amiga - the computer sold before its time... which is why it still isn't well-aged. "
amuser@cutmcvax.cs.curtin.edu.au (Bill Sharp-Smith AUG) (06/04/91)
lmbailey@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Laurana Bailey) writes: >I am worried. Seems like everyday some new gee-whiz add-on for the IBM >comes out to improve it's graphics and sound. Seems the price for >faster IBMs is dropping so low that fast Amigas can't compare. The big >business software makers continue to ignore us and Commodore shows no >signs of putting out an improved chip set or marketing of any major >effort. >The most amazing thing I have seen on the Amiga in recent memory is >the Video Toaster which I have no use for. All the graphic's add-ons >can't be used with Workbench let alone a good game. Maybe my >priorities are screwed up, but I'd LIKE to have 256 Colors in my video >games. I'd LIKE to have games support the three button Sega Genesis >pad (not hard to do, but no one is doing it.) I'd LIKE to have more >than 4 voices available when I write songs without resorting to MIDI. >None of this stuff is available and none appears to be on the horizon. >Windows working well enough to make it easy to use the IBM. >It's a damn shame too. I've tried to be optimistic about it, but the >more I wait, the darker the future seems. Just lately I'v been feeling the same way. I'm not likely to go to another platform until something better comes along. I don't believe in going for a platform that is already >5 years old such as the Mac or PC, but if something new came along designed with similar ideals to the Amiga, but with todays technology, I'd probably buy it as soon as I could afford to. Even the Amigas 'advantages' in multi-media are looking silly in the face of 24-bit full motion video cards from Apple & IBM. I know there is a big price difference, but the difference is getting less and soon the difference will be worth it for a far nicer display. Also, wait till you see what Apple is doing with Multimedia. It also makes tha Amiga look a little silly. (I can't say any more.) In many areas, the only advantage the Amiga has now (or will have in the near future), is price... :-( Amiga Users Group of Western Australia.
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/04/91)
Responding to the following: "NON-Flicker displays are expensive, NTSC incompatible, and only useful for TEXT processing. In short, if a machine doesn't have an interlaced display mode, it sucks. Removing flicker from the Toaster would be idiotic. For drawing/rendering for broadcast video, flicker is acceptable." I agree that interlaced video is necessary for NTSC compatibility, but when you're not planning on exporting to NTSC interlacing is obviously just a method of making up for low processing (or I/O) speed. Computers without an "interlaced display mode" hardly suck, as this conversion is handled by the D/A device! " BTW, I think System 7.0 is a big failure/joke. It is incredibly slow on anything less than an 030 with lots of ram. I've been reading many accounts of users running even a simple application with a clock program in the background and having the system become incredibly jerky and slow. One user in comp.sys.mac.system accounts of running tetris and "superclock" resulting in the game becoming really sluggish (on an LC). This is pathetic, I can run multiple copies of tetris on my A500 with a term program, and a clock and all of them run at near full speed. I've noticed Apple has defined a new interprocessing scripting language which some magazines have hailed "revolutionary". This disgusts me since it sounds suspicously like a rip-off of REXX/(Perl|Awk|etc). IMHO Apple made a bad move not adopting Rexx since ANSI is "standardizing" and IBM is reembracing it." First of all, you obviously know very little about Macintosh's. The future scripting language for the Mac, AppleScript, is nothing like REXX. System 7.0 is NOT significantly slower than System 6.x except in some instances that are program-specific, like when a program updates the scroll bar too often (White Knight updates its scroll bars about 50x more than Apple recommends). They used to be able to get away with this, but with 8-bit color patterns for the scroll bars, they now pay a performance penalty for it. "Superclock" isn't even a program at all, it's a System Extension. The problem may have been the Tetris game, but I can't imagine something like Tetris being affected by something like the above. I haven't noticed performance differences in most of my programs. Ah, I think I know what the problem was. System 7.0 installs itself with enough Virtual Memory to double your System RAM, by default. He may not have turned this off. Anyway, I don't see how an Amiga user can complain about the Mac OS. The Macintosh's OS is just as far ahead of the Amiga's as Amiga hardware is ahead of Mac hardware. "[Why did I bring up the Mac? Well Marc would have brung it up anyway, and I happen to despise the Mac environment (too confining) and it's condescending interface. ]" Again, I don't see it. Care to be more specific? Anything in particular you can't do, or you just don't know how to use a Macintosh? Again, the Macintosh OS has far more features/power.
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun4.025024.823@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > > > [Where does he get these statistics?] > >> Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >>the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >>Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >>Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >>flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. > > Marc, are you epileptic? The reason I ask is because everytime you >make an arguement against the Amiga you always bring up the flicker. >NON-Flicker displays are expensive, NTSC incompatible, and only >useful for TEXT processing. In short, if a machine doesn't have an ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >interlaced display mode, it sucks. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Excuse me while I laugh my head of... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! OK, that's better. Anyway, if you really, truly believe that flicker- free displays suck, then you'd better tell that to the millions of people who have purchased MAC and IBM systems with non-interlaced displays. All of these people are totally stupid to be so converned about their eyesight that they are willing to pay extra for a display that doesn't flicker. Hell, having to change ones glasses or contact prescription every few weeks has never hurt anybody. Commodore had better get rid of that totally useless thing on the motherboard of the A3000. It is totally stupid to waste valuable motherboard space with something as stupid as a device that eliminates the flicker. Commodore had better recall all existing A3000 systems at once and get rid of those chips, because nobody wants them and it was totally stupid to put them there in the first place. BTW, the Japanese are in big trouble. All of those companies that are working on flicker-free HDTV technology are totally stupid. People *WANT* flicker, so there isn't a chance in hell that HDTV will succeed. >Removing flicker from the Toaster >would be idiotic. For drawing/rendering for broadcast video, flicker >is acceptable. It's besides the point anyway, since the A3000/ECS provide >non-flickering SHARP displays. Every time someone mentions broadcasting, as if all computers are used for broadcasting and none are used for anything else, I wish I could reach through the CRT of my monitor and wrench that person's brains out of their ears. Even with the Amiga, which is ideally suited for broadcast uses, only a tiny fraction of the installed base of Amigas are used for broadcasting. By far the majority of all Amigas sold are being used for the same uses that all other MACs and IBMs are being used for: games, word processing, desktop publishing, etc.. All of these applications benefit so greatly from a sharp display that the flicering, interlaced display of the Amiga killed the Amiga as a general-purpose computer for a long time. Eventually Commodore was forced to implement a kludge to eliminate the flicker from their newest Amiga. Without the Display Enhancer, nobody doubts that the A3000 would not have had a chance against the systems from Apple and IBM with very sharp flicker- free displays. > >> The ECS isn't going to do much for the Amiga, either, because it was >>obsolete before it even went into production. The ECS is also 98% >>identical to the very oldest Amiga chipset. > > How do you know this? Have you compared the schematics? Just because >it only has slightly improved display modes doesn't mean that it's >virtually identical. It may have taken considerable design effort and >optimizations to fit those extra features on the already packed chips. >I get the feeling you think the engineers merely threw in some new >modes over a lunch break and had it ready in a few days. I admit, I'm >not an expert on the chip design process, but I'll bet that the >ECS is NOT 98% identical to the old chip set. The denise has had many >new programmble features added. With the ECS, Commodore basically took some of the registers that were hard-wired in the old chipset and made them programmable. From here, the new modes were achieved by using the new programmable registers. Overall, however, not all that many changes were made. If you doubt my word, use common sense. Most of the features of the old chipset are unchanged in the ECS. Commodore made a few registers programmable, and as a result was able to add some resolution modes and other capabilities, but overall everything is the some. Hell, Commodore did not even touch the Paula chip at all, which remains exactly the same today as it was six years ago. I can even take two of the custom chips from my old A1000 (Commodore's oldest machine) sitting here, put them into an A3000 (Commodore's newest and most advanced machine), and many people would not be able to tell the difference when using the A3000. > > [tangential stuff deleted] > A few months you were complaining about no video cards being availible >for the Amiga, now the situation has changed (Toaster, HAM-E, DCTV, >Colorburst, DMI's Card, Firecracker/24, A2410, A2024(well sorta), >VideoMaster/32(not out yet),Video Blender(not out yet),Harlequin, etc. >BTW, DMI and Firecracker both have higher resolution than Apple's 8/24 >card. They require very expensive monitors(DMI) for the high resolution >modes (megapixel 24bit color).) I don't remember ever complaining about the lack of video cards for the Amiga in the past two years. For the past three years, I've actually been complaining about there being too many available that were incompatible with each other and even with the Amiga's OS. There are no standards for the Amiga third-party video hardware market in sight, and any program that is written for one video card absolutely will not work with any of the other video cards. I believe the thread I started was called "Amiga Video Mess", and the problem shows no signs of alleviating as more incompatible video cards are produced. > > After all this, you are now back to picking on the custom chip set and >flicker again? Remember, it took the Mac 6 _years_ to finally overcome >the PC market, the Amiga is not going become a success overnight however >it is gaining ground. Technical specs don't define success either, since >the Amiga has had better specs than both the Mac and the IBM when the >Amiga was released. Advertising and software availibility are the key. >Marc, do you actually own an Amiga? Everytime someone posts an >"Amiga's future/success in business/new display availible" you >respond with a "Doom and Gloom" post. If you're this down on the Amiga, why >don't you just buy a Mac and be over with it? > Myself, I won't settle for anything less than an Amiga or a Unix box. > >[Why did I bring up the Mac? Well Marc would have brung it up anyway, >and I happen to despise the Mac environment (too confining) and it's >condescending interface. ] If you don't like the MAC's "condescending interface", you had better not ever take a look at a CDTV. The interface of the CDTV is so rigid and simplistic as to make the MAC look like a UNIX system. The fact is, the average American person is a complete moron, and you have to make computers simple or they will not sell. Commodore borrowed quite a lot from the MAC with Workbench 2.0, and people are continually calling on Commodore to borrow more from Apple and make the Workbench even more MAC-like. Judging from the sales of the MAC compared to the sales of the Amiga, Commodore is right to be borrowing as much as possible from the MAC. > >>> >>> >>> NCW >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / >>/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / >>------------------------------------------------------------ >>\ ISU : The Home of the Goon / >> \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon / >> ------------------------------------------------------- > > >-- >/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ >| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| >\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * / > ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ ISU : The Home of the Goon / \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon / -------------------------------------------------------
bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun4.105736.15468@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > > I don't remember ever complaining about the lack of video cards for >the Amiga in the past two years. One should pull one's head from one's ass. >The fact is, >the average American person is a complete moron, and you have to make >computers simple or they will not sell. Commodore borrowed quite a >lot from the MAC with Workbench 2.0, and people are continually calling >on Commodore to borrow more from Apple and make the Workbench even more >MAC-like. Judging from the sales of the MAC compared to the sales of >the Amiga, Commodore is right to be borrowing as much as possible >from the MAC. No, Marc. Fact is, the average American computer buyer is an intelligent decision-maker who looks at the options *accessible* to them and makes a value judgement based upon the strengths and weaknesses of various platforms. It's unfortunate the Amiga isn't more available to more people; but that's just how it is, right now. Doesn't mean it's not reversible, and if you'd take a look a sales, you'd see that the Amiga is selling at a faster clip than the Mac. Period. Which is good for everyone not affiliated with that giant, belching corporocracy. If you're trying to sell your own sloped forehead as a model of computer wisdom and marketing know-how, beat it. We've heard it before, and no one believes you. What's that old saying from the last bout? "'Bye, Marc, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out." > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / Dave Hopper |MUYOM!/// Anthro Creep | NeXT Campus Consultant at Stanford | __ /// . . | Smackintosh/UNIX Consultant - AIR bard@jessica. | \\\/// Ia! Ia! | Independent Amiga Developer Stanford.EDU | \XX/ Shub-Niggurath! | & (Mosh) Pit Fiend from Acheron
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun4.025024.823@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > BTW, I think System 7.0 is a big failure/joke. It is incredibly slow >on anything less than an 030 with lots of ram. I've been reading >many accounts of users running even a simple application with a clock >program in the background and having the system become incredibly >jerky and slow. One user in comp.sys.mac.system accounts of running >tetris and "superclock" resulting in the game becoming really sluggish >(on an LC). This is pathetic, I can run multiple copies of tetris on >my A500 with a term program, and a clock and all of them run at near >full speed. I think you don't know what you are talking about. 7.0 runs just fine on a Mac Plus with 2 meg. (Well, I guess "lots" wrt memory is relative.) I love this. On the basis of ONE report about problems with 2 OTHER programs you have decide that System 7.0 is to blame. You oughta go into tech support, where you'd be a god. At what bit depth was the LC running? Was it running any other inits? Was your A500 running a graphic shell? Was it running an outline font display? Maybe you just know your A500 better than most Mac users know their machines.
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/04/91)
writes: >In article <1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu wr > > > [Where does he get these statistics?] [out of a hat!] > >> Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >>the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >>Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >>Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >>flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. > > Marc, are you epileptic? The reason I ask is because everytime you >make an arguement against the Amiga you always bring up the flicker. >NON-Flicker displays are expensive, NTSC incompatible, and only >useful for TEXT processing. In short, if a machine doesn't have an >interlaced display mode, it sucks. Removing flicker from the Toaster >would be idiotic. For drawing/rendering for broadcast video, flicker >is acceptable. It's besides the point anyway, since the A3000/ECS provide >non-flickering SHARP displays. Correct, YOU NEED A 2:1 INTERLACE for any professional television equipment to "sync" to it. I remember only the Amiga would drive our JVC switcher. We tried all kinds of video modes, but only in interlace mode would all the cameras, ccu's, etc, accept the Amiga video signal as the master "burst" signal to sync the whole system...OK, we were cheap and didn't have any time base correctors, but the Amiga 1000 sure did the job...Impressed the teacher so much he went out and bought two Amiga 2000's with genlocks when they were avaiable.(This was '86-'87 so the A2000 wasn't even know to exist then) Hum, you know, Channel 7 (WXYZ Detroit) news over here did a report about another television production high school class in Dearborn and I noticed they had a toaster system there(or two), so the toaster is getting the Amigas into the schools to get exposure to young minds. For such a "small" 5% market, I noticed General Television Networks(GTN) has set up a toaster suite, and I think they sell Amigas retail now as well...I have not been there in awhile...This is the place ALL the local looser cable companies buy everything from, where they go for service, and where all the schools around here running television programs go for equipment. Then again, I guess someone in Iowa dosn't see whats going on in the larger American markets. BTW: How many Amiga 2000's are out there running Preview Guide in the head-end's across America? Thats gotta be a good way to advertise..Over here its $50 a month for 1,300 ads on preview guide, and they will scan images into the ad if you like. You know, Comcast uses the Electronic Arts "King-Tut" picture on one of thier ads all the time...Maybe Commodore should look into providing "preview guide" discounts, and get an advertisement locked into the software...Would get nationwide exposure, and benifit both companies... Oh yeah, Preview Guide is on an interlaced screen, and I never said "look at that flicker", actually I don't see any flicker on my 20" RCA Dimensia.. -Ron -- C-UseNet V0.42b Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/04/91)
writes: > The Toaster, CDTV, etc, are certainly boosting public awareness >of the Amiga. Four new faces showed up at our users' group meeting this >weekend. Response to our mailed invitations to our CDTV demo has been >much higher than we expected. Since the Toaster hit the market, I have noticed that the Detroit Free Press (Knight-Ridder newspapers) did a story on the Toaster as well, and told all the amatuer video hacks that if they had an Amiga they were ahead in the game, because its the only machine that has a video compatible output. This was in the "Fast Forward" section, that people who are interested in Niptendio, CDTV, new video releases, camcorders, etc, read...I even noticed their video game reviewer has only been reviewing games that are avaiable on both the PC's and Amiga's..Its been awhile since I saw him review a game that wasn't avaiable on the Amiga...And its kinda funny, you see "reccomend equipment, IBM XT/AT with VGA/Soundblaster/joysticks, or an Amiga" >-- > Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork > is spoken fork() be Amiga Student On-Campus Consultant, U of D > here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault. > -- C-UseNet V0.42b Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) (06/04/91)
In article <1991Jun4.004200.3771@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >In article <5202@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>, murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes: >> >>I just don't get it. I remember a year ago or so when the A3000 came out. >>Didn't it have both 2.0 and 1.3 ROMS? Although 2.0 ROMs weren't finalized, >>Why has it taken C= a year to produce those chips for retrofit into A2000s and > > The A3000 still does not contain either the 2.0 or 1.3 ROMs. The A3000 >is still being shipped with a small (64K or something like that) boot >ROM to load 1.3 or 2.0 from the hard disk. The version of 2.0 being Good Grief! C= hasn't even completed the 2.0 ROMs. Say it ain't so! Maybe they should have someone else do the ROMs for them? If MB is wrong, then I apologize for believing his post. If he's right, then is it any wonder that C= has problems? This is just filler to get the news to accept a posting. Bill Murphy murphy@physics.purdue.edu West Lafayette, IN: Where progress takes a back seat to tradition.
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/05/91)
murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes: >In article <1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >>I would give it a little more time. The Toaster just came out. 2.0 and >>the ECS is about to come out. And I'll bet it cost a lot of money to get > >I just don't get it. I remember a year ago or so when the A3000 came out. >Didn't it have both 2.0 and 1.3 ROMS? Although 2.0 ROMs weren't finalized, >Why has it taken C= a year to produce those chips for retrofit into A2000s and >A500s? Will the entire ECS be available for <A3000 machines? You would >think that C= would get on the ball. This is almost getting to be as bad >as Steven Jobs' NeXT initial announcement. > You really don't know what your talking about do you? It really steams me when people flame CBM with rumors, incorect information, and inuendo. if you had been paying ANY attention to these newsgroups, even if you had walked down to your local dealer and asked some questions, or even if you had called cbm and asked them (they have an 800 number for this sort of thing), you would know that the 3000 never had either 2.0 or 1.3 roms. you would know that cbm is STILL DEVELOPING 2.0, you would know that the ecs will be available and you would know that things are moving at cbm. What do you want cbm to do detail their entire financial future, technological advances, and give away all their trade secrets just so YOU can feel reasured? forget it. in this business secrecy is the name of the game, or else you get scooped to the punch. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/05/91)
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. > > The ECS isn't going to do much for the Amiga, either, because it was >obsolete before it even went into production. The ECS is also 98% >identical to the very oldest Amiga chipset. > man, you are on drugs or something. the ECS has a heck of alot more features than just new display modes. can you name another computer system that allows you to switch between a PAL or NTSC display on the fly? (course virtually no other system has any sort of NTSC OR PAL compatibility so this is almost moot) can you name any other system that has a totaly programmable display? you can create some weird display modes with the new chipset, try a 640x960 productivity interlaced mode.. (you interlace the productivity mode to generat a 960 mode). the ECS is not meant to be a savior anyways. of course cbm isn't going to release the chips when the os won't support it (when 2.0 comes out it will, and i'm sure the ecs will be available). .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/05/91)
galpin@bill.ucsc.edu (Daniel Abram Galpin) writes: (*sigh*, another uninformed (that thinks he knows everything) amigan that has fallen pray to propoganda, as i shall prove.) > >There has been talk about the future of the Amiga recently. The Amiga 3000 is >fantastic. I have used them a great deal and have found them a joy to work >with compared to the A500 and A1000 systems that I currently possess. However, >I find myself doing things more often on the PC or MAC that just cannot be >done as easily (or as nicely) on Amigas. And just what are you doing that can't be done as easily (or nicely) on Amiga's? don't throw a blanket statement like that out without something to back it up. > >The Amiga needs better printer support with built-in full Postscript support, >scalable font technology, and a more dynamic printer driver system. The Mac >System 7.0 and MS Windows 3.1 BOTH have TrueType and support TrueImage. The >only program that I have used for the Amiga that produces truly fantastic >Deskjet output is TeX. TeX is not for everyone. It is far more power then most >people need, and the versions that I have seen barely run on a 1 meg Amiga >500.. which I consider to be the standard Amiga. In order to get copy that is >comparable to the output from System 7.0 and Microsoft Word.. or JUST ABOUT >ANY OTHER MAC PROGRAM, I would have to buy a dedicated desktop-publishing >system such as PageStream or Professional Page. again, AmigaDos 2.0 hasn't been finalized yet, and fairly reliable word has been handed down that 2.0 *WILL* support compugraphic scalable font technogy in the OS when it is released in 3rd quarter this year. Windows 3.1 isn't out yet either. what do you mean by "dynamic printer driver support"? your fond of refering to system 7.0, system 7 will not run on a machine with less than 2 megs of memory, hardly a standard configuration either. the cost of Ms Word, is about equal to the cost of such programs as PageSetter II, which is a cheap page layout program that also offers Compu-Graphic support. actually PS II is probably cheaper. i haven't priced word lately but last i saw it was in the range of 180 dollars, you could almost buy Pagestream for that. again, wait for 2.0 to come out officially. > >The Amiga just doesn't have enough processor power to handle many of the newer >applications (and games..) There is no real midstream Amiga.. The A2000 just >doesn't cut it anymore. How about an Amiga 500 that can run at 14Mhz with some >small amount of cache memory, with a socket for a 68881 math co-processor and >a bit more RAM expandability on board? The Amiga market is too sharply >divided, with the high-end Amiga 3000 including just about everything and the >500's and 2000's including nothing. For most users, the 2000 is just not >enough power anymore. How about a "segmented" system that allows users to add >on options simply (as cartridges or something)? Video-enhancer here... RAM >here... co-processor here... PC emulator here, etc... How about a built in >SCSI interface on a low-cost Amiga, or an all-in-one low cost solution such as >an Amiga 500 with a built in MIDI interface, SCSI interface, 68881 socket, and >8 megs of possible expansion on the motherboard, combined with a >speed-switchable 68000? These kinds of options are available to Macintosh and >PC people, and I cannot understand why C= is ignoring the pre-built Mid-Range >market. not enough power eh? you call 50 Mhz not enough power? show me a Mac with 50 Mhz.. most of the above suggestions wouldn't work. there would be too many mid models that would only confuse the customer. the 500's and 2000's hardly have "nothing" included with them. the only things they don't have is the faster processor, 32 bit bus, flicker-fixer hardware, and built-in scsi. (well for the major items, the 3000 also has tons of other niceties, but that's the joy of owning a high end computer. a 500 is a low end computer, that means it's designed to be sold cheap. you can't have tons of features and still be cheap. your modular system is.... A 2000!, it's called an expansion bus. as for midi interface, the CDTV has one built in. you suggest alot of things that people don't want to pay for if their not going to use. it is far easir to build your own system than to expect cbm to accomodate every possible configuration. I don't recall seeing a mac with a built in midi interface, or a pc for that matter. i don't recall seing ANY pc come with a scsi interface. most Mac's these days don't have an FPU socket either, the LC can't have one, and the SI you need to buy and expansion connector to get it. Mac classics don't have an FPU. Where do you get off claiming these things that aren't true. > >Commodore should embrace one of the graphics expansion options for the Amiga, >such as the Colorburst or HAM-E, and offer Workbench support. Both of these >solutions are admittedly "hacks," but that hasn't stopped Commodore before >(witness the A2024 monitor). How about a simple graphics device, or at least a >Commodore graphics specification? If Commodore really wants to push >Multimedia, give Amiga the power it needs to at LEAST rival LOW END Mac II or >VGA graphics. This is somewhat true. CBM isn't going to embrace ANY of these devices for a simple reason. none of them are ideal situations. It is my understanding that CBM is developing their own system that will be MUCH more forward compatible with future Amiga's. no sense standardizing a board that may fail on the 4000. > >An Amiga enhancement such as HAM-E or Colorburst would also work with CD-TV, >and enable it to have better graphics realism as well... the "Graphics >Enhancement Cartridge" from Commodore... > >Commodore should make CD-ROM available to ALL Amiga owners as soon as >possible. A relatively low cost CD-ROM peripheral for the Amiga would be an >excellent selling point. obviously you haven't been looking in the Amiga mags. they have shown the A690 CDTV adapter for the 500 with statements from CBM that a 2000 model is forthcoming. > >Finally, Commodore should do something similar to what it has done with CD-TV >-- have a software division that can support the Amiga in areas where there is >little software being produced. > >I guess it is time to step down from the pedistal. I love the Amiga and want >it to continue, and feel that many of these options represent the BEST chance >for the Amiga to survive and thrive far into the 90's. and MOST of these options are either already there, or being done as we speak. I really wish people like you would take the time to research these flames before you hit that save key.. as i've proved most of your allegations false already i'll step down. > >- Dan Galpin >galpin@ucscb.ucsc.edu >galpin@cats.ucsc.edu >" Amiga - the computer sold before its time... which is why it still isn't >well-aged. " .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
consp03@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Kriston J. Rehberg) (06/05/91)
In article <16577@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, galpin@bill.ucsc.edu (Daniel Abram Galpin) writes: |> [...] |>The Amiga just doesn't have enough processor power to handle many of the newer |>applications (and games..)[...] Dan, you are surely mistaken here. Have you really compared Amigas to other systems in its class, like Macs and IBM's? If you did, you would know that this statement is not true in the least bit. Just a clear-up. |> |>- Dan Galpin |>galpin@ucscb.ucsc.edu |>galpin@cats.ucsc.edu |>" Amiga - the computer sold before its time... which is why it still isn't |>well-aged. " best, Kris +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Kriston J. Rehberg, Student Consultant, SUNY Binghamton Computer Services | |consp03@BINGSUNS.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU +---------------------------+ |consp03@BINGVAXU.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |Opinions expressed here are| |CONSP03@BINGVAXA.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU |my own and do not represent| | |those of this organization | +-----> Only Amiga makes it possible! <-----------+--------------------- ;-b -+
pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) (06/05/91)
In a previous article, taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) says: > Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. 95% ? Did you take a survey? Making such a statement is totally ridiculous. Also, did you stop to think that maybe the Toaster will sell Amigas to people who would have never bought an Amiga? I see the Toaster as being similar to the Amiga as desktop publishing was to the Mac. Many people will buy an Amiga BECAUSE of the Toaster and then find out its also a great computer and put it to use in many different ways. -- Pete Babic - pab@po.cwru.edu /// I'd rather be BOATING!! | /// /\ Member of A.C.E. | \\\ /// /--\MIGA (American Coaster Enthusiasts) | \\\/// The future is here now!
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/05/91)
In article <5202@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes: >In article <1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >>I would give it a little more time. The Toaster just came out. 2.0 and >>the ECS is about to come out. And I'll bet it cost a lot of money to get > >I just don't get it. I remember a year ago or so when the A3000 came out. >Didn't it have both 2.0 and 1.3 ROMS? Although 2.0 ROMs weren't finalized, >Why has it taken C= a year to produce those chips for retrofit into A2000s and >A500s? Will the entire ECS be available for <A3000 machines? You would >think that C= would get on the ball. This is almost getting to be as bad >as Steven Jobs' NeXT initial announcement. > > Your memory is way off. There are no ROMs in the A3000. 1.3 and 2.0 are loaded off of the hard drive and run using some magic. The reason is that, as each new bug fix comes in, the OS can be easily updated. 2.0 is being continually updated. When they stop updating it is when you'll see the ROMs. What's the point of coming out with ROMs now that need to be changed in 4 months? >Bill Murphy >murphy@physics.purdue.edu > -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > > Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. > Nope, not time for a reality check, at least not just yet. True, most Amiga owners will just glare at the Toaster at expos. The point is not how many Amiga users will want it, but how many NON-Amiga users will want it. If it can bring in 50,000 new people this year, ... > The ECS isn't going to do much for the Amiga, either, because it was >obsolete before it even went into production. The ECS is also 98% >identical to the very oldest Amiga chipset. > The main thing is Productivity mode, but since the price of flicker fixers have dropped so dramatically it doesn't seem so important. However it will be free 640x400 non interlaced. -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/05/91)
In article <16577@darkstar.ucsc.edu> galpin@bill.ucsc.edu (Daniel Abram Galpin) writes: >The Amiga just doesn't have enough processor power to handle many of the newer >applications (and games..) There is no real midstream Amiga.. The A2000 just >doesn't cut it anymore. The point of the A2000 is, it makes add-ins cheap. You can get whatever power you would like, when you can afford it. It may not be the ideal middle line system, I agree it could use a bit more base power (well, it is four years old) but it's a very good starting point. >How about a "segmented" system that allows users to add on options simply >(as cartridges or something)? Video-enhancer here... RAM here... co-processor >here... PC emulator here, etc... Adding to the A2000 is simple enough. Whaddya want, 10 different special purpose interfaces? That's not going to cut costs any, since these add-ins would be machine-specific. Except for coprocessors, whatever goes in your A2000 could go in your A3000 or any other slotted Amiga that comes along. >How about a built in SCSI interface on a low-cost Amiga, or an all-in-one low >cost solution such as an Amiga 500 with a built in MIDI interface, SCSI >interface, 68881 socket, and 8 megs of possible expansion on the motherboard, >combined with a speed-switchable 68000? These kinds of options are available >to Macintosh and PC people, and I cannot understand why C= is ignoring the >pre-built Mid-Range market. Huh? No Macs are available with built in MIDI. No speed switchable 68000s either. They do have a more expensive machine with built-in SCSI, but last I checked, you could get an A2000 SCSI card for under $100, and not too much more for an A500's SCSI. Point being, you pay for expansion up front when you buy an A2000. At least Macs these days is trying a hybrid scheme, where you don't get any slots with it, but for $200 or so you can get a slot. That's not really any different than the A500 approach. An A2000HD comes with SCSI and room for 2MB of extra memory. Some 3rd party solutions in the same price range give you 4MB-8MB of RAM, along with SCSI. As long as it's not more expensive, it doesn't much matter where the extra memory is physically located, does it? >Commodore should make CD-ROM available to ALL Amiga owners as soon as >possible. A relatively low cost CD-ROM peripheral for the Amiga would be an >excellent selling point. Anyone can offer a CD-ROM player, doesn't have to be Commodore. One 3rd party has one out already. You need a SCSI interfaced CD-ROM, and you need the ISO filesystem. That's pretty much it. >- Dan Galpin -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun4.142725.27494@leland.Stanford.EDU> bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) writes: > >No, Marc. Fact is, the average American computer buyer is an >intelligent decision-maker who looks at the options *accessible* to them >and makes a value judgement based upon the strengths and weaknesses of >various platforms. It's unfortunate the Amiga isn't more available to >more people; but that's just how it is, right now. Doesn't mean it's >not reversible, and if you'd take a look a sales, you'd see that the >Amiga is selling at a faster clip than the Mac. Period. Which is good >for everyone not affiliated with that giant, belching corporocracy. > That is VERY debateable. I think most computer buyers know almost nothing. Many are taken in by the salesperson. Most just go into the store saying "I want an IBM", "I want a clone", "I want a Mac". If you ask them why they won't be able to give a valid reason. Now, not all are like this, but enough are. -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun4.105736.15468@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > With the ECS, Commodore basically took some of the registers that >were hard-wired in the old chipset and made them programmable. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. "Registers that were hard wired"?!? What do you think they did in the old chips, build in programmable functions, then time them high and low? Sure, and I imagine that the 68020 actually had a data cache all along, only it was hard-wired in the off state. >From here, the new modes were achieved by using the new programmable >registers. Overall, however, not all that many changes were made. Again, you're clueless. There was a reasonable amount of redesign necessary to make things programmable. There was an even greater amount of work necessary to make Denise generate 35ns pixels, since that basically meant that everything in the pixel path had to run twice as fast as it previously did, or at least appear to. Another point of ECS was to bring the Amiga chips onto Commodore's CAD systems. At Amiga, a good portion of everything was done strictly by hand. While you can technically design anything by hand, and I imagine somewhere, in some dark, hellish corner of the world, PC boards are still being done by hand and prototypes are still being wire-wrapped, you DON'T want to do design 10K-100K transistor full custom logic by hand. Unfortunately, that's the only way a startup company could do it in the early 80's. > If you doubt my word, use common sense. Common sense would dictate that one only speak about what one understands, less one be though a fool. That's the problem with common sense; it's far too uncommon. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
billsey@nesbbx.UUCP (Bill Seymour) (06/05/91)
In article <5202@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>, William J. Murphy writes: > In article <1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: > >I would give it a little more time. The Toaster just came out. 2.0 and > >the ECS is about to come out. And I'll bet it cost a lot of money to get > > I just don't get it. I remember a year ago or so when the A3000 came out. > Didn't it have both 2.0 and 1.3 ROMS? Although 2.0 ROMs weren't finalized, Actually, no. When the 3000 came out, and now, it had a set of special boot ROMs (or EPROMs) that loads a kickstart off of disk. Just like the 1000 does. The difference is, it loads that kickstart into system memory, then uses the MMU to map it to a ROM location. That means you use up some of your system memory whenever you're running. (256K for 1.3, 512K for 2.0) That will go away with the release of real 2.0 ROMs, freeing up the 512K for applications to use. > Why has it taken C= a year to produce those chips for retrofit into A2000s and > A500s? Will the entire ECS be available for <A3000 machines? You would The ECS chips have been available to dealers as replacement parts since shortly after the release of the 3000. These are usable in any Amiga, although with a 1000 you'll need something like the Rejuvenator for the Fat Agnus. The problem is that many of the new modes for Denise pretty much need 2.0 to be used. For that, we need a ROM release. > Bill Murphy > murphy@physics.purdue.edu > > West Lafayette, IN: Where progress takes a back seat to tradition. -Bill Seymour nesbbx!billsey@agora.uucp or nesbbx!billsey@agora.rain.com ***** American People/Link Amiga Zone Hardware Specialist NES*BILL ***** Bejed, Inc. NES, Inc. NAG BBS NES BBX BBS Home Sometimes (503)281-8153 (503)246-9311 (503)656-7393 (503)640-9337 (503) 640-0842
billsey@nesbbx.UUCP (Bill Seymour) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun4.042427.19036@javelin.sim.es.com>, David Ingebretsen writes: >In article <1991Jun4.004200.3771@news.iastate.edu>, taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >> >> The A3000 still does not contain either the 2.0 or 1.3 ROMs. The A3000 >> is still being shipped with a small (64K or something like that) boot >> ROM to load 1.3 or 2.0 from the hard disk. The version of 2.0 being >> shipped with the A3000 still has bugs, and Commodore is not quite ready >> to put 2.0 into ROM. > > I've just started using an X windows mail reader and found a KILL AUTHOR > button. Good-bye Marc. Actually, you could have found much better articles that Marc has posted to attach your announcement... After all, he's correct here, and not flaming anyone... :-) > David Ingebretsen > Evans and Sutherland Computer Corporation > 600 Komas Drive > Salt Lake City, UT 84108 > (801) 582-5847 x3758 > > dingebre@es.com -Bill Seymour nesbbx!billsey@agora.uucp or nesbbx!billsey@agora.rain.com ***** American People/Link Amiga Zone Hardware Specialist NES*BILL ***** Bejed, Inc. NES, Inc. NAG BBS NES BBX BBS Home Sometimes (503)281-8153 (503)246-9311 (503)656-7393 (503)640-9337 (503) 640-0842
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (06/05/91)
In article <16577@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, galpin@bill.ucsc.edu (Daniel Abram Galpin) writes: > [Brilliant and wonderful things about the A3000 deleted!] > > The Amiga needs better printer support with built-in full Postscript support, > scalable font technology, and a more dynamic printer driver system. The Mac > System 7.0 and MS Windows 3.1 BOTH have TrueType and support TrueImage. The Will the Compugraphic font technology due? That is supposed to come out for the Amiga soon and from Commodore. > [Great things about TEX deleted] > > The Amiga just doesn't have enough processor power to handle many of the newer > applications (and games..) There is no real midstream Amiga.. The A2000 just > doesn't cut it anymore. How about an Amiga 500 that can run at 14Mhz with some > small amount of cache memory, with a socket for a 68881 math co-processor and > a bit more RAM expandability on board? The Amiga market is too sharply > divided, with the high-end Amiga 3000 including just about everything and the > 500's and 2000's including nothing. For most users, the 2000 is just not > enough power anymore. How about a "segmented" system that allows users to add > on options simply (as cartridges or something)? Video-enhancer here... RAM > here... co-processor here... PC emulator here, etc... How about a built in > SCSI interface on a low-cost Amiga, or an all-in-one low cost solution such as > an Amiga 500 with a built in MIDI interface, SCSI interface, 68881 socket, and > 8 megs of possible expansion on the motherboard, combined with a > speed-switchable 68000? These kinds of options are available to Macintosh and > PC people, and I cannot understand why C= is ignoring the pre-built Mid-Range > market. I think Commodore does need to release a revised 'new-look' A2000 series machine and drive the prices of the A500 even lower than it is. I think that they need to walk a fine line. If Commodore put a SCSI interface on every Amiga computer it surely would hurt the third party hardware manu- facturers. We don't need fewer of these folks! > > Commodore should embrace one of the graphics expansion options for the Amiga, > such as the Colorburst or HAM-E, and offer Workbench support. Both of these > solutions are admittedly "hacks," but that hasn't stopped Commodore before > (witness the A2024 monitor). How about a simple graphics device, or at least a > Commodore graphics specification? If Commodore really wants to push > Multimedia, give Amiga the power it needs to at LEAST rival LOW END Mac II or > VGA graphics. > > An Amiga enhancement such as HAM-E or Colorburst would also work with CD-TV, > and enable it to have better graphics realism as well... the "Graphics > Enhancement Cartridge" from Commodore... All of these 'problems' are the potential dollar producing problems for the developers. It would really sink all of the third party graphic solution developers if Commodore adopted one of them. Pray they don't do this. I think Commodore needs to continue to press forward in the development of device independant graphics. Then perhaps release a 24 bit graphics solution of their own based on this revised system software, or better yet a new set of custom chips. > > Commodore should make CD-ROM available to ALL Amiga owners as soon as > possible. A relatively low cost CD-ROM peripheral for the Amiga would be an > excellent selling point. Agreed! There is only one CD-ROM being produced by a third party for the Amiga, and it is priced way too high. I think Commodore needs to release an external CD-ROM drive for all Amiga computers with a SCSI. > > Finally, Commodore should do something similar to what it has done with CD-TV > -- have a software division that can support the Amiga in areas where there is > little software being produced. CATS is for all developers, not just CD-TV developers. > > I guess it is time to step down from the pedistal. I love the Amiga and want > it to continue, and feel that many of these options represent the BEST chance > for the Amiga to survive and thrive far into the 90's. > > - Dan Galpin > galpin@ucscb.ucsc.edu > galpin@cats.ucsc.edu > " Amiga - the computer sold before its time... which is why it still isn't > well-aged. " -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "The Most lopsided deal since ..." | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ================================================== "I protest Captain! I am not a merry man!" - Lt. Worf
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun4.105736.15468@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >In article <1991Jun4.025024.823@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>In article <1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> >> >> [Where does he get these statistics?] >> >>> Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >>>the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >>>Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >>>Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >>>flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. [Let me apologize for this personal attack on Marc. I had unsubscribed this group afdter I got overloaded with 100+ Amiga/Next messages from Mike D Mellinger. After I come back, I see Marc reiterating his same arguements. I wish he would pick on something else, atleast it would be new.] >> Marc, are you epileptic? The reason I ask is because everytime you >>make an arguement against the Amiga you always bring up the flicker. >>NON-Flicker displays are expensive, NTSC incompatible, and only >>useful for TEXT processing. In short, if a machine doesn't have an > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>interlaced display mode, it sucks. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Excuse me while I laugh my head of... > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! OK, ok. So I forgot the smiley. I was trying to be sarcastic. [Deleted Marc's response to my joke.] >>Removing flicker from the Toaster >>would be idiotic. For drawing/rendering for broadcast video, flicker >>is acceptable. It's besides the point anyway, since the A3000/ECS provide >>non-flickering SHARP displays. > > Every time someone mentions broadcasting, as if all computers are used >for broadcasting and none are used for anything else, I wish I could reach ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The same could be said for publishing. The major arguement for the Mac is that it's the be-all of publishing. >through the CRT of my monitor and wrench that person's brains out of their >ears. Even with the Amiga, which is ideally suited for broadcast uses, >only a tiny fraction of the installed base of Amigas are used for >broadcasting. By far the majority of all Amigas sold are being used >for the same uses that all other MACs and IBMs are being used for: >games, word processing, desktop publishing, etc.. All of these >applications benefit so greatly from a sharp display that the flicering, >interlaced display of the Amiga killed the Amiga as a general-purpose >computer for a long time. Eventually Commodore was forced to implement >a kludge to eliminate the flicker from their newest Amiga. Without >the Display Enhancer, nobody doubts that the A3000 would not have had >a chance against the systems from Apple and IBM with very sharp flicker- >free displays. A sharp display is important however it's not the reason for the Amiga's poor sales. The ST also had a noninterlaced monochrome mode, but it didn't take off either. Advertising is what we need! The vast majority of Mac's are mono, so 24 bit megapixel doesn't help text processing much. (It's also mega-expensive as are the monitors that can handle it.) Why can't text processing be done in 640x200? IBM's Text mode on the older machines was 80 columns x 25 lines and it didn't seem to inhibit their ability to dominate the market. >> >>> The ECS isn't going to do much for the Amiga, either, because it was >>>obsolete before it even went into production. The ECS is also 98% >>>identical to the very oldest Amiga chipset. >> >> How do you know this? Have you compared the schematics? Just because >>it only has slightly improved display modes doesn't mean that it's >>virtually identical. It may have taken considerable design effort and >>optimizations to fit those extra features on the already packed chips. >>I get the feeling you think the engineers merely threw in some new >>modes over a lunch break and had it ready in a few days. I admit, I'm >>not an expert on the chip design process, but I'll bet that the >>ECS is NOT 98% identical to the old chip set. The denise has had many >>new programmble features added. > > With the ECS, Commodore basically took some of the registers that >were hard-wired in the old chipset and made them programmable. From >here, the new modes were achieved by using the new programmable >registers. Overall, however, not all that many changes were made. I'm not arguing that on the surface not many features were added, however at the lower level, I doubt it was as trivial as you make. Adding a 'few programmble features' could have taken a year or more of work to debug the chip. > If you doubt my word, use common sense. Most of the features of the >old chipset are unchanged in the ECS. Commodore made a few registers >programmable, and as a result was able to add some resolution modes >and other capabilities, but overall everything is the some. Hell, >Commodore did not even touch the Paula chip at all, which remains >exactly the same today as it was six years ago. I can even take two >of the custom chips from my old A1000 (Commodore's oldest machine) sitting >here, put them into an A3000 (Commodore's newest and most advanced machine), >and many people would not be able to tell the difference when using >the A3000. > >> >> [tangential stuff deleted] >> A few months you were complaining about no video cards being availible >>for the Amiga, now the situation has changed (Toaster, HAM-E, DCTV, >>Colorburst, DMI's Card, Firecracker/24, A2410, A2024(well sorta), >>VideoMaster/32(not out yet),Video Blender(not out yet),Harlequin, etc. >>BTW, DMI and Firecracker both have higher resolution than Apple's 8/24 >>card. They require very expensive monitors(DMI) for the high resolution >>modes (megapixel 24bit color).) > > I don't remember ever complaining about the lack of video cards for >the Amiga in the past two years. For the past three years, I've >actually been complaining about there being too many available that >were incompatible with each other and even with the Amiga's OS. There >are no standards for the Amiga third-party video hardware market in >sight, and any program that is written for one video card absolutely >will not work with any of the other video cards. I believe the thread >I started was called "Amiga Video Mess", and the problem shows no >signs of alleviating as more incompatible video cards are produced. Commodore _IS_ working on it. They can't perform miracles, and most of the display manufacturers will have to supply drivers. Most of the standard graphics lib and intuition calls ARE portable. (e.g. WritePixel, Draw/Move, Text, AreaMove/End/etc, Flood, etc., even BltBitMap is portable, see CpuBlit on ab20). The harder stuff to port is the copperlist and multiple view stuff. MOst of the productivety software that uses the high level gfx/intuition calls would run without change. Anything that uses sprites, copperlist, view/viewport stuff (instead of OpenScreen[Tags]) will most likely break. It's not all that unreasomable to require developers to update and support their software for new features in an OS. Look at Apple, their compatibility % of System 7.0 is worse than ADOS 2.0. Even Excel didn't work under 7.0, but I bet an update/patched copy of Excel will be out very soon. Every once is a while backwards compatibility needs to be discarded for increased functionality otherwise you'll end up like MS-DOS. >> >> After all this, you are now back to picking on the custom chip set and >>flicker again? Remember, it took the Mac 6 _years_ to finally overcome >>the PC market, the Amiga is not going become a success overnight however >>it is gaining ground. Technical specs don't define success either, since >>the Amiga has had better specs than both the Mac and the IBM when the >>Amiga was released. Advertising and software availibility are the key. >>Marc, do you actually own an Amiga? Everytime someone posts an >>"Amiga's future/success in business/new display availible" you >>respond with a "Doom and Gloom" post. If you're this down on the Amiga, why >>don't you just buy a Mac and be over with it? >> Myself, I won't settle for anything less than an Amiga or a Unix box. >> >>[Why did I bring up the Mac? Well Marc would have brung it up anyway, >>and I happen to despise the Mac environment (too confining) and it's >>condescending interface. ] > > If you don't like the MAC's "condescending interface", you had better >not ever take a look at a CDTV. The interface of the CDTV is so rigid >and simplistic as to make the MAC look like a UNIX system. The fact is, >the average American person is a complete moron, and you have to make >computers simple or they will not sell. Commodore borrowed quite a >lot from the MAC with Workbench 2.0, and people are continually calling >on Commodore to borrow more from Apple and make the Workbench even more >MAC-like. Judging from the sales of the MAC compared to the sales of >the Amiga, Commodore is right to be borrowing as much as possible >from the MAC. CDTV isn't a computer. I doubt I'll be doing any programming/word processing on it. AmigaDOS is superior to the Mac in that I am not forced to use Workbench if I dont want to. The Shell interface is just as powerful as the Graphical one(Workbench 2.0) whereas the Mac hasn't developed a great shell interface that works with ALL programs. (Tell me, does Word take command line arguements?) Finder is nothing more than a program loader. It reminds me of the boot menu I had on my C128, or GEOS on the 64. BTW, Commodore didn't "borrow" from the Mac, they borrowed from "the industry". Apple didn't invent the graphic interface. Besides, Workbench 2.0 is organized considerably different than Finder. The proper thing to say is Commodore borrowed from existing ideas in the industry and built upon them. The "masses" may be ignorant in "math/computers/programming" but they are not "stupid", they can learn. I feel that hiding the workings of the interface behind a shield of symbolism keeps the population ignorant. The older population may be more stubborn to learn a new interface so an abstract one may be needed to alleviate the computerphobe syndrome some people have. However, when I see a class of 30 students, some who have never used a computer before, walk into a computer lab and type up a fortran program on a VERY old IBM mainframe running MUSIC I am convinced that an abstract interface is not a prerequisite for the human race. Sometimes it can be a time saver, other times it can get in the way. >>-- >>/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ >>| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| >>\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * / >> > ------------------------------------------------------------- > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / >/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / >------------------------------------------------------------ >\ ISU : The Home of the Goon / > \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon / > ------------------------------------------------------- -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/05/91)
In article <49969@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <1991Jun4.025024.823@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >> BTW, I think System 7.0 is a big failure/joke. It is incredibly slow >>on anything less than an 030 with lots of ram. I've been reading >>many accounts of users running even a simple application with a clock >>program in the background and having the system become incredibly >>jerky and slow. One user in comp.sys.mac.system accounts of running >>tetris and "superclock" resulting in the game becoming really sluggish >>(on an LC). This is pathetic, I can run multiple copies of tetris on >>my A500 with a term program, and a clock and all of them run at near >>full speed. > >I think you don't know what you are talking about. 7.0 runs just fine on >a Mac Plus with 2 meg. (Well, I guess "lots" wrt memory is relative.) > >I love this. On the basis of ONE report about problems with 2 OTHER programs >you have decide that System 7.0 is to blame. You oughta go into tech support, >where you'd be a god. > >At what bit depth was the LC running? Was it running any other inits? Was >your A500 running a graphic shell? Was it running an outline font display? > >Maybe you just know your A500 better than most Mac users know their machines. Maybe you should learn about programming first. I happen to know the A500 very well. What has it got to do with the fact that the Amiga handles multitasking better than the mac? Outline font technology has little to do with it unless Apple's implementation is brain damage. You only have to compute an outline font when a program needs a new metric, and even then a caching mechanism would help out nicely. For outline fonts to _continually_ bring down system performance, the implementation would have to do something stupid like waste lots of CPU cycles between each CHARACTER printed (e.g. calculate the character each time it is printed rather than calculate a large area of the font and cache it) I know several people who are no longer running system 7 and have switched back to 6.0.x because it was incredibly slow on their machine, sucked up huge amounts of memory, and didn't work with several popular programs. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
easton@zds-oem.zds.com (Jeff Easton) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun4.200756.9421@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <5202@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes: >>In article <1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >>I just don't get it. I remember a year ago or so when the A3000 came out. >>Didn't it have both 2.0 and 1.3 ROMS? Although 2.0 ROMs weren't finalized, >>Why has it taken C= a year to produce those chips for retrofit into A2000s and >>A500s? Will the entire ECS be available for <A3000 machines? You would >>think that C= would get on the ball. This is almost getting to be as bad >>as Steven Jobs' NeXT initial announcement. >> > Your memory is way off. There are no ROMs in the A3000. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >1.3 and 2.0 are loaded off of the hard drive and run using some >magic. The reason is that, as each new bug fix comes in, the OS >can be easily updated. 2.0 is being continually updated. When >they stop updating it is when you'll see the ROMs. What's the >point of coming out with ROMs now that need to be changed in 4 >months? There are ROM's in the A3000 (honestly, I just looked :-). They are not however the kickstart ROM's. They are a simple bootstrap loader. The bigger question is when the Kickstart 2.0 ROM's do come out, will we lose the capability of booting a 1.3 system? Anyone? >>Bill Murphy > -- Ethan Jeff Easton Zenith Data Systems // Systems Engineer \X/ easton%zds-oem@caspian.cs.andrews.edu easton@andrews.edu What? Preemptive Multitasking in only 256K of RAM? :^) :^)
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (06/05/91)
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Macintosh community, the LaserWriter is totally useless. The LaserWriter is not going to save the Macintosh, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few Macintosh owners have any need whatsoever for a 300 DPI printer, and the cost and limitations of the printer make the LaserWriter unsuitable for other applications. Sound familiar? Substitute "hard drive" for Toaster and "IBM PC" for Amiga. Or substitute "VT-52" for Toaster and "PDP-11" for Amiga. It's the same old same old, and only time will let us know who is right. I don't think that the Toaster will turn the Amiga into a success on the order of the Mac. I don't know that that is even possible. It's clear, however, that it will contribute substantially to the success of the Amiga on its own terms - it already has. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
bdraschk@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Bernd Raschke) (06/05/91)
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >In article <1991Jun4.025024.823@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>In article <1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> >> >> [Where does he get these statistics?] >> >>> Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >>>the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >>>Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >>>Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >>>flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. >> >> Marc, are you epileptic? The reason I ask is because everytime you >>make an arguement against the Amiga you always bring up the flicker. >>NON-Flicker displays are expensive, NTSC incompatible, and only >>useful for TEXT processing. In short, if a machine doesn't have an > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>interlaced display mode, it sucks. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Excuse me while I laugh my head of... > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! And here he isabsolutely RIGHT! Here in Europe, all Amigas run natively in PAL mode with a display rate of 50Hz, 25Hz interlaced. Can you imagine Kick 2.0 on am overscanned inter- laced display, light background and dark letters? It will destroy your monitor, your glasses, your eyes, your brain. Since i bought my Nec 3D, i've been using my 1084 simply a (good) TV-set. The Nec has a very sharp display, so that i could see the black lines better :( One and a half months ago i bought a flicker-fixer and couldn't live without it anymore. And still i have only 724*568 at 50Hz!!!!!! At the university i'm used to at least 1000*800 in 60Hz and better. I could _easily_ forget the NTSC-PAL compatibility, if i had such a display at home. And a word to the Toaster: yes, it provides 24bit in bla*bla, but still Video and still NTSC, what means, when the first Toaster is sold in Europe, it will be about 1993 :-( Here in Germany, not many people are willing to buy an A3000 (at an enourmous price), just to have 640*480 in 60Hz or 640*512 in 50Hz. If you could read sub.sys.amiga, you'd see, that many students consider buying something like a nExt (although it's even more expensive than the A3000). > If you doubt my word, use common sense. Most of the features of the >old chipset are unchanged in the ECS. Commodore made a few registers >programmable, and as a result was able to add some resolution modes >and other capabilities, but overall everything is the some. Again true. The chip itself might be 98% new, but the output is still nearly the same. >> >> [tangential stuff deleted] >> A few months you were complaining about no video cards being availible >>for the Amiga, now the situation has changed (Toaster, HAM-E, DCTV, >>Colorburst, DMI's Card, Firecracker/24, A2410, A2024(well sorta), >>VideoMaster/32(not out yet),Video Blender(not out yet),Harlequin, etc. >>BTW, DMI and Firecracker both have higher resolution than Apple's 8/24 >>card. They require very expensive monitors(DMI) for the high resolution >>modes (megapixel 24bit color).) > I don't remember ever complaining about the lack of video cards for >the Amiga in the past two years. For the past three years, I've >actually been complaining about there being too many available that >were incompatible with each other and even with the Amiga's OS. There >are no standards for the Amiga third-party video hardware market in >sight, and any program that is written for one video card absolutely >will not work with any of the other video cards. I believe the thread >I started was called "Amiga Video Mess", and the problem shows no >signs of alleviating as more incompatible video cards are produced. Again true. All these wounderful cards are not likely to be supported by any Kickstart, may it be 2.0, 2.1 or ... Although Visiona is coming (X-Pert provides an own windowing system with lots of kickstart lookalike libraries (but more flexible)), we'll have to wait for the final solution. Ciao, bernd PS: Don't you bash _That_ much on Marc. This is c.s.a.advocacy, it needs an advocatus diaboli (sp?)! Although I don't like his "C= R&D spendings"-posts either :-) --- Bernd 'The Real Arthur!' Raschke |Only // bdraschk@faui09.informatik.uni-erlangen.de | \\ // Amiga hartmannstr. 129 8520 erlangen 09131 38244 | \X/ makes it possible "You're only human, supposed to make mistakes..."
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/05/91)
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >I think that they need to walk a fine line. If Commodore put a SCSI >interface on every Amiga computer it surely would hurt the third party >hardware manufacturers. We don't need fewer of these folks! > [and later...] >It would really sink all of the third party graphic solution developers >if Commodore adopted one of them. Pray they don't do this. > > [but then says...] >I think Commodore needs to continue to press forward in the development of >device independant graphics. Then perhaps release a 24 bit graphics solution >of their own based on this revised system software, or better yet a >new set of custom chips. > [and] >Agreed! There is only one CD-ROM being produced by a third party for the >Amiga, and it is priced way too high. I think Commodore needs to release >an external CD-ROM drive for all Amiga computers with a SCSI. <laughing> Hey, you can't have it all ways ;-). If CBM brings out new and really improved video chips, then "poof" go many of the current 3td party gfx card makers. And selling a CDROM drive cheaper than the above mentioned company would drive them out of business. Sometimes things just have to march onward. I'd rather see new chips and standard SCSI on every Amiga, than all the 3td party solutions in the world. <smile> jest picking atcha - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/05/91)
Responding to the following: "Huh? No Macs are available with built in MIDI. No speed switchable 68000s either. They do have a more expensive machine with built-in SCSI" A more expensive machine with built-in SCSI? ALL Macs have built-in SCSI! Even a lot of older Macs that aren't supported anymore (Plus and up) have SCSI built in. Also, the Macintosh has fast serial ports and an OS with MIDI interfacing built in. What else do you want? What else is necessary to qualify as having built-in MIDI?
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/05/91)
Responding to the following: "(instead of OpenScreen[Tags]) will most likely break. It's not all that unreasomable to require developers to update and support their software for new features in an OS. Look at Apple, their compatibility % of System 7.0 is worse than ADOS 2.0. Even Excel didn't work under 7.0, but I bet an update/patched copy of Excel will be out very soon. Every once is a while backwards compatibility needs to be discarded for increased functionality otherwise you'll end up like MS-DOS." I don't agree. Compatibility doesn't NEED to be discarded in order to add a lot of functionality to an OS. Look at System 7.0 (yes, System 7.0). Apple has been warning developers about the changes in System 7.0 since 1986, and as a result, System 7.0 is a VERY stable platform. You obviously know nothing of Macintosh software and are making things up just to support your claims. God, Excel was not only "compatible" with System 7.0, but before Sys7 was even released it was programmed to take advantage of the new resources in the OS! And even before Excel 3.0 (Excel 2.2), Excel is compatible with System 7. I don't know what drugs you're smoking (ego?). Of course, it IS hard to maintain an OS that was written as brain-dead as MS-DOS. " Finder is nothing more than a program loader. It reminds me of the boot menu I had on my C128, or GEOS on the 64." The Finder is nothing more than a program loader? You DON'T use Macintosh's (obviously), so don't make claims you can't back up. If you think the Finder is so weak and restricting, how about we compare it to Workbench? That's a joke. The Amiga generally has a superior OS, but the Macintosh has superior resources and features. Of course, this follows my computing philosophy. I'm not a speed freak, and I'm willing to sacrifice some speed for increased functionality. More power. Power is NOT speed, and the Amiga generally lacks a lot of it because it's not very innovative in comparison.
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun05.010426.21000@zds-oem.zds.com>, easton@zds-oem.zds.com (Jeff Easton) writes: >In article <1991Jun4.200756.9421@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >>In article <5202@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes: >>>In article <1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: > >>>I just don't get it. I remember a year ago or so when the A3000 came out. >>>Didn't it have both 2.0 and 1.3 ROMS? Although 2.0 ROMs weren't finalized, >>>Why has it taken C= a year to produce those chips for retrofit into A2000s and >>>A500s? Will the entire ECS be available for <A3000 machines? You would >>>think that C= would get on the ball. This is almost getting to be as bad >>>as Steven Jobs' NeXT initial announcement. >>> >> Your memory is way off. There are no ROMs in the A3000. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>1.3 and 2.0 are loaded off of the hard drive and run using some >>magic. The reason is that, as each new bug fix comes in, the OS >>can be easily updated. 2.0 is being continually updated. When >>they stop updating it is when you'll see the ROMs. What's the >>point of coming out with ROMs now that need to be changed in 4 >>months? > > There are ROM's in the A3000 (honestly, I just looked :-). They are >not however the kickstart ROM's. They are a simple bootstrap loader. > > The bigger question is when the Kickstart 2.0 ROM's do come out, will >we lose the capability of booting a 1.3 system? Anyone? No, you will not lose the ability to boot AmigaDOS 1.3, at least not on Amiga systems (like the A3000) with MMUs. After you get the 2.0 ROMs, you will still be able to use SetCPU to boot AmigaDOS 1.3, though you will have to give up 256K of RAM. > >>>Bill Murphy > >> -- Ethan > > > Jeff Easton Zenith Data Systems > // Systems Engineer > \X/ easton%zds-oem@caspian.cs.andrews.edu > easton@andrews.edu > What? Preemptive Multitasking in only 256K of RAM? :^) :^) > ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ ISU : The Home of the Goon / \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon / -------------------------------------------------------
galpin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dan Galpin (Amiga-quester)) (06/05/91)
In article <22163@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <16577@darkstar.ucsc.edu> galpin@bill.ucsc.edu (Daniel Abram Galpin) writes: > >> [Point about A500-A2000 not having enough base processor power] > >The point of the A2000 is, it makes add-ins cheap. You can get whatever power >you would like, when you can afford it. It may not be the ideal middle line >system, I agree it could use a bit more base power (well, it is four years old) >but it's a very good starting point. > >>How about a "segmented" system... > >Adding to the A2000 is simple enough. Whaddya want, 10 different special >purpose interfaces? That's not going to cut costs any, since these add-ins >would be machine-specific. Except for coprocessors, whatever goes in your >A2000 could go in your A3000 or any other slotted Amiga that comes along. I was not really talking about an A2000 type machine. The Amiga 2000 is really for the professional user. The machine that I referred to would be designed to augment the "low-cost" Amiga line. The A500 is difficult to expand. Many add- ons must be "hacked" onto the motherboard, violating the warrenty. The "commercial" user is not going to be interested (in my humble opinion) in having to figure out how to install these things (especially since it is quite possible that the individual has little or no dealer support... as they bought the system through a place like Montgomery Ward's or Macy's.) The idea is that the end-user can add on to their system with simple "cartridge" type attachments. These would not be "interfaces," but would work based upon the way many of the "Hacks" work.. by taking lines from the 68000, Denise, Gary and giving easy access. (Unless you see some simpler way) The concept is not to cut end-user costs.. but to give simplicity . > >>How about a built in SCSI interface on a low-cost Amiga, or an all-in-one low >>cost solution such as an Amiga 500 with a built in MIDI interface, SCSI >>interface, 68881 socket, and 8 megs of possible expansion on the motherboard, >>combined with a speed-switchable 68000? These kinds of options are available >>to Macintosh and PC people, and I cannot understand why C= is ignoring the >>pre-built Mid-Range market. > >Huh? No Macs are available with built in MIDI. No speed switchable 68000s >either. They do have a more expensive machine with built-in SCSI, but last >I checked, you could get an A2000 SCSI card for under $100, and not too much >more for an A500's SCSI. Point being, you pay for expansion up front when >you buy an A2000. At least Macs these days is trying a hybrid scheme, where >you don't get any slots with it, but for $200 or so you can get a slot. That's >not really any different than the A500 approach. An A2000HD comes with SCSI >and room for 2MB of extra memory. Some 3rd party solutions in the same >price range give you 4MB-8MB of RAM, along with SCSI. As long as it's not >more expensive, it doesn't much matter where the extra memory is physically >located, does it? > True about no speed-switchable Macs.. but it isn't really that necessary to make a new machine speed switchable. High-end PC clone makers have (until recently) made their machines switchable for compatibility. If I remember correctly, all Macs since the 512KE have built in SCSI. True about MIDI.. but it might be a nice idea (and a selling point..) especially since it comes with CDTV.. :) It is hard to see the A500 as a serious computer when a peripheral as necessary to its high performance operation as a hard drive has to be hanging outside of the left side of the case. (or has to at least be connected with an expensive unit from there... or it can be hacked onto the 68000 socket) The Amiga 2000 could use (in my opinion) a 68881 slot and a faster 68000.. I am really (mainly) referring to the A500 and the difficulty in expanding it to be a semi-professional system.. >Anyone can offer a CD-ROM player, doesn't have to be Commodore. One 3rd party >has one out already. You need a SCSI interfaced CD-ROM, and you need the >ISO filesystem. That's pretty much it. Point taken. However, only the backing of a large company such as Commodore can guarantee standardization (in my opinion). If others wish to also produce CD-ROM's, that is great, but C= should be there somehow with a product. (Yes.. I know of the upcoming A590.. but a product isn't there until I can go to my Amiga retailer and purchase it.) >>- Dan Galpin >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M. -- ****************************************************************************** * Amiga // * Short (TM) Signature * DISCLAIMER: * * \\ // * galpin@UCSCB.UCSC.EDU * This space reserved for a * * \X/ Only* COMP. QUOTE: Only time will tell* clever disclaimer someday. * ******************************************************************************
galpin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dan Galpin (Amiga-quester)) (06/05/91)
In article <5068@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >galpin@bill.ucsc.edu (Daniel Abram Galpin) writes: > > (*sigh*, another uninformed (that thinks he knows everything) amigan that > has fallen pray to propoganda, as i shall prove.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ** [And he called MY message a flame..] ** > >> >> [Comment deleted regarding how much I like my Amigas.. but that things >> are often easier and/or better on other machines.] > > [What am I doing on other machines that is nicer/better?] (* sigh *) Okay.. Go into your favorite draw program. Draw something. Put it in the clipboard (if the program even supports it). Just try putting it into one of your favorite documents without saving it or converting it... or (even worse) capturing a screen rendition as a bitmap, saving to disk, and loading it into the publisher. Where is the standard for mathematical graphics? (does it exist?) (** This is a SIMPLE example... there are MANY others **) (Yes.. you CAN do this on a Mac..) >> >> [comments about needed printer support deleted] > >again, AmigaDos 2.0 hasn't been finalized yet, and fairly reliable word has >been handed down that 2.0 *WILL* support compugraphic scalable font technogy >in the OS when it is released in 3rd quarter this year. Windows 3.1 isn't out >yet either. ** [Even windows 3.0 offers SOME scalable support.. and PERFECT support with ATM] ** >what do you mean by "dynamic printer driver support"? your fond ** [Support for all printers including Postscript and internal fonts, as well as dynamic scaling to support graphic fonts for all printers at their maximum resolutions.] ** >of refering to system 7.0, system 7 will not run on a machine with less than 2 >megs of memory, hardly a standard configuration either. ** [But it now IS essentially the standard, see?] ** >the cost of Ms Word, >is about equal to the cost of such programs as PageSetter II, which is a cheap >page layout program that also offers Compu-Graphic support. actually PS II is >probably cheaper. i haven't priced word lately but last i saw it was in the >range of 180 dollars, you could almost buy Pagestream for that. again, wait >for 2.0 to come out officially. > Sorry to burst your bubble.. but Pagesetter II nor PageStream nor Professional Page is a word-processor.... and not just because of their price. Furthermore, I am not satisfied with good printer performance from three or four apps, but would like to see across-the-board solutions.. that must come through the OS or some addition to it. >> [Amiga's don't have enough power.] ... Sorry.. I meant that A500's and A2000's don't have enough power.. the 3000 certainly does ... > >not enough power eh? you call 50 Mhz not enough power? show me a Mac with 50 ** [What C= computer runs at 50 Mhz? ] ** >Mhz.. most of the above suggestions wouldn't work. there would be too many >mid models that would only confuse the customer. the 500's and 2000's hardly >have "nothing" included with them. the only ** [ONLY seems to be a very relative term here] ** >things they don't have is the >faster processor, 32 bit bus, flicker-fixer hardware, and built-in scsi. (well >for the major items, the 3000 also has tons of other niceties, but that's the >joy of owning a high end computer. a 500 is a low end computer, that means >it's designed to be sold cheap. you can't have tons of features and still be >cheap. ** [Obviously a pessimist] ** >your modular system is.... A 2000!, it's called an expansion bus. as >for midi interface, the CDTV has one built in. you suggest alot of things >that people don't want to pay for if their not going to use. ** [But they may use it if it is there] ** >it is far easir > to build your own system than to expect cbm to accomodate every possible >configuration. I don't recall seeing a mac with a built in midi interface, or >a pc for that matter. i don't recall seing ANY pc come with a scsi interface. > most Mac's these days don't have an FPU socket either, the LC can't have one, >and the SI you need to buy and expansion connector to get it. Mac classics >don't have an FPU. Where do you get off claiming these things that aren't >true. > Did I mention Mac Classics ANYWHERE in this rant? Did I claim that Mac's had a FPU, or even the CAPABILITY for one? Point about lack of Mac support for MIDI taken--and we couldn't expect the Amiga to be better than the Mac?? Why a standard SCSI? More powerful applications require mass-storage of some sort. Partially due to standard SCSI, the Mac has more powerful programs available for it.. Many programs assume that the end user has a hard drive... because they can. [*** WARNING. TANGENT APPROACHING! ***] (*** BY the way.. have you checked MacGeek (The Macintosh Weekly Magazine) :-) lately.. People sell 50Mhz MacIIFX repackages with 128MBytes of RAM (using 16 MB simms.) Show me an Amiga that can currently be expanded to 128Megs of RAM. Radius has a 68040 accelerator for the Macs with 24-bit color built into the board. Don't even THINK of comparing Amiga accelerator peripherals with those available to Mac users. ***) [*** Tangent gone ***] Having an FPU socket is a possible way to give the A500 user (or A2000 user) some extra power without throwing many hundreds of $$$ into their system. Currently the Amiga 500 with an A1024 is running at a similar price to a 16Mhz 386SX with VGA monitor. The CLONE has far more raw processor power. In order for the Amiga to better utilize the Compugraphic technologies that you suggest are coming in the near future (2.1????), why not give the A500 user the ability to add cheap speed? Have you ever printed anything on an Amiga using standard 2.0 printer drivers? As far as peripherals go.. a MIDI interface is not a necessity.. but the more standard hardware becomes available.. the more software supports the standard. I would like to see all MultiMedia packages support MIDI, ALONG with some computer games. I would like to see all publishing packages support a FPU, along with other applications designed for the home user. I would like it for the novice A500 user to be able to expand their system without resorting to hacking.. (beyond the 512k cartridge).. >> [Stuff deleted about graphics] > >This is somewhat true. CBM isn't going to embrace ANY of these devices for a >simple reason. none of them are ideal situations. It is my understanding >that CBM is developing their own system that will be MUCH more forward >compatible with future Amiga's. no sense standardizing a board that may fail >on the 4000. > Where is this system NOW? Will it run on everyone's Amiga? How much will it cost? As you MUST know... there is NO such thing as an ideal situation. Every piece of hardware ever designed was built with compromises.. (as far as I know..) Extra expense and design time for speed... flexability over raw power... manufacturing vs. engineering costs... I really don't care what C= actually does about the graphics.. but I would like to see a solution RSN... (Using Adobe Photoshop on a Mac II was ** damn slow ** but the program displayed scanned images with such clarity that it was enough to make myself and a number of other Amiga enthusiasts silently want anything like it. Not only don't we have Photoshop.. but we don't have anything NEAR the 256 grey scale 640X480 screen I saw it on... without using a third party unsupported product) >> >>An Amiga enhancement such as HAM-E or Colorburst would also work with CD-TV, >>and enable it to have better graphics realism as well... the "Graphics >>Enhancement Cartridge" from Commodore... >> >>Commodore should make CD-ROM available to ALL Amiga owners as soon as >>possible. A relatively low cost CD-ROM peripheral for the Amiga would be an >>excellent selling point. > >obviously you haven't been looking in the Amiga mags. they have shown the >A690 CDTV adapter for the 500 with statements from CBM that a 2000 model is >forthcoming. > I read the blurb in AW as well. It isn't here yet.. just like Compugraphic support. >> [Supportive Amiga statement and software company stuff deleted] > >and MOST of these options are either already there, or being done as we speak. > I really wish people like you would take the time to research these flames >before you hit that save key.. as i've proved most of your allegations false >already i'll step down. > Ahhhh... I see. You considered this to be a FLAME. ** [Thanks for setting me straight] ** 8^) >> >>- Dan Galpin >>galpin@ucscb.ucsc.edu >>galpin@cats.ucsc.edu >>" Amiga - the computer sold before its time... which is why it still isn't >>well-aged. " (For more info, check out the December 1984 issue of InfoWorld (** sigh **) to see just how ahead of the times Amiga was... No.. I don't remember which week.. :) ) > >.--------------------------------------------------------------------------. >| UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | >| ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | >| INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | >|-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | >| Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | >| welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | >`--------------------------------------------------------------------------' -- ****************************************************************************** * Amiga // * Short (TM) Signature * DISCLAIMER: * * \\ // * galpin@UCSCB.UCSC.EDU * This space reserved for a * * \X/ Only* COMP. QUOTE: Only time will tell* clever disclaimer someday. * ******************************************************************************
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/05/91)
In article <5068@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >not enough power eh? you call 50 Mhz not enough power? show me a Mac with 50 >Mhz.. most of the above suggestions wouldn't work. there would be too many If you mean 50Mhz as shipped by Apple, there isn't one. If you mean an accelerator, I'm looking at a 50Mhz 030 board with 32k cache that plugs into the CPU socket. It costs $2300. Is Commodore shipping a 50Mhz machine? (Not doubting, I'm interested.)
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/05/91)
In article <25233@well.sf.ca.us> farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: > Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Macintosh community, >the LaserWriter is totally useless. The LaserWriter is not going to save the >Macintosh, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >Macintosh owners have any need whatsoever for a 300 DPI printer, and the >cost and limitations of the printer make the LaserWriter unsuitable for >other applications. The LaserWriter was a business product and had IMMEDIATE application. Most businesses work with printed materials and print shops. Most people have some ability to type and to draw or have somebody in the organization that do. I think your analogy doesn't work too well. The demographics of the users of the two machines are different. Video is a different area altogether, requiring much more sophisticated skills to work with. Most businesses are still at the still projection stage of presentations. It is certain that some day video will be the language of business communication, but the time scale is different than that of the success of the LaserWriter intro.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun5.082207.19281@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: > ><laughing> Hey, you can't have it all ways ;-). If CBM brings out new >and really improved video chips, then "poof" go many of the current 3td >party gfx card makers. And selling a CDROM drive cheaper than the above >mentioned company would drive them out of business. > That's not true, Kevin. It will require the graphics card company to write a driver for their specific card/dongle. Hopefully whatever comes of the DIG research will make that easy. > ><smile> jest picking atcha - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> Ditto. 8-) -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
ewout@topcat.commodore.com (Ewout Walraven) (06/05/91)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> >> The ECS isn't going to do much for the Amiga, either, because it was >>obsolete before it even went into production. The ECS is also 98% >>identical to the very oldest Amiga chipset. >> > The main thing is Productivity mode, but since the price >of flicker fixers have dropped so dramatically it doesn't seem so >important. However it will be free 640x400 non interlaced. The main thing of ECS are programmable resolution (including PAL & NTSC videomodes) & the new genlock possibilities: keying on any color register, keying on any bitplane of the genlocked viewport, per viewport genlock settings, programmable border transparency. Productivity mode in itself isn't going to shake the earth. > -- Ethan >Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, >Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, >I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, >How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (06/06/91)
In article <5066@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: > >murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes: >>In article <1991Jun03.053144.3208@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >>>I would give it a little more time. The Toaster just came out. 2.0 and >>>the ECS is about to come out. And I'll bet it cost a lot of money to get >> >>I just don't get it. I remember a year ago or so when the A3000 came out. >>Didn't it have both 2.0 and 1.3 ROMS? Although 2.0 ROMs weren't finalized, >>Why has it taken C= a year to produce those chips for retrofit into A2000s and >>A500s? Will the entire ECS be available for <A3000 machines? You would >>think that C= would get on the ball. This is almost getting to be as bad >>as Steven Jobs' NeXT initial announcement. >> > >You really don't know what your talking about do you? It really steams me >when people flame CBM with rumors, incorect information, and inuendo. if you >had been paying ANY attention to these newsgroups, even if you had walked down >to your local dealer and asked some questions, or even if you had called cbm >and asked them (they have an 800 number for this sort of thing), you would >know that the 3000 never had either 2.0 or 1.3 roms. you would know that cbm >is STILL DEVELOPING 2.0, you would know that the ecs will be available (This seems an appropriate post to tag it to; since I agree with many of the points; but it could have some clarification) I'd like to clear something up. The A3000 was released with 2.0. It had an upgrade to 2.01. It had another upgrade to 2.02. Recently, it had an upgrade to 2.03. The next planned upgrade is 2.04. All of these releases are 2.0 releases. 2.0 has, in fact, been available on the A3000 for some time now. Each of the releases 2.0 has been better than the last, as well. Because of the nature of the A3000 and its peripheral universe (for instance, we know which SCSI controller most people have, we have an idea what their partitions are named, and there's no rom changing involved, so upgrades are fairly easy. Not so for your average A500 or A2000. Changing a rom is a big deal to most people. We wanted to make sure that when they upgraded that they would be happy for a year or two until the next major upgrade. It also doesn't stop with 2.04. We have future development plans past 2.04; work will continue on the OS. andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a popsicle." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
bheil@scout-po.biz.uiowa.edu (06/06/91)
In article <50050@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >Video is a different area altogether, requiring much more sophisticated skills >to work with. Most businesses are still at the still projection stage of >presentations. It is certain that some day video will be the language of >business communication, but the time scale is different than that of the success >of the LaserWriter intro. > Enter the Amiga and Video Toaster. This combination is perfect for doing away with the need for sophisticated skill (and vastly expensive equipment)...reminds me of DTP and how the simplified GUI of the Mac and the relative inexpense of the Laserwriter made it the perfect combination. Businesses are looking to make video the language of business communication now and the hype of the Toaster is going to perk up their ears! I think the busines types are smart enough to put 2 and 2 together and put an amiga into every board room in America (okay maybe not but I can hope, and this *IS* c.s.a.advocacy!)
bheil@scout-po.biz.uiowa.edu (06/06/91)
I've figured it out.
Commodore needs to do several things to get the Amiga widely accepted in the
US.
1) Raise the price of the A500 by a factor of 3, build in a tiny mono screen
and call it the Amiga Classic. Put it in a brand spanking new case and slap a
'New and Improved' sticker on it.
2) Saturate the advertising media with nauseating adds (run em 7 days a
week, twice a day).
3) Make the Operating System bloated and chock full of cutesy
'personalizing' touches.
o
oo o
oo o
o <- a really big smiley!
oo o
oo o
ochucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/06/91)
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Anyway, I don't see how an Amiga user can complain about the Mac OS. The >Macintosh's OS is just as far ahead of the Amiga's as Amiga hardware is >ahead of Mac hardware. *sigh*... that is not true at all. if the mac os is so far advanced, why did it just NOW get any form of inter-process communication? is that why the Mac's Multi-tasking is still in the dark ages compared to the Amiga's Multi-tasking. Is that why to this day MOST of the mac machines don't have a 32 bit clean rom? The mac has *some* features that are more advanced than the Amiga, and the Amiga has *some* features that are more advanced than the Mac's. > >"[Why did I bring up the Mac? Well Marc would have brung it up anyway, >and I happen to despise the Mac environment (too confining) and it's >condescending interface. ]" > >Again, I don't see it. Care to be more specific? Anything in particular >you can't do, or you just don't know how to use a Macintosh? Again, the >Macintosh OS has far more features/power. Again, The Mac has *some* DIFFERENT features than the Amiga, and the Amiga has some DIFFERENT features from the mac. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
galpin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dan Galpin (Amiga-quester)) (06/06/91)
In article <18@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Also, the Macintosh has fast serial ports and an OS with >MIDI interfacing built in. What else do you want? What else is necessary >to qualify as having built-in MIDI? The Amiga has programmable UARTS and would therefore qualify under the same criteria for having a built-in MIDI interface. Since the Amiga only has one serial port.. I though a built-in MIDI interface would be a useful selling point.. - Dan - -- ****************************************************************************** * Amiga // * Short (TM) Signature * DISCLAIMER: * * \\ // * galpin@UCSCB.UCSC.EDU * This space reserved for a * * \X/ Only* COMP. QUOTE: Only time will tell* clever disclaimer someday. * ******************************************************************************
caw@miroc.Chi.IL.US (Christopher A. Wichura) (06/06/91)
In article <49969@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: > >I think you don't know what you are talking about. 7.0 runs just fine on >a Mac Plus with 2 meg. (Well, I guess "lots" wrt memory is relative.) I work in the Micro/Station here at UIC (I'm an ASOCC) and they've got three Macs set up: a classic, an lc, and a IIcx. Right now, all machines have only two megs of ram. The LC is running system seven. That's __ALL__ it is running. When Apple tells you you need two megs to run 7.0, they forget to mention that that's JUST to run 7.0 and if you actually want to use an application then you'll have to get more memory (or resort to VM, which is slower than sin) (and the LC, which has an 020, doesn't have a 551 so it can't do VM anyway). The only things that run on the LC are a few small demos to show off the Mac. Anytime someone wants to see Excel or MacWrite II or PageMaker or Quark or... the Mac reps have to move over to the IIcx. System 7 looks kinda nice, though. I will admit that the overall look seems better than that of Intuition. It also seemed rather slugish, though. You click on a window's close gadget and wait up to two seconds for the window to go away (this is with the LC). This was independant of the number of windows currently open. There were some other things it seemed a little slow at as well. -=> CAW Christopher A. Wichura Multitasking. Just DO it. caw@miroc.chi.il.us (my amiga) ...the Amiga way... u12401@uicvm.uic.edu (school account)
6600dmx@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Richard A. Boyd) (06/06/91)
When the 2.0 ROMs come out who is going to >want< 1.3. I think when 2.0 is in ROM, developers will concentrate on that version of the OS while 1.3 slowly dies. IN my opinion, it is always better to have the most current version of the OpSys. This way, things move forward intead of becoming stagnated.
logan@netxcom.netx.com (Jim Logan) (06/06/91)
In article <193f5229.ARN018e@nesbbx.UUCP> billsey@nesbbx.UUCP writes:
#
# Actually, no. When the 3000 came out, and now, it had a set of special
# boot ROMs (or EPROMs) that loads a kickstart off of disk. Just like the 1000
# does. The difference is, it loads that kickstart into system memory, then uses
# the MMU to map it to a ROM location. That means you use up some of your system
# memory whenever you're running. (256K for 1.3, 512K for 2.0) That will go away
# with the release of real 2.0 ROMs, freeing up the 512K for applications to use.
Actually, I hope that when they come out with the ROMs, they
allow you to copy the code into RAM. I believe that the access
time of ROM is much slower than RAM, and on a 3000UXD I have lots
of memory to spare. I've never run an application that utilized
more than 2MB of memory.
I'd like it to be copying the ROMs into RAM while my hard disk is
spinning up so that by the time the disk is ready to be read from,
the OS is already running from RAM. My current boot ROMs don't wait
long enough for my hard drive to spin up. I have to do a warm
boot after I turn on the power because I get the "2.0 HD/FD or
1.3 HD/FD" menu with the HD for both shaded out. That sucks.
(I know people will query me on this one, so I'll beat you to it:
I have a 340MB Maxstor HD.)
--
Jim Logan Home: logan%gimlet@uunet.uu.net
Consultant Work: logan@netx.com
Net Express, Inc. Phone: (703) 749-2269rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/06/91)
In article <18@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >"Huh? No Macs are available with built in MIDI. No speed switchable 68000s >either. They do have a more expensive machine with built-in SCSI" > >A more expensive machine with built-in SCSI? ALL Macs have built-in SCSI! >Even a lot of older Macs that aren't supported anymore (Plus and up) have >SCSI built in. Also, the Macintosh has fast serial ports and an OS with >MIDI interfacing built in. What else do you want? What else is necessary >to qualify as having built-in MIDI? Apple put SCSI in Macs as standard and what happened? Hardly any third party SCSI replacements exist, and from lack of competition they are not very good. Amiga SCSI has been steadly improving and dropping in price for years because of the competition between third party vendors. I wouldn't call a serial port a "midi port" otherwise I think you couldlabel the CBM Pet as a "midi" computer. Built in MIDI means you have a Midi IN/Out/Thru port. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/06/91)
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > Apple put SCSI in Macs as standard and what happened? Hardly any >third party SCSI replacements exist, and from lack of competition >they are not very good. Actually, there are several third party SCSI replacements... e.g. Daystar's SCSI board, Micronet's NuPort, ATTO's Silicon Express, Storage Dimension's Data Cannon boards, and they are all fairly impressive. As could be expected, these boards are generally at the high end. For example, the Data Cannon PDS board is a SCSI-2 interface which plugs directly into the PDS slot of the IIfx, and supports disk transfers of up to 10MB/s. Then, there are Micronet's boards, which support disk mirroring, SCSI-2 protocols etc. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "If it weren't for your gumboots, where would you be? You'd be in the hospital, or in-firm-ary..." F. Dagg
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/06/91)
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >your fond >of refering to system 7.0, system 7 will not run on a machine with less than 2 >megs of memory, hardly a standard configuration either. The mags reckon more than 50% of the Macs out there have 2MB or more and can run System 7. So it's a majority configuration. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "If it weren't for your gumboots, where would you be? You'd be in the hospital, or in-firm-ary..." F. Dagg
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/06/91)
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >Why can't text processing be done in 640x200? IBM's Text mode on >the older machines was 80 columns x 25 lines and it didn't seem to >inhibit their ability to dominate the market. Yes, but 80 x 25 was better than anything else on the market at the time... Most other machines were struggling with either all uppercase, or 64 x 16, or 40 x 24 or some other weird combination. 640 x 200 can hardly be counted as better than anything else on the market. > CDTV isn't a computer. I doubt I'll be doing any programming/word >processing on it. AmigaDOS is superior to the Mac in that I am not >forced to use Workbench if I dont want to. The Shell interface >is just as powerful as the Graphical one(Workbench 2.0) whereas the >Mac hasn't developed a great shell interface that works with ALL >programs. (Tell me, does Word take command line arguements?) Yeah it does. I type the following on my MPW command line. Word My_New_File <enter> and it starts and opens My_New_File. And with the addition of AppleEvents etc, and a scripting language like Frontier, the Mac has the ability to become a fairly powerful "shell"-based computer. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "If it weren't for your gumboots, where would you be? You'd be in the hospital, or in-firm-ary..." F. Dagg
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/06/91)
Responding to the following: "of refering to system 7.0, system 7 will not run on a machine with less than 2 megs of memory, hardly a standard configuration either." Hardly a standard configuration? The average Macintosh user has 3.4 (?) megs of RAM, and Apple DOESN'T ship ANY Macintosh with less than 2 megs of RAM except for the Classic (which ships in 1 and 2-meg configurations) "
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/06/91)
Responding to the following: "can you name any other system that has a totaly programmable display?" I can. The Macintosh! :-)
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/06/91)
Responding to the following: " Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Macintosh community, the LaserWriter is totally useless. The LaserWriter is not going to save the Macintosh, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few Macintosh owners have any need whatsoever for a 300 DPI printer, and the cost and limitations of the printer make the LaserWriter unsuitable for other applications." The LaserWriter is VERY well used in the Macintosh community, a heck of a lot more than the Toaster is in the Amiga community. Heck, Apple's making almost as much money on printers as on Macs!
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/06/91)
>not enough power eh? you call 50 Mhz not enough power? show me a Mac with 50 >Mhz.. most of the above suggestions wouldn't work. there would be too many Sure. The dash-030 is a shipping Macintosh (tower) that is a 50-MHz 030/FPU with all kinds of neat support chips (I/O, Floppy, etc.). Incidentally, this is a modified Mac IIfx motherboard.
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/06/91)
In article <441@netxcom.netx.com>, logan@netxcom.netx.com (Jim Logan) writes: >In article <193f5229.ARN018e@nesbbx.UUCP> billsey@nesbbx.UUCP writes: ># ># Actually, no. When the 3000 came out, and now, it had a set of special ># boot ROMs (or EPROMs) that loads a kickstart off of disk. Just like the 1000 ># does. The difference is, it loads that kickstart into system memory, then uses ># the MMU to map it to a ROM location. That means you use up some of your system ># memory whenever you're running. (256K for 1.3, 512K for 2.0) That will go away ># with the release of real 2.0 ROMs, freeing up the 512K for applications to use. > >Actually, I hope that when they come out with the ROMs, they >allow you to copy the code into RAM. I believe that the access >time of ROM is much slower than RAM, and on a 3000UXD I have lots >of memory to spare. I've never run an application that utilized >more than 2MB of memory. That will likely be possible with an updated SetCPU, but it will require an Amiga with an MMU. It will not be possible to do this on an Amiga without an MMU. > >I'd like it to be copying the ROMs into RAM while my hard disk is >spinning up so that by the time the disk is ready to be read from, >the OS is already running from RAM. My current boot ROMs don't wait >long enough for my hard drive to spin up. I have to do a warm >boot after I turn on the power because I get the "2.0 HD/FD or >1.3 HD/FD" menu with the HD for both shaded out. That sucks. >(I know people will query me on this one, so I'll beat you to it: >I have a 340MB Maxstor HD.) > >-- >Jim Logan Home: logan%gimlet@uunet.uu.net >Consultant Work: logan@netx.com >Net Express, Inc. Phone: (703) 749-2269 ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ ISU : The Home of the Goon / \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon / -------------------------------------------------------
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (06/06/91)
In article <16643@darkstar.ucsc.edu> galpin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dan Galpin (Amiga-quester)) writes: > > >I was not really talking about an A2000 type machine. The Amiga 2000 is really >for the professional user. The machine that I referred to would be designed to >augment the "low-cost" Amiga line. The A500 is difficult to expand. Many add- >ons must be "hacked" onto the motherboard, violating the warrenty. The >"commercial" user is not going to be interested (in my humble opinion) in >having to figure out how to install these things (especially since it is >quite possible that the individual has little or no dealer support... as they >bought the system through a place like Montgomery Ward's or Macy's.) The idea >is that the end-user can add on to their system with simple "cartridge" type >attachments. These would not be "interfaces," but would work based upon the >way many of the "Hacks" work.. by taking lines from the 68000, Denise, Gary >and giving easy access. (Unless you see some simpler way) The concept is not >to cut end-user costs.. but to give simplicity . Oh sorry, I really fear you don't know anything about which causes costs and which not. If you want to design bays where can insert add-ons more easily than into a slot (like in an A2000), then you sure want to make this more solid, more fool-proof, which means REALLY BIG COST!!! You can't have ease of installment AND cheapness, both are excluding each other. If you want cheap add-ons, then the OPTIMAL way is the A2000 approach, not arguable. If you want to have this easy, then add ca. $1000 to the price, I'm not fooling here. I am certain that no-one would buy such an expensive device. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (06/06/91)
In article <16647@darkstar.ucsc.edu> galpin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dan Galpin (Amiga-quester)) writes: > >Okay.. Go into your favorite draw program. Draw something. Put it in the >clipboard (if the program even supports it). Just try putting it into one >of your favorite documents without saving it or converting it... or >(even worse) capturing a screen rendition as a bitmap, saving to disk, and >loading it into the publisher. Well, I admit that the clipboard concept on the Amiga is not, err, very successfull. But there really is a quasi-standard for these things: Brushes. They are understood by most of the graphics/drawing programs and also by the DTP programs. >>> [Amiga's don't have enough power.] >... Sorry.. I meant that A500's and A2000's don't have enough power.. the >3000 certainly does ... >> >>not enough power eh? you call 50 Mhz not enough power? show me a Mac with 50 >** [What C= computer runs at 50 Mhz? ] ** It's a quite normal policy to let some of upgrade and add-on features up to the 3rd parties. This device *IS* available, it exists, so it may be used as a pro argument for the Amiga. >> a 500 is a low end computer, that means >>it's designed to be sold cheap. you can't have tons of features and still be >>cheap. >** [Obviously a pessimist] ** No, a realist. But you should know Commodore enough that you'll get the features from them always at an adequate price, while one can argue for days about Apple prices. >[*** WARNING. TANGENT APPROACHING! ***] >(*** BY the way.. have you checked MacGeek (The Macintosh Weekly Magazine) :-) >lately.. People sell 50Mhz MacIIFX repackages with 128MBytes of RAM (using >16 MB simms.) Show me an Amiga that can currently be expanded to 128Megs of RAM. From its architecture, sure the A3000, though at this moment I really know no company actually offering thus big RAM cards. But Dave Haynie already explained how much RAM you can cram today on a Zorro III board (I remember he resulted in 64 MB), so that you would be able to have these 128 MB on 2 boards. Ok, this is yet theory, but how long? >Radius has a 68040 accelerator for the Macs with 24-bit color built into the >board. Don't even THINK of comparing Amiga accelerator peripherals with those >available to Mac users. ***) >[*** Tangent gone ***] Oh, I think about such toys nearly every day! I can imagine them in an A3000 very nicely. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun6.000019.4876@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > Apple put SCSI in Macs as standard and what happened? Hardly any >third party SCSI replacements exist, and from lack of competition >they are not very good. Amiga SCSI has been steadly improving and >dropping in price for years because of the competition between >third party vendors. Hardly any 3rd party SCSI replacements for compact Macs exist. If you know what the current capabilities of Mac SCSI replacements are, please post them. Say something like "the fastest Mac SCSI board does XX MB/sec, and such-and-such Amiga boards all do better." If you can't, then you're just spouting BS. For any Mac that supports NuBus, there are at least 4 SCSI II cards out. I'm looking at an ad now for one that claims 4.4 MB/sec continuous. Are there any mass market drives out that pump the data that fast? Mac prices don't have to drop. They can sell all they want at the higher prices and there are enough buyers with the money to oblige.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/06/91)
In article <caw.1541@miroc.Chi.IL.US> caw@miroc.Chi.IL.US (Christopher A. Wichura) writes: >I work in the Micro/Station here at UIC (I'm an ASOCC) and they've got three >Macs set up: a classic, an lc, and a IIcx. Right now, all machines have >only two megs of ram. The LC is running system seven. That's __ALL__ it is >running. When Apple tells you you need two megs to run 7.0, they forget to >mention that that's JUST to run 7.0 and if you actually want to use an >application then you'll have to get more memory (or resort to VM, which is >slower than sin) (and the LC, which has an 020, doesn't have a 551 so it >can't do VM anyway). The only things that run on the LC are a few small >demos to show off the Mac. Anytime someone wants to see Excel or MacWrite II >or PageMaker or Quark or... the Mac reps have to move over to the IIcx. Yes, and your lab people probably have file sharing enabled. On my SE/30, I can get 7.0 down to a meg for itself. That would leave enough room for Excel or PageMaker to run by themselves, or Word and a comm program together, with a 2 meg setup. I can't help how lab people or Apple reps set up machines. Most of them aren't all that hot on configuring systems. They are often used to 5 and 8 meg machines. I would really have to try hard to suck up 2 meg under 7.0. I'm using an SI now with file sharing on and video set to 256 colors, and I'm still only up to 1.6 meg with a half dozen inits running. The rule of thumb is that 7.0 takes a meg more than a comparable 6.0 configuration - less if you are replacing 3rd party functions with 7.0's features. My 6.0x setup took up more RAM with ATM, various inits, and file sharing software than 7.0 does now. >System 7 looks kinda nice, though. I will admit that the overall look seems >better than that of Intuition. It also seemed rather slugish, though. You >click on a window's close gadget and wait up to two seconds for the window >to go away (this is with the LC). This was independant of the number of >windows currently open. There were some other things it seemed a little slow >at as well. I'm assuming that you're running in 256 color mode on the LC with the Color Finder windows. Yes, it is a bit slower that I'd like. The LC is only about twice the speed of a Plus, in spite of the 16 Mhz 020 (16 bit data path.) For most operations that I've tried, 7.0 varies in speed quite a bit. On some things it is faster, and others a bit slower. If I want snappier response, I drop the bit depth of the display down to 16 colors.
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun6.041400.21828@neon.Stanford.EDU>, torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >> Apple put SCSI in Macs as standard and what happened? Hardly any >>third party SCSI replacements exist, and from lack of competition >>they are not very good. > > Actually, there are several third party SCSI replacements... e.g. > Daystar's SCSI board, Micronet's NuPort, ATTO's Silicon Express, > Storage Dimension's Data Cannon boards, and they are all fairly > impressive. I am sure that this is true. However, is that all these hardware manufacturers produce? Are those boards the bread and better of these hardware manufacturers? I am willing to wager that they have other hardware to supliment their income. Commodore now produces three machines that come standard with a SCSI. The Amiga 3000, the Amiga 2500 and the Amiga 2000HD. I am willing to bet that owners of these machines have not rushed out to purchase a third party SCSI board. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu > "If it weren't for your gumboots, where would you be? You'd be in the > hospital, or in-firm-ary..." F. Dagg -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "The Most lopsided deal since ..." | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ================================================== "I protest Captain! I am not a merry man!" - Lt. Worf
ronald@ecl014.UUCP (Ronald van Eijck) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun4.023950.11286@ncsu.edu> kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >Not an exact comparison, but it'll do for now. We all have been put in >the position time and again, of promoting system X only to have a potential >buyer ask: but does it run software ZZ? All the good arguments you can >come up with usually mean diddly to them... as their mind is fixated on >being able to run ZZ no matter whether or not they will actually use it. > >I can only thank goodness that I'm not in marketing <wide grin>. > cheers - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> Very good point. Before bridgeboards where available a lot of potential amiga buyers asked 'is it ms-dos compatible ??' sadly you had to say 'no'. The result of this was that the customer said 'no then I don't want it.' Now you can say 'yes, using a bridgeboard you can run 99% of the ms-dos software.' and the customer sais 'yes I'll buy one.' But the clue from it all is that he WILL buy the amiga but he will NEVER buy the bridgeboard. and if he buys it he wil almost never use it. But who cares, he did by an AMIGA. So long, -- +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Ronald van Eijck {eunet!}hp4nl!cbmnlux!ecl014!ronald | | | | We do the impossible at once for a miracle we need a little more time | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/07/91)
logan@netxcom.netx.com (Jim Logan) writes: >Actually, I hope that when they come out with the ROMs, they >allow you to copy the code into RAM. I believe that the access >time of ROM is much slower than RAM, and on a 3000UXD I have lots >of memory to spare. I've never run an application that utilized >more than 2MB of memory. You mean you only run ONE application at a time???? that's the whole point of large amounts of memory on the Amiga, although high Data items like full 24 bit manipulation use alot of memory, i'd say more people use that ram to run more programs at once. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
ronald@ecl014.UUCP (Ronald van Eijck) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun4.105736.15468@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >In article <1991Jun4.025024.823@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>In article <1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> >> >> [Where does he get these statistics?] >> >>> Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >>>the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >>>Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >>>Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >>>flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. >> >> Marc, are you epileptic? The reason I ask is because everytime you >>make an arguement against the Amiga you always bring up the flicker. >>NON-Flicker displays are expensive, NTSC incompatible, and only >>useful for TEXT processing. In short, if a machine doesn't have an > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>interlaced display mode, it sucks. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Excuse me while I laugh my head of... > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! > > OK, that's better. Anyway, if you really, truly believe that flicker- >free displays suck, then you'd better tell that to the millions of people >who have purchased MAC and IBM systems with non-interlaced displays. >All of these people are totally stupid to be so converned about their >eyesight that they are willing to pay extra for a display that doesn't >flicker. Hell, having to change ones glasses or contact prescription >every few weeks has never hurt anybody. > >>/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ >>| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| >>\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * / > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / Silly me to respond on MB's remarks but who cares. Yes I am glad that the amiga display is flickering and that it is compatible with NTSC/PAL. This is the reason you can hook an Amiga to a VCR for less than $300 and the one and only reason the Amiga is so very populair for video applications. just my $0.02, -- +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Ronald van Eijck {eunet!}hp4nl!cbmnlux!ecl014!ronald | | | | We do the impossible at once for a miracle we need a little more time | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
scott@spectra.com (Tim Scott) (06/07/91)
(Since I'm soon going to disappear anyway, flames to me are futile.) No offense, but too often I read about "how great it's going to be." This as you know is the punchline to the joke about what the IBM salesman told his wife on their wedding night. The following is typical of what I read all too often in this newsgroup (and have for the months I've scanned it.): In article <5068@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: > (*sigh*, another uninformed (that thinks he knows everything) amigan that > has fallen pray to propoganda, as i shall prove.) And yet most of his "proofs" are things that will be available Real Soon Now... for instance: >again, AmigaDos 2.0 hasn't been finalized yet, and fairly reliable word has >been handed down that 2.0 *WILL* support compugraphic scalable font technogy >in the OS when it is released in 3rd quarter this year. then again: >It is my understanding >that CBM is developing their own system that will be MUCH more forward >compatible with future Amiga's. then again: >obviously you haven't been looking in the Amiga mags. they have shown the >A690 CDTV adapter for the 500 with statements from CBM that a 2000 model is >forthcoming. and finally >and MOST of these options are either already there, or being done as we speak. > I really wish people like you would take the time to research these flames >before you hit that save key.. as i've proved most of your allegations false >already i'll step down. > It's easy to "prove" people wrong by referring to things that don't yet exist. Well, I'm sorry I haven't added anything of value to this flame war. Each to his own I guess. Regards, Raskolnikov
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (06/07/91)
In a previous article, taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) says: > >> Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >>the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >>Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >>Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >>flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. Its not that Amiga users will be buying the Toaster, its that Video users will be buying Amiga. We are in a recession right now. But when we come out of it, toys like Amiga/Toaster will sell. Many people already have video cameras. And it doesn't need to "save" Amiga. Its just one more niche market which Amiga will have and hold. NCW PS Won't the ECS support a VGA monitor with no flicker?
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/07/91)
In article <16643@darkstar.ucsc.edu> galpin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dan Galpin (Amiga-quester)) writes: >>Adding to the A2000 is simple enough. Whaddya want, 10 different special >>purpose interfaces? That's not going to cut costs any, since these add-ins >>would be machine-specific. Except for coprocessors, whatever goes in your >>A2000 could go in your A3000 or any other slotted Amiga that comes along. >I was not really talking about an A2000 type machine. The Amiga 2000 is really >for the professional user. The A2000 is for anyone who wants an Amiga with lots of goodies in it. Sure, mine here has three hard disks and seven cards in it, which not everyone will want or need. It costs more simply because expansion, done properly, requires a level of support that you only get with $$$. >The machine that I referred to would be designed to augment the "low-cost" >Amiga line. The A500 is difficult to expand. I dunno, the last time I slapped an A590 on an A500, it worked just dandy. >Many add-ons must be "hacked" onto the motherboard, violating the warrenty. >The "commercial" user is not going to be interested (in my humble opinion) >in having to figure out how to install these things (especially since it is >quite possible that the individual has little or no dealer support... as they >bought the system through a place like Montgomery Ward's or Macy's.) There's a good reason for all of this. Those hacked in things violate the warrenty because they SHOULD violate the warrenty. You can't plug that kind of thing into an A500 and expect everything to work right. The A500's local bus isn't designed for extra loads. Neither is the power supply. The extra power supply, proper expansion bus with buffers, and dealer support, are what you pay for when you buy an A2000. There is no other proper way to do it. >The idea is that the end-user can add on to their system with simple >"cartridge" type attachments. These would not be "interfaces," but would >work based upon the way many of the "Hacks" work.. by taking lines from the >68000, Denise, Gary and giving easy access. Right now, you get a place for an A501, powered by the A500, and a place for a self-powered expansion chassis or SOTS box. That is all the A500 is designed to drive. Any extra goodies, done properly, are going to push the price of the system way up. You simply can't buy a Volkswagon and expect to get a real Porsche by plugging in extras. >True about no speed-switchable Macs.. but it isn't really that necessary to >make a new machine speed switchable. High-end PC clone makers have (until >recently) made their machines switchable for compatibility. That's simply due to shortcomings in the PC software design. There's no need for this goofiness in the Amiga, and probably not in the Mac. You're the one who put it on the list of features. >If I remember correctly, all Macs since the 512KE have built in SCSI. True, all those Macs have built-in SCSI. Except for the IIfx, it is extremely low performance SCSI. And you still pay much more for a Mac than for an A500. If you want SCSI on an A500, Commodore sells the A590, which gives you very decent performance, since we will settle for no less on our systems. If you want to go the cheap route, some third parties make Mac-like slow SCSI. >It is hard to see the A500 as a serious computer when a peripheral as >necessary to its high performance operation as a hard drive has to be hanging >outside of the left side of the case. The A500 is HOME COMPUTER. H-O-M-E C-O-M-P-U-T-E-R. Some people only play games on the thing. Lots of home users don't need hard drives, or 16MB of RAM, or all the things techies need. Get it? It is not a serious computer. The A2000 and A3000 are serious computers. It is a fun computer, which can also do serious work if you want to buy some extras. That's why we sell a million of these puppies a year. It's fun, and it's cheap. Same reason we sold 12 million (or whatever the latest tally is) C64s. >The Amiga 2000 could use (in my opinion) a 68881 slot and a faster 68000.. That would be nice. Though if you're going to the trouble of putting a 68881 in it, you really want a 68020 at the least, the 68881 doesn't buy you much with a 68000 driving it. >I am really (mainly) referring to the A500 and the difficulty in expanding >it to be a semi-professional system.. Imagine that. If you want to expand the A500 into a semi-professional system, you need to spend semi-professional money on it. You buy a real expansion box. See "Bodega Bay" for more information. You don't get a semi-professional system by hacking it. >>Anyone can offer a CD-ROM player, doesn't have to be Commodore. One 3rd party >>has one out already. You need a SCSI interfaced CD-ROM, and you need the >>ISO filesystem. That's pretty much it. >Point taken. However, only the backing of a large company such as Commodore >can guarantee standardization (in my opinion). The standards are there. Just like with the hard drives. C= told you what to do to be standard. They weren't the first out with a standard hard drive, they don't have to be the first out with a standard CD-ROM player. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/07/91)
In article <16647@darkstar.ucsc.edu> galpin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dan Galpin (Amiga-quester)) writes: >[*** WARNING. TANGENT APPROACHING! ***] >(*** BY the way.. have you checked MacGeek (The Macintosh Weekly Magazine) :-) >lately.. People sell 50Mhz MacIIFX repackages with 128MBytes of RAM (using >16 MB simms.) Show me an Amiga that can currently be expanded to 128Megs of RAM. >Radius has a 68040 accelerator for the Macs with 24-bit color built into the >board. Don't even THINK of comparing Amiga accelerator peripherals with those >available to Mac users. ***) >[*** Tangent gone ***] Well, I had 144MB in my A3000 once. Having no use for it, I gave the RAM back. Sure, that's with memory boards that aren't on the market. Though anyone could make them, the design is published in the Atlanta DevCon notes (from last year). I'm expecting a commercial board to surface Real Soon Now, though not from C=. >Currently the Amiga 500 with an A1024 is running at a similar price to a >16Mhz 386SX with VGA monitor. The CLONE has far more raw processor power. A bit more than twice the processing power, if you're not doing graphics. >I would like to see all publishing packages support a FPU, along with other >applications designed for the home user. The FPU is only useful if you're doing floating point in the first place. A good number of applications don't use floating point. Many of those that do use the IEEE math libraries, which means they support FPUs. In fact, if you're talking about supporting FPUs on 68000s, that's the only practical way to do it, via the IEEE libs. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun6.043014.22805@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>Why can't text processing be done in 640x200? IBM's Text mode on >>the older machines was 80 columns x 25 lines and it didn't seem to >>inhibit their ability to dominate the market. > Yes, but 80 x 25 was better than anything else on the market at >the time... Most other machines were struggling with either all >uppercase, or 64 x 16, or 40 x 24 or some other weird combination. Interesting bit of revisionist history here. I guess, if you counted units, than sure, 40 column displays were standard, since most machines out there were Apple IIs and C64s around the time the IBM came into being. And some of the Radio Shacks had 64x16 displays, while the Exidy Sorcerer had 64x30. Other than home computers, however, the standard had been 80x24 or 80x25 for years. All the Commodore Business Computers (CBM 8032 is an example) had had 80 column displays for years. Virtually all CP/M machines, of which the PC was the philosophical if not direct decendent, had 80 column displays, which were generally emulating some smart terminal protocol. Because previous generation CP/M machines had been using actual terminals, like ADM-31s and 3a's, since they didn't have built-in display controllers. > 640 x 200 can hardly be counted as better than anything else >on the market. No, but it's perfectly acceptable if all you're after is a little bit of word processing. At least until you get used to something better (I'm pretty much stuck in the 1000x800 zone myself), 640x200, or 80x25 text, is just dandy for word processing. The same cannot be said about 40 column displays, they just aren't wide enough, since most letters need at least 60 or so characters across a page. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) (06/07/91)
In article <18@ryptyde.UUCP| dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: |Responding to the following: | ||"Huh? No Macs are available with built in MIDI. No speed switchable 68000s ||either. They do have a more expensive machine with built-in SCSI" | |A more expensive machine with built-in SCSI? ALL Macs have built-in SCSI! |Even a lot of older Macs that aren't supported anymore (Plus and up) have |SCSI built in. Read the guys post, you macoid! He's saying the Mac is a more expensive machine...PERIOD! He's not saying SCSI is only available on high-end Macs! And it's TRUE! The mac has always been ABSURDLY expensive for the boring computer you get. Imagine...not even DMA! Simple machine to satisfy simple minds. | Also, the Macintosh has fast serial ports and an OS with |MIDI interfacing built in. What else do you want? What else is necessary |to qualify as having built-in MIDI? What do you mean MIDI built in to the OS? What crap. The amiga has fast serial ports, too. 31.5Kbaud. MIDI speed. And what else is necessary? You also need opto-isolators to convert to the MIDI hardware medium, since it's NOT RS-232. Your mac needs an adaptor to hook to a MIDI box, same as the amiga. Both machines are equally almost-MIDI-ready. The mac has NO advantage in either MIDI or SCSI. But let's talk for a moment about the stereo sound on the mac...oops... can't! It comes with one of those really hi-fidelity 2.5" speakers. Y'know, the ones that sound only slightly better than a transistor radio? And since you mentioned the PLUS, how many slot does it have? OOPS...none. And that radical 9" screen that can display any color as long as it's black or white! And what raw power! The 8Mhz 68000 in the plus has an effective throughput of 5.75 MHz...I've measured that myself...due to the overhead of the video interrupt. What incredible software/hardware integration! The mac does have that "happy mac" face, though. That, BTW, represents just about the sum total of apple's innovation in the mac. We won't even mention from who they XEROX'ed their GUI. And they sue other companies for "look & feel"! What a neat organization. Mac...the power to take a rest!
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) (06/07/91)
In article <16647@darkstar.ucsc.edu> galpin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dan Galpin (Amiga-quester)) writes: >lately.. People sell 50Mhz MacIIFX repackages with 128MBytes of RAM (using >16 MB simms.) Show me an Amiga that can currently be expanded to 128Megs of RAM. <chuckle> The A3000 can handle 128Meg or RAM...without even blinking! In fact...it's expandable to to 1.8 GIG!!! (a GIG, for you mac folks who never deal with such numbers, is 1024 Meg). That's real memory, on the bus! NOW...you show ME a mac that can be expanded to 1.8 GIG...now or in the future...virtual mem or otherwise! Give up...pull down "shutdown" for the last time...get an amiga 'cause you really HAVE been missing something!
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (06/07/91)
In article <231@touch.touch.com> mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) writes:
<chuckle> The A3000 can handle 128Meg or RAM...without even blinking! In
fact...it's expandable to to 1.8 GIG!!! (a GIG, for you mac folks who
never deal with such numbers, is 1024 Meg). That's real memory, on the
bus!
NOW...you show ME a mac that can be expanded to 1.8 GIG...now or in the
future...virtual mem or otherwise! Give up...pull down "shutdown" for
the last time...get an amiga 'cause you really HAVE been missing something!
You Amiga users are going to have to try and understand that the A3000
is probably not the last computer that you are ever going to own, and
there really isn't a need to have 1.8GB of memory expansion(128MB
maybe). In a couple of years(I say two) that A3000 is going to look
like a toy.
-Mikegriffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) (06/07/91)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >[...] and dealer support, are >what you pay for when you buy an A2000. I see you haven't lost your sense of humor, Dave. -- Dan Griffin griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/07/91)
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) writes: >| Also, the Macintosh has fast serial ports and an OS with >|MIDI interfacing built in. What else do you want? What else is necessary >|to qualify as having built-in MIDI? >What do you mean MIDI built in to the OS? What crap. Apple has a piece of software called the MIDI Manager, which provides a device independent way to handle MIDI, and allows the user to use a PatchBay program to hook up output from one MIDI application to a particular MIDI device etc... Most of the good MIDI music programs are now using this. Then of course, there's also QuickTime. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Lay me place and bake me pie, I'm starving for me gravy... Leave my shoes and door unlocked, I might just slip away - hey - just for the day."
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/07/91)
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) writes: >In article <16647@darkstar.ucsc.edu> galpin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dan Galpin (Amiga-quester)) writes: >>lately.. People sell 50Mhz MacIIFX repackages with 128MBytes of RAM (using >>16 MB simms.) Show me an Amiga that can currently be expanded to 128Megs of RAM. ><chuckle> The A3000 can handle 128Meg or RAM...without even blinking! In >fact...it's expandable to to 1.8 GIG!!! (a GIG, for you mac folks who >never deal with such numbers, is 1024 Meg). That's real memory, on the >bus! From the original document describing the Mac II (released in 1987) "The design goal of this machine is to combine the hardware flexibility of an Apple // with the ease of use of the Macintosh software base. The major features of the design are: % RAM Expansion : 1 Mbyte to 128 Mbytes of RAM on motherboard. Over 2 Gbytes in slots. [rest deleted] -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Lay me place and bake me pie, I'm starving for me gravy... Leave my shoes and door unlocked, I might just slip away - hey - just for the day."
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/07/91)
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >"can you name any other system that has a totaly programmable display?" > >I can. The Macintosh! :-) oh really? how is that? The mac display is a standard 72 dpi. no other resolution modes. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/07/91)
In article <1308@cbmger.UUCP>, peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: >In article <16647@darkstar.ucsc.edu> galpin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Dan Galpin (Amiga-quester)) writes: >> >>Okay.. Go into your favorite draw program. Draw something. Put it in the >>clipboard (if the program even supports it). Just try putting it into one >>of your favorite documents without saving it or converting it... or >>(even worse) capturing a screen rendition as a bitmap, saving to disk, and >>loading it into the publisher. > >Well, I admit that the clipboard concept on the Amiga is not, err, >very successfull. That is a vast understatement! Even under AmigaOS 2.0, the clipboard is terrible. It is not only broken, but practically non-existant. Most Amiga users don't even know that the Amiga even has a clipboard, because nothing supports it, even for text (let alone graphics!). >But there really is a quasi-standard for these >things: Brushes. They are understood by most of the graphics/drawing >programs and also by the DTP programs. Brushes are not a substitute for a working clipboard. You still have to save the brush and re-load it. This is an enourmous hassle compared with the ease that you can transfer graphics and text between applications on the Macintosh. The clipboard on the Macintosh is something that has no equal on the Amiga. This is too bad, because the clipboard is a very nice aid to multitasking. The fact that the Amiga basically does not have a working clipboard is hurting it badly. >-- >Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... >Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/07/91)
In article <18@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >"Huh? No Macs are available with built in MIDI. No speed switchable 68000s >either. They do have a more expensive machine with built-in SCSI" > >A more expensive machine with built-in SCSI? ALL Macs have built-in SCSI! >Even a lot of older Macs that aren't supported anymore (Plus and up) have >SCSI built in. Also, the Macintosh has fast serial ports and an OS with >MIDI interfacing built in. What else do you want? What else is necessary >to qualify as having built-in MIDI? Do builtin Mac SCSI ports go at upwards of 2MB per second? The Amiga's serial port goes 25% faster than the Mac's. Neener neener neener. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/07/91)
In article <23@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >" Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Macintosh community, >the LaserWriter is totally useless. The LaserWriter is not going to save the >Macintosh, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >Macintosh owners have any need whatsoever for a 300 DPI printer, and the >cost and limitations of the printer make the LaserWriter unsuitable for >other applications." > >The LaserWriter is VERY well used in the Macintosh community, a heck of a lot >more than the Toaster is in the Amiga community. Heck, Apple's making almost as >much money on printers as on Macs! Is that why Apple's stock just dropped 33% in a couple of days and they reported much poorer earnings than expected and laid off a bunch of people? Maybe they're selling MORE printers than computers these days... -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun7.043918.3060@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) writes: >"The design goal of this machine is to combine the hardware flexibility of an >Apple // with the ease of use of the Macintosh software base. The major >features of the design are: >% RAM Expansion : 1 Mbyte to 128 Mbytes of RAM on motherboard. > Over 2 Gbytes in slots. This is true. NuBus can, in theory, support lots of memory. It's a little wackier than Zorro bus, though. As I recall, each card gets a primary chunk of 16MB, and an optional second chunk of 256MB. NuBus supports a maximum of 16 such cards. If you have an 8 slot Mac II, you should be able to add in 8*256, or 2GB, of contiguous memory. Of course, Macs have only had a real use for more than 16MB of RAM since the 15th of May, when they got 32 bit addressing in the OS. Also, the NuBus is pretty slow, and it can't support 68030 burst cycles. So it's less than ideal for memory expansions, but it can support them. Apple does plan an enhanced NuBus, based on the NuBus 90 speedup hack that NeXT apparently generated for their 12.5MHz NuBus-ish expansion bus. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/07/91)
In article <mykes.3280@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >Is that why Apple's stock just dropped 33% in a couple of days and they reported >much poorer earnings than expected and laid off a bunch of people? Maybe they're >selling MORE printers than computers these days... Nope, Apple is selling more computers than ever. Unfortunately, stockholders aren't interested in long term businesses strategies. They see profit margins dropping and they sell stock. Apple is sitting on a gigabuck in cash. It'll be a while before they're in serious trouble.
hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) (06/07/91)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >there really isn't a need to have 1.8GB of memory expansion(128MB >maybe). In a couple of years(I say two) that A3000 is going to look >like a toy. >-Mike I sure hope so. In two years I should say the Amiga 5000 will make the 3000 look like todays 500:) vroooooooommmmmmmmmm...... -- // Jeff Hyche There can be only one! \\ // Usenet: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com \X/ Freenet: ap255@po.CWRU.Edu
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/07/91)
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >Do builtin Mac SCSI ports go at upwards of 2MB per second? On the IIfx, it's 3MB/s [via DMA - although because this is only supported in A/UX, it actually ends up being slower than the IIci]. On the IIci, it just peaks out at 1.8 - 2MB/s. Of course, one could then ask "How many disk drives actually transfer data at upwards of 2MB/s?" The ones which do are generally 600MB and up drives, for which you're paying enough that it might make sense to add in a SCSI-2 card. >The Amiga's serial port goes 25% faster than the Mac's. Neener neener neener. Hmmm. A standard Mac serial port, when connected to the Personal Laserwriter LS, transfers data to the printer at approx 970 Kbit/s. So, the Amiga's serial port is a 1.2Mbit device? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Cold is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics" - Lady Whiteadder
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/07/91)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1991Jun7.043918.3060@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >>% RAM Expansion : 1 Mbyte to 128 Mbytes of RAM on motherboard. >> Over 2 Gbytes in slots. >8*256, or 2GB, of contiguous memory. Of course, Macs have only had a real >use for more than 16MB of RAM since the 15th of May, when they got 32 bit >addressing in the OS. Or more than two years ago, if you were using A/UX. [rest of good points about NuBus being slow]. Hopefully, by the time we really need more than 256MB (the motherboard memory capacity of the upcoming 040 machine), everyone will be using 64-bit processors with SCI and NuBus will be a thing of the past. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Cold is God's way of telling us to burn more Catholics" - Lady Whiteadder
jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (P'relan) (06/07/91)
In article <49969@ut-emx.uucp>, awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: > I think you don't know what you are talking about. 7.0 runs just fine on > a Mac Plus with 2 meg. (Well, I guess "lots" wrt memory is relative.) It does? 7.0 took 1086K of RAM on our SE/30 *before* we installed any init's or da's. That would leave you with less than a megabyte of RAM on your 2 MB setup and you can't run much with that... I'm really glad we're getting another 4 megabytes of RAM because we wouldn't be able to do our normal work without it. At home, I'm staying with 6.0.5 because I can't afford to lose the RAM that 7.0 requires. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ James Walden jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
mjr@uther.calvin.edu (Matt Ranney) (06/08/91)
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >> >>Well, I admit that the clipboard concept on the Amiga is not, err, >>very successfull. > That is a vast understatement! Even under AmigaOS 2.0, the clipboard >is terrible. It is not only broken, but practically non-existant. Most >Amiga users don't even know that the Amiga even has a clipboard, because >nothing supports it, even for text (let alone graphics!). Well, there's always snap. I use it all the time, but as much as I hate to say it, you're right. We need programs that take more advantage of the clipboard themselves, but how much of an OS shortcoming is that instead of a programming shortcoming? If the programs were written differently, how much different is the Amiga's current clipboard compared to the Macs? -- Matt Ranney -- mjr@uther.calvin.edu sendmail: error reading file /home/mjr/.signature (core dumped)
zark@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Steven M Kosloske) (06/08/91)
In article <#g1H3+$o@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <231@touch.touch.com> mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) writes: > > <chuckle> The A3000 can handle 128Meg or RAM...without even blinking! In > fact...it's expandable to to 1.8 GIG!!! (a GIG, for you mac folks who > never deal with such numbers, is 1024 Meg). That's real memory, on the > bus! > > NOW...you show ME a mac that can be expanded to 1.8 GIG...now or in the > future...virtual mem or otherwise! Give up...pull down "shutdown" for > the last time...get an amiga 'cause you really HAVE been missing something! > Wait a minute here. OK, the Amiga can have 1.8 GB of RAM, in theory. Is there any product on the market which will let you do this? No? Then it's impossible. IMPOSSIBLE, no matter what the CPU can do. An 80386 can access, what, 4 GB of RAM? As far as I know, the best you could do today, if you packed every slot with RAM would probably be around 128 MB. So the 4 GB is also IMPOSSIBLE. The Mac can access 16MB on a 68000 machine, or on the 68030 machines, 4GB of RAM. This limit is also IMPOSSIBLE, since there is no way to pack that much RAM into a computer. The physical truth is that a IBM-compat can hold 64MB max (I think this is the limit today, correct me if I'm wrong) The Mac can access 128MB of RAM *NOW*. What can the Amiga do now? I mean, a card or adapter you can buy and pack tight with RAM? Note: This is not a cut on owners of any computer, just trying to put this in perspective. -- (Steve Kosloske) | "When the bottle's empty, the ------------------------------------| lecture's over. " - The agent for Internet: zark@csd4.csd.uwm.edu | gonzo journalist Hunter S. UUCP: uunet!zark@csd4.csd.uwm.edu | Thompson.
zark@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Steven M Kosloske) (06/08/91)
In article <5377.284f7525@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (P'relan) writes: >In article <49969@ut-emx.uucp>, awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >> I think you don't know what you are talking about. 7.0 runs just fine on >> a Mac Plus with 2 meg. (Well, I guess "lots" wrt memory is relative.) > >It does? 7.0 took 1086K of RAM on our SE/30 *before* we installed any init's >or da's. That would leave you with less than a megabyte of RAM on your 2 MB >setup and you can't run much with that... I'm really glad we're getting another >4 megabytes of RAM because we wouldn't be able to do our normal work without it. >At home, I'm staying with 6.0.5 because I can't afford to lose the RAM that >7.0 requires. > I guess it all depends on your definition of "normal work". I have a Plus with 2.5MB of RAM, and and have 1300K of RAM free with System 7. I couldn't run PageMaker and Word at the same time, or even Word and Excel at the same time, but for *my* normal work, it's fine. I can use THINK C, Word, Excel, PageMaker, Resedit, ZTerm all fine, in some cases I can have 2 programs loaded at once. I think my computer with System 7 is just as usable as before. -- (Steve Kosloske) | "When the bottle's empty, the ------------------------------------| lecture's over. " - The agent for Internet: zark@csd4.csd.uwm.edu | gonzo journalist Hunter S. UUCP: uunet!zark@csd4.csd.uwm.edu | Thompson.
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/08/91)
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > > Hmmm. A standard Mac serial port, when connected to the Personal >Laserwriter LS, transfers data to the printer at approx 970 Kbit/s. >So, the Amiga's serial port is a 1.2Mbit device? > Output from the Amiga can go as high as 1 megabaud, but input is seriously limited to 19200 on an Amiga 500 with some fast ram, and I have heard the Amiga 3000 does pretty good inputting 38400 on the built in serial device. I have not yet played with high speeds on my A3000's built in serial port, but a friend with an A2500 has told me 38400 was no problem. There is a software limitation to catch data comming in, but outgoing data will go as fast as you set it. They really need to add a few buffers to the UART in the PAULA chip, if they want to make some of us happy...But then, who knew in 1984 we would all be using V.42bis modems that wants to run at 38400? I mean, 2400 was fast THEN! Oh yeah, my Commodore A2232 multi-serial card came with a readme file saying its valid baud rates were 110, 300, 600, 1200, 2400, 4800, 9600, 19200, 115200 I gotta get my friend over here with his Mac IIcx, and hook up the old NULL modem cable and see what speeds we get between the Mac IIcx and the A3000. I forget what the top speed was that the Mac could take in...I'll take notes next time... Ron -- C-UseNet V0.42d Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/08/91)
In article <mjr.676327850@uther>, mjr@uther.calvin.edu (Matt Ranney) writes: >taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >>> >>>Well, I admit that the clipboard concept on the Amiga is not, err, >>>very successfull. > >> That is a vast understatement! Even under AmigaOS 2.0, the clipboard >>is terrible. It is not only broken, but practically non-existant. Most >>Amiga users don't even know that the Amiga even has a clipboard, because >>nothing supports it, even for text (let alone graphics!). > >Well, there's always snap. I use it all the time, but as much as I >hate to say it, you're right. We need programs that take more >advantage of the clipboard themselves, but how much of an OS >shortcoming is that instead of a programming shortcoming? If the >programs were written differently, how much different is the Amiga's >current clipboard compared to the Mac's. It is very different. The Amiga's clipboard was originally intended only for transferring straight ASCII text between applications. It was never intended to even be used to transfer graphics. The clipboard on the Mac, however, is very sophisticated. It transfers text and graphics flawlessly between applications, and nearly all applications support the clipboard. So, even if all Amiga applications supported the clipboard (a very big IF!), the Amiga's clipboard would still not compare at all to the clipboard on the Macintosh. The MAC's clipboard is as far above the Amiga's clipboard as the Amiga's multitasking is above the MAC's multitasking. The Amiga's clipboard cannot be fixed, as it is too unsupported and weak to be fixed. The clipboard needs to be totally replaced by something that supports transferring of graphic images from one application to another, independent of resolution or color format. However, even if this were done, and the clipboard was replaced by something far better, it would stile pale compared to the clipboard of the Macintosh simply because the MAC's clipboard is supported by nearly all applications. >-- >Matt Ranney -- mjr@uther.calvin.edu >sendmail: error reading file /home/mjr/.signature (core dumped) ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun7.233654.24493@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes:
It is very different. The Amiga's clipboard was originally intended only
for transferring straight ASCII text between applications. It was never
intended to even be used to transfer graphics. The clipboard on the Mac,
however, is very sophisticated. It transfers text and graphics flawlessly
between applications, and nearly all applications support the clipboard.
So, even if all Amiga applications supported the clipboard (a very big
IF!), the Amiga's clipboard would still not compare at all to the clipboard
on the Macintosh. The MAC's clipboard is as far above the Amiga's
clipboard as the Amiga's multitasking is above the MAC's multitasking.
I wouldn't say that. For most applications non-preemptive
multitasking works fine, and it's not nearly as limiting when compared
to only having a clipboard that can only handle ASCII text. That's
one strike against the most advanced OS on a PC.
The Amiga's clipboard cannot be fixed, as it is too unsupported and
weak to be fixed. The clipboard needs to be totally replaced by something
that supports transferring of graphic images from one application to
another, independent of resolution or color format. However, even if this
were done, and the clipboard was replaced by something far better, it
would stile pale compared to the clipboard of the Macintosh simply because
the MAC's clipboard is supported by nearly all applications.
How unfortunate. A functional Clipboard is probably worth more to
most people than being able to display 60 frames per second.
-Mikerjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/08/91)
In article <5092@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >>Responding to the following: >> >>"can you name any other system that has a totaly programmable display?" >> >>I can. The Macintosh! :-) > BZZZT. You can't change the scanrates on a Mac as far as I know of. The Amiga can easily go into PAL or NTSC mode, it can also output 15 or 31 khz (requires multisync), I've even seen new monitor files that let you choose a 70hz, I don't know the full range the denise can go as I don't have the docs for the new denise. In addition to all this, on the Amiga you can change/smooth scroll the bitmap pointers easily. You can change bitmaps anywhere on the screen via copper(hence the Amiga pulldown screens, and the new auto-scroll screens in 2.0 which let you have Mega-big screens like 1024x1024). This is why the Amiga is thee "video computer." It's display is awesomely flexible. In fact, I've seen demos onthe Amiga that switch between hi/lo res in the middle of the screen(imagine a lo-res background with lots of action going on with a small hi-res mini-screen in the center). >oh really? how is that? The mac display is a standard 72 dpi. no other >resolution modes. 72 DPI on a monitor 9" across is rougly 640 horizontal pixels, not particularly exciting. I'd rather have a mega-pixel display (1024x1024) like workstations have providing I could afford it. Anyone from CBM want to post the full specs on the new denise including the upper and lower limits on its display or do I have to purchase Devcon notes? (BTW, don't list the screen resolutions, I already know all of the Denise's new "standard" ones like 1280x200/400, 640x480/960 and even some of the wierd ones like 160x480. How is the 70hz mode done?) -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/08/91)
In article <2v6Hypzp@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >I wouldn't say that. For most applications non-preemptive >multitasking works fine, and it's not nearly as limiting when compared >to only having a clipboard that can only handle ASCII text. That's >one strike against the most advanced OS on a PC. The Clipboard isn't limitied to Ascii text. It's general purpose. It's as simple as passing a pointer to a buffer containing data (char *) to post a clip. (actually, it's a little more involved, you have to set up an IORequest, etc. The point is, the OS doesn't care what the data is. It doesn't mask bit 7, and it doesn't remove ctrl-codes, it simply holds the clip for another program to use.) > The Amiga's clipboard cannot be fixed, as it is too unsupported and > weak to be fixed. The clipboard needs to be totally replaced by something > that supports transferring of graphic images from one application to > another, independent of resolution or color format. However, even if this > were done, and the clipboard was replaced by something far better, it > would stile pale compared to the clipboard of the Macintosh simply because > the MAC's clipboard is supported by nearly all applications. > >How unfortunate. A functional Clipboard is probably worth more to >most people than being able to display 60 frames per second. ^^^^ Speak for yourself. I have never needed a clipboard. I use pipes. It's nice to be able to proclaim what people want in a way that supports your arguement but it doesn't hold water. The clipboard is a fairly minor feature in the grand scheme of OS's. It doesn't make or break an entire platform. I have used Macs, IBMs, and lots of other computers. The clipboard was never really of much use. For instance, if I made a diagram in a drawing program, I'd much rather have it saved to a permanent _named_ file on the disk, then simply switch to the publishing program and load it in. \flame {Enter tangent} It would be nice on a multitasking computer if you could simply cut a rectangle out of one window and drag the entire image into the other window and drop it in. Still, I'd like to have the safety of just saving my work to a named file on disk. Now on a single tasking computer (pre-multifinder Macs), the clipboard seems much like a pipe, or like Unix's use of /tmp. I guess what I'm saying is, cut/pasting from consoles a timersaver, but I wouldn't want to cut large amounts of data (like entire bitmaps) that I wanted to keep around. \endtangent BTW, if you want clip screen data, SNAP works perfectly. You can snap a portion of the screen, save to clipboard or IFF file, and load it from another app. It's not really C='s fault. The clipboard works fine on the Amiga, developers just never used it. >-Mike > -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/08/91)
Quoted from <1991Jun7.233654.24493@news.iastate.edu> by taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett): > on the Macintosh. The MAC's clipboard is as far above the Amiga's > clipboard as the Amiga's multitasking is above the MAC's multitasking. Say, isn't it a little odd to have a flash clipboard when you don't have solid multitasking? What are you clipping between? The way I understood it, the Mac creates little files someplace in much the same way that saving brushes out of DPaint does - then the other application can choose to look in whatever passes for the directory containing these brushes, and choose one. Does it do the equivalent of Snap's operation where you clip the text from point A using the mouse, then hit a key to insert it into point B? > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
caw@miroc.Chi.IL.US (Christopher A. Wichura) (06/08/91)
In article <#g1H3+$o@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <231@touch.touch.com> mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) writes: > >> <chuckle> The A3000 can handle 128Meg or RAM...without even blinking! In >> fact...it's expandable to to 1.8 GIG!!! (a GIG, for you mac folks who >> never deal with such numbers, is 1024 Meg). That's real memory, on the >> bus! Yes, but that mega expansion board doesn't actually exist (yet). Dave H. just said in a previous post that one could reasonably expect a 64 meg board using 4M part or a 256 meg board using 16M parts. But no one has actually released such a beast yet. >> NOW...you show ME a mac that can be expanded to 1.8 GIG...now or in the The high-end Macs undoubtably (sp?) have the same kind of expansion abilities. But again, I don't think they have that 1gig RAM board, either. >> future...virtual mem or otherwise! Give up...pull down "shutdown" for >> the last time...get an amiga 'cause you really HAVE been missing something! [ that's a cheap shot. you're not gonna win over anybody that way. ] >You Amiga users are going to have to try and understand that the A3000 >is probably not the last computer that you are ever going to own, and >there really isn't a need to have 1.8GB of memory expansion(128MB >maybe). In a couple of years(I say two) that A3000 is going to look >like a toy. And in that same couple of years the high-end Mac's won't look like a toy either? Or i486 based machines? Or even a SPARC 1? I don't see how this argument can be used to differentiate any computer as better or worse. -=> CAW Christopher A. Wichura Multitasking. Just DO it. caw@miroc.chi.il.us (my amiga) ...the Amiga way... u12401@uicvm.uic.edu (school account)
don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (06/08/91)
In article <12901@uwm.edu> zark@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Steven M Kosloske) writes: >4 GB is also IMPOSSIBLE. The Mac can access 16MB on a 68000 machine, or on Actually, I believe the Plus is limited to 4MB (something in its ROMs). Amax users with >4 megs on their Amigas usually run a 4 meg SE and use the rest of their memory as a recoverable RAM disk (the Amax fools the Mac into thinking it's dealing with an actual physical device). >correct me if I'm wrong) The Mac can access 128MB of RAM *NOW*. What can >the Amiga do now? I mean, a card or adapter you can buy and pack tight >with RAM? Note: This is not a cut on owners of any computer, just trying >to put this in perspective. Amigas prior to the A3000 can access 9 megs (more with accelerators). This is obviously not difficult to imagine :-). Right now the 3000 can handle 18 MB of 32-bit memory; you could plug in 4 8M Zorro II cards for another 32M, but it'd be slow stuff. When Zorro III stuff starts to appear, as well as processor slot boards, this limitation will disappear. -- Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork is spoken fork() be Amiga Student On-Campus Consultant, U of D here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/08/91)
Responding to the following:
">>not enough power eh? you call 50 Mhz not enough power? show me a Mac with 50
>** [What C= computer runs at 50 Mhz? ] **
It's a quite normal policy to let some of upgrade and add-on features up
to the 3rd parties. This device *IS* available, it exists, so it may be
used as a pro argument for the Amiga."
Yes, but what's the argument? There are 50MHz 68030's AND 68040's for the Mac,
so what's the point? Is there a 50MHz 68040 available for the Amiga?dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/08/91)
Responding to the following: "Read the guys post, you macoid! He's saying the Mac is a more expensive machine...PERIOD! He's not saying SCSI is only available on high-end Macs! And it's TRUE! The mac has always been ABSURDLY expensive for the boring computer you get. Imagine...not even DMA! Simple machine to satisfy simple minds." Yes, he WAS stating that SCSI is only available on high-end Macs. True, the OS doesn't support DMA yet, but the OS in general is very powerful. Mentioning one neglection is very Amigoid of you. "What do you mean MIDI built in to the OS? What crap. The amiga has fast serial ports, too. 31.5Kbaud. MIDI speed. And what else is necessary? You also need opto-isolators to convert to the MIDI hardware medium, since it's NOT RS-232. Your mac needs an adaptor to hook to a MIDI box, same as the amiga. Both machines are equally almost-MIDI-ready. The mac has NO advantage in either MIDI or SCSI." Macintosh serial ports: 57.6Kbaud. Yes, the OS DOES have built-in MIDI Manager. I wasn't saying that the Mac had an advantage in this area anyway. I was responding to someone who (I think) was saying that the Amiga had better support for MIDI. "But let's talk for a moment about the stereo sound on the mac...oops... can't! It comes with one of those really hi-fidelity 2.5" speakers. Y'know, the ones that sound only slightly better than a transistor radio?" True, the four speakers built into low-end Macs are hardly adequate, which is where the stereo jack on the back comes in! What matters is that the Mac supports full stereo output. Just hook your speakers up to the Mac if you don't like the ones built in. Personally, I'd rather have this than no speakers at all. "And since you mentioned the PLUS, how many slot does it have? OOPS...none. And that radical 9" screen that can display any color as long as it's black or white! And what raw power! The 8Mhz 68000 in the plus has an effective throughput of 5.75 MHz...I've measured that myself...due to the overhead of the video interrupt. What incredible software/hardware integration!" Again, very Amigoid of you. God, in Mac vs IBM arguments, at least I don't bring up CP/M or the 8080. Macintosh Plus's are neither sold nor supported, and are very old computers. The problem the Plus had with video is that every other interrupt made by the OS was to update the screen, very excessive. This was fixed to 1:7 on the SE. "The mac does have that "happy mac" face, though. That, BTW, represents just about the sum total of apple's innovation in the mac. We won't even mention from who they XEROX'ed their GUI. And they sue other companies for "look & feel"! What a neat organization." The sum of their innovation? They copied the idea, not the OS. The core OS was made entirely by Apple, and, although it has some deficiencies, it is a very powerful OS. I don't know a whole lot about the Amiga OS, so I'd like to hear your points on why the AmigaOS is more powerful.
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/09/91)
In article <mjr.676327850@uther> mjr@uther.calvin.edu (Matt Ranney) writes: >taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >>> >>>Well, I admit that the clipboard concept on the Amiga is not, err, >>>very successfull. > >> That is a vast understatement! Even under AmigaOS 2.0, the clipboard >>is terrible. It is not only broken, but practically non-existant. Most >>Amiga users don't even know that the Amiga even has a clipboard, because >>nothing supports it, even for text (let alone graphics!). > >Well, there's always snap. I use it all the time, but as much as I >hate to say it, you're right. We need programs that take more >advantage of the clipboard themselves, but how much of an OS >shortcoming is that instead of a programming shortcoming? If the >programs were written differently, how much different is the Amiga's >current clipboard compared to the Macs? >-- >Matt Ranney -- mjr@uther.calvin.edu >sendmail: error reading file /home/mjr/.signature (core dumped) The ClipBoard was necessary on the Mac before multifinder. Since the Amiga came with a better multifinder from day one, it really hasn't been needed, nor really missed. There are a few applications that support the clipboard, but I haven't had a need to use that support. I'm satisfied to save out a temporary file in ram disk to do my importing. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
bret@orac.UUCP (Bret Indrelee) (06/09/91)
In article <1991Jun4.105736.15468@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >In article <1991Jun4.025024.823@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>In article <1991Jun4.003619.3661@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> >>> The ECS isn't going to do much for the Amiga, either, because it was >>>obsolete before it even went into production. The ECS is also 98% >>>identical to the very oldest Amiga chipset. > > With the ECS, Commodore basically took some of the registers that >were hard-wired in the old chipset and made them programmable. From >here, the new modes were achieved by using the new programmable >registers. Overall, however, not all that many changes were made. > > If you doubt my word, use common sense. Most of the features of the >old chipset are unchanged in the ECS. Commodore made a few registers >programmable, and as a result was able to add some resolution modes >and other capabilities, but overall everything is the some. Hell, >Commodore did not even touch the Paula chip at all, which remains >exactly the same today as it was six years ago. I can even take two >of the custom chips from my old A1000 (Commodore's oldest machine) sitting >here, put them into an A3000 (Commodore's newest and most advanced machine), >and many people would not be able to tell the difference when using >the A3000. > [Sorry for so much quoting, but I felt it important.] The above argument can be though of in the following context: 1) Original chip set had hard-coded values for some registers. 2) ECS no longer hard-codes these values. 3) Adding a register is no big deal. 4) Therefore, ECS is no big deal. The problem is that changing from a hardcoded value to a programable value is *MUCH MORE* expensive in hardware than in software. Each and every register bit added to a chip takes a significant amount of space, and space is limited. A hardware designing can't just go into his favorite hardware editor (usually called a CAD or Schematic Entry package) and globally replace a constant with an expression. These concepts are easy in software but *Very expensive* in hardware. I think that the ECS is a great piece of engineering. It may not be the best possible solution starting from scratch, but all of the major engineering goals are met: 1) Compatible with previous products 2) Minimal changes to system (only replace one chip) 3) Makes whole system more flexible 4) Fits in original system design concept 5) Allows field upgrade of existing systems All these things are commendable. They did not come without forethought and hard engineering work. Please quit assuming that because something looks trivial to the outside interface, that it must have been easy to do. -Bret -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bret Indrelee | Our mail is still somewhat unreliable. Sorry. uunet.uu.net!cs.umn.edu!kksys!edgar!orac!bret -And still trying
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/09/91)
Responding to the following: "dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >"can you name any other system that has a totaly programmable display?" > >I can. The Macintosh! :-) oh really? how is that? The mac display is a standard 72 dpi. no other resolution modes." You obviously aren't familiar with the Macintosh graphics device. Macintosh video is much more programmable than the Amiga's will ever be, for very good reasons. There IS no "standard" dpi. No video "standards", or modes, are needed in the Macintosh community. Any monitor can be of any resolution, any number of pixels, independant of size, and the Macintosh will recognize it as a grid from pixel to pixel and uses integer to draw to screen. This is why you can attach two or more monitors to a Mac and use them as one monitor. That is, you can logically "connect" the two monitors so that they act as one larger monitor. This is totally programmable. A good example is an Extension that tells the OS that the screen is really smaller than it appears, shaving off some pixels for what it does (install a "program dock"). All applications then see that some of the monitor space is "not there" or reserved, and so fits its windows into what it's given. This is in contrast to how Amiga's and IBMs view their monitors. On one of these machines, if you're given a monitor with more pixels, it doesn't "zoom out" and give more room. Instead, the picture you DO see (which doesn't change) is seen at higher quality.
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/09/91)
Responding to the following: "It does? 7.0 took 1086K of RAM on our SE/30 *before* we installed any init's or da's." What do DA's have to do with how much memory the System takes? Under Sys7, DA's are essentially applications, not only in interface, but in how the Process Manager treats them. They are NOT kept in the System file. They do NOT take up any System Heap. They are launched as applications and take a seperate, set piece of memory and are given their own layer (no more DA Handler) just as applications are.
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/09/91)
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >">>not enough power eh? you call 50 Mhz not enough power? show me a Mac with >>** [What C= computer runs at 50 Mhz? ] ** > >It's a quite normal policy to let some of upgrade and add-on features up >to the 3rd parties. This device *IS* available, it exists, so it may be >used as a pro argument for the Amiga." > >Yes, but what's the argument? There are 50MHz 68030's AND 68040's for the Mac, >so what's the point? Is there a 50MHz 68040 available for the Amiga? > As far as I know, Motorolla doesn't even have 25Mhz 68040's in any kind of mass production to meet market demands, why would they have an 50Mhz 68040 in any kind of mass production? Low production is generally a sign of manufacturing defects, production problems, limited resources, and other quality control issues. Personally, I get a feeling that someone is making a claim that is not true... -- C-UseNet V0.42d Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/09/91)
In article <5092@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >oh really? how is that? The mac display is a standard 72 dpi. no other >resolution modes. Oh, please. I can quite easily get a monitor that will display 36-120 dpi for my machine. 72 dpi is an important number for the Mac, but it isn't the only number.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/09/91)
In article <1991Jun8.012801.22773@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > BZZZT. You can't change the scanrates on a Mac as far as I know of. >The Amiga can easily go into PAL or NTSC mode, it can also output >15 or 31 khz (requires multisync), I've even seen new monitor files With a small program and the right cable, you can get greyscale NTSC from the standard Mac video card. > In addition to all this, on the Amiga you can change/smooth scroll >the bitmap pointers easily. You can change bitmaps anywhere on the >screen via copper(hence the Amiga pulldown screens, and the new >auto-scroll screens in 2.0 which let you have Mega-big screens like >1024x1024). This is why the Amiga is thee "video computer." It's display >is awesomely flexible. In fact, I've seen demos onthe Amiga that >switch between hi/lo res in the middle of the screen(imagine a >lo-res background with lots of action going on with a small hi-res >mini-screen in the center). I don't know enough about the Amiga to follow some of this stuff. Barring videdo, the Mac screen handling is pretty flexible. In monochrome mode, I can use a piece of software that will give me a virtual display that is very large. I'm pretty sure it will do 4000x4000. Your monitor acts as a window onto that virtual display space. If I upgrade my machine (SE/30) with color, I simply add a card and the monitor, and I can define either monitor as a window on the virtual display in any way I'd like (side by side, diagonally, one on top of the other.) With a Mac II, I could add 6 2 page 24 bit displays (why, I don't know.) You'd have windows onto a pretty large display space, and your operations move smoothly from monitor to monitor. Virtually all Mac programs will work with this resource in that way.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/09/91)
In article <4222.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: > Say, isn't it a little odd to have a flash clipboard when you don't > have solid multitasking? What are you clipping between? You're clipping between two programs that are loaded into memory at the same time, and if they are cooperative, act as if they are running at the same time. > The way I understood it, the Mac creates little files someplace > in much the same way that saving brushes out of DPaint does - then > the other application can choose to look in whatever passes for the > directory containing these brushes, and choose one. The clipboard holds basically one "thing" at a time. It is a system resource and programs simply grab the "thing" when the user selects the Paste function. > Does it do the equivalent of Snap's operation where you clip the > text from point A using the mouse, then hit a key to insert it into > point B? Almost every Mac program that works with data supports copy and paste. These commands are under the Edit menu of nearly every program I use (minus games and a few others.) You simply select the text, bitmap, or draw object in your document, select Copy from the Edit menu, switch tasks, and select Paste from the Edit menu. If the program supports that data type, it is transferred.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (06/09/91)
In article <50205@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes:
Oh, please. I can quite easily get a monitor that will display 36-120 dpi for
my machine. 72 dpi is an important number for the Mac, but it isn't the
only number.
Are you sure about this? I remember reading in a MacWorld a couple of
years ago where they mentioned that the Mac only supports 72dpi
monitors. Before True Type and ATM you only had bitmap fonts and they
must be done for every display resolution. Methinks 72dpi is
hardwired into the Mac.
-Mike6600dmx@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Richard A. Boyd) (06/09/91)
In article <50144@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <mykes.3280@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >>Is that why Apple's stock just dropped 33% in a couple of days and they reported >>much poorer earnings than expected and laid off a bunch of people? Maybe they're >>selling MORE printers than computers these days... >Nope, Apple is selling more computers than ever. Unfortunately, stockholders >aren't interested in long term businesses strategies. They see profit margins >dropping and they sell stock. >Apple is sitting on a gigabuck in cash. It'll be a while before they're in >serious trouble. Actually, Apple is already in some financial trouble. There stock value is falling, their sales are, in fact, down (despite their new "low-cost" Macs). They are preparing to lay-off 1500 employess. When companies start laying off people it means that they are having a cash-flow problem or some similar financial problem. The bottom line: Apple is losing it. Also, I believe they are no now being sued.
metahawk@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Wayne G Rigby) (06/09/91)
In article <50206@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: > >If I upgrade my machine (SE/30) with color, I simply add a card and the monitor >and I can define either monitor as a window on the virtual display in any >way I'd like (side by side, diagonally, one on top of the other.) With a >Mac II, I could add 6 2 page 24 bit displays (why, I don't know.) You'd have >windows onto a pretty large display space, and your operations move smoothly >from monitor to monitor. Virtually all Mac programs will work with this >resource in that way. Yes, why, I wouldn't know either. The displays would crawl. Since only one graphics coprocessor could be active, the six displays would just bog the system down horrendously (at least in 24 bit and 8 bit modes). Perhaps in 1, 2 and maybe 4 bit modes you'd get acceptable speed out of them, though. Wayne Rigby Computer and Systems Engineer (in training) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute metahawk@rpi.edu
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/09/91)
In article <35@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >"dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >>Responding to the following: >> >>"can you name any other system that has a totaly programmable display?" >> >>I can. The Macintosh! :-) > > >oh really? how is that? The mac display is a standard 72 dpi. no other >resolution modes." > >You obviously aren't familiar with the Macintosh graphics device. Macintosh >video is much more programmable than the Amiga's will ever be, for very good >reasons. There IS no "standard" dpi. No video "standards", or modes, are >needed in the Macintosh community. Any monitor can be of any resolution, >any number of pixels, independant of size, and the Macintosh will recognize Blah, blah. I've seen enough. You don't understand the poster's point. The Mac display HARDWARE is not adjustable. Basically, whatever display board you have is ALL you have. The Amiga can alter it's scan rates on demand. Can you tell the Mac OS that you want a PAL screen for output to a video tape? Can you tell the Mac OS you want a 15khz screen for the new monitor you purchased? Can you even change the Mac's frame buffer location at any X,Y raster coordinates on the screen. Can you have multiple screens with different reolution being displayed at once? >to how Amiga's and IBMs view their monitors. On one of these machines, if >you're given a monitor with more pixels, it doesn't "zoom out" and give more >room. Instead, the picture you DO see (which doesn't change) is seen at >higher quality. BZZZT, you lose. On the Amiga you simply specify a window size of -1,-1 (width, height) and it automatically expands the window to full size. It doesn't "scale" all the text on the screen a bigger size, but if I just bought a new monitor for more screen real-estate why the hell would I want to have the new space be eaten up by objects being made bigger. The AMiga display hardware is programmable (awesome games, awesome video abilities, fast speed) The Mac display hardware is not ( slower screen updates, no scanrate flexibility, no cheap genlocking, and shitty games to boot) The Mac display software is more flexible, but the extra indirection for DIG slows it down on weak machines (68000, 68020) especially on the really big and colourful displays unless you have a risc system driving it. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/09/91)
In article <rkushner.6307@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: >torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >> >> Hmmm. A standard Mac serial port, when connected to the Personal >>Laserwriter LS, transfers data to the printer at approx 970 Kbit/s. >>So, the Amiga's serial port is a 1.2Mbit device? >> > >Output from the Amiga can go as high as 1 megabaud, but input is seriously >limited to 19200 on an Amiga 500 with some fast ram, and I have heard the >Amiga 3000 does pretty good inputting 38400 on the built in serial device. I >have not yet played with high speeds on my A3000's built in serial port, but a >friend with an A2500 has told me 38400 was no problem. There is a software >limitation to catch data comming in, but outgoing data will go as fast as you >set it. They really need to add a few buffers to the UART in the PAULA chip, >if they want to make some of us happy...But then, who knew in 1984 we would >all be using V.42bis modems that wants to run at 38400? I mean, 2400 was fast >THEN! > I run the serial ports on my two amigas (2500/30 to A500) at over 1 Megabit all day every day, in both directions. At that speed, the A500's 68000 has zero time for interrupts, so it must poll for input with interrupts disabled. The 030 doesn't even flinch. As well, for $400, there is an Appletalk board for the Amiga that also supports 2x (or higher than that...) Appletalk speed. The software that comes with the board allows Amigas and Macs to form an Appletalk network with Amigas capable of being both clients and servers (thank you multitasking). -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/09/91)
In article <12901@uwm.edu> zark@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Steven M Kosloske) writes: >Wait a minute here. OK, the Amiga can have 1.8 GB of RAM, in theory. Is >there any product on the market which will let you do this? No? Then it's >impossible. IMPOSSIBLE, no matter what the CPU can do. An 80386 can >access, what, 4 GB of RAM? As far as I know, the best you could do today, >if you packed every slot with RAM would probably be around 128 MB. So the >4 GB is also IMPOSSIBLE. The Mac can access 16MB on a 68000 machine, or on >the 68030 machines, 4GB of RAM. This limit is also IMPOSSIBLE, since >there is no way to pack that much RAM into a computer. The physical truth >is that a IBM-compat can hold 64MB max (I think this is the limit today, >correct me if I'm wrong) The Mac can access 128MB of RAM *NOW*. What can >the Amiga do now? I mean, a card or adapter you can buy and pack tight >with RAM? Note: This is not a cut on owners of any computer, just trying >to put this in perspective. > RCS Management of Ontario Canada is going to be shipping a 68040 board with up to 64MB expandability. I know, the "is going to be" part is the catch, but I know the board exists and will ship when RCS can get the 040 in quantities. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/09/91)
Responding to the following: "Are you sure about this? I remember reading in a MacWorld a couple of years ago where they mentioned that the Mac only supports 72dpi monitors. Before True Type and ATM you only had bitmap fonts and they must be done for every display resolution. Methinks 72dpi is hardwired into the Mac." ______________________________________________________________________________ Youthinks wrong. Methinks you are unaquanted with the Macintosh graphics device. The Macintosh looks at monitors as a grid, as opposed to looking at them as a smooth canvas. On an IBM/Amiga, increasing resolution or making the monitor bigger only makes the picture on it bigger. On the Macintosh, everything is just fed into the grid, and monitors can be of any number of pixels (as long as the shape is rectangular, it will accept any combo!). Increasing the number of pixels simply has the effect of "zooming out" so you can fit more on the monitor. This is also why you can attach multiple monitors to a Mac and have them work as if they were one, logically connected monitor. That is, you say "I want this 24-bit color monitor to be to the left of this huge B&W one", and they act as a single monitor. Dragging the cursor over to the left-hand border of the color monitor causes it to appear on the B&W one. It uses the "main" monitor (the upper-left corner) as the 0,0 in the grid. Thus, increasing resolution on a Mac has no effect on bitmap fonts. It is this system that makes Macintosh graphics more flexible than Amiga graphics will ever be. It also makes it considerably faster (software-wise!), because it uses integers to draw to screen, not reals. The above is also my answer to the following: "Other systems that have more display options than the Amiga? Start naming names, Marc. Last I counted there were around 20 graphics modes you can use with workbench." There are X number of Macintosh video modes, where X is equal to the number of .28-pitch pixels that would fit on a monitor twice the size of my room. (I think that was the figure. I forget exactly what the grid's limt was, but this was an analogy).
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/09/91)
Responding to the following: "Actually, Apple is already in some financial trouble. There stock value is falling, their sales are, in fact, down (despite their new "low-cost" Macs)." You don't know what you're talking about. Macintosh sales are higher than they've ever been. 60% higher than just last quarter! Furthermore, this was to be expected. John Sculley made an annoucement at the beginning of the year that he would now concentrate on gaining market share at the cost of company profit. The new low-cost Macs are a direct result. Apple is getting a MUCH lower profit margin for each sold, but it's working. Now that Apple isn't being so greedy, watch out IBM...:-) Like a previous post has stated: Stockholders simply don't like this kind of long-range securement. They see profits drop, and they sell.
micke@slaka.sirius.se (Mikael Karlsson) (06/09/91)
In article <1991Jun7.233654.24493@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >[..] > The Amiga's clipboard cannot be fixed, as it is too unsupported and >weak to be fixed. The clipboard needs to be totally replaced by something >that supports transferring of graphic images from one application to >another, independent of resolution or color format. Marc, I think this is the first time I've seen you state something completely inaccurate. I know that others will disagree with me on that point. Never mind that. The Amiga's clipboard most certainly supports any kind of data. It uses IFF. You know, the file format that just about everyone, Microsoft to mention one, is picking up for their multimedia stuff. It supports text, graphics, sound, whatever. Believe me. I know. Why don't you try this: Get the latest version of Snap, 1.61 (Yes, finally a new version!) Copy an area of the screen. Start IconEdit in 2.0. Select Edit Paste. Tada! Perfect for drawing icons in DeluxePaint. >However, even if this >were done, and the clipboard was replaced by something far better, it >would stile pale compared to the clipboard of the Macintosh simply because >the MAC's clipboard is supported by nearly all applications. Here you have a point. If I may humbly say so, Snap has increased the awareness of the Amiga clipboard as a tool for transferring text between applications. Hopefully this new version will do the same for graphics. > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / >/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / /Mikael -- \_/ Mikael Karlsson, Lovsattersvagen 10, S-585 98 LINKOPING, SWEDEN V | micke@slaka.sirius.se | Absolut Software | micke@slaka.UUCP ~~~ | {mcvax,seismo}!sunic!liuida!slaka!micke
don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (06/09/91)
In article <35@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >You obviously aren't familiar with the Macintosh graphics device. Macintosh >video is much more programmable than the Amiga's will ever be, for very good >reasons. There IS no "standard" dpi. No video "standards", or modes, are >needed in the Macintosh community. Any monitor can be of any resolution, >any number of pixels, independant of size, and the Macintosh will recognize ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Quickdraw supports 32-bit color, max. Many of the higher-end graphics systems are now doing 64-bit or more. >it as a grid from pixel to pixel and uses integer to draw to screen. This is >why you can attach two or more monitors to a Mac and use them as one monitor. >That is, you can logically "connect" the two monitors so that they act as >one larger monitor. This is totally programmable. A good example is an How about having multiple virtual screens with different resolutions, depths, and color pallettes all displayed simultaneously on the same monitor? >Extension that tells the OS that the screen is really smaller than it appears, ..... >reserved, and so fits its windows into what it's given. This is in contrast >to how Amiga's and IBMs view their monitors. On one of these machines, if >you're given a monitor with more pixels, it doesn't "zoom out" and give more >room. Instead, the picture you DO see (which doesn't change) is seen at >higher quality. The 2024 monitor definitely 'gives more room'.... an 1008x800 screen; screens are resized to support it. -- Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork is spoken fork() be Amiga Student On-Campus Consultant, U of D here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (06/10/91)
In article <30@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: > >[About MacOS and XEROX] >The sum of their innovation? They copied the idea, not the OS. The core OS >was made entirely by Apple, and, although it has some deficiencies, it is >a very powerful OS. > Oh, they copied the idea, not the OS?! Does that give them the right to sic their lawyers at any company who does the same (Microsoft)? The only real Apple innovation is the idea to steal the ideas of others. Do you really feel they have a right to protect that innovation? -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/10/91)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >In article <50205@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: > Oh, please. I can quite easily get a monitor that will display 36-120 dpi for > my machine. 72 dpi is an important number for the Mac, but it isn't the > only number. >Are you sure about this? I remember reading in a MacWorld a couple of >years ago where they mentioned that the Mac only supports 72dpi >monitors. Yes, in terms of WYSIWYG. It's possible to buy display systems with different dpi values (such as Sigma's L-View, which has 36, 45, 60, 72, 96 and 120 dpi) all switchable in software. But, the display doesn't get clearer - everything just gets bigger or smaller, thus losing your WYSIWYG display. This is because QuickDraw doesn't really know about resolution independent devices in the same way that say Postscript does. >Before True Type and ATM you only had bitmap fonts and they >must be done for every display resolution. Methinks 72dpi is >hardwired into the Mac. In terms of compatibility, it seems to be almost hardwired into the Mac. Although there have been some changes which make QuickDraw handle different resolutions better, I think it will require the release of the post-Mac machine (next year?) to really eliminate this problem. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Apes evolved from creationists" - seen on a bumper sticker.
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/10/91)
6600dmx@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Richard A. Boyd) writes: >In article <50144@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >>Nope, Apple is selling more computers than ever. Unfortunately, stockholders >>aren't interested in long term businesses strategies. They see profit margins >>dropping and they sell stock. >>Apple is sitting on a gigabuck in cash. It'll be a while before they're in >>serious trouble. >Actually, Apple is already in some financial >trouble. There stock value is falling, their sales >are, in fact, down (despite their new "low-cost" >Macs). Huh? From Apple's Second Quarter report: (in thousands) Three months Ended Six Months Ended Mar 29, 1991 Mar 30, 1990 Mar 29, 1991 Mar 30, 1990 Net Sales 1,597,678 1,346,202 3,273,184 2,839,585 Looks like sales are up to me. [Side note: The Research and Development figures are interesting] R&D 146,450 115,235 286,515 221,546 Looks like Apple might get close to $600 million on R&D this year. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Apes evolved from creationists" - seen on a bumper sticker.
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/10/91)
don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) writes: >In article <35@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >>You obviously aren't familiar with the Macintosh graphics device. Macintosh >>video is much more programmable than the Amiga's will ever be, for very good >>reasons. There IS no "standard" dpi. No video "standards", or modes, are >>needed in the Macintosh community. Any monitor can be of any resolution, >>any number of pixels, independant of size, and the Macintosh will recognize > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Quickdraw supports 32-bit color, max. Many of the higher-end graphics >systems are now doing 64-bit or more. Well, theoretically, QuickDraw handles 48-bit colour. All colours on the Mac are specified as 3 16-bit values for R, G and B. Are those high-end graphics systems actually using 64-bits for colour, or are you including the bits used for 3-D things like z-buffers? QuickDraw is still 2D, and doesn't make any pretense at being 3-D, where you have a need for z-buffers. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Apes evolved from creationists" - seen on a bumper sticker.
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/10/91)
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: >>In article <4222.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: >>> Does it do the equivalent of Snap's operation where you clip the >>> text from point A using the mouse, then hit a key to insert it into >>> point B? >In article <50207@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >>Almost every Mac program that works with data supports copy and paste. These >>commands are under the Edit menu of nearly every program I use (minus games >>and a few others.) You simply select the text, bitmap, or draw object in >>your document, select Copy from the Edit menu, switch tasks, and select Paste ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>from the Edit menu. > That's not what "jbickers" was talking about, though he did not make >it clear in his above quote. SNAP allows this kind of pasting between >applications! I think this is exactly what Allen said, isn't it? > For example, I can cut text out of my word processor and paste it >immediately into my telecommunications program. And so can I. In fact, I've been able to do it since early 1985 with Switcher, before the Amiga even came out. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Apes evolved from creationists" - seen on a bumper sticker.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/10/91)
In article <_n1H0j?q@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >Are you sure about this? I remember reading in a MacWorld a couple of >years ago where they mentioned that the Mac only supports 72dpi >monitors. Before True Type and ATM you only had bitmap fonts and they >must be done for every display resolution. Methinks 72dpi is >hardwired into the Mac. Yes, I am sure that I can hook up a display with multiple resolutions. There is a 2PD-sized display called the Sigma L-view (I think) that will display 36-120 dpi (I forget what the increment is - there are about a half-dozen resolutions, I think.) If you want an addess to confirm, e-mail me, and I'll look it up at work. The low-cost color monitor that you can get with the LC is a 64 dpi monitor. The standard color and monochrome monitors are about 69 dpi. There are several places where 72 dpi becomes important. The menubar is set to a fixed pixel height. When Radius came out with a non-standard resolution monitor, they had to patch that. The human interface guidelines (I think)\ are usually phrased in pixel measurements, i.e. scrollbars are xx pixels wide. While bitmaps used to be required for BEST display and printing, the Mac has always had font scaling technology working. Of course, it is harder to scale a bitmap than an outline and have it look good. 72 dpi is "hardwired" into the Mac, sort of. Pixels are assumed to be displayed at that resolution. Any object drawn by the OS or Finder on a display where pixels are smaller will also be smaller, except for windows, which will generally be scaled to the size of the display.
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/10/91)
In article <42@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >You don't know what you're talking about. Macintosh sales are higher than >they've ever been. 60% higher than just last quarter! Furthermore, this was >to be expected. John Sculley made an annoucement at the beginning of the >year that he would now concentrate on gaining market share at the cost >of company profit. The new low-cost Macs are a direct result. Apple is getting >a MUCH lower profit margin for each sold, but it's working. Now that Apple >isn't being so greedy, watch out IBM...:-) Like a previous post has stated: >Stockholders simply don't like this kind of long-range securement. They see >profits drop, and they sell. There are literally thousands of people who watch the market, professionally, recommending which stocks to buy, which to hold, and which to dump. These professionals aren't stupid enough to put Apple on the recommended buy list if the earnings were expected to be so low. In fact, Apple's stock rose $20 higher than it ever has, at least since I started following it in the last 4 years. The earnings report was devastating, and the stock dropped $30 in 3 days ($79 to $49). People seem to think that CBM's marketing strategies are stupid, but unlike most American companies - and like most Japanese companies, their long-term strategies are geared for the "more than 2 years from now" period. Europe is going to a Common Market in 1993, and CBM is going to rule that market. The Common Market is going to be bigger than the US market from day 1. I don't claim to know anything about how many Macs have sold. If I had to guess, I'd say like 8 Million, but from what I've read here (and it hasn't been disputed), it's only 4.5 Million. CBM will sell it's #4 Million before January, and will pass the Mac in worldwide sales in 1992. But this isn't new, the C64 sold more than the Apple II did, too. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (06/10/91)
In article <rkushner.6517@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes:
As far as I know, Motorolla doesn't even have 25Mhz 68040's in any kind of
mass production to meet market demands, why would they have an 50Mhz 68040 in
any kind of mass production?
According to MacWeek(6-04-91 pg. 5), Motorola shipped 50,000 68040's
in the first quarter. The 33MHz version will be available in the 3rd
quarter(going from a 25MHz to a 33MHz 040 is like adding 1 Amiga
blitter to your computer). The 50MHz 040 is due in 1Q 92. The
article also says that the 68050 will be available sometime next year.
It will double the performance of the 040 at the same clock speed.
-Mikerjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/10/91)
In article <41@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >increasing resolution on a Mac has no effect on bitmap fonts. It is this >system that makes Macintosh graphics more flexible than Amiga graphics will ^^^^ WHy is it that Macoids think they can see into the future when most of them can barely operate a shell without a mouse and icons. >ever be. It also makes it considerably faster (software-wise!), because it >uses integers to draw to screen, not reals. The above is also my answer to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ BZZZT, the Amiga doesn't use reals for coordinates. Mac rendering is SLOWER than the Amiga simply because it has to execute more code and more checking before it renders pixels. DIG is always slower than straight rendering of pixels. >the following: > >"Other systems that have more display options than the Amiga? Start >naming names, Marc. Last I counted there were around 20 graphics modes >you can use with workbench." > >There are X number of Macintosh video modes, where X is equal to the number >of .28-pitch pixels that would fit on a monitor twice the size of my room. >(I think that was the figure. I forget exactly what the grid's limt was, >but this was an analogy). These are not new video MODES, they are always the same scale/pixel rate. I wonder how Quickdraw would react to a screen with a wierd resolution (like say 451 pixels by 399 pixels) methinkgs quickdraw would not scale properly since scaling pictures and coordinates to uneven resolution requires quantizing and dithering which would reduce QuickDraw to a TurtleTrotDraw. A true WYSIWYG DIG display requires something like Display Postscript which has total independence from color or pixel scale. For instance, a DIG system should be able to take a 1024x1024 24bit picture and display it on a 640x400 B&W screen by quantizing and dithering it. So from what I can tell, Apple engineers made a trade off. Speed rather than flexibility to use any "grid" size other just square grids which are multiples of the standard 72 dpi grid. (it is incredibily easy to scale 320x200 to 640x400, but much harder when going from 320x200 to 386x410. Just so you know, weird screen sizes are possible on the AMiga because of the ability to overscan and change scan rates, something very much required for video work) -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun9.183551.3565@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > > Huh? From Apple's Second Quarter report: > >(in thousands) > Three months Ended Six Months Ended > Mar 29, 1991 Mar 30, 1990 Mar 29, 1991 Mar 30, 1990 >Net Sales 1,597,678 1,346,202 3,273,184 2,839,585 > > Looks like sales are up to me. > I note you left out the earnings line. 8-) Earnings were down despite increased sales, so this is definitely a mixed bag for Apple. It will help keep them going in the long run by having a larger user base, but lower profits will cut into marketing and R&D. >[Side note: The Research and Development figures are interesting] > >R&D 146,450 115,235 286,515 221,546 > > Looks like Apple might get close to $600 million on R&D this year. > That's up 27% for this quarter and 29% for the year. That is very impressive, although it is likely that they will feel the pinch from lower earnings, and 10% fewer employees. Commodore's R&D is up 5% this quarter and 8% the last three quarters. That keeps up slightly with inflation. However, Commodore spent 5.5% of what Apple did this quarter and 8.3% of what Apple spent the last two quarters over the last three quarters. (assuming those Apple numbers are in 1,000s.) -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/10/91)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <rkushner.6517@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) wri > > As far as I know, Motorolla doesn't even have 25Mhz 68040's in any kind of > mass production to meet market demands, why would they have an 50Mhz 68040 > any kind of mass production? > >According to MacWeek(6-04-91 pg. 5), Motorola shipped 50,000 68040's >in the first quarter. The 33MHz version will be available in the 3rd >quarter(going from a 25MHz to a 33MHz 040 is like adding 1 Amiga >blitter to your computer). The 50MHz 040 is due in 1Q 92. The >article also says that the 68050 will be available sometime next year. >It will double the performance of the 040 at the same clock speed. > Ah ha! Proof of an false claim on the net. As I suspected, no 50Mhz 68040 is shipping today, so that means that there is no 50Mhz 68040 boards out for the Mac...Plus, to me, 50,000 is not alot of units, NeXT alone probably sucked most of those up anyways, so like I stated, it is not in any kind of mass production to meet market demands. Lets say there is a million Mac owners wishing to upgrade to an 68040, it would take 20 quarters to product that many units! Lets say HP, Mac, NeXT, Commodore, Atari, and 3rd party hardware manufactures needed 500,000 CPU's. It would take 10 quarters to fill that demand, or TWO and a HALF years! Did they ever settle with Hitachi on that patent infringement lawsuit? Just wondering, if they were forced to yank the '030 off the market, production of the '040 still doesn't seem high enough to fill the void. I have not seen mention of Motorolla in the local papers since they had the restraining order lifted. HP is supposidly shipping one of thier '040 boxes with the '040 in a daughterboard that plugs into a 68050 socket, so when the 68050 is avaiable, its a matter of discarding the '040 and a direct plug in of the '050...Dunno if this is 100% correct, but thats the way it was explained to me.. -- C-UseNet V0.42d Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun4.195056.1942@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) writes: > >In a previous article, taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) says: > >> Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >>the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >>Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >>Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >>flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. > >95% ? Did you take a survey? Making such a statement is totally ridiculous. Come off it. 95% is an understatement. How many people on this net have a toaster????? How many of the 500 owners (which is most of the Amiga user base) in Europe who only use their machines for games and are probably of average age ~17 are going to use a toaster?? I've heard you need at least 9 megs to use some of the software with it properly.... I put the figure more like 99.5 % of Amiga owners. Simplitied algorithm of typical Amiga owner reading comp.sys.amiga.XXX while letters remaining read a post if poster is Marc Barrett or poster is agreeing with Marc Barrett then Flame him no matter what he is saying else if I want to reply Follow up end >-- >Pete Babic - pab@po.cwru.edu /// -- Colin Adams Computer Science Department James Cook University Internet : cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au North Queensland 'And on the eighth day, God created Manchester'
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun10.060044.20167@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes: >In article <1991Jun4.195056.1942@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) writes: >> >>In a previous article, taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) says: >> >>> Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >>>the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >>>Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >>>Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >>>flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. >> >>95% ? Did you take a survey? Making such a statement is totally ridiculous. > >Come off it. 95% is an understatement. How many people on this net >have a toaster????? How many of the 500 owners (which is most of the >Amiga user base) in Europe who only use their machines for games and >are probably of average age ~17 are going to use a toaster?? I've >heard you need at least 9 megs to use some of the software with it >properly.... I put the figure more like 99.5 % of Amiga owners. I'm am going to attempt a logical arguement since rational ones don't seem to work with you. 1) The Toaster doesn't work in PAL, therefore this excludes about 2 million Amiga users from the survey 2) It doesn't work on the A500, this excludes another huge amount of Amiga's 3) From the amount of systems left, a majority of them are power user/power systems 4) a lot of the power Amigas are used for video stuff like ray-tracing and titling 5) the toaster is used for video So, out of the number of Amiga's that can even use the Toaster, it's safe to say more than 1% , or even 5% do. The problem with you're post, and with Marc's, is that you have no idea of the Toaster's sales record, nor do you represent the Amiga community at large, you simply pull data and statistics out of thin air and insist that it is common sense. Marc calls the Toaster a "special effects box", but it is much more than that. A large amount of Amiga users would want the Toaster just to use LightWave renderer. He also says the flickering display of the Toaster is not suitable for any other applications[like DUH! it's meant for Video use which is the Amiga's market.] The reason Marc is bashed sometimes isbecause of the totally rediculous statements he makes about C= Amiga, their motives, their future plans, and the software. Common examples of this are Marc's statement that the clipboard only handle's Ascii (flat wrong), that the new Denise is simply the old old one with the programmable registers now accessable (98% identicle to the old chip is what he stated), and that CBM cut R&D. (CBM's own employees and the 1.3 Autodocs refute these claims.) >Simplitied algorithm of typical Amiga owner reading comp.sys.amiga.XXX > >while letters remaining > read a post > if poster is Marc Barrett or poster is agreeing with Marc Barrett then > Flame him no matter what he is saying > else if I want to reply > Follow up >end Here's my version: while(letters_remaining) { if (essense_of_post(post)==CLUELESS) Respond(); GetNextPost(); } Respond() { if (author==MARC_BARRETT) grain_of_salt_post++; if (author==COLIN_ADAMS) rant_and_rave++; if (analyze(facts)==INCORRECT) correct(); if (analyse(facts)==TOTALLY_CLUELESS) flame(); if (grain_of_salt_post || rant_and_rave) { add_tangent(); warn_others_that_the_posters_facts_may_be_concocted_out_of_thin_air(); } } >>-- >>Pete Babic - pab@po.cwru.edu /// > > >-- >Colin Adams >Computer Science Department James Cook University >Internet : cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au North Queensland >'And on the eighth day, God created Manchester' -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/10/91)
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >In article <30@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >> >>[About MacOS and XEROX] >>The sum of their innovation? They copied the idea, not the OS. The core OS >>was made entirely by Apple, and, although it has some deficiencies, it is >>a very powerful OS. >> >Oh, they copied the idea, not the OS?! Does that give them the right to >sic their lawyers at any company who does the same (Microsoft)? Yes, if the other company (Microsoft) signed a license agreement saying that they wouldn't. >The only real Apple innovation is the idea to steal the ideas of >others. Show me the pull-down menus on the Xerox Star. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "If it weren't for your gumboots, where would you be? You'd be in the hospital, or in-firm-ary..." F. Dagg
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun7.233654.24493@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > > It is very different. The Amiga's clipboard was originally intended only >for transferring straight ASCII text between applications. It was never >intended to even be used to transfer graphics. The clipboard on the Mac, >however, is very sophisticated. It transfers text and graphics flawlessly >between applications, and nearly all applications support the clipboard. Sorry, you're wrong I think. The clipboard uses plain IFF and is mot restricted to IFF text. So, after my understanding, you can as well put IFF image files into the clipboard. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun10.060044.20167@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes: > >Simplitied algorithm of typical Amiga owner reading comp.sys.amiga.XXX > >while letters remaining > read a post > if poster is Marc Barrett or poster is agreeing with Marc Barrett then > Flame him no matter what he is saying > else if I want to reply > Follow up >end Oh, for God's sake, will you quit your whining? Look at the title of this newsgroup. If you're not an advocate, you get flamed. Barrett isn't an advocate. If you don't approve of this philosophy, then what the hell are *you* doing here? I think this newsgroup's the best thing to happen since Amy shook free her golden locks some five years ago ;-) >Colin Adams 'Course, officially, I like the NeXT much more. ;-) Dave Hopper |MUYOM!/// Anthro Creep | NeXT Campus Consultant at Stanford | __ /// . . | Smackintosh/UNIX Consultant - AIR bard@jessica. | \\\/// Ia! Ia! | Independent Amiga Developer Stanford.EDU | \XX/ Shub-Niggurath! | & (Mosh) Pit Fiend from Acheron
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/10/91)
Responding to the following: "Yes, why, I wouldn't know either. The displays would crawl. Since only one graphics coprocessor could be active, the six displays would just bog the system down horrendously (at least in 24 bit and 8 bit modes). Perhaps in 1, 2 and maybe 4 bit modes you'd get acceptable speed out of them, though." You don't know what you're talking about. Each monitor is controlled by its own video board and given its own portion of the bitmap only. Try not to relate Amiga problems with the Macintosh world.
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/10/91)
Responding to the following: "Blah, blah. I've seen enough. You don't understand the poster's point. The Mac display HARDWARE is not adjustable. Basically, whatever display board you have is ALL you have. The Amiga can alter it's scan rates on demand. Can you tell the Mac OS that you want a PAL screen for output to a video tape? Can you tell the Mac OS you want a 15khz screen for the new monitor you purchased? Can you even change the Mac's frame buffer location at any X,Y raster coordinates on the screen. Can you have multiple screens with different reolution being displayed at once?" You're right in that the flexibility of any Macintosh monitor is limited by the flexibility of the card used with that monitor. And yes, you can display multiple screens with different resolutions on each. I'm not disputing the hardware-superiority of the Amiga over the Macintosh, but it simply does not follow my computing philosophy: Power over Speed. I'd much rather have a more flexible, powerful OS, thank you. " The AMiga display hardware is programmable (awesome games, awesome video abilities, fast speed) The Mac display hardware is not ( slower screen updates, no scanrate flexibility, no cheap genlocking, and shitty games to boot)" The Macintosh is a general purpose business tool. Apple doesn't think that decreasing the scanrate of a monitor is very useful, and if you want to dump to tape, the conversion is done by the interface hardware anyway, so what's the point? Slow screen updates? That is dependant upon the monitor/ card you're using, and screen updates are generally very fast, due to the afformentioned graphics device. "The Mac display software is more flexible, but the extra indirection for DIG slows it down on weak machines (68000, 68020) especially on the really big and colourful displays unless you have a risc system driving it." I didn't really get this. Is this supposed to be a bash against the Mac? What the heck is DIG? The Macintosh is NOT slowed down by its flexibility, it is speeded up by it. You'd know that if you read my post.
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/10/91)
Quoted from <1991Jun9.184231.4007@neon.Stanford.EDU> by torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie): > barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: > > For example, I can cut text out of my word processor and paste it > >immediately into my telecommunications program. > > And so can I. In fact, I've been able to do it since early 1985 with > Switcher, before the Amiga even came out. This is one area where I think application control languages like ARexx move a step forward from the standard multitasking scenario. Imagine hitting a key to have a buffer pulled in from your comms program into your editor, where you can edit to your heart's content, then send it back to the comms program in an orderly fashion. It turns a collection of ARexx capable programs into a collection of compatible application level tools. I think it's fairly non- trivial to set up this kind of control, but it's also a big point behind having it. Fairly solid software exists that will allow you to control software that is NOT ARexx compatible by giving you ARexx control over system input events, so you can issue a command that will select a particular menu item then click on a particular gadget, as if the user was doing these things. Sort of like the Amiga stepping further out in front, as the other machines catch up to plain multitasking or attemts at such. I wonder how it (Rexx) will fare with OS/2. > Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/10/91)
Responding to the following: "As far as I know, Motorolla doesn't even have 25Mhz 68040's in any kind of mass production to meet market demands, why would they have an 50Mhz 68040 in any kind of mass production?" 25MHz 040's starting shipping in large quantities a long time ago. As for 50MHz versions, I'm quoting an add for a 50MHz 68040 board from Ventura Technologies (?), so ask them.
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/10/91)
Responding to the following: ">reasons. There IS no "standard" dpi. No video "standards", or modes, are >needed in the Macintosh community. Any monitor can be of any resolution, >any number of pixels, independant of size, and the Macintosh will recognize ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Quickdraw supports 32-bit color, max. Many of the higher-end graphics systems are now doing 64-bit or more." Please. 1) The above says nothing about pixel-depth limits. 2) There are Macintosh programs that support 64-bit color, but it's a farc anyway. Why? The human eye cannot even discern between 16 million colors, so what's the point?!
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/10/91)
Responding to the following: "These are not new video MODES, they are always the same scale/pixel rate. I wonder how Quickdraw would react to a screen with a wierd resolution (like say 451 pixels by 399 pixels) methinkgs quickdraw would not scale properly since scaling pictures and coordinates to uneven resolution requires quantizing and dithering which would reduce QuickDraw to a TurtleTrotDraw." That's just it. It wouldn't SCALE anything. It would draw what can fit in that many pixels, pixel-for-pixel. No scaling anything. It's interesting that, according to posts I've seen recently, the Amiga and Macintosh are both flexible in the types of monitors they will work with but took totally different approaches.
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/10/91)
In article <11977@hub.ucsb.edu>, 6600dmx@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Richard A. Boyd) writes: >In article <50144@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: > >>In article <mykes.3280@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: > >>>Is that why Apple's stock just dropped 33% in a couple of days and they reported >>>much poorer earnings than expected and laid off a bunch of people? Maybe they're >>>selling MORE printers than computers these days... > >>Nope, Apple is selling more computers than ever. Unfortunately, stockholders >>aren't interested in long term businesses strategies. They see profit margins >>dropping and they sell stock. > >>Apple is sitting on a gigabuck in cash. It'll be a while before they're in >>serious trouble. > > > >Actually, Apple is already in some financial >trouble. There stock value is falling, their sales >are, in fact, down (despite their new "low-cost" >Macs). They are preparing to lay-off 1500 >employess. When companies start laying off people >it means that they are having a cash-flow problem or >some similar financial problem. The bottom line: >Apple is losing it. Also, I believe they are no >now being sued. Actually, it is profits that are down, and not sales. According to CNN, CBS, and Business Week, Apple's sales are up 16% over last year, however all of these increased sales are the new lower-cost systems. BTW, Commodore's stock is also dropping. It was as high as 21 3/4, but it has fallen to around 15. I don't feel at all sorry for the fools who actually bought that perpetually under-performing stock. ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun9.183551.3565@neon.Stanford.EDU>, torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > Huh? From Apple's Second Quarter report: > >(in thousands) > Three months Ended Six Months Ended > Mar 29, 1991 Mar 30, 1990 Mar 29, 1991 Mar 30, 1990 >Net Sales 1,597,678 1,346,202 3,273,184 2,839,585 > > Looks like sales are up to me. > >[Side note: The Research and Development figures are interesting] > >R&D 146,450 115,235 286,515 221,546 > > Looks like Apple might get close to $600 million on R&D this year. According to Commodore's 1990 annual report, Commodore spent $27.7 million on R&D in 1990. If Commodore spends at the same level in 1991, they may break $30 million in R&D spending. Wow, that's actually more than 5% of the amount that Apple is spending on R&D! > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu > "Apes evolved from creationists" - seen on a bumper sticker. ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
sl87m@cc.usu.edu (The Barking Pumpkin Digital Gratification Ensemble) (06/10/91)
In article <19@ryptyde.UUCP>, dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: > Responding to the following: > [deleted stuff about Muck Sys 7.0] > " Finder is nothing more than a program loader. It reminds me of > the boot menu I had on my C128, or GEOS on the 64." > > The Finder is nothing more than a program loader? You DON'T use Macintosh's > (obviously), so don't make claims you can't back up. If you think the Finder > is so weak and restricting, how about we compare it to Workbench? That's a > joke. The Amiga generally has a superior OS, but the Macintosh has superior > resources and features. Of course, this follows my computing philosophy. > I'm not a speed freak, and I'm willing to sacrifice some speed for increased > functionality. More power. Power is NOT speed, and the Amiga generally lacks > a lot of it because it's not very innovative in comparison. I DO use (am forced to use) Muckintoshes, and find Finder and MultiFinder severely lacking! There are many things that we've had to give up on here at work, adding resources and features, which are a snap on my A500 at home. The Macintosh specialist here balks at my suggestions for improving through-put of manpower by saying "it just can't be done." He keeps up on Apple's lastest innovations, and we have many "state-of-the-art" [sic] Apple goodies. These are just little things that I've either put in my Amiga's startup-sequence or are integral to the machince's OS. I'm not a speed freak either (except for my serious scientific computing - we've got mainframes for that), but when I do bring my A500 up here and place it side-by- side with the Muck IIs here (or the speedy LC in the office), the clean, streamlined A500 helps me to get my tasks done while NOT having to WASTE TIME WATING for the bloody single-tasking OS. No matter how easy to install or even useful a Muck resource or init is, I still waste valuable time sitting in my chair pondering the meaning of life while the Muck gets my task done. My numerous suggestions of getting Amigas are put down as "not an option," even though the same people is continually ASTONISHED at what the machine can do for PRODUCTIVITY of PEOPLE. I always get "oohs" and "aahs" from co-workers, my bosses, and people under me as they vie for time on my A500. But whenever anybody suggests to the people with the purse that Amigas would be perfect, they get told "Don't be rediculous." james #include <std_disclaimer> #include <cute_sig>
cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun10.071803.5533@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <1991Jun10.060044.20167@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes: >>In article <1991Jun4.195056.1942@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) writes: >>> >>>In a previous article, taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) says: >>> >>>> Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, >>>>the Toaster is totally useless. The Toaster is not going to save the >>>>Amiga, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >>>>Amiga owners have any need whatsoever for a special-effects box, and the >>>>flickering display makes the Toaster unsuitable for other applications. >>> >>>95% ? Did you take a survey? Making such a statement is totally ridiculous. >> >>Come off it. 95% is an understatement. How many people on this net >>have a toaster????? How many of the 500 owners (which is most of the >>Amiga user base) in Europe who only use their machines for games and >>are probably of average age ~17 are going to use a toaster?? I've >>heard you need at least 9 megs to use some of the software with it >>properly.... I put the figure more like 99.5 % of Amiga owners. > > I'm am going to attempt a logical arguement since rational ones >don't seem to work with you. > 1) The Toaster doesn't work in PAL, therefore this excludes about > 2 million Amiga users from the survey > 2) It doesn't work on the A500, this excludes another huge > amount of Amiga's > 3) From the amount of systems left, a majority of them are power > user/power systems > 4) a lot of the power Amigas are used for video stuff like ray-tracing > and titling > 5) the toaster is used for video > > So, out of the number of Amiga's that can even use the Toaster, it's >safe to say more than 1% , or even 5% do. For sure, but that wasn't the original point. Marc said "For 95% of the people in the Amiga community, the toaster is totally useless". Not "For 95% of the people who don't live in Europe, and who don't have A500s, the toaster is useless". I do call people in Europe and 500 owners part of the Amiga community, as without them, there would be no Amiga. >-- >/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ >| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| >\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * / -- Colin Adams Computer Science Department James Cook University Internet : cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au North Queensland 'And on the eighth day, God created Manchester'
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/10/91)
In article <45@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: >I didn't really get this. Is this supposed to be a bash against the Mac? >What the heck is DIG? The Macintosh is NOT slowed down by its flexibility, >it is speeded up by it. You'd know that if you read my post. DIG=Device Independent Graphics. Sad to say, you don't know what you're talking about. An atomic write in assembly to set a pixel will ALWAYS be faster than an indirect subroutine. The Mac _is_ slowed down by device independence why do you think all the games for it totally suck compared to Amiga games which hit the hardware directory. I'm not saying banging on thehardware is the best thing, I'm merely using this to refute your incorrect statement that device independence speeds up a graphics display. It can not speed up a display in a predictable way. (e.g. on some machines with RISC coprocessors rendering would be fast, however on not so fortunate machines it won't, hence software is written for the lowest common denominator and in the general Mac population (low-end machines) you lose performance) -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/10/91)
In article <49@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >Please. 1) The above says nothing about pixel-depth limits. 2) There are >Macintosh programs that support 64-bit color, but it's a farc anyway. Why? >The human eye cannot even discern between 16 million colors, so what's the >point?! Well if you didn't know, the bits over bit 24 are generally used for Alpha channel, Z buffering, overlay (playfields), control and shading information. There are some prototype workstations thathave over 100bits per pixel. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun10.104034.22207@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > BTW, Commodore's stock is also dropping. It was as high as 21 3/4, >but it has fallen to around 15. I don't feel at all sorry for the >fools who actually bought that perpetually under-performing stock. Oh yes, boo hoo hoo! I feel very sorry for my Dad who bought CBM at 4 and sold it at 20. (Cry cry.) Those 500% increases are pure tragedy. Sniff, whimper, wheeze, contort. :-) Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun10.104034.22207@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > BTW, Commodore's stock is also dropping. It was as high as 21 3/4, >but it has fallen to around 15. I don't feel at all sorry for the >fools who actually bought that perpetually under-performing stock. Yeah, I feel sorry for those people too, the lucky ones who bought CBM stock when it was at $5/shr and sold it when it was $17/shr. I mean, sheeh, the nerve of those people tripling their investment like that. We've got to spred the word that making profits is foolish! People like Marc who lose money on investments are the intelligent ones! All hail Marc, economic wonder, master programmer, system designer and analyst, eletrical engineer, and expert businessmen just the guy we need for the head of Apple! > ------------------------------------------------------------- > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / >/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / >------------------------------------------------------------ >\ The great thing about standards is that / > \ there are so many of them to choose from. / > ------------------------------------------------------- -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/10/91)
In article <mykes.3420@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >People seem to think that CBM's marketing strategies are stupid, but unlike most >American companies - and like most Japanese companies, their long-term strategies >are geared for the "more than 2 years from now" period. Europe is going to a >Common Market in 1993, and CBM is going to rule that market. The Common Market >is going to be bigger than the US market from day 1. > >I don't claim to know anything about how many Macs have sold. If I had to guess, >I'd say like 8 Million, but from what I've read here (and it hasn't been disputed), >it's only 4.5 Million. CBM will sell it's #4 Million before January, and will pass >the Mac in worldwide sales in 1992. But this isn't new, the C64 sold more than the >Apple II did, too. Aha, atlast something brang up this point. C= has recently been reaping the rewards from the fall of communism. The C64 is now being mass marketed to the previous "iron curtain" countries (since it's cheap!) and is selling just as good as it ever did. Imagine what will happen when CBM can sell C64s to the soviet union! Commodore has one important strategy and one they know how to execute well. Make machines cheap and sell sh*tloads of them. I think the C64 is over the 14 million mark now, and it may hit the 20 million mark in a few years if the steam keeps up. Meanwhile C= is selling more and more A500s each year in Europe, and US popularity is increasing too. I predict that there will eventually be twice as many Amigas as there are Macs. ( I can see Mike's mouth watering now as he thinks about the enormous profit he could reap on an Amiga game in a few years. Come to think about it, think of the profit you could get marketing a C64 game. Funny, I think C64 games beat Mac games, they have faster animation and better music!) Here's something else to think about. A year ago AmigaWorld magazine was _littered_ with game ads. In the last few months the ratio has changed and now almost all the ads are for the productivety market. In the June 1991 issue there were only 5 ads for games by rough count. Sign of a maturing market? I was perusing Video PROfiles, Camcorder and a few other electronics magazines at the bookstore thursday and they were chocked full of Amiga ads and Amiga articles. The June 1991 issue of AmigaWorld says that Publish! magazine has now promised to provide Amiga coverage and Computer shopper is also reinstating coverage. So much for all the doomsayers. >-- >**************************************************** >* I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * >* but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * >**************************************************** -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/10/91)
Heh, I just noticed I used the word "brang" in that last message.
Pretty weird since I don't remember typing it (it is the slang around
these parts). I make a few other freudian slips too, pay no attention
to them, I haven't gone to bed yet. (I got in late the night before
last from a wedding reception, so I slept during the day yesterday
and have been up most of the night.)
--
/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \
| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.|
\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun7.233654.24493@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > It is very different. The Amiga's clipboard was originally intended only >for transferring straight ASCII text between applications. It was never >intended to even be used to transfer graphics. The clipboard on the Mac, Were you even aware from day 1 that only IFF code was allowed to be sent to the clipboard.device ? This would seem to imply the ability to transfer graphics. >however, is very sophisticated. It transfers text and graphics flawlessly >between applications, and nearly all applications support the clipboard. > > So, even if all Amiga applications supported the clipboard (a very big >IF!), the Amiga's clipboard would still not compare at all to the clipboard >on the Macintosh. The MAC's clipboard is as far above the Amiga's >clipboard as the Amiga's multitasking is above the MAC's multitasking. > > The Amiga's clipboard cannot be fixed, as it is too unsupported and >weak to be fixed. The clipboard needs to be totally replaced by something In your position of not actually knowing anything about the Amiga clipboard.device, what allows you to make this statement ? Marc, you don't program the Amiga, you haven't read the manuals, and you don't take the time to understand. Do you even still own your A500 ? andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "2.0 is not the answer. 2.0 is the question. Yes is the answer." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/10/91)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <1991Jun9.183551.3565@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Ev >>[Side note: The Research and Development figures are interesting] >> >>R&D 146,450 115,235 286,515 221,546 >> >> Looks like Apple might get close to $600 million on R&D this year. >> > That's up 27% for this quarter and 29% for the year. That >is very impressive, although it is likely that they will feel the >pinch from lower earnings, and 10% fewer employees. > Commodore's R&D is up 5% this quarter and 8% the last >three quarters. That keeps up slightly with inflation. However, >Commodore spent 5.5% of what Apple did this quarter and 8.3% of >what Apple spent the last two quarters over the last three >quarters. (assuming those Apple numbers are in 1,000s.) > I did read a blurb in the Free Press that Apple was building a new assembly plant in Colorado because it just cost too damn much to do business in California...I would suspect Apple has alot of waste internally, seeing how thier chairman was paid US$17 MILLION, and good old Lee Iacocca who is the chairman of a $38 billion dollar company was only paid US$4 MILLION. And thats just the top guy at Apple, how about all the other fat cats that talk about hunting and fishing all day? Any company that goes through rapid grouth over a decade should really watch their weight, and keep competitive, because its a matter of time that the Japanese come in and do it cheaper and better, with their government taking the brunt of the losses until they dominate the U.S. market for that product...When this new assembly plant in Colorado goes online, how many units will Apple be able to crank out a year? Any stockholders out there have those numbers? How many workers in California will this new plant displace? When will the computer industry go over capacity in the 680x0 market? -- C-UseNet V0.42d Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/11/91)
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: >melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >> >>According to MacWeek(6-04-91 pg. 5), Motorola shipped 50,000 68040's >>in the first quarter. The 33MHz version will be available in the 3rd >>quarter(going from a 25MHz to a 33MHz 040 is like adding 1 Amiga >>blitter to your computer). The 50MHz 040 is due in 1Q 92. The >>article also says that the 68050 will be available sometime next year. >>It will double the performance of the 040 at the same clock speed. >> >Mac...Plus, to me, 50,000 is not alot of units, NeXT alone probably sucked >most of those up anyways, so like I stated, it is not in any kind of mass >production to meet market demands. Lets say there is a million Mac owners >wishing to upgrade to an 68040, it would take 20 quarters to product that many >units! Lets say HP, Mac, NeXT, Commodore, Atari, and 3rd party hardware >manufactures needed 500,000 CPU's. It would take 10 quarters to fill that >demand, or TWO and a HALF years! Assuming that production of the 040 is static. Actually, the report went on to say that they were producing 7,000 040's per week, and would double that rate before the end of the year. >HP is supposidly shipping one of thier '040 boxes with the '040 in a >daughterboard that plugs into a 68050 socket, so when the 68050 is avaiable, >its a matter of discarding the '040 and a direct plug in of the '050...Dunno >if this is 100% correct, but thats the way it was explained to me.. I think you're one generation ahead of yourself. HP had been shipping their HP 9000/400 workstations with a 68030 in place, but a daughterboard expansion for a 040. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Where can a nation lie when it hides its organic minds in a cellar dark and grim? They must be ... very dim.
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/11/91)
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: > Sort of like the Amiga stepping further out in front, as the other > machines catch up to plain multitasking or attemts at such. I > wonder how it (Rexx) will fare with OS/2. IBM hasn't seem to have made much of Rexx on OS/2 to this point. Actually, just wildly speculating, I wonder what will come of the talks between IBM and Apple being held this week. IBM apparently is interested in licensing some of Apple's system software, while Apple is on recor as wanting to make AppleEvents/IAC a platform independent standard. Maybe we'll see IBM adopt Apple's IAC for OS/2? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Where can a nation lie when it hides its organic minds in a cellar dark and grim? They must be ... very dim.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun7.162105.26985@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >>Do builtin Mac SCSI ports go at upwards of 2MB per second? > > On the IIfx, it's 3MB/s [via DMA - although because this is only >supported in A/UX, it actually ends up being slower than the IIci]. > On the IIci, it just peaks out at 1.8 - 2MB/s. > Of course, one could then ask "How many disk drives actually transfer >data at upwards of 2MB/s?" The ones which do are generally 600MB and >up drives, for which you're paying enough that it might make >sense to add in a SCSI-2 card. Well, actually, with a single SCSI device, SCSI-2 isn't going to help you any. While you might get bursts from cache faster than 10 MB/s, you're not going to get anything even approaching 5MB/s sustained from a single device. SCSI-2 is useful in a few cases, like when you have multiple drives on a bus, or some kind of RAID box. Or, in the case of the Mac-II, you're getting something even more useful along with that SCSI-II controller, a large intelligent disk cache managed by an alternate processor. Getting too concerned about real disk transfer rate is losing sight of the big picture, anyway. When the IIci is running 1.8-2MB/s, the CPU is getting no time for other tasks. When the A2000HD is running 1.8-2MB/s, the CPU is getting about 60% of it's peak CPU time. When the A3000 is running 1.8-2MB/s, the CPU is getting about 95% of it's peak CPU time (I image the Mac IIfx with DMA at the same rate would be almost as good as the A3000, assuming the DMA is full a 32 bits wide and runs full speed on its 20MHz I/O bus). -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun10.141520.24849@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >an indirect subroutine. The Mac _is_ slowed down by device independence >why do you think all the games for it totally suck compared to >Amiga games which hit the hardware directory. I'm not saying Oh please. Not every game requires fast animation. I've got lots of strategy games that I like much better than some idiot-stick arcade game. I think Falcon is a reasonable Flight Sim. I also like games written for 256 color displays. Have you played every game for the Mac?
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/11/91)
In article <12901@uwm.edu> zark@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Steven M Kosloske) writes: >In article <#g1H3+$o@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>In article <231@touch.touch.com> mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) writes: >> <chuckle> The A3000 can handle 128Meg or RAM...without even blinking! In >> fact...it's expandable to to 1.8 GIG!!! (a GIG, for you mac folks who >> never deal with such numbers, is 1024 Meg). That's real memory, on the >> bus! >Wait a minute here. OK, the Amiga can have 1.8 GB of RAM, in theory. Is >there any product on the market which will let you do this? The A3000/A3000T will. They physically support up to 1.75GB of RAM (or other stuff) in their expansion bus. >No? Then it's impossible. IMPOSSIBLE, no matter what the CPU can do. An >80386 can access, what, 4 GB of RAM? As far as I know, the best you could do >today, if you packed every slot with RAM would probably be around 128 MB. You're confusing the issues here. Sure, the '030 and the '386 can each physically address 4GB of memory. Most systems built around these processors don't let you get anywhere close to that much memory. A '386 with only an ISA expansion bus typically limits you to 16MB of memory, total. That's a board design limit, not the '386's limit. Some '386 boards let you drop in some extra memory in a private memory slot, still not that close to 4GB; the board limit might be 16MB or 128MB. >So the 4 GB is also IMPOSSIBLE. The Mac can access 16MB on a 68000 machine, >or on the 68030 machines, 4GB of RAM. No. The 68000 can address 16MB of RAM, the 68030 can address 4GB of RAM. That says nothing about what a Mac can do. In theory, a Mac can support 256MB of RAM per NuBus slot, so a full sized Mac II with display card can support an additional 1.25MB of RAM, over and above what's on the motherboard (actually, in theory, around 1.33MB of RAM, though only 1.25MB is contiguous, due to the strange memory architecture of NuBus). NuBus RAM is, however, slow. >This limit is also IMPOSSIBLE, since there is no way to pack that much RAM >into a computer. Actually, using the latest 16Mbit chips, there's no challenge fitting 4GB of RAM into a machine with around 4 ISA sized expansion cards. If you got clever with high density SIMM modules and used the new real small surface mount package from Mitsubishi, you might even manage it with 4MB parts. >The physical truth is that a IBM-compat can hold 64MB max (I think this is the >limit today, correct me if I'm wrong) You're wrong. There's no standard for motherboard RAM amoung IBM compatibles. You can figure it easily enough. The ISA bus supports a maximum address range of 16MB, though a small amount of that is always taken up by the motherboard. Some PClones are expanded via custom daughterboards, for which you'd have to examine the specifications. If they're expanded instead by banks of SIMM modules, keep in mind that for PC SIMMs, the largest available with the standard parity support is 4MB. If you axe the parity like Apple did on all but the IIci, you get 16MB. That's a total of either 16MB or 64MB per 32 bit wide bank. >The Mac can access 128MB of RAM *NOW*. What can the Amiga do now? 16MB SIMMs are just barely available. Zorro III memory boards for the Amiga 3000 haven't yet been announced. The only announced product for expansion beyond 18MB for the A3000 is a 64MB expansion card from a German company that sits in the Coprocessor slot. So I guess, today, you're limited to 90MB today, from off the shelf boards. Though not announced, there are in fact a couple of Zorro III boards on the way from third party companies. The point being, it's possible to have that much RAM in an A3000, so you will eventually have a way to do it. It is impossible in most other systems, no matter what kind of add-on doohicky someone comes up with. > (Steve Kosloske) | "When the bottle's empty, the -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
metahawk@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Wayne G Rigby) (06/11/91)
In article <44@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >You don't know what you're talking about. Each monitor is controlled by its >own video board and given its own portion of the bitmap only. Try not to >relate Amiga problems with the Macintosh world. Have you ever tried hooking up multiple 24 bit color displays on a Mac? Here in our dorm, we hooked up 4 of the Apple 13" color monitors using 4 8.24 cards (Apple - 3 of them had GCs) to a Mac II. Under 24 bit, the displays were very slow (much slower than just one monitor w/o the GC activated, which I consider below acceptible speed - don't ever get a 24 card w/o a GC, you'll fall asleep waiting for the screen to catch up, well, it's not quite that bad, but...). At 8 bit, though, the displays weren't bad. Wayne Rigby Computer and Systems Engineer (in training) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute metahawk@rpi.edu
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/11/91)
In article <8621@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: >In article <1991Jun10.104034.22207@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> BTW, Commodore's stock is also dropping. It was as high as 21 3/4, >>but it has fallen to around 15. I don't feel at all sorry for the >>fools who actually bought that perpetually under-performing stock. > > Oh yes, boo hoo hoo! I feel very sorry for my Dad who bought >CBM at 4 and sold it at 20. (Cry cry.) Those 500% increases are pure >tragedy. Sniff, whimper, wheeze, contort. :-) > > Dan Too bad he didn't buy it at 15 and sell it at 17.5 where it is now :) -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun10.151040.28541@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <mykes.3420@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >>People seem to think that CBM's marketing strategies are stupid, but unlike most >>American companies - and like most Japanese companies, their long-term strategies >>are geared for the "more than 2 years from now" period. Europe is going to a >>Common Market in 1993, and CBM is going to rule that market. The Common Market >>is going to be bigger than the US market from day 1. >> >>I don't claim to know anything about how many Macs have sold. If I had to guess, >>I'd say like 8 Million, but from what I've read here (and it hasn't been disputed), >>it's only 4.5 Million. CBM will sell it's #4 Million before January, and will pass >>the Mac in worldwide sales in 1992. But this isn't new, the C64 sold more than the >>Apple II did, too. > ... > Commodore has one important strategy and one they know how to execute >well. Make machines cheap and sell sh*tloads of them. I think the >C64 is over the 14 million mark now, and it may hit the 20 million >mark in a few years if the steam keeps up. Meanwhile C= is selling >more and more A500s each year in Europe, and US popularity is >increasing too. I predict that there will eventually be twice as >many Amigas as there are Macs. ( I can see Mike's mouth watering >now as he thinks about the enormous profit he could reap on an Amiga >game in a few years. Come to think about it, think of the profit you >could get marketing a C64 game. Funny, I think C64 games beat >Mac games, they have faster animation and better music!) > Pardon me while I whipe the spittle from my face :) Ever notice that the C128 and the original Mac were pretty similar? Both were slow computers with slow floppy drives and 128K of RAM. The Mac traded color for resolution... (It also came with a "real" OS :). > Here's something else to think about. A year ago AmigaWorld >magazine was _littered_ with game ads. In the last few months >the ratio has changed and now almost all the ads are for the >productivety market. In the June 1991 issue there were only 5 ads for >games by rough count. Sign of a maturing market? > I was perusing Video PROfiles, Camcorder and a few other electronics >magazines at the bookstore thursday and they were chocked full >of Amiga ads and Amiga articles. > Go into any Amiga SW store, and they will tell you that games outsell everything else 10 to 1... The way the games market works, tho, is the summer months are real real slow. This might be why there is less advertising. > The June 1991 issue of AmigaWorld says that Publish! magazine has >now promised to provide Amiga coverage and Computer shopper is >also reinstating coverage. So much for all the doomsayers. > Gee, why aren't they covering the C64? -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/11/91)
In article <mykes.3474@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >In article <8621@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: >>In article <1991Jun10.104034.22207@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >>> BTW, Commodore's stock is also dropping. It was as high as 21 3/4, >>>but it has fallen to around 15. I don't feel at all sorry for the >>>fools who actually bought that perpetually under-performing stock. >> >> Oh yes, boo hoo hoo! I feel very sorry for my Dad who bought >>CBM at 4 and sold it at 20. (Cry cry.) Those 500% increases are pure >>tragedy. Sniff, whimper, wheeze, contort. :-) >> >> Dan > >Too bad he didn't buy it at 15 and sell it at 17.5 where it is now :) > Oops, I meant buy it back at 15 and sell it at 17.5... > >-- >**************************************************** >* I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * >* but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * >**************************************************** -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
civir1070@ucsvax.sdsu.edu (FURRY R) (06/11/91)
In article <22308@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes... >In article <12901@uwm.edu> zark@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Steven M Kosloske) writes: >>In article <#g1H3+$o@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >>>In article <231@touch.touch.com> mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) writes: > >>> <chuckle> The A3000 can handle 128Meg or RAM...without even blinking! In >>> fact...it's expandable to to 1.8 GIG!!! (a GIG, for you mac folks who >>> never deal with such numbers, is 1024 Meg). That's real memory, on the >>> bus! > >>Wait a minute here. OK, the Amiga can have 1.8 GB of RAM, in theory. Currently, the problem with having multiple megs of ram on a 3000 is that only ZorroII boards exist, thus limiting the addressable RAM to somewhere around 16 megs. The 3000 can only accomplish the 1.8 GIG with FULL 32bit addresses, hence the need for a (non-existant) ZorroIII memory card. ___________________________________________________________________ / |CIVIR1070@ucsvax.sdsu.edu| Q: Is there a UNIX FORTRAN optomizer? \ \ | Scott Ellis | A: Yeah, "rm *.f" _ / / |_________________________| _ // Amiga \ \_______________________________________________\X/_________________/
robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun10.104034.22207@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > BTW, Commodore's stock is also dropping. It was as high as 21 3/4, >but it has fallen to around 15. I don't feel at all sorry for the >fools who actually bought that perpetually under-performing stock. I don't either, especially if they were wise enough to buy it last summer, when it was selling for less than $5 a share. Tripling your investment in less than a year sounds pretty good to me.
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/11/91)
Quoted from <49@ryptyde.UUCP> by dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy): > Macintosh programs that support 64-bit color, but it's a farc anyway. Why? > The human eye cannot even discern between 16 million colors, so what's the > point?! a. The human eye cannot even discern between 16 million colors _at this time_. b. People do manipulations with the extra depth. Isn't that one reason why you talk about 32-bit instead of 24-bit? -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/11/91)
Quoted from <1991Jun10.175239.642@neon.Stanford.EDU> by torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie): > IBM hasn't seem to have made much of Rexx on OS/2 to this point. IBM NZ has heard of it, and mentions it when they visit. A potential problem is that it involves user control, with the user writing ARexx scripts and what-not, whereas presumably this IAC thing is app. to app. only. ARexx can be used in a similar manner, of course, but this doesn't seem to be the approach taken by Amiga applications that handle ARexx. > interested in licensing some of Apple's system software, while Apple > is on recor as wanting to make AppleEvents/IAC a platform independent Isn't Microsoft on record as wanting Windows to be a platform independent thing? Aren't IBM and DEC in some sort of group that is on record as wanting Unix as a platform independent standard...? :) > Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) (06/11/91)
>You're confusing the issues here. Sure, the '030 and the '386 can each >physically address 4GB of memory. Most systems built around these processors >don't let you get anywhere close to that much memory. A '386 with only an >ISA expansion bus typically limits you to 16MB of memory, total. That's >a board design limit, not the '386's limit. Some '386 boards let you drop in >some extra memory in a private memory slot, still not that close to 4GB; the >board limit might be 16MB or 128MB. >No. The 68000 can address 16MB of RAM, the 68030 can address 4GB of RAM. That >says nothing about what a Mac can do. In theory, a Mac can support 256MB of >RAM per NuBus slot, so a full sized Mac II with display card can support an >additional 1.25MB of RAM, over and above what's on the motherboard (actually, >in theory, around 1.33MB of RAM, though only 1.25MB is contiguous, due to the >strange memory architecture of NuBus). NuBus RAM is, however, slow. >You're wrong. There's no standard for motherboard RAM amoung IBM compatibles. >You can figure it easily enough. The ISA bus supports a maximum address range >of 16MB, though a small amount of that is always taken up by the motherboard. >Some PClones are expanded via custom daughterboards, for which you'd have to >examine the specifications. If they're expanded instead by banks of SIMM >modules, keep in mind that for PC SIMMs, the largest available with the >standard parity support is 4MB. If you axe the parity like Apple did on all >but the IIci, you get 16MB. That's a total of either 16MB or 64MB per 32 bit >wide bank. All (that I know of) of 386 ISA based have 32 bit memory bus. The ISA bus is used for peripherals (Modem, HD, Floppy, Graphic Cards,...), otherwise the bus between the CPU and the memory is 32 bits. Now the EISA boards begin to replace the ISA boards, so EVERYTHING is on the 32 bits bus. Many PC clones manufacturers (Compaq, ALR, ...) have systems with 128MB on the motherboard ALONE. Of course extra-memory can be added on daughterbards. Limit....I don't know if there is one, except for the internal space. I am talking about EISA systems. If you want info about those systems, check PC Magazine, there is always systems reviews. Those systems are NOT new. They are been out for a couple of months already. (I saw the review on January-Feb) Theorically, the 386 and 486 can have more than 16000 segments of 4GB each segment (48 bits). This feature is ideal for multiuser systems ---> memory protection. So far, no OS (that I know of) has taken that advantage. Not even Unix, maybe OS/2 4.0 ?? :-) >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
mjr@uther.calvin.edu (Matt Ranney) (06/11/91)
sl87m@cc.usu.edu (The Barking Pumpkin Digital Gratification Ensemble) writes: >My numerous suggestions of getting Amigas are put down as "not an option," even >though the same people is continually ASTONISHED at what the machine can do for >PRODUCTIVITY of PEOPLE. I always get "oohs" and "aahs" from co-workers, my >bosses, and people under me as they vie for time on my A500. But whenever >anybody suggests to the people with the purse that Amigas would be perfect, >they get told "Don't be rediculous." Unfortunately, I've gotten the same responses here when I suggested maybe we could benefit from some Amigas. Our Audio-Visual dept. has a fairly nice Amiga setup with a toaster and all kinds of other goodies. They love it. They wouldn't trade it for the world. Unfortunately, the rest of the campus is mostly PCs and Macs. When another department saw how great the Amiga was, they wanted some. Answer from Computer Center: "We don't need Amigas on this campus" Why? Thats one more platform we are going to have to support. We've got our hands full right now with just 2, they say. Well, they are right. Our school just can't afford to add a new platform, even if its a superior one. The head of PC Support here admits that he's really impressed with the Amiga, but not so impressed that he thinks we shold trash all our existing Macs/PCs to convert. -- Matt Ranney -- mjr@uther.calvin.edu sendmail: error reading file /home/mjr/.signature (core dumped)
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/12/91)
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes: >In article <1991Jun7.233654.24493@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> It is very different. The Amiga's clipboard was originally intended only >>for transferring straight ASCII text between applications. It was never >>intended to even be used to transfer graphics. The clipboard on the Mac, > > >Were you even aware from day 1 that only IFF code was allowed to >be sent to the clipboard.device ? > >This would seem to imply the ability to transfer graphics. Well, The Amiga could NEVER function appropriately if it DID have a Mac-Like clipboard. As i'm sure apple will soon find out, in a multi-tasking environment, a single resource like the clipboard could far too easily get trashed. imagine this scenario. I'm working in MS word.. and i cut some text out to place it somewhere else. oops, my boss just plopped a top priority MacDraw project on my desk, so i switch to MacDraw (leaving MS word exactly as it was) and work ... when i'm done i go back to Word and go to paste what i had cut... oops.. i get jibberish in my document.. what happened is that the clipboard was overwritten by my work in MacDraw.. this sort of shared resource then becomes almost useless in a multi-tasking environment... UNLESS you are very careful (something average computer users aren't). The amiga get's around this to some extent, but the problem still lies there. THIS is ONE of the many reasons the clipboard isn't used much in the Amiga. it's just as easy to create a temporary unique file to do transfer between applications. > >>however, is very sophisticated. It transfers text and graphics flawlessly >>between applications, and nearly all applications support the clipboard. ONLY if the application supports that format.. try dumping a MacDraw Circle, or some other Structured drawing item into a cheap word processor. it won't work. >> >> So, even if all Amiga applications supported the clipboard (a very big >>IF!), the Amiga's clipboard would still not compare at all to the clipboard >>on the Macintosh. The MAC's clipboard is as far above the Amiga's >>clipboard as the Amiga's multitasking is above the MAC's multitasking. As i said above... i think you will start seeing less and less use of the Mac clipboard. since system 7 is somewhat multi-tasking... >> >> The Amiga's clipboard cannot be fixed, as it is too unsupported and >>weak to be fixed. The clipboard needs to be totally replaced by something > >In your position of not actually knowing anything about the Amiga >clipboard.device, what allows you to make this statement ? > >Marc, you don't program the Amiga, you haven't read the manuals, >and you don't take the time to understand. Do you even still own >your A500 ? heh.. good one.. Marc needs a good dose of Attitude "Adjustment" heh.. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun10.104034.22207@news.iastate.edu> MB writes: > BTW, Commodore's stock is also dropping. It was as high as 21 3/4, >but it has fallen to around 15. I don't feel at all sorry for the >fools who actually bought that perpetually under-performing stock. This fool doesn't feel sorry for himself, either... having bought at 5 1/4 :-). -- Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork is spoken fork() be Amiga Student On-Campus Consultant, U of D here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/12/91)
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >"These are not new video MODES, they are always the same scale/pixel >rate. I wonder how Quickdraw would react to a screen with a wierd >resolution (like say 451 pixels by 399 pixels) methinkgs quickdraw >would not scale properly since scaling pictures and coordinates to >uneven resolution requires quantizing and dithering which would >reduce QuickDraw to a TurtleTrotDraw." > >That's just it. It wouldn't SCALE anything. It would draw what can fit in >that many pixels, pixel-for-pixel. No scaling anything. It's interesting >that, according to posts I've seen recently, the Amiga and Macintosh are >both flexible in the types of monitors they will work with but took totally >different approaches. Look at it this way... the only way to get more pixels on a Mac is to buy a bigger monitor. on the Amiga you might need a BETTER monitor, but not a BIGGER monitor. Every mac person is fond of claiming this Radius L-View. which is great.. however it's the ONLY such product, and it's limited.. the pixels are STILL square. a 32 dpi disply only makes pixels over 2x bigger BOTH ways, no flexibility in vertical/horizontal display. Also, there seems to be a BIG mis-understanding over the term SCREEN. Screen on the Mac means Monitor, Screen on the Amiga, means virtual screen. you can have multiple virtual screens ON THE SAME MONITOR. something you can't do on the Mac. you can have differing resolutions on these screens and they can overlap each other so that say the top 1/3 of the screen is in a 640x400 resolution the middle third is in a 640x200, and the bottom third being a 320x400 resolution. THIS is flexibility. THIS is not possible on ANY mac with ANY product. I've just named something that is IMPOSSIBLE on a Mac, now you name something that is IMPOSSIBLE to do on an Amiga, that you can do on a MAC. I'm not talking about things that are weakly supported.. like the clipboard. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
ronald@ecl014.UUCP (Ronald van Eijck) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun10.105947.22470@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >In article <1991Jun9.183551.3565@neon.Stanford.EDU>, torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >> >> Looks like Apple might get close to $600 million on R&D this year. > > According to Commodore's 1990 annual report, Commodore spent >$27.7 million on R&D in 1990. If Commodore spends at the same level >in 1991, they may break $30 million in R&D spending. Wow, that's >actually more than 5% of the amount that Apple is spending on R&D! > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / If you look at these figures you can come to only ONE conclusion: CONGRATULATIONS, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! So long, -- +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Ronald van Eijck {eunet!}hp4nl!cbmnlux!ecl014!ronald | | | | We do the impossible at once for a miracle we need a little more time | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) (06/12/91)
In article <12902@uwm.edu> zark@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Steven M Kosloske) writes: > ...in some cases I can have 2 >programs loaded at once... Whoa! What machine is THIS??? 2 programs at once? NAWWWW.... > ...I think my computer with System 7 is just as >usable as before. Yup, if you're still able to "sometimes load 2 programs at once", it sounds about that useful to me, too!
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) (06/12/91)
In article <22@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: >"can you name any other system that has a totaly programmable display?" >I can. The Macintosh! :-) Too bad they can't "program" in some animation or overscan. (and no hardware addons...we're talkin' "programmable").
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/12/91)
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: >Quoted from <1991Jun10.175239.642@neon.Stanford.EDU> by torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie): > Isn't Microsoft on record as wanting Windows to be a platform > independent thing? That's OS/2 V3.0. >Aren't IBM and DEC in some sort of group that is > on record as wanting Unix as a platform independent standard...? :) Well, IBM just seems to want to have rights to anything and everything under the sun. They've already have rights to use four GUI's: Presentation Manager, Motif, NeXTStep and Metaphor Systems Patriot product + I recall Penpoint's user interface. Maybe they just want Apple to round out the list. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Lay me place and bake me pie, I'm starving for me gravy... Leave my shoes and door unlocked, I might just slip away - hey - just for the day."
pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) (06/12/91)
In a previous article, dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) says: >Responding to the following: > >" Time for a reality check. For 95% of the people in the Macintosh community, >the LaserWriter is totally useless. The LaserWriter is not going to save the >Macintosh, because it is a product intended for a very limited purpose. Few >Macintosh owners have any need whatsoever for a 300 DPI printer, and the >cost and limitations of the printer make the LaserWriter unsuitable for >other applications." > >The LaserWriter is VERY well used in the Macintosh community, a heck of a lot >more than the Toaster is in the Amiga community. Heck, Apple's making almost as >much money on printers as on Macs! > Ah, I think he was being sarcastic in response to an MB post - the Toaster has the potential to be the Amiga "LaserWriter". -- Pete Babic - pab@po.cwru.edu /// I'd rather be BOATING!! | /// /\ Member of A.C.E. | \\\ /// /--\MIGA (American Coaster Enthusiasts) | \\\/// The future is here now!
Alex_Topic@tvbbs.UUCP (Alex Topic) (06/12/91)
Yeah reading some of these messages about the Amiga's future, makes me
wonder sometimes. All I can say is CBM better put 24-bit graphics inside
SUPER DUPER DENISE!..heh I mean its abit overdued! When the A3000 was
released it should of had atleast 256colors at low'rez. Something similar to
VGA atleast!
I was reading BYTE the other day and they were talking about 24-bit
paint programs. They talked about IBM and MAC software. They mentioned the
Amiga in a column. They stated that the Amiga is the fastest with graphics,
but it lacks 24-bit support. All it has is 3-rd party stuff, which hardly
that existant in the Amiga market.
They said CBM should do something like incorporate 24-bit graphics
right into the CUSTOM chip set. I would be willing to upgrade my chips to get
24-bit graphics. For around $200-300!! Maybe have a faster blitter or
something and of course be backwards compatible.... or just have new
modes!!etc...
Its all up to CBM!!! I thought they should of add some of that stuff
to the CDTV, of course the price might be too high then..hmmm Oh well they
should do something. 3-rd party 24-bit cards just don't kick it! Its hard to
get them... Haveing them in the custom chips there would be more support!!
Cuz CBM is in charge of the Amiga's market, in away!!
I want buy the CDTV or CDROM drive until I see some good software
on it, that takes full advantage of the CD! Not some swift A500 port!! Oh
well later all!
A.t.awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/12/91)
In article <5116@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >ONLY if the application supports that format.. try dumping a MacDraw Circle, >or some other Structured drawing item into a cheap word processor. it won't >work. Name that word processor. I can't think of a Mac word processor that doesn't support pasting in PICTS. A text editor might have this limitation. >As i said above... i think you will start seeing less and less use of the Mac >clipboard. since system 7 is somewhat multi-tasking... System 7 is basically as multitasking as MultiFinder was in previous releases. Since most people, for the next few months anyway, will be using System 7 as a task-switcher, the clipboard will work just fine. (If you don't like a single clipboard, there are replacements.)
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/12/91)
In article <5117@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >Look at it this way... the only way to get more pixels on a Mac is to buy a >bigger monitor. on the Amiga you might need a BETTER monitor, but not a Dead wrong. You could do 1024x768 on any monitor that supports it, i.e. one of the multisyncs/trisyncs. You pop in a card that the ads say supports 19" monitors and BINGO! >can have differing resolutions on these screens and they can overlap each >other so that say the top 1/3 of the screen is in a 640x400 resolution the >middle third is in a 640x200, and the bottom third being a 320x400 resolution. > THIS is flexibility. THIS is not possible on ANY mac with ANY product. I've OK, I'll buy that. >just named something that is IMPOSSIBLE on a Mac, now you name something that >is IMPOSSIBLE to do on an Amiga, that you can do on a MAC. I'm not talking >about things that are weakly supported.. like the clipboard. OK, how about this. I take a 1987 vintage Mac II. Pop in 4 video cards. I configure them to display video space in a 2x2 array. I set the pixel depths to 2, 16, 256, and 16.7 million colors respectively. Now, I take a window and expand it to fill all four monitors. I do this with several popular programs. Can the Amiga do this?
pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) (06/12/91)
In a previous article, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) says: >You Amiga users are going to have to try and understand that the A3000 >is probably not the last computer that you are ever going to own, and >there really isn't a need to have 1.8GB of memory expansion(128MB >maybe). In a couple of years(I say two) that A3000 is going to look >like a toy. > >-Mike So will a Mac IIfx, it'll probably look toy-like long before the A3000. No the A3000 will not be the last computer we will own, but also, the A3000 will not be the last computer Commodore will ever sell. I'm sure the next generation Amiga will be just as impressive when it comes out as the A3000 was during its introduction. Besides, the reason someone posted that the A3000 can be expanded to 1.8GB is because a Macoid didn't even believe the A3000 could be expanded to 128MB. If its usefull or not was not relevant to the discussion. -- Pete Babic - pab@po.cwru.edu /// I'd rather be BOATING!! | /// /\ Member of A.C.E. | \\\ /// /--\MIGA (American Coaster Enthusiasts) | \\\/// The future is here now!
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun10.105947.22470@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > According to Commodore's 1990 annual report, Commodore spent >$27.7 million on R&D in 1990. If Commodore spends at the same level >in 1991, they may break $30 million in R&D spending. Wow, that's >actually more than 5% of the amount that Apple is spending on R&D! Good point. Apple sure is wasting money, no wonder they've had those layoffs and profits are down. I mean, they're spending 2000% more money, and they still don't have real multitasking, real SCSI, a modern UNIX, etc. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/13/91)
In article <48@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: >25MHz 040's starting shipping in large quantities a long time ago. As for >50MHz versions, I'm quoting an add for a 50MHz 68040 board from Ventura >Technologies (?), so ask them. They're guessing, I suppose. Motorola only recently released the 33MHz 68040 specifications to developers. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun11.134256.9465@cs.mcgill.ca> genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) writes: >>You're wrong. There's no standard for motherboard RAM amoung IBM compatibles. >>... >All (that I know of) of 386 ISA based have 32 bit memory bus. That's exactly what I have said. However, a 32 bit bus doesn't imply either standardization or expandability. >Many PC clones manufacturers (Compaq, ALR, ...) have systems with >128MB on the motherboard ALONE. Of course extra-memory can be added on >daughterbards. Assuming there are daughterboards. There very well may not be 32 bit daughter boards, other than perhaps the ISA or EISA bus, neither of which is ideal for memory. Some have all their expected memory on the motherboard, via SIMM modules. Some have a proprietary 32 bit slot for memory, in addition to a little on the motherboard. What's annoying about arguing PCs is, everything exists. When people argue features, they point to $10,000 Compaqs. When they argue price, they point to $3,000 Taiwan specials. >I am talking about EISA systems. As I mentioned, you don't really want memory on the EISA bus. EISA is reasonably quick with burst mode (in the Zorro III category), but it's not so hot at single cycle accesses. In other words, it's optimized for I/O. There is no standard memory bus for PCs. Actually, a year ago two companies were working on one. One company, S3, dropped the project, I haven't heard much lately from the other one. >Theorically, the 386 and 486 can have more than 16000 segments of >4GB each segment (48 bits). Sure they can. But nobody cares about segments. The physical addressing limits are the same as for most 32 bit processors -- 4GB. All the PC Clone '386/'486 UNIXs use demand paging, not segments (in fact, the design of a '386 BSD UNIX has been discussed over several recent issues of Dr. Dobb's). -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (06/13/91)
In article <44@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >"Yes, why, I wouldn't know either. The displays would crawl. Since only one >graphics coprocessor could be active, the six displays would just bog the >system down horrendously (at least in 24 bit and 8 bit modes). Perhaps in >1, 2 and maybe 4 bit modes you'd get acceptable speed out of them, though." > >You don't know what you're talking about. Each monitor is controlled by its >own video board and given its own portion of the bitmap only. Try not to >relate Amiga problems with the Macintosh world. The Mac would slow down because all graphics are done by the CPU. If and only if you have every board with a cpu to support drawing on it would you NOT have the graphics slow to a crawl. Just adding video boards will slow down a Mac. Increasing screen size or color depth slows down a Mac. Add a 19" screen to a Mac SE w/out adding an accelerator and see how slow it gets. BTW - Not every machine fits everyone's needs. Make something an idiot can use and only an idiot will use it. (Mac) I'm going home to play on my NeXT. For now the fastest CISC machine around. KeNT - happy NeXT owner/developer -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (06/13/91)
In article <rkushner.6825@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: >I did read a blurb in the Free Press that Apple was building a new assembly >plant in Colorado because it just cost too damn much to do business in >California... Apple is _buying_ a defunct Data General factory in Boulder CO, because the price was right and because they are way short on manufacturing capacity to meet the demand for their products. They are _not_ closing down the Fremont CA plant or any other plant. The Singapore plant where the Classic and LC are made runs 24hrs/day and still cannot fill the demand. Go figure. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 B0 f++ c+ g+ k s+(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/13/91)
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >trashed. imagine this scenario. I'm working in MS word.. and i cut some >text out to place it somewhere else. oops, my boss just plopped a top >priority MacDraw project on my desk, so i switch to MacDraw (leaving MS word >exactly as it was) and work ... when i'm done i go back to Word and go to >paste what i had cut... oops.. i get jibberish in my document.. what happened >is that the clipboard was overwritten by my work in MacDraw.. The clipboard never gets overwritten unless the user actually uses the Copy, or Cut command in the Edit menu. >this sort of >shared resource then becomes almost useless in a multi-tasking environment... >UNLESS you are very careful (something average computer users aren't). The clipboard actually came into its own on the Mac when MultiFinder arrived [so that users could select, cut, switch and paste in less than 3 seconds]. >> >>>however, is very sophisticated. It transfers text and graphics flawlessly >>>between applications, and nearly all applications support the clipboard. >ONLY if the application supports that format.. try dumping a MacDraw Circle, >or some other Structured drawing item into a cheap word processor. it won't >work. MacDraw generates PICT resources, which as we've mentioned before, is one of the two types [the other being TEXT], which ALL programs are required to be able to import. (If you can find me a Mac word processor which doesn't support PICT, I'd be extremely surprised). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "If it weren't for your gumboots, where would you be? You'd be in the hospital, or in-firm-ary..." F. Dagg
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/13/91)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1991Jun10.105947.22470@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >Good point. Apple sure is wasting money, no wonder they've had those layoffs >and profits are down. I mean, they're spending 2000% more money, and they >still don't have real multitasking, real SCSI, a modern UNIX, etc. Come on Dave! Isn't there a little smiley here? :) Like they say, for every product Apple brings to market, there are four or five other products in the lab which never make it out the door. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Apes evolved from creationists" - seen on a bumper sticker.
bret@orac.UUCP (Bret Indrelee) (06/13/91)
In article <mykes.3480@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >Pardon me while I whipe the spittle from my face :) Ever notice that the >C128 and the original Mac were pretty similar? Both were slow computers with >slow floppy drives and 128K of RAM. The Mac traded color for resolution... >(It also came with a "real" OS :). > The MacIntosh has a "real O.S."? I though O.S. stood for operating system... the MacIntosh came out with a 'Toolbox' where you were required to develop applications on the Lisa and cross load them. The MacIntosh uses 'A-line' traps for all its functions. It originally had a flat file system rather than the current HFS. I really think that you are streching the definition of O.S. when you say Finder is one. On another tangent, why has no one mentioned one of the biggest reasons that the MacIntosh is so slow? On the MacIntosh, all data is referenced via a handle. This is a pointer to a pointer. After making a toolbox call that allocates storage space, it is neccessary to re-load from the original handle because a garbage collection may have occurred. Since the minimum processor is a 68000, you can't even use the 68020 addressing modes that can automatically do this indirection. Two memory accesses to access data means the MacIntosh has to run the bus and processor faster than other 680x0 systems just in order to keep up. More specific to Amiga, the MacIntosh O.S. uses 'A-line traps' to implement all the Finder calls. Last time I counted (it has been awhile though...) it took at least 20 cycles to execute the exception and decode what routine you wanted to execute. Please compare with the time for a JMP instruction, like would be used for Amiga calling the libraries. -Bret -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bret Indrelee | Our mail is still somewhat unreliable. Sorry. uunet.uu.net!cs.umn.edu!kksys!edgar!orac!bret -And still trying
billc@cryo.rain.com (William J. Coldwell) (06/13/91)
In article <22370@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <48@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >>Responding to the following: > >>25MHz 040's starting shipping in large quantities a long time ago. As for >>50MHz versions, I'm quoting an add for a 50MHz 68040 board from Ventura >>Technologies (?), so ask them. > >They're guessing, I suppose. Motorola only recently released the 33MHz >68040 specifications to developers. Maybe they're getting confused with the 50MHz clock that you have to feed the 25MHz 040. Some manufacturers are sticking 50MHz crystal oscillators on the boards, so the marketroids could be confusing this to be a 50MHz 040 or a 25MHz 040 running at 50MHz ;-). I love the first 33MHz spec I got: a 25MHz spec with crossouts for the 33MHz spec and some crossed out with no spec. >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" -- William J. Coldwell Amiga Attitude Adjuster Cryogenic Software 3-D Pro | Anim. Station | CA-650 CD-ROM | CMI PA/MPB | Interact AppleTalk Nexus HD/Aries | CSA 40/4 Magnum | RAMbrandt | Video Blender | DoubleTalk Internet: billc@cryo.rain.com UUCP: tektronix!percy!cryo!billc
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun13.004431.20603@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>In article <1991Jun10.105947.22470@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >>Good point. Apple sure is wasting money, no wonder they've had those layoffs >>and profits are down. I mean, they're spending 2000% more money, and they >>still don't have real multitasking, real SCSI, a modern UNIX, etc. > Come on Dave! Isn't there a little smiley here? :) Of course there is. Apple certainly does produce good stuff, especially on the software side. The industry really needs as many as possible working to counteract the MS-DOS/Intel drudgery. Keep in mind, too, that Apple engineers get paid around 2x-3x what C= people get. They have larger development teams. They leave work and play racketball (see the timestamp on this note for proof we don't). They even rest. The guy I did the A2620 with, Bob Welland, went to work for Apple.... -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/13/91)
Quoted from <1991Jun12.005219.5515@neon.Stanford.EDU> by torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie): > Well, IBM just seems to want to have rights to anything and everything > under the sun. They've already have rights to use four GUI's: Presentation IBM has some sort of magazine called "Think". I skimmed through a copy today at work, and lo, there was an article discussing the importance of IBM's "patent portfolio". > Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/13/91)
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: > >> Well, IBM just seems to want to have rights to anything and everything >> under the sun. They've already have rights to use four GUI's: Presentation > > IBM has some sort of magazine called "Think". I skimmed through a > copy today at work, and lo, there was an article discussing the > importance of IBM's "patent portfolio". We were talking about this last night, and we began to wonder if IBM's license rights included being kept informed of the latest updates. If so, what a sweet position to be in! Imagine knowing all the time everything those GUI makers are up to. Wow. regards - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) (06/13/91)
>What's annoying about arguing PCs is, everything exists. When people argue >features, they point to $10,000 Compaqs. When they argue price, they point >to $3,000 Taiwan specials. Another thing that is annoying about PCs is that the products are usually build to be used in isolated, vanilla machines. For examples, we have a fancy full motion video card. It works fine. Then there is the voice recognition card. Works great. Put the two of them in the same machine (486, 16MB memory, 1.2GB SCSI disks) with windows and guess what? It is too often the case that when you start combining products from different vendors, it doesn't work...
mechrw@tnessd.sbc.com (Robert Wallace (214+464-6552)) (06/13/91)
In article <4342.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: >Quoted from <49@ryptyde.UUCP> by dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy): > >> Macintosh programs that support 64-bit color, but it's a farc anyway. Why? >> The human eye cannot even discern between 16 million colors, so what's the >> point?! > > a. The human eye cannot even discern between 16 million colors _at > this time_. It won't be easy waiting for human evolution to catch up with computer evolution, but it will be lots of fun! Maybe if we all got out and pushed... ;-) Robert Wallace
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/14/91)
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >In article <rkushner.6825@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) wri >>I did read a blurb in the Free Press that Apple was building a new assembly >>plant in Colorado because it just cost too damn much to do business in >>California... > >Apple is _buying_ a defunct Data General factory in Boulder CO, because the >price was right and because they are way short on manufacturing capacity to >meet the demand for their products. They are _not_ closing down the Fremont >CA plant or any other plant. The Singapore plant where the Classic and LC are >made runs 24hrs/day and still cannot fill the demand. Go figure. Singapore?! Singapore!? Thats gotta be the dumbest thing they could do. I know I put off buying an second A2000 until the dealer could get me one that said Made in USA on it...I made sure my A3000 said Made in USA on it as well...I would have told them to take a flying leap if they didn't have the label on it! This has just thrown out any options of mine to purchase a cheap Mac...EVERY computer I have here has the USA stamp on it, monitors are another story...I know that they have foreign parts(Or if Ted Turner was here twisting my arm, International parts) in them, but I realize what happens when the jobs leave the country, but final assembly brings the content up... Why did they lay people off then, if they can't make enough? Or did they hire 20% extra help in Singapore to make up for the lost jobs in CA? How many IBM's do you think IBM sells around here, because they got the Made in USA right on the front sticker? Betcha alot, because Uniroyal has nothing but those PS/2 tower units when you walk around their R&D facility in Troy. No cheap foreign made clones...And thats one per desk! Guy told me the only thing the secertaries use them for is word processing... -- C-UseNet V0.42d Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/14/91)
In article <billc.3560@cryo.rain.com> billc@cryo.rain.com (William J. Coldwell) writes: >In article <22370@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>In article <48@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >>>Responding to the following: >>>25MHz 040's starting shipping in large quantities a long time ago. As for >>>50MHz versions, I'm quoting an add for a 50MHz 68040 board from Ventura >>>Technologies (?), so ask them. >>They're guessing, I suppose. Motorola only recently released the 33MHz >>68040 specifications to developers. >Maybe they're getting confused with the 50MHz clock that you have to feed >the 25MHz 040. Some manufacturers are sticking 50MHz crystal oscillators >on the boards, so the marketroids could be confusing this to be a 50MHz >040 or a 25MHz 040 running at 50MHz ;-). Could be. In fact, that sounds like a marketing trick. I guess our marketroids missed the boat on the A3000. While the 68030 is of course clocked at 25MHz, it does derive its timing from a 50MHz clock module. On the other hand, maybe Motorola missed out on it. More and more new CPUs are running bus clocks at 1/2 their ALU clock speed. And they're using the ALU clock speed to stamp the part. If you're targeting people who buy systems according to clock speed, you win that way. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/14/91)
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <5116@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >>ONLY if the application supports that format.. try dumping a MacDraw Circle, >>or some other Structured drawing item into a cheap word processor. it won't >>work. > >Name that word processor. I can't think of a Mac word processor that doesn't >support pasting in PICTS. A text editor might have this limitation. A Structured drawing item from MacDraw or any other structured drawing program are NOT PICTS. > >>As i said above... i think you will start seeing less and less use of the Mac >>clipboard. since system 7 is somewhat multi-tasking... > >System 7 is basically as multitasking as MultiFinder was in previous releases. >Since most people, for the next few months anyway, will be using System 7 as >a task-switcher, the clipboard will work just fine. (If you don't like a >single clipboard, there are replacements.) But people weren't FORCED to use multi-finder until sytem 7 came out. people will be using it MUCH more often. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/14/91)
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <5117@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: > >>Look at it this way... the only way to get more pixels on a Mac is to buy a >>bigger monitor. on the Amiga you might need a BETTER monitor, but not a > >Dead wrong. You could do 1024x768 on any monitor that supports it, i.e. one >of the multisyncs/trisyncs. You pop in a card that the ads say supports 19" >monitors and BINGO! AH HA!!! so it comes down to it. as you just pointed out, the video cards are dependant on what size monitor you buy. therefor NULLIFYING the argument that changing the monitor size on a mac only changes the number of pixels. thank you. it's the same with an amiga, a card capable of displaying a larger number of pixels SHOULD be used with a larger monitor, but NOT necessarily. > >>can have differing resolutions on these screens and they can overlap each >>other so that say the top 1/3 of the screen is in a 640x400 resolution the >>middle third is in a 640x200, and the bottom third being a 320x400 resolution. >> THIS is flexibility. THIS is not possible on ANY mac with ANY product. I've > >OK, I'll buy that. > >>just named something that is IMPOSSIBLE on a Mac, now you name something that >>is IMPOSSIBLE to do on an Amiga, that you can do on a MAC. I'm not talking >>about things that are weakly supported.. like the clipboard. > >OK, how about this. I take a 1987 vintage Mac II. Pop in 4 video cards. I >configure them to display video space in a 2x2 array. I set the pixel depths >to 2, 16, 256, and 16.7 million colors respectively. Now, I take a window and >expand it to fill all four monitors. I do this with several popular programs. > >Can the Amiga do this? I don't think this would work, since Ok, i'll give on that one, for now, but once you move that window off the screen, you can't see it anymore. AmigaDos 2.0 supports virtual workbenches, that will scroll the screen when you come to the edge so your work area can be larger than your monitor space. This supported on the Mac? .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/14/91)
Responding to the following: "Could be. In fact, that sounds like a marketing trick. I guess our marketroids missed the boat on the A3000. While the 68030 is of course clocked at 25MHz, it does derive its timing from a 50MHz clock module. On the other hand, maybe Motorola missed out on it. More and more new CPUs are running bus clocks at 1/2 their ALU clock speed. And they're using the ALU clock speed to stamp the part. If you're targeting people who buy systems according to clock speed, you win that way." What's the deal here? I heard that, in the 680x0 line, the chip only runs at half its clock speed "internally". With a 50MHz 68030, for example, the chip would only be running at 25MHz. But I also heard that this was fixed in the 68040. I also read that, at 25MHz, the 040's ALU is running at 50MHz. Is this related, or what? Anyone care to explain (if there IS anything to explain)?
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/14/91)
In article <5136@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >A Structured drawing item from MacDraw or any other structured drawing program >are NOT PICTS. OK, what are they then? (I'm always ready to learn new stuff, and if I'm wrong just point it out. You still haven't named the Mac word processor that won't accept a copy and paste from MacDraw. >But people weren't FORCED to use multi-finder until sytem 7 came out. people >will be using it MUCH more often. So what? I run a network and everyone who uses MultiFinder can copy and paste between applications. They will have the same capabilities under System 7.0. If it weren't for the money (educational institution, you know), everyone on the network would have that capability. As it is, they all just WANT it.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/14/91)
In article <5137@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >Ok, i'll give on that one, for now, but once you move that window off the >screen, you can't see it anymore. AmigaDos 2.0 supports virtual workbenches, >that will scroll the screen when you come to the edge so your work area can be >larger than your monitor space. This supported on the Mac? Yes, with a 3rd party product called Stepping Out, or a shareware/PD program called BigScreen (or something like that.) This is only in 1 bit mode, but the screen space is limited basically to available RAM. Some of the settings in Stepping out are given in foot measurements. I think some display cards also support virtual screens, and possibly in color, limited by VRAM.
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (06/14/91)
In article <5136@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >>In article <5116@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >>>ONLY if the application supports that format.. try dumping a MacDraw Circle, >>>or some other Structured drawing item into a cheap word processor. it won't >>>work. >> >>Name that word processor. I can't think of a Mac word processor that doesn't >>support pasting in PICTS. A text editor might have this limitation. > >A Structured drawing item from MacDraw or any other structured drawing program >are NOT PICTS. Excuse me, but what exactly do you think a PICT is? A bitmap? PICT is an Apple data format that consists of a series of opcodes, each with associated data. PICTS can be in files or can live solely on memory blocks. PICT supports structured drawing items (all of the standard Quickdraw shape primitives), plus polygons, regions, bitmaps, clipping regions, color specifications, font specifications, text, etc. It is a very rich format, the creation of which is completely supported by the OS in a sort of "tape recorder" mode, and the play-back of which is a single simple call- _DrawPicture. A word-processor doesn't have to know anything at all about the contents of the picture or how it was made, it only needs to request it from the clipboard, get its total area from the header and draw it. And essentially _all_ applications support PICT in the clipboard, because Apple has from Day One said that they must.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/15/91)
In article <55@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: >On the other hand, maybe Motorola missed out on it. More and more new CPUs >are running bus clocks at 1/2 their ALU clock speed. And they're using the >ALU clock speed to stamp the part. If you're targeting people who buy systems >according to clock speed, you win that way." >What's the deal here? I heard that, in the 680x0 line, the chip only runs >at half its clock speed "internally". With a 50MHz 68030, for example, the >chip would only be running at 25MHz. But I also heard that this was fixed >in the 68040. I also read that, at 25MHz, the 040's ALU is running at 50MHz. It doesn't make any sense to say "the chip only runs at half its clock speed internally". A microprocessor is a very complex machine, with lots of different functional units. In any processor, some units may do a new operation every clock cycle, some may take two, three, or four clocks. The 68030 runs at it's rated clock speed, but you have to qualify that. It's minimum bus cycle is 2 clocks, 1.25 if you consider burst. It's cache hits take two clocks, though you can have parallel instruction and data cache hits. I think the small pipeline and ALUs do something new every clock cycle. The 68040 runs pretty much everything, including cache hits, in a single bus clock cycle. It requires a double-speed clock for the ALUs, which do something new twice in a bus cycle. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/15/91)
In article <5136@orbit.cts.com>, chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: > >A Structured drawing item from MacDraw or any other structured drawing program >are NOT PICTS. I recently got the following information in e-mail in reply to a query for information on the MACDraw file format... --------------------- >MacDraw saves files as MacDraw or as PICT. >MacDraw files are propietary, subject to change, unsupported. >PICT files are the standard Mac way of exchanging vector (and bitmap) >graphics. >Usually it is better to read PICT files. > >Reading and parsing a PICT file on a Mac is easy, there are hooks and >procedures to do just that. >Reading in a PICT file on a non-Mac is hard, but possible. > >There are two versions of PICT. They consist of a header >and then a series of 1-byte (v1) or 2-byte (v2) opcodes followed >by data. >This is all documented in Inside Mac V, chapter on Color QuickDraw. > >What is difficult: there are a lot of opcodes and there are some >Mac specific data structures such as regions and compacted Pixelmaps. >Fonts are specified by reference (name/number/size/style) only, >so you won't have exactly the same on the foreign system. [rest deleted] --------------------- The text file included with this message went on to describe the MACDraw file format in detail. MACDraw files ARE pict files, period. This brings up an interesting conlusion related to structured graphics. On the Macintosh, virtually any graphics-related program can handle structured graphics. On the Amiga, programs that can handle structured graphics are practically non-existant. Even where such programs do exist, they are largely incompatible with each other, supporting one of several incompatible structured graphics formats. > > >..--------------------------------------------------------------------------. >| UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | >| ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | >| INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | >|-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | >| Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | >| welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | >`--------------------------------------------------------------------------' ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
cazabon@hercules (Charles Cazabon (186-003-526)) (06/15/91)
In article <Alex_Topic.3428@tvbbs.UUCP> Alex_Topic@tvbbs.UUCP (Alex Topic) writes:
:
: Yeah reading some of these messages about the Amiga's future, makes me
:wonder sometimes. All I can say is CBM better put 24-bit graphics inside
:SUPER DUPER DENISE!..heh I mean its abit overdued! When the A3000 was
:released it should of had atleast 256colors at low'rez. Something similar to
:VGA atleast!
: They said CBM should do something like incorporate 24-bit graphics
:right into the CUSTOM chip set. I would be willing to upgrade my chips to get
:24-bit graphics. For around $200-300!! Maybe have a faster blitter or
:something and of course be backwards compatible.... or just have new
:modes!!etc...
<flame on>
Easy for you to say. A full 24 bit colour board with blitter and animation
capabilities for two or three hundred dollars? Third party boards with these
capabilities barely exist, let alone for under a couple of thousand.
If you want the custom chips to support real time animation in 24 bit colour,
you had better be prepared to fork over $2000 for an A500.
<flame off>
--Chuck Cazabon, cazabon@hercules.cc.uregina.ca
* My Opinions Are Not My Own...Feel Free To Plagiarize rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/15/91)
In article <Alex_Topic.3428@tvbbs.UUCP> Alex_Topic@tvbbs.UUCP (Alex Topic) writes: > > They said CBM should do something like incorporate 24-bit graphics >right into the CUSTOM chip set. I would be willing to upgrade my chips to get >24-bit graphics. For around $200-300!! Maybe have a faster blitter or >something and of course be backwards compatible.... or just have new >modes!!etc... Yea, I'm sure C= could slap this together in about 3 days and have it ready for production too! And while they're at it, why not add in that Cray-YMP emulation for $200-300 and chuck in a copy of BLAZEMONGER for free. A 24bit 640x400 screen takes up 768k of ram rendering an A500 1meg system useless. A 24bit 640x400 screen requires much faster ram, and fster Amiga chips all around. It's just plain stupid trying to cram 24bit graphics on the chipbus, it's much easier (and faster) to create a ZorroII/III card to do it. You are not going to get a 24bit custom chip set for $200-300 with the same animation capabilities as the standard Amiga set. VGA is not 24bit, it's 8bit. > Its all up to CBM!!! I thought they should of add some of that stuff >to the CDTV, of course the price might be too high then..hmmm Oh well they >should do something. 3-rd party 24-bit cards just don't kick it! Its hard to >get them... Haveing them in the custom chips there would be more support!! >Cuz CBM is in charge of the Amiga's market, in away!! It's not hard to get third party boards, you just buy them. I see them advertised in most major Amiga magazines. We don't need new custom chips, we need device independence. I don't want to be limited by what C= makes, in the future I want to be able to plug in a third-party 1280x1024 24bit card with a RISC processor onboard and have it work perfectly. > I want buy the CDTV or CDROM drive until I see some good software >on it, that takes full advantage of the CD! Not some swift A500 port!! Oh >well later all! Well from the CDTV titles I have seen, the majority of them are "new" CDTV only titles. Except for the Psygnosis ports, you can choose from a wide variety of discs that support CD-Sound (high quality narration) and hundreds of megabytes of pictures. Check out the Time Table of history: Science and innovation, World Vista Atlas, Advanced military systems, American Illustrated Encyclopic Dictionary, and Airwave Adventure. If I had the $$$ I would buy a CDTV for these alone. The Atlas, Time Table, and Dictionary would be a great help for college. > A.t. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/15/91)
Quoted from <327@texbell.sbc.com> by mechrw@tnessd.sbc.com (Robert Wallace (214+464-6552)): > In article <4342.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: > > a. The human eye cannot even discern between 16 million colors _at > > this time_. > It won't be easy waiting for human evolution to catch up with computer evolution, > but it will be lots of fun! Maybe if we all got out and pushed... ;-) I was thinking more along of the lines of having the two merge. To fit in with the cyberpunk theme of this newsgroup. :) > Robert Wallace -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/15/91)
Quoted from <rkushner.7501@sycom.UUCP> by rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner): > How many IBM's do you think IBM sells around here, because they got the Made > in USA right on the front sticker? Betcha alot, because Uniroyal has nothing Funny. I was told just a few days ago by an IBM employee that a lot of the PS/2 components are made in Japan. This is IBM in a "foriegn country", though, so maybe the US models are not the same. > Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) (06/15/91)
In article <micke.1958@slaka.sirius.se> micke@slaka.sirius.se (Mikael Karlsson) writes: >In article <1991Jun7.233654.24493@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >>[..] >> The Amiga's clipboard cannot be fixed, as it is too unsupported and > >Marc, I think this is the first time I've seen you state something Y'know, guys, if we just IGNORE him, he'll probably go away. :-/
mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun11.034236.14427@ucselx.sdsu.edu> civir1070@ucsvax.sdsu.edu writes: >somewhere around 16 megs. The 3000 can only accomplish the 1.8 GIG with >FULL 32bit addresses, hence the need for a (non-existant) ZorroIII >memory card. Check your math. 32 bits = 4GIG.
sfsoc@maths.tcd.ie (Science Fiction Society) (06/15/91)
In article <rkushner.7501@sycom.UUCP>, rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) wrote: >Singapore?! Singapore!? Thats gotta be the dumbest thing they could do. I >Why did they lay people off then, if they can't make enough? Or did they hire >20% extra help in Singapore to make up for the lost jobs in CA? They churn out Classics and LCs in here in Ireland. There are *lots* of bootleg Macs going round---some amazing homebrew versions can be assembled to order really cheap. Of course, with Ireland producing Macs for the EC, it means that damn near everywhere is totally MacHappy. People think Classics are state of the art. Pathetic. By the way, I'd hope that you're equally xenophobic about your feelings over Paddys assembling Macs, otherwise you'd leave yourself open to accusations of racism :-) -- d u b l i n u n i v e r s i t y s c i e n c e f i c t i o n s o c i e t y ######################################################################### February 7th, 8th, 9th 1992 - TrinCon 400!!!! |Founded 1983:-1500 | Box 6, Regent House, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Eire|members and growing|
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/15/91)
In article <Alex_Topic.3428@tvbbs.UUCP>, Alex_Topic@tvbbs.UUCP (Alex Topic) writes: > > Yeah reading some of these messages about the Amiga's future, makes me >wonder sometimes. All I can say is CBM better put 24-bit graphics inside >SUPER DUPER DENISE!..heh I mean its abit overdued! When the A3000 was >released it should of had atleast 256colors at low'rez. Something similar to >VGA atleast! > I was reading BYTE the other day and they were talking about 24-bit >paint programs. They talked about IBM and MAC software. They mentioned the >Amiga in a column. They stated that the Amiga is the fastest with graphics, >but it lacks 24-bit support. All it has is 3-rd party stuff, which hardly >that existant in the Amiga market. > They said CBM should do something like incorporate 24-bit graphics >right into the CUSTOM chip set. I would be willing to upgrade my chips to get >24-bit graphics. For around $200-300!! Maybe have a faster blitter or >something and of course be backwards compatible.... or just have new >modes!!etc... > Its all up to CBM!!! I thought they should of add some of that stuff >to the CDTV, of course the price might be too high then..hmmm Oh well they >should do something. 3-rd party 24-bit cards just don't kick it! Its hard to >get them... Haveing them in the custom chips there would be more support!! >Cuz CBM is in charge of the Amiga's market, in away!! > I want buy the CDTV or CDROM drive until I see some good software >on it, that takes full advantage of the CD! Not some swift A500 port!! Oh >well later all! I've been saying this for the past year. Before the A3000 came out, some stupid Amiga developer sent me e-mail to the effect that the A3000 "has no weaknesses". This was a blatant lie, as it got me thinking that the A3000 must have improved graphics and color, as the current graphics and color capabilities (left over from the A1000) are weak in the extreme. Based on my enourmous disappointment with the graphics and color capabilities of the A3000, I am seriously expecting the 32-bit chipset to also be extremely disappointing. If that chipset comes out in summer 1992, more than *SEVEN YEARS* would have passed between the introduction of the original chipset and the introduction of the first chipset with actual improvements. For this much of a time lag to be justified, the 32-bit chipset will have to be extremely powerful indeed. Given what Commodore has done in the past, I am very justified in my doubts that it will be. Amiga -- Yesterday's technology, forever. > > A.t. ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun15.112510.17324@news.iastate.edu>, taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > Based on my enourmous disappointment with the graphics and color >capabilities of the A3000, I am seriously expecting the 32-bit chipset >to also be extremely disappointing. If that chipset comes out in >summer 1992, more than *SEVEN YEARS* would have passed between the >introduction of the original chipset and the introduction of the first >chipset with actual improvements. For this much of a time lag to be >justified, the 32-bit chipset will have to be extremely powerful indeed. >Given what Commodore has done in the past, I am very justified in my >doubts that it will be. > > Amiga -- Yesterday's technology, forever. Reading my message again, I realize that I was a bit too harsh, especially in a group that is read by so many Commodore development and support people. I would like to add some followup thoughts, then. The people in the software and hardware R&D departments at Commodore are a collection of perhaps some of the finest people in the computer industry, period. These people work long hours for practically nothing, and are rewarded with constant flames from both myself and others about the state of the Amiga's graphics and color capabilities. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these people. They are doing a very, very good job, and the Amiga would not even exist now without their efforts. The problem lies much higher up, in Commodore's management. Commodore just does not have enough of these people, and the few that they do have are being forced to work longer hours to make up for Commodore lack of a sufficiently large develop staff for what they are trying to do. The result is that projects (like the 32-bit chipset) take much longer to complete than they ever should. In summary, I would like to stress that I mean nothing negative to the Commodore R&D and support people who read Usenet. I really wish the management people read Usenet, as all of my Commodore flames are directed at this management, which refuses to hire enough development people to get projects like the chipset done in a more reasonable amount of time. If I had my way, I would have Commodore invest enough in R&D to double the salaries of the people Commodore already has, and hire enough more people to significantly ease the workload on everyone in the department. ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun15.112510.17324@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > I've been saying this for the past year. Before the A3000 came out, >some stupid Amiga developer sent me e-mail to the effect that the A3000 >"has no weaknesses". This was a blatant lie, as it got me thinking that >the A3000 must have improved graphics and color, as the current graphics >and color capabilities (left over from the A1000) are weak in the >extreme. [How can opinion be a "blatant lie"? The A3000 certainly has no-weaknesses for the kinds of stuff I have to do. Every computer can be considered weak in some area. For instance, most computers I know of are weak in built-in virtual-reality.] > Based on my enourmous disappointment with the graphics and color >capabilities of the A3000, I am seriously expecting the 32-bit chipset >to also be extremely disappointing. If that chipset comes out in >summer 1992, more than *SEVEN YEARS* would have passed between the >introduction of the original chipset and the introduction of the first >chipset with actual improvements. For this much of a time lag to be >justified, the 32-bit chipset will have to be extremely powerful indeed. >Given what Commodore has done in the past, I am very justified in my >doubts that it will be. Why does it have to be justified? For instance, CD-I and the 68040 were/are both late. The hubble was late. Products miss deadlines mainly because of problems, not because they are adding some super-duper features. I don't expect Comodore to ever release a 32-bit chipset. I expect them to work on DIG. I'd rather have add-in boards that are constantly evolving rather than rely on one companies product. A 32-bit chipset wouldn't work on the A500 which is Commodore's bread and butter of the Amiga line. > Amiga -- Yesterday's technology, forever. Actually Marc, you're remark is rather jerkish. C= engineers have worked hard on producing 2.0 and the A3000 and you still act as if they have done nothing. MB, yesterday's threads, reiterated forever. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/15/91)
[MB replying to his own post]
Was this a forged message?
Well if it wasn't, congraduations Marc, you've finally realized
where the real problem lies. So organize a letter writing campaign and
write to CBM management instead of bombarding CBM engineers with
putdowns about how inadequate their accomplishments is.
I'm glad you finally commented about the quality of CBM staff.
--
/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \
| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.|
\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/15/91)
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > Amiga -- Yesterday's technology, forever. How many Maalox(TM) moments are you able to create? Your worse that that Senator Richard Bryan who's driving up Maalox sales here in Detroit!!! I know I got fire in my belly now... -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/16/91)
bret@orac.UUCP (Bret Indrelee) writes: >On another tangent, why has no one mentioned one of the biggest reasons that >the MacIntosh is so slow? >On the MacIntosh, all data is referenced via a handle. This is a pointer >to a pointer. After making a toolbox call that allocates storage space, it >is neccessary to re-load from the original handle because a garbage >collection may have occurred. If you want speed in a tight loop, you lock the handle down (using HLock()), so that you're guaranteed the block of memory can't move. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "I didn't get where I am today without knowing a good deal when I see one, Reggie." "Yes, C.J."
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (06/16/91)
genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) writes: > >Theorically, the 386 and 486 can have more than 16000 segments of >4GB each segment (48 bits). This feature is ideal for multiuser >systems ---> memory protection. So far, no OS (that I know of) has >taken that advantage. Not even Unix, maybe OS/2 4.0 ?? :-) > 386-based UNIX has complete memory protection (as does OS/2 and even 286-based UNIX). The processor maintains both a segment descriptor table and a page table for each running task. So no process can step on your memory, be it another user's process or your own. It is true that it is theoretically possible to develop a 386-based OS that runs in the 386 equivalent of the 286's "large memory model". This OS would manage multiple 4GB code and data segments for each process. My question is, who needs this? Also, you'd have to start worrying about near and far pointers again! A near pointer would be a 32-bit offset, and a far pointer would be a 48-bit segment/offset pair. Virtual memory space would be 64 terabytes. Wow. -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/16/91)
In article <1991Jun15.115010.17684@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > > In summary, I would like to stress that I mean nothing negative to the >Commodore R&D and support people who read Usenet. I really wish the >management people read Usenet, as all of my Commodore flames are directed >at this management, which refuses to hire enough development people to >get projects like the chipset done in a more reasonable amount of time. >If I had my way, I would have Commodore invest enough in R&D to double >the salaries of the people Commodore already has, and hire enough more >people to significantly ease the workload on everyone in the department. > Marc, totally leaving out the issue of your being right or wrong: since, as you say, the people you want to send your message to aren't here, what is the point of flaming CBM? All it does is grate on the nerves of the R&D people here and cause people who aren't familiar with the Amiga to become unduly frightened of the machine. -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/16/91)
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >a very, very good job, and the Amiga would not even exist now without >their efforts. The problem lies much higher up, in Commodore's management. >Commodore just does not have enough of these people, and the few that >they do have are being forced to work longer hours to make up for >Commodore lack of a sufficiently large develop staff for what they >are trying to do. The result is that projects (like the 32-bit chipset) >take much longer to complete than they ever should. Ah, the voice of reason...Get many death threats? > In summary, I would like to stress that I mean nothing negative to the >Commodore R&D and support people who read Usenet. I really wish the >management people read Usenet, as all of my Commodore flames are directed >at this management, which refuses to hire enough development people to >get projects like the chipset done in a more reasonable amount of time. >If I had my way, I would have Commodore invest enough in R&D to double >the salaries of the people Commodore already has, and hire enough more >people to significantly ease the workload on everyone in the department. I think letters to Commodore themselves would be alot more effective than letters to UseNet. You would be suprised in the power of a letter. How about writing up your own USER SURVEY and post it to the net, and then mail the results to Commdore? Their own survey cards kinda blow. "How would you rate Commodore as a company ( ) Excellent ( ) Good ( ) Fair ( ) Poor" Geeze, you bought their computer, your going to think of the product as Good or better, and mix this up with the company as a whole. You have to admit, for $449 for an Amiga 500, you can't beat the power/price performance. Name me any other personal computer that gives you color, a mouse, 512K of ram and multi-tasking at that price? Maybe if they were to raise the price $25, they could sink another 14 million in R&D. Or with the current volume of sale, they might have that $25 per unit now they could stick in. They think too much like Chrysler though, and the compairson around here has been made quite often. Granted Chrysler and Commodore both get alot of bang for thier bucks in R&D, but they both underfund them. The only difference is Chrysler spends $50 million a month on advertising...or 1/2 of what they spend on R&D...I am not a stockholder in Commodore though, so I don't have their figures avaiable. What really gets me, is that people on the net say Apple is investing up to $600 million this year on R&D. Thats really nuts, thats 60% of Chryslers R&D budget...There must be more profit in computers than autos...I'm no expert, but I would suggest that maintaining and engineering over 40 car lines must cost more than software/hardware development of the Macintosh. Even if Apple stops pouring money into R&D, they still have outspent Chrysler's 1981 R&D budget. Maybe Apple grew to fast too soon, and don't realize they are NOT a 38 billion dollar company. If I remember right, the Amiga was $47 million dollars to engineer originally, including hardware/software, Apple would have 6 different Amiga type computers with massive co-processors and other cool stuff, just from their current R&D budget. If I was an Apple stockholder, I would really be concerned they were building a car and not a computer.. -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/16/91)
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: >Quoted from <rkushner.7501@sycom.UUCP> by rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) >> How many IBM's do you think IBM sells around here, because they got the Made >> in USA right on the front sticker? Betcha alot, because Uniroyal has nothing > > Funny. I was told just a few days ago by an IBM employee that a lot > of the PS/2 components are made in Japan. This is IBM in a "foriegn > country", though, so maybe the US models are not the same. I wouldn't be suprised if IBM doesn't make RAM anymore...the Japanese were dumping it here for years...Remember Reagan took action? The Sleeping President was concerned enough to do something about that...What we gotta do is hold these companies accountable for loosing control of the market they created...They should have charged DUMPING way before they lost control of it all...I did get a letter from an Apple employee saying most of the computers they sell are made in the USA...I wrote him back and asked about the classic made in Singapore and how many of those do they bring in, never got an responce... Sixty (60) minutes said Apple uses SONY power supplies, NEC chips, and Motorolla processors build in Malaysia...A real American company trying to use American parts I see.... Its really depressing to see this shit going on...NO ONE will have a job in 10 years..Only the ass****s that sell 'em. And the final nail in the coffin will be Apple being bought up by some Japanese company or just being put out of business by suppliers charging exorbinate rates for chips you can't find elsewhere because they want to sell computers here now, and they will be cheaper and better. If I were to open up this Amiga, i know I will find a backplane assembled in HONG KONG, RAM chips from japan, but they do have some control and manafacture their own custom chips and final assembly was in the USA. Plus the fact that Commodore sells more alot of units in Europe, I would expect a few parts from abroad, expected to find more than I found. Then again, they will have an advantage if the E.C. puts content restrictions on computers like they will on cars...What did the E.C. do? They told Japan they could only bring in x number of cars this year. Where did the rest that they planed to send to Europe go? Here!!! America...The land of one way trade...No where else.... What happened to the auto industry is in store for the computer industry. Over the last 10 years, so much has changed, that they will come in here with something and then cut back on the RAM, or power supplies, or something else they use and put the US companies at a cost disadvantage...I hear it allready happened in the clone market... >*** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (06/16/91)
<22372@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > >What's annoying about arguing PCs is, everything exists. When people argue >features, they point to $10,000 Compaqs. When they argue price, they point >to $3,000 Taiwan specials. > Actually, I've found that the cheap Taiwanese clones are usually faster, cheaper, and more compatible than the big names. Sure, Compaq can offer you a PC that's expandable to 512MB on board, at something like $600/MB. On the other hand, a typical cheap Taiwanese 386 motherboard has 16 standard SIMM slots for a total of 64MB. EISA systems can usually contain more. Believe it, with Compaq, you pay for the name and customer service, NOT for extra or superior features. > >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/16/91)
sfsoc@maths.tcd.ie (Science Fiction Society) writes: >In article <rkushner.7501@sycom.UUCP>, rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) wr >>Singapore?! Singapore!? Thats gotta be the dumbest thing they could do. I >>Why did they lay people off then, if they can't make enough? Or did they hire >>20% extra help in Singapore to make up for the lost jobs in CA? > >#They churn out Classics and LCs in here in Ireland. There are *lots* >of bootleg Macs going round---some amazing homebrew versions can be assembled >to order really cheap. Is that how they get a unit with a SONY power supply and NEC chips into Europe? I know they are more picky about content than we are....I know Honda has gone through MUCH grief to build a car in North America with upwards of 80% N.A. content, JUST for the option of sending it to EC 1992. Some people think they expanded their Marysville Ohio plant for the U.S. market, people who know, know otherwise...They will be sending them to Europe as U.S. cars, to compliment their plants they will have (or currently have) there. >#Of course, with Ireland producing Macs for the EC, it means that damn >near everywhere is totally MacHappy. People think Classics are state of the >art. Pathetic. You have to remember Apple has some really good marketing people. Thats what it takes to sell anything that sells at 2x its true market value..People talk on the net about Commodore, and how they don't advertise, and on how well they sell. They are not in the pricy market Mac is. If they were still selling A1000's for $2300, you wouldn't see 3 million units shipped today. Heck, you wouldn't even see a million. EVEN if they did spend as much as Apple on slick ads, because they never established any kind of an educational base, until way late...At least thats the message talking to people on the BBS's, that their H.S. has a Mac lab, their elementary school got Macs, etc... >#By the way, I'd hope that you're equally xenophobic about your >feelings over Paddys assembling Macs, otherwise you'd leave yourself open >to accusations of racism :-) Hey, if its to get it into the EC, and not to bring it over here! Be glad the EC is there to protect the jobs...Thats the way it should be...Not too many people working at Burger King are going to buy Macs...But with defence cuts, the recession, and the added taxes that those fools at "DisneyLand on the Potomac" pulled last year, we'll be lucky if the Burger Kings are here. Heard someone on the news call this a "DEPRESSION", and how 400 banks will fail this year...Guess NBC, ABC, and CBS are waiting for the stock market to crash before they start calling it a depression though... -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) DISCLAIMER: I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/16/91)
In article <244@touch.touch.com> mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) writes: >In article <micke.1958@slaka.sirius.se> micke@slaka.sirius.se (Mikael Karlsson) writes: >>In article <1991Jun7.233654.24493@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >>>[..] >>> The Amiga's clipboard cannot be fixed, as it is too unsupported and >> >>Marc, I think this is the first time I've seen you state something > >Y'know, guys, if we just IGNORE him, he'll probably go away. :-/ > We tried that already. Didn't work. 8-) Marc is really amazing. Sometimes he points out important things (not that they haven't been pointed out before, though). The amount of R&D spending and need for DIG/24-bit are very important factors. But what is equally amazing is the amount of blatant lies/errors (I don't know which) which he regularly comes out with. The most recent example being his statement that the Clipboard was designed from the beginning to only handle ASCII. I still remember when within a 48 hour period he posted SEVEN articles all lambasting the Amiga for not having 24-bit graphics. That was the one he ended with "Call me an asshole if you want." Most people did. 8-) -- Ethan Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/16/91)
In article <1991Jun15.170958.29852@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >bret@orac.UUCP (Bret Indrelee) writes: > >>On another tangent, why has no one mentioned one of the biggest reasons that >>the MacIntosh is so slow? > >>On the MacIntosh, all data is referenced via a handle. This is a pointer >>to a pointer. After making a toolbox call that allocates storage space, it >>is neccessary to re-load from the original handle because a garbage >>collection may have occurred. > > If you want speed in a tight loop, you lock the handle down (using >HLock()), so that you're guaranteed the block of memory can't move. Extra code IS extra code... Anyhow, another reason why the Mac is so slow is that it was designed to run Pascal programs. Pascal text strings aren't compatible with 'C' strings... Pascal uses a single byte at the front that contains the length of the string, and 'C' uses a null terminator. So these days, apps are written in 'C'. The 'C' compilers provide a library routine called ptoc() and ctop(), which convert the string formats back and forth. This is NOT a fast operation... -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
mmoore@ux.acs.umn.edu (Malcolm Diallo Moore) (06/17/91)
In article <17267@chopin.udel.edu> don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) writes: > This fool doesn't feel sorry for himself, either... having bought at >5 1/4 :-). > Does anyone know the letter code for Commodore, so I can look them up in the newspaper and follow the stock? Or watch them go by on FNN? ADthanxVANCE, **********************Malcolm "The Capital MD" Moore************************** * CHICAGO BULLS * Microcomputer & Workstation * * * -- * Networks Center * Jackin For Beats * * NBA * would have to PAY me * IN 1991 * * CHAMPZ! * to express any kind of an * * * * opinion in their behalf. * No Sell Out * * Yall DESERVED IT! * AMIGA IS THE RAWEST COMPUTER. * * ***************************mmoore@ux.acs.umn.edu******************************
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/17/91)
Responding to the following: "It is true that it is theoretically possible to develop a 386-based OS that runs in the 386 equivalent of the 286's "large memory model". This OS would manage multiple 4GB code and data segments for each process. My question is, who needs this? Also, you'd have to start worrying about near and far pointers again! A near pointer would be a 32-bit offset, and a far pointer would be a 48-bit segment/offset pair. Virtual memory space would be 64 terabytes. Wow." This is really interesting. I thought the 80x86 line had 4 segment registers, and would thus have a segmented address space of 64GB, not TB? Also, someone else posted that the 68020 and up could handle 64GB and that it had a segmented memory mode as well? I had never heard this before. VERY interesting!
bheil@scout-po.biz.uiowa.edu (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun15.112510.17324@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > Based on my enourmous disappointment with the graphics and color >capabilities of the A3000, I am seriously expecting the 32-bit chipset >to also be extremely disappointing. If that chipset comes out in >summer 1992, more than *SEVEN YEARS* would have passed between the >introduction of the original chipset and the introduction of the first >chipset with actual improvements. Hmmm. The Mac IIci that I'm using here doesn't have Disk DMA. When I need something off a floppy or my hard drive everything else I'm doing stops. The builtin 256 color graphics slow to a crawl and my network access stops completely. If apple doesn't stop using polled I/O in Macs they will die by next week. SEVEN YEARS have passed since the original Mac 128k appeared and Apple still doesn't have a DMA system or real multi-tasking (the IIfx HAS DMA and the MacOS doesn't even use it!) If the MacOS starts using DMA in 2001, it will be SEVENTEEN YEARS since the introduction of the original MAC!!!! Based on nothing at all I can say these things!! (except for the fact that most of it is true). > ------------------------------------------------------------- > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / >/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / >------------------------------------------------------------ >\ The great thing about standards is that / > \ there are so many of them to choose from. / > ------------------------------------------------------- >
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/17/91)
What alot of people don't seem to realize about 24 bits is this. the AVERAGE Amiga unit sold is a 1 meg machine WITHOUT a hard drive. what this means is that if 24 bit graphics were in the chipset, the AVERAGE user could NOT take advantage of it. since a single 24 bit image averages over 700k each, this is not effective. you wouldn't be able to load any paint programs and still have enough memory to work on the image. and only ONE image per disk? no, 24 bits standard would be stupid, in my opinion, since it would only increase the cost, and we all know that Amiga people don't like paying for things they can't use. how many people would buy an Amiga 500 with built-in ethernet? 1%? .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
dkoski@cs.arizona.edu (David A. Koski) (06/18/91)
In article <rkushner.8707@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: >Hey, if its to get it into the EC, and not to bring it over here! Be glad the >EC is there to protect the jobs...Thats the way it should be...Not too many >people working at Burger King are going to buy Macs...But with defence cuts, >the recession, and the added taxes that those fools at "DisneyLand on the >Potomac" pulled last year, we'll be lucky if the Burger Kings are here. Heard >someone on the news call this a "DEPRESSION", and how 400 banks will fail this >year...Guess NBC, ABC, and CBS are waiting for the stock market to crash before >they start calling it a depression though... Really? I work weekends at McDonalds and I bought a Next. Seems like I could have afforded a Mac. Strange thing about Burger King. I eat there a lot (cuz they have cheap food & it tastes pretty good), but I think they are not doing very well. There are no crew people working, only managers. Over the summer it is probably slower, but this looks bad. David Koski
stevep@wrq.com (Steve Poole) (06/18/91)
In article <5136@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >>Name that word processor. I can't think of a Mac word processor that doesn't >>support pasting in PICTS. A text editor might have this limitation. > >A Structured drawing item from MacDraw or any other structured drawing program >are NOT PICTS. An application is free to copy whatever type it wants to the clipboard. Every drawing application I know of copies a PICT by default. Some can optionally copy PostScript. Even bitmap oriented programs place a bitmap or pixmap on the clipboard as PICT. PICT is an extremely flexible opcode oriented system. It's not confined to only bitmaps or only scaleable objects. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- INTEL 80x86: Just say NOP -- Internet: stevep@wrq.com -- AOL: Spoole -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
stevep@wrq.com (Steve Poole) (06/18/91)
In article <5137@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >Ok, i'll give on that one, for now, but once you move that window off the >screen, you can't see it anymore. AmigaDos 2.0 supports virtual workbenches, >that will scroll the screen when you come to the edge so your work area can be >larger than your monitor space. This supported on the Mac? Depends on the video card. My 24-bit card supports virtual desktops up to around 4000x1500 with hardware pan and zoom. It's a SuperMac; I think that Radius and RasterOps cards have similar features. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- INTEL 80x86: Just say NOP -- Internet: stevep@wrq.com -- AOL: Spoole -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun15.121453.5511@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > I don't expect Comodore to ever release a 32-bit chipset. I expect them >to work on DIG. I'd rather have add-in boards that are constantly >evolving rather than rely on one companies product. Regardless of what Commodore does or does not do in the way of new Amiga chip sets, RTG (Re-Targetable Graphics, what everyone really wants, the "Workbench on a ULowell card" level of graphics support) is more important. If you have the ability to add pretty much any graphics board and run pretty much any graphics program on it, Commodore built-in graphics chips won't matter all that much, anymore than Apple's built-in graphics matter. >A 32-bit chipset wouldn't work on the A500 which is Commodore's bread and >butter of the Amiga line. A 32 bit Amiga chipset could live on a 16 bit machine just as easily as the current 16 bit chipset lives on the 32 bit A3000. No big deal, technically. However, you can be assured that a $150 chip set isn't going to wind up in a $500 computer. Amiga chips can set the base level of an Amiga computer's graphics capabilities, and in fact they have to suitable for base level configurations. But they shouldn't be the only game in town. And since there's no indication Amiga developers are interested in going the PClone route, dumping graphics.library and supporting each graphics board on their own, I suspect RTG is necessary to bring this fact "home" to everyone. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/18/91)
In article <245@touch.touch.com> mikeh@touch.touch.com (Mike Haas) writes: >In article <1991Jun11.034236.14427@ucselx.sdsu.edu> civir1070@ucsvax.sdsu.edu writes: >>somewhere around 16 megs. The 3000 can only accomplish the 1.8 GIG with >>FULL 32bit addresses, hence the need for a (non-existant) ZorroIII >>memory card. >Check your math. 32 bits = 4GIG. Zorro III cards are required to support full 32 bit addressing (eg, all 32 bit's worth of addressing, as well as proper function code support, must be respected). However, currently, there is "only" 1.75GB assigned to Zorro III in the A3000. This is an agreement between the backplane and system software for any given machine, and can change anytime we feel like changing it. No Zorro III cards will care. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/18/91)
In article <22516@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>A 32-bit chipset wouldn't work on the A500 which is Commodore's bread and >>butter of the Amiga line. > >A 32 bit Amiga chipset could live on a 16 bit machine just as easily as the >current 16 bit chipset lives on the 32 bit A3000. No big deal, technically. Let me clarify what I meant. As far as I know, no A500 shipped has 32-bit addressing on the motherboard. Unless I'm totally clueless here, you can't make a 100% 32-bit chipset that will simply plug&play in existing A500s. Sure you could always release a 32-bit chipset daughterboard which has it's own onboard 32-bit chipram, but anything that drives up the price of A500 significantly isn't going to do so well. I'm all for a 32-bit chipset, but not in the Amiga500. If C= wants to do a 32-bit chipset, they should release it in unison with RTG on a new "line" of Amiga's. (AmigaII 2000, AmigaII 3000, or simply make up a fancy lettering scheme."A2000 FX") BTW, If C= does do a 32-bit chipset, they should add in another co-processor like a cheap RISC processor or an ARM. >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/18/91)
Responding to the following: "Hmmm. The Mac IIci that I'm using here doesn't have Disk DMA. When I need something off a floppy or my hard drive everything else I'm doing stops. The builtin 256 color graphics slow to a crawl and my network access stops completely." And why do you think that is? Try installing a video card to control the monitor and you'll see about a three-fold improvement! The Mac IIci's built-in video is S-L-O-W, so why are you using it? It was meant only for those without the money for a video card, although if you don't have cash what are you doing with a IIci anyway?
matt@vrtwo.UUCP (Matt Buford) (06/18/91)
writes: >The clipboard holds basically one "thing" at a time. It is a system resource >and programs simply grab the "thing" when the user selects the Paste function. What would happen if say you ran a 20 line BBS and were using your word processor and something on the BBS used the clipboard at the same time as you tried to use it between your word processor and paint program? Problem? -- .____________________________________________________________________________. | | | | Please send all | Sysop of the Virtual Reality BBS | | complaints to | uunet.uu.net!umich!vela!sycom!vrtwo!matt | | | 808-337-1560 * 2400 baud * C-Net Amiga | | >NIL: | USR 14400 baud DS on order - 40 megs storage | |__________________________|_________________________________________________|
cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun15.112510.17324@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > Based on my enourmous disappointment with the graphics and color >capabilities of the A3000, I am seriously expecting the 32-bit chipset >to also be extremely disappointing. If that chipset comes out in >summer 1992, more than *SEVEN YEARS* would have passed between the >introduction of the original chipset and the introduction of the first >chipset with actual improvements. For this much of a time lag to be >justified, the 32-bit chipset will have to be extremely powerful indeed. >Given what Commodore has done in the past, I am very justified in my >doubts that it will be. From what has been said from C= employee's on the net, one can make a pretty good guess of what the new chip set will have. It appears that they only intend to improve the chipset to 32bits, leaving it at a similar clockspeed until 60ns DRAMS are common (as 80ns can't keep up with *2 speed). Bob from LSI design has implied in the past that the chip set will support 8 bit colour from 24 bit palette (not 24 bit colour on screen at once, or at least not at high res). With the increased bandwidth, 1024*768 in 8 bit colour should be possible, although it will probably chew most of the chip bus time as 16 colour 640*256 does now. C= should be able to get a bit of extra speed in the chips by removing some of the wait states (such as the copper wake up time). Really I don't think you can except much more with current technology. You'll have VGA colour/res probably at slightly higher performance (and better than most VGA cards) and everything less (like what you're using today), will fly... Correct any errors I've made, I make no claims at being any sort of chip expert! (I'm sure you would have anyway :-) ) > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / >/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / -- Colin Adams Computer Science Department James Cook University Internet : cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au North Queensland 'And on the eighth day, God created Manchester'
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/18/91)
In article <22516@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1991Jun15.121453.5511@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >> I don't expect Comodore to ever release a 32-bit chipset. I expect them >>to work on DIG. I'd rather have add-in boards that are constantly >>evolving rather than rely on one companies product. > >Regardless of what Commodore does or does not do in the way of new Amiga chip >sets, RTG (Re-Targetable Graphics, what everyone really wants, the "Workbench >on a ULowell card" level of graphics support) is more important. I do not agree at all. Every day, I grow increasingly convinced that DIG/RTG is *NOT* the answer, and that a new, powerful chipset is needed instead. DIG/RTG could be more important for high-end or mid-range systems used for applications that can justify not having the graphics capabilities built-in. However, the bulk of Commodore's sales are with the low-end A500 systems, and Commodore wants to expand their dependence on low-end systems with the CDTV. The best DIG/RTG-based operating system in the world will not help the A500 and the CDTV against Japenese competition. The CDTV already has color capabilities vastly inferior to the CD-I products, and a new chipset for the CDTV is going to be needed to fix this situation. The CD-I systems are not here in force yet, but by this time next year they will be, and Commodore needs to decide if they want to truly compete with these products, or resort to keeping the color capabilities the same and hope no buyers of CD-I/CDTV systems care about color capabilities. The Japenese are also not going to stand still. The latest issue of U.S. News and World Report (I left it at home by accident, so I do not have it with me to do exact quotes) has a short article about the low-end game-machine market, and contained a short blurb at the end that mentions a Japanese company that is planning to release a $650 dedicated game system next year that has true 24-bit graphics and animation. If this thing is for real, it will likely also be paired with CD-I technology and marketed as a CD-I system with superior graphics to even the present CD-I systems. Commodore already is in the position of having a low-end computer with color capabilities inferior to the less-expensive Super Nintendo, and this is going to get drastically worse if this 24-bit game machine is for real. In short, DIG/RTG is no solution for Commodore's long-term survival. With DIG/RTG and no improved chipset, Commodore could hang onto the above-$2000 computer market, but would lose the under-$1000 market along with all of the investments that they have made with the CDTV. I predict that within three years, there will be CD-I players available for less than $1000 with 32-bit processors, 24-bit color, and HDTV resolutions. The question is whether or not Commodore wants their CDTV system to still exist when these systems are available. > >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M. ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.194301.8588@milton.u.washington.edu> stevep@wrq.com (Steve Poole) writes: >In article <5137@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >>Ok, i'll give on that one, for now, but once you move that window off the >>screen, you can't see it anymore. AmigaDos 2.0 supports virtual workbenches, >>that will scroll the screen when you come to the edge so your work area can be >>larger than your monitor space. This supported on the Mac? > >Depends on the video card. My 24-bit card supports virtual desktops up to >around 4000x1500 with hardware pan and zoom. It's a SuperMac; I think that >Radius and RasterOps cards have similar features. My 3000 supports a WorkBench of up to 16,000 by 16,000 - but I can't imagine anyone USING a WB/desktop that large. It's much faster to just flip through several "screens" (or drag them down partially if you are lucky enough to use an Amiga (:-)) than to scroll/jump around a single large display. If they had some kind of direct optical input, where if you turned your head you would scroll over the desktop as if it was a REAL desktop, they might be more usefull... Dave
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun18.104100.12869@marlin.jcu.edu.au>, cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes: >From what has been said from C= employee's on the net, one can make >a pretty good guess of what the new chip set will have. It appears >that they only intend to improve the chipset to 32bits, leaving >it at a similar clockspeed until 60ns DRAMS are common (as 80ns >can't keep up with *2 speed). Bob from LSI design has implied in >the past that the chip set will support 8 bit colour from 24 bit >palette (not 24 bit colour on screen at once, or at least not at >high res). > >With the increased bandwidth, 1024*768 in 8 bit colour should >be possible, although it will probably chew most of the chip bus time >as 16 colour 640*256 does now. I am really, really hoping the new chipset has, at the minimum, the same overall graphics capabilities as the chipsets in the CD-I systems. This will be necessary because it will be essential for Commodore to eventually allow the CDTV to run CD-I software. It is also no secret anymore that Commodore is going to fully adopt the MPEG standard for full-motion video, so where does this fit in? Do you think Commodore is going to build MPEG decompression capabilities into the chipset, or will they merely include an MPEG chip with Amiga systems? (Just as good, but somewhat less exciting) > >C= should be able to get a bit of extra speed in the chips by removing >some of the wait states (such as the copper wake up time). > >Really I don't think you can except much more with current technology. >You'll have VGA colour/res probably at slightly higher performance >(and better than most VGA cards) and everything less >(like what you're using today), will fly... After so long, what is needed is something better than VGA technology. Already VGA cards are becoming available with 1024x768 non-interlaced resolutions and 15 bits of color. If the new chipset only supports 8-bit color at this resolution, Commodore is going to find themselves behind again the day the chipset finally reaches the market. >-- >Colin Adams >Computer Science Department James Cook University >Internet : cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au North Queensland >'And on the eighth day, God created Manchester' ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun18.124836.28792@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >Every day, I grow increasingly convinced that DIG/RTG is *NOT* the answer, >and that a new, powerful chipset is needed instead. Yes, and every day you post about it too. 1/2 :-) >[blah blah] >In short, DIG/RTG is no solution for Commodore's long-term survival. With >DIG/RTG and no improved chipset, Marc, do you understand what those little letters MEAN? They mean an easy way for manufacturers to make Amiga-compatible graphics cards! If 3rd-party companies can build graphics cards that can instantly plug into any Amiga and work in all modes, who cares if *Commodore* brings out new chips? DIG/RTG is a general solution to a big problem. A new Commodore chipset would be a short-term solution to a particular problem. Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) (06/18/91)
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > I don't expect Comodore to ever release a 32-bit chipset. I expect them >to work on DIG. I'd rather have add-in boards that are constantly >evolving rather than rely on one companies product. A 32-bit chipset One Question. What is DIG? -- // Jeff Hyche There can be only one! \\ // Usenet: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com \X/ Freenet: ap255@po.CWRU.Edu
stevep@wrq.com (Steve Poole) (06/19/91)
In article <mykes.3616@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >Anyhow, another reason why the Mac is so slow is that it was designed to >run Pascal programs. Pascal text strings aren't compatible with 'C' >strings... Pascal uses a single byte at the front that contains the length >of the string, and 'C' uses a null terminator. So these days, apps are >written in 'C'. The 'C' compilers provide a library routine called >ptoc() and ctop(), which convert the string formats back and forth. >This is NOT a fast operation... Really, you ought to do some Mac coding before you discuss handles and Pascal/C Toolbox ramifications. Most folks specify strings as resources and use appropriate Toolbox routines to manipulate them as Pascal strings. There's little need to perform conversion between formats; the convenience functions are useful mainly for quick hacks. I don't know who would be doing that kind of thing in a time critical place. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- INTEL 80x86: Just say NOP -- Internet: stevep@wrq.com -- AOL: Spoole -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.021837.10276@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <22516@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>>A 32-bit chipset wouldn't work on the A500 which is Commodore's bread and >>>butter of the Amiga line. >>A 32 bit Amiga chipset could live on a 16 bit machine just as easily as the >>current 16 bit chipset lives on the 32 bit A3000. No big deal, technically. > Let me clarify what I meant. As far as I know, no A500 shipped has >32-bit addressing on the motherboard. Unless I'm totally clueless here, >you can't make a 100% 32-bit chipset that will simply plug&play in >existing A500s. That's absolutely true. Same goes for the A3000, anyway, since the current custom chips only have 16 bit data paths anyway. However, the A3000's chip RAM _architecture_ might only need minimal changes for such a chip set, assuming it was designed looking reasonably similar in other ways to today's Agnus, Denise, and Paula. And since CPU access to the chip bus is not really part of the A/D/P design, but a system issue (handled by Gary and two PALs in the A3000), there's no reason you couldn't chop that 32 bit design out of your 32 bit computer and drop it into the 16 bit system with a few minor changes to the CPU access logic. >Sure you could always release a 32-bit chipset daughterboard >which has it's own onboard 32-bit chipram, but anything that >drives up the price of A500 significantly isn't going to do so well. Not driving up the price of the low end is a primary concern for the low end designers. Ideally, any high end technology that's developed should be able to find its way to the low end, but it won't always happen over night, and you can't expect tomorrow's 32 bit chip set to cost less than today's 16 bit chip set at any point. All I'm saying is that it's not impossible, from the technical point of view, to adapt high end stuff for the low end, but price will often preclude that (like, why you don't see 68030s in A500s now, and probably won't for many years to come). >BTW, If C= does do a 32-bit chipset, they should add in another >co-processor like a cheap RISC processor or an ARM. I'm all for additional processors, as long as I can justify the expense (eg, it does something useful, it's not just "way cool") and make sure it integrates into the system. Hardware wise, there are boatloads of neat processors out on the market: RISC, DSP, Math, Graphics, etc. Anything too expensive to neatly mesh with the system is always better as an add-on; you don't want an expensive feature 5% of your buyers will use dragging down the rest of the system by inflating the price. On the other hand, if something neat and relatively inexpensive will have the overall effect of attracting people to your system, it's worth looking into. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.124836.28792@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >In article <22516@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>Regardless of what Commodore does or does not do in the way of new Amiga chip >>sets, RTG (Re-Targetable Graphics, what everyone really wants, the "Workbench >>on a ULowell card" level of graphics support) is more important. > I do not agree at all. Every day, I grow increasingly convinced that >DIG/RTG is *NOT* the answer, and that a new, powerful chipset is needed >instead. Well, keep in mind that I'm the high-end hardware guy around here. In any case, the problem with a new, powerful chipset is that one single chip set does not necessarily perform the miracles that everyone thinks they "need". The high end CAD people want 1024x768x8 or better. High end DTP people might rather have 1280x1024x4. The Video people want the full NTSC color range, which comes out around 24 bits if you convert it to RBG (NTSC is actually around 12 bits/pixel of information). The A3000 people don't care all that much about the price, while the CDTV and A500 people scream for a better solution that costs less. You can see that it's likely any answer is not going to make everyone happy. >Commodore already is in the position of having a low-end computer with >color capabilities inferior to the less-expensive Super Nintendo, and >this is going to get drastically worse if this 24-bit game machine is for >real. Of course, you have to consider that for games, real time graphics are essential. A Nintendo with 1/4 the CPU power of an A500 has a hard enough time dealing with manipulating the Mario sprite, much less real sophisticated animation. Any game-only machine that sells for $650 could be in trouble, no matter what kind of display it has (I would suspect, if it's really a games machine, that it'll generate 12 bit NTSC rather than 24 bit RGB, they're indistinguishable from one another on a TV, and the former has half the information to manipulate than the latter). On the other hand, throw a CD in for that $650 and you'd have something indeed. >I predict that within three years, there will be CD-I players available for >less than $1000 with 32-bit processors, CD-I players use a special CPU32 based processor as it is. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/19/91)
Oddly, I think all three have a good point, but they're coming at it from different user and economic viewpoints: rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > I don't expect Comodore to ever release a 32-bit chipset. I expect them > to work on DIG. I'd rather have add-in boards that are constantly > evolving rather than rely on one companies product. I agree with Ray that the capability of 3td party board additions allows those who need and/or can afford it, to keep up with the latest technology. daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) comments: > Regardless of what Commodore does or does not do in the way of new Amiga > chip sets, RTG (Re-Targetable Graphics [is more important]. Dave agrees, but he's also [correct me if terribly wrong] been hinting that the base graphics will be updated, altho obviously not as much as the graphics in a higher end Amiga version could be. In other words, very expensive video modifications are unsuitable for the lowend market. taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) replies: >I do not agree at all. Every day, I grow increasingly convinced that >DIG/RTG is *NOT* the answer, and that a new, powerful chipset is needed >instead. [because of lowend system sales] And Marc is correct in that if the base gfx is raised to a certain point, _and_ at low price, then the need for RTG support is greatly lessened. How cheaply this could be done on current Amiga architecture, is the Q. The only thing I disagree with, is Marc's: > However, the bulk of Commodore's sales are with the low-end > A500 systems, and Commodore wants to expand their dependence on low-end > systems with the CDTV. The best DIG/RTG-based operating system in the > world will not help the A500 and the CDTV against Japanese competition. > > The CDTV already has color capabilities vastly inferior to the CD-I > products, and a new chipset for the CDTV is going to be needed [...] This is a common mistake made by many here: lumping CDTV in with the Amiga. As long as CBM continues to downplay the Amiga/CDTV connection, then the general public won't connect any CDTV _consumer appliance_ gfx deficiencies to the Amiga _computer_. They will instead remain two distinct markets/products... and what may end up being considered sufficient on one product by people, doesn't always apply to the other. For a wild example: if CBM made a B&W TV set which could only show 16 levels of grey, and also advertised it as "the same gfx as an Amiga!", then the Amiga suffers. If they don't, then only the TV sales suffer. So no, I don't see any absolute reason that lowend Amigas need to keep up with CD-I, or future HDTV capabilities, or etc. There's a need for an Amiga model with those capabilities (via chips or RTG), yes. But there's also a need for an inexpensive model, albeit with somewhat better gfx. regards to all - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
stevep@wrq.com (Steve Poole) (06/19/91)
In article <matt.0211@vrtwo.UUCP> matt@vrtwo.UUCP (Matt Buford) writes: >What would happen if say you ran a 20 line BBS and were using your word >processor and something on the BBS used the clipboard at the same time as you >tried to use it between your word processor and paint program? Problem? Why would something on the BBS use the clipboard? It's a mechanism for sharing data between applications, not BBS users. Anyhow, apps maintain private scrap and copy it to the clipboard when they're switched out. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- INTEL 80x86: Just say NOP -- Internet: stevep@wrq.com -- AOL: Spoole -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/19/91)
Responding to the following: "It is also no secret anymore that Commodore is going to fully adopt the MPEG standard for full-motion video, so where does this fit in? Do you think Commodore is going to build MPEG decompression capabilities into the chipset, or will they merely include an MPEG chip with Amiga systems? (Just as good, but somewhat less exciting)" Well it's too late for Commodore to become the first. The Macintosh OS is the first to have JPEG and MPEG compression/decompression built in (in the File Manager level, so present applications work with it). :-)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.124836.28792@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > > I do not agree at all. Every day, I grow increasingly convinced that >DIG/RTG is *NOT* the answer, and that a new, powerful chipset is needed >instead. > > DIG/RTG could be more important for high-end or mid-range systems used >for applications that can justify not having the graphics capabilities >built-in. However, the bulk of Commodore's sales are with the low-end >A500 systems, and Commodore wants to expand their dependence on low-end >systems with the CDTV. The best DIG/RTG-based operating system in the >world will not help the A500 and the CDTV against Japenese competition. > Marc, if you are going to argue an issue you should really just choose one position and stick to it. You're beginning to feel like a slimy jellyfish. All along, you've been arguing about how bad Commodore's graphics are compared to the VGA standard and the 24 bit standards. Well, DIG/RTG is FAR more important than a native chip set for that. So fine, Commodore emphasizes the high-end market, just as you asked. So now you say how they are ignoring their low-end market. GIVE THEM A BREAK! Sure, for A500s and CDTV the built in chip set is more important. I don't know Marc. Sometimes you point out very valid arguments, sometimes you are just wrong, and sometimes you come out as just a whiner. -- Ethan "...Know-Nothing-Bozo the Non-Wonder Dog, an animal so stupid that it had been sacked from one of Will's own commercials for being incapable of knowing which dog food it was supposed to prefer, despite the fact that the meat in all the other bowls had engine oil poured all over it."
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/19/91)
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: >>MacDraw saves files as MacDraw or as PICT. >>MacDraw files are propietary, subject to change, unsupported. >>PICT files are the standard Mac way of exchanging vector (and bitmap) >>graphics. >>Usually it is better to read PICT files. >> > > The text file included with this message went on to describe the MACDraw >file format in detail. MACDraw files ARE pict files, period. > > This brings up an interesting conlusion related to structured graphics. >On the Macintosh, virtually any graphics-related program can handle >structured graphics. On the Amiga, programs that can handle structured >graphics are practically non-existant. Even where such programs do exist, >they are largely incompatible with each other, supporting one of several >incompatible structured graphics formats. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / >/ ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / >------------------------------------------------------------ >\ The great thing about standards is that / > \ there are so many of them to choose from. / > ------------------------------------------------------- Well, as the author of your e-mail points out, MacDraw *CAN* save files in PICT format, not that it ALWAYS does, or even defaults to PICT. This is no different than Pagestream being able to save files as PageStream or IFF. IT is apparent that MacDraw files are NON-COMPATIBLE with other applications when in MacDraw format. The ability of programs to handle strucured PICT formats is more because of the way the Mac OS handles graphics primitives. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/19/91)
In article <66@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >"It is also no secret anymore that Commodore is going to fully adopt >the MPEG standard for full-motion video, so where does this fit in? Do >you think Commodore is going to build MPEG decompression capabilities >into the chipset, or will they merely include an MPEG chip with Amiga >systems? (Just as good, but somewhat less exciting)" > >Well it's too late for Commodore to become the first. The Macintosh OS is >the first to have JPEG and MPEG compression/decompression built in (in the >File Manager level, so present applications work with it). :-) I doubt it has MPEG built in, maybe JPEG, but certainly not "reeal-time decompressing JPEG" Even with a Mac IIfx it wouldn't be real time, so it's not much use for anims (e.g. Quicktime) Of course, Apple could always brain-damage the JPEG algorithm and trade off compression ratio for decompression speed, but at this point, delta compression starts to look goo. BTW, if you didn't know, if Commodore OEMs a MPEG chip, it won't be software driven, it will be hardware, and the #1 application would be CDTV. Normal Amiga's with harddrives can already play back anims faster than CDTV, MPEG's greatest use is on CDTV where CD-ROm access time is the bottle-neck. Please, show me some QuickTime code that uses the built in "MPEG". Perhaps Apple has "hooks" for it's future addition, but I doubt the actual algorithms are there, since it's not started in their QuickTime press release. And who cares who's first? Jeez, if C= got MPEG 6 months from now it wouldn't make a difference to the Amiga market, it would however cause some trouble in the CDTV market if CD-I had MPEG and CDTV did not. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/19/91)
>>Well it's too late for Commodore to become the first. The Macintosh OS is >>the first to have JPEG and MPEG compression/decompression built in (in the >>File Manager level, so present applications work with it). :-) > > I doubt it has MPEG built in, maybe JPEG, but certainly not > "reeal-time decompressing JPEG" Even with a Mac IIfx it wouldn't > be real time, so it's not much use for anims (e.g. Quicktime) Yah, I don't think MPEG is included with Quicktime yet either. The three main compression algorithms to be given with the first release, and the claimed specs, are: Photo Compressor - this uses an ISO-baseline software JPEG. Ratios: from 5:1 to 100:1 Speed: for 640x480x24-bit: 10 seconds on IIcx, 4 seconds on IIfx Animation Compressor - Apple-written RLE method for computer gfx/anims. Speed: up to 30fps, depends (as on any machine) on image deltas. Video Compressor - Also Apple-written method. For digitized video. Ratios: from 5:1 to 25:1 Speed: decompress fullscreen in 1/2 second for IIcx, 1/5 second for IIfx. Later, hardware methods will replace the software, of course. Kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
Alex_Topic@resbbs.UUCP (Alex Topic) (06/19/91)
Well I think personally that CBM should atleast give the A500 users a new
chipset that has abit faster blitter and atleast 256colors in lowrez!! Now
that would mean alot to alot of the A500 users. The CDTV should of atleast
had that built in to begin with. Thats real lousy, I mean the Amiga needs 256
colors to atleast compete with IBMs VGA cards in the game department!..ehh
Oh well I hope CBM does something. Hmm makes me sick seeing these
damn IBM ps/1 ads, why doesn`t CBM get off their ass and run neck to neck ads
against them. Geez alot of the people I talked never heard of the Amiga! heh
yep they heard of the MAC or IBM..hmmm I hate to hear things like that..
later....
A.t.stevep@wrq.com (Steve Poole) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun18.125210.3651@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: > My 3000 supports a WorkBench of up to 16,000 by 16,000 - but I can't >imagine anyone USING a WB/desktop that large. It's much faster to just flip >through several "screens" (or drag them down partially if you are lucky enough >to use an Amiga (:-)) than to scroll/jump around a single large display. > If they had some kind of direct optical input, where if you turned >your head you would scroll over the desktop as if it was a REAL desktop, >they might be more usefull... I've never made up my mind about those pull down screens. That's an option I'd like to have available on the Mac. I haven't done enough Amiga productivity stuff to form a solid opinion. The closest the Mac has is the ability to set aside either the current application layer or all other layers. It's a quick way to hide applications that aren't relevant at the moment. Tell me when you have that direct optical hookup ready for beta! -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- INTEL 80x86: Just say NOP -- Internet: stevep@wrq.com -- AOL: Spoole -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/20/91)
In article <Alex_Topic.3456@resbbs.UUCP> Alex_Topic@resbbs.UUCP (Alex Topic) writes: > Oh well I hope CBM does something. Hmm makes me sick seeing these >damn IBM ps/1 ads, why doesn`t CBM get off their ass and run neck to neck ads >against them. Geez alot of the people I talked never heard of the Amiga! heh >yep they heard of the MAC or IBM..hmmm I hate to hear things like that.. >later.... > > A.t. > Cause IBM could spend as much money as Commodore earns all year doing ads, without flinching. In fact, they probably do. Commodore's profits are beginning to come back up, but don't forget that Commodore has a reasonable sized debt they might want to clean up, and lots of pressings needs in R&D, sales AND marketing. Money is spread REAL thin when you only have $50 million in earnings to play with. 8) -- Ethan "...Know-Nothing-Bozo the Non-Wonder Dog, an animal so stupid that it had been sacked from one of Will's own commercials for being incapable of knowing which dog food it was supposed to prefer, despite the fact that the meat in all the other bowls had engine oil poured all over it."
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (06/20/91)
In article <64@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >"Hmmm. The Mac IIci that I'm using here doesn't have Disk DMA. When I need >something off a floppy or my hard drive everything else I'm doing stops. The >builtin 256 color graphics slow to a crawl and my network access stops >completely." > >And why do you think that is? Try installing a video card to control the >monitor and you'll see about a three-fold improvement! The Mac IIci's >built-in video is S-L-O-W, so why are you using it? It was meant only for >those without the money for a video card, although if you don't have cash >what are you doing with a IIci anyway? I want to get this straight .. So Apple entices people into buying machines by offering `low' prices. But because they're too lazy to design correctly you get inferior performance? And then they nickle & dime you into the poor house in an attempt to get good performance? Do I have it right? David -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- <- <- "MS-DOS? Where we're going we don't need MS-DOS." --Back To The Future
storch@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Matthew Storch) (06/20/91)
I just had my first look at this newsgroup tonight, and was surprised by the extreme positions taken up on both sides of arguments concerning future Amiga video technology. A few people seemed to be demanding 24-bit graphics, while others adamantly defended Commodore's minimal improvements in video technology over the past six years. I contend that both extremes are untenable positions. Clearly, it is unreasonable for Commodore to make an Amiga with 24-bit graphics, 32-bit custom chips, additional graphics processors, etc. because as many have accurately pointed out, the costs are too high. Costs, of course, are EVERYTHING in this business, because if you want a machine with the above capabilities, NO PROBLEM: go out and buy a Silicon Graphics workstation or some such for $10,000 -> $20,000 or more. So anyone making demands for unreasonable hardware improvements is, well, unreasonable. There is another side to the picture, however. It has now been almost six (count 'em) SIX years since the release of the original A1000, and there has been almost no architectural improvements to the Amiga sound and graphics systems. In fairness to CBM, I must immediately point two things out, however. First, there HAS been substantial improvements in the Amiga's expansion bus; the A1000 had one 86-pin expansion connector, while the 2000 has: the CPU slot with some critical improvements for better coprocessor support the video slot, which has made all sorts of interesting peripherals possible, particularly the FlickerFixer an adequate supply of general-purpose expansion slots plus the IBM compatibility slots The 3000 has at least one (I forget exactly how many) 32-bit slot to allow for 68040 boards and other high-power boards. And I almost forgot, the beloved autoconfigure architecture! The IBM guys are still fighting with I/O port, interrupt number, I/O window address, etc. collisions between various pieces of hardware. For all this Dave Haynie and company deserve a warm round of applause. The other thing I need to point out is that the sound, although not improved since the A1000, was so good to start with that it's still quite respectable in 1991. It is a simple, beautiful, flexible DMA architecture that does the job well. It is unreasonable to really go crazy with heavy- duty sound support; musicians have a better solution in MIDI-controlled sythesizers. So, perhaps the sound chips can be enhanced to play 16-bit samples in addition to (for backward compatibility) the current 8-bit samples. Either way it's not that big a deal, since the current sound is largely "good enough". Graphics is another matter entirely. Graphics improvements are VERY necessary. The sheer amount of people arguing the issue is testamony to that. I can find virtually no excuse for CBM's minimal improvement in the graphics hardware in six years. In defence of CBM, and in argument for some sort of device independent graphics system, Dave Haynie argues that different classes of Amiga users (DTP people, video people, games people, etc.) will want different things in the next generation graphics system, and that it's impossible to please everyone. With all due respect to Dave, that is a cheap excuse. OF COURSE it's impossible to please everyone, especially those who make unreasonable demands for super-duper 24-bit graphics. However, it IS reasonable to expect SOME sort of nontrivial improvement in the architecture in SIX years. In those six years the IBM guys have gone from CGA as the standard (far inferior to the Amiga chipset) to "Super VGA", which is moderately SUPERIOR to the Amiga chipset, depending on how you look at it. I CAN say with very little room for argument that the IBM versions of many games have comparable graphics to the Amiga version, and some have BETTER graphics than the Amiga version. I am not asking CBM to produce miracles as some people do. But it is far past time for SOME SORT OF REASONABLE IMPROVEMENT. How about 1024x768 in 2 bit planes? If my trusty calculator is right, that would be just less than 200K per screen, perfectly workable with even the current 1 Meg of chip ram. The ECS may address this point with SuperHires mode, but 1) it has been infinitely delayed and STILL isn't being sold to the general public 2) Not having it, I can't be sure, but I get the idea from reading some net postings that it's not going to really work with the current deinterlacers (the FlickerFixer or Commodore's) because the deinterlacers aren't designed to sample more than 640 or so pixels on one line. This means your choices are either 1280x200, (a hopelessly lopsided aspect ratio), or 1280x400 with standard interlace flicker, which I (and most other people) find either barely useable or totally unacceptable, depending on your exact type of monitor and what sort of image you're looking at. I would be satisfied with 1280x400 DEINTERLACED support in as little as two bit planes, and with some reasonable amount of memory bandwidth available for the custom chips to operate on. How about 640x200 by four planes WITH NO BLOCKING, so that most of the bandwidth of the blitter is not wasted waiting for the display hardware? With the current system, all games with substantial animation have no realistic hope of running in anything better than 320x200, but with the blocking removed, 640x200 only costs twice as much as 320x200 in the same number of planes. That would make 640x200 games workable with maybe even the current 7MHz CPU, and certainly feasible with anything faster. The memory blocking really is a major issue, and one that's not all that impossible to solve technically. Even if a general 32-bit version of the custom chips is too difficult for the guys at CBM, they can at least double their display-access bandwidth by organizing the memory 32-bits wide just for the purposes of latching 4 bytes at a time for the display hardware; the display chip doesn't even need to be 32 bits wide, just a miserable latch has to be 32 bits wide. The two 16-bit quantities could be fed one at a time into the "current" (current for developers and maybe A3000 owners, that is) SuperHires display chip, and the strain on chip ram bandwidth is at least halved for the current video modes. The engineers at CBM probably thought of this at some point (am I right, Dave?) but for whatever reason CBM just doen't seem to want to improve the basic graphics hardware. Instead they have wasted engineering effort on kluges like the (also infinitely delayed) A2024 "Hedly HiRes" monitor, and the A2091. There is nothing wrong with the 2091, but there was almost no reason for Commodore to waste precious engineering effort on it; by the time it came out, third party manufacturers had comparable boards. Why waste time designing something GVP, etc. already had? Note that I fully support the original 2090; it came out with the 2000 and there was no alternative at the time. As for the 2024 I think that it's RIDICULOUS to invest in a proprietary display with no future like the 2024, in light of the excellent and reasonably priced range of COLOR multisync monitors available. (Ridiculous from both the users' and CBM's standpoints.) Device independent graphics are fine, but it is still CRUCIAL to raise the lowest common denominator, so ALL software companies, most notably game manufacturers, will take advantage of the better hardware. Besides, there is more to device independent graphics than a new graphics.library. What about the Copper? Try to pull a 1280x400 screen down on the legendary A2024. That's the price you pay for changing the video architecture, and not just scaling it up. Another argument against having improvements only in device independent graphics: what do you do with the A500-type machines? Yet another problem: if the boards only work in 2000/3000 type machines, they will be expensive, especially at first, since a relatively small number of people will be buying them. Dave said that it will be some time before 68030s are cheap enough to go in A500-class machines. I agree, but how about a machine like this: an A500 with 68020 at 14.2xxx MHz, so as not to mess up the system timing if that's cheaper than an asynchronous design. 1 meg of 32-bit fast memory for the CPU, and 1 meg of 16-bit chip ram with the above-mentioned latch trick to alleviate display bandwidth problems. How about it, anyone at CBM? Would it really be THAT expensive? It can't be that hard to do, having already designed the A2620, A2630, and A3000. A corresponding 2000 class machine could be made -- more or less an A2500 with the video enhancements and the 68020 on the motherboard, as a first step toward raising the lowest common denominator. The 500-class machine should put the Amiga back on the cover of Byte as the first low end machine with a true 32-bit CPU (if not 32-bit custom chips -- oh well). Sorry this has been so long, but it has been truely frustrating watching Amiga graphics hardware go basically nowhere since 1985, while the IBM clones have gone from CGA to $200 Super-VGA. (Of course, their problem is no reasonable software standard whatsoever, so everyone has to pick a few modes and support them the hard way.) Finally, on a somewhat different note, WHERE is v2.0??????? In April 1990 at World of Commodore in New York CBM employees told me something like "early fall" (of 1990!) for the A500/A2000 version. A3000s have had v2.0 for what seems like forever. Why not release it already? It's going to be impossible to get ALL the bugs out of something as complex as 2.0; if it's stable enough for the A3000, then sell the damn thing already! Isn't two years ENOUGH between OS updates? Couldn't a few features have been left out in the interests of getting it out the door a mere 3-4 months after the original release timeframe? (I mean by the end of last year or so.) Oh, well, enough complaints already. Matt Storch (storch@cs.uiuc.edu)
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/20/91)
Responding to the following: ">What would happen if say you ran a 20 line BBS and were using your word >processor and something on the BBS used the clipboard at the same time as you >tried to use it between your word processor and paint program? Problem?" The clipboard is a user interface device, to be used by humans only! No program would use the clipboard to exchange or copy data between applications or otherwise. The clipboard is used only when the user gives the magic Copy, Cut, or Paste.
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/20/91)
Responding to the following: "I doubt it has MPEG built in, maybe JPEG, but certainly not "reeal-time decompressing JPEG" Even with a Mac IIfx it wouldn't be real time, so it's not much use for anims (e.g. Quicktime)" What do you mean real-time JPEG and animation? JPEG is a still-image compression standard.
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (06/20/91)
In article <59@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >>It is true that it is theoretically possible to develop a 386-based OS that >>runs in the 386 equivalent of the 286's "large memory model". This OS would >>manage multiple 4GB code and data segments for each process. My question is, >>who needs this? Also, you'd have to start worrying about near and far pointers >>again! A near pointer would be a 32-bit offset, and a far pointer would be a >>48-bit segment/offset pair. Virtual memory space would be 64 terabytes. Wow. > >This is really interesting. I thought the 80x86 line had 4 segment registers, >and would thus have a segmented address space of 64GB, not TB? Also, someone >else posted that the 68020 and up could handle 64GB and that it had a >segmented memory mode as well? I had never heard this before. VERY >interesting! > Look at it this way -- the 80286 has 4 segment registers, just as you said, and each segment is no more than 64KB in length, but it can still physically address 16MB, and its maximum virtual address space is 1GB. The way this works is that each program has access to MULTIPLE code and data segments. There are special instructions for dealing with this. The "far CALL", for example, replaces the code segment register as well as the program counter. The compiler generates code to replace the data segment register in order to access "far data". The virtual address space of a process running on the 80286 consists of 16384 segments, each 64K in length, for a total of 1GB. On the 386, you have 16384 segments, each 4GB in length, for a total of 64TB. Incidentally, there are 6 segment registers on the 386 and up. FS and GS are the two new ones. -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.073024.3841@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <66@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >>Responding to the following: >> >>"It is also no secret anymore that Commodore is going to fully adopt >>the MPEG standard for full-motion video, so where does this fit in? Do >>you think Commodore is going to build MPEG decompression capabilities >>into the chipset, or will they merely include an MPEG chip with Amiga >>systems? (Just as good, but somewhat less exciting)" >> >>Well it's too late for Commodore to become the first. The Macintosh OS is >>the first to have JPEG and MPEG compression/decompression built in (in the >>File Manager level, so present applications work with it). :-) Well the Mac wasn't first. MPEG is just being standardized. Not in the Mac OS, JPEG may be in the OS. The NeXT has had support for JPEG since the introduction of 2.0 of the OS. I've been doing JPEG decompression/compression for a couple of months on my NeXT. You can trade of quality for amount of compression when you process images. Decompression is done on the fly when you tell an application to open an image. It isn't real time but it works very well. So the NeXT not the Mac was first with JPEG. > > I doubt it has MPEG built in, maybe JPEG, but certainly not >"reeal-time decompressing JPEG" Even with a Mac IIfx it wouldn't >be real time, so it's not much use for anims (e.g. Quicktime) ~~~~~~~~ So true. On a NeXT with lots of memory and DMA it isn't real time. >Of course, Apple could always brain-damage the JPEG algorithm and >trade off compression ratio for decompression speed, but at this point, >delta compression starts to look goo. On a NeXT you can do the trade off yourself. If you want a high quality image when you decompress you choose a lower compression factor. > > >-- >/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ >| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| >\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * / -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/21/91)
storch@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Matthew Storch) writes: [much good stuff deleted] >The engineers at CBM probably thought of this at some point (am I right, >Dave?) but for whatever reason CBM just doen't seem to want to improve >the basic graphics hardware. Instead they have wasted engineering effort >on kluges like the (also infinitely delayed) A2024 "Hedly HiRes" monitor, >and the A2091. There is nothing wrong with the 2091, but there was almost >no reason for Commodore to waste precious engineering effort on it; by the >time it came out, third party manufacturers had comparable boards. Why >waste time designing something GVP, etc. already had? Note that I fully >support the original 2090; it came out with the 2000 and there was no >alternative at the time. As for the 2024 I think that it's RIDICULOUS >to invest in a proprietary display with no future like the 2024, in light >of the excellent and reasonably priced range of COLOR multisync monitors >available. (Ridiculous from both the users' and CBM's standpoints.) Commodore built a 2091 for numerious reasons...One is pride, how would Commodore look if they shipped a GVP controller in an A2500? Would you have scorned them if they were still shipping the 2500 with an 2090???? Another reason was cost. The chips they have to buy from Western Digital probably cost alot less if you buy them in large lots. And if you look at the A2091 to the 2090, you can see it has a part count thats hundreds less than the 2090. Plus creating their own system, will kinda wake up the misguided that made non-RDB units that argued that Commodore doesn't make one... How does this sound...Commodore should be bold, and add on-board SCSI to all Amigas built after January 1992. Across the line, except the A500C until they can afford to add it to a $500 machine. Then alot of places that sell Mac only SCSI drives would jump on the bandwagon of selling external SCSI's for Amigas as well... They could call them the A500PS, A2000S, and the A2500S. It would encourage A500PS owners to get Hard Drives, especially if it only costs $400 for 100 megs...instead of $1000 for 100 megs that it currently costs with external controllers...Raise the price of the computers $50 if thats what it takes..People looking at A500P's wouldn't mind paying $50 extra if they know its saving them $400 in the future... -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) If Americans only cared about their Government as much as their SPORTS!!
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/21/91)
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >">What would happen if say you ran a 20 line BBS and were using your word >>processor and something on the BBS used the clipboard at the same time as you >>tried to use it between your word processor and paint program? Problem?" > >The clipboard is a user interface device, to be used by humans only! >No program would use the clipboard to exchange or copy data between >applications or otherwise. The clipboard is used only when the user >gives the magic Copy, Cut, or Paste. > Yeah! Its a users only type of thing.... I wouldn't mind a way to cut something from a text editor and send it to my terminal though....Or cut something from the BBS and send it to the text editor or from text editor to the BBS... -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) It was Atari that advertised in 1985 - "AMERICA, WE BUILT IT FOR YOU, the Atari 520ST" - Too bad they didn't mention they were built in their Taiwan factory.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/21/91)
In article <74@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >"I doubt it has MPEG built in, maybe JPEG, but certainly not >"reeal-time decompressing JPEG" Even with a Mac IIfx it wouldn't >be real time, so it's not much use for anims (e.g. Quicktime)" > >What do you mean real-time JPEG and animation? JPEG is a still-image >compression standard. JPEG wasn't DESIGNED for multiple images, but you can always try to load-and-decompress separate JPEG files in real time, which is better than not animating at all! real-time JPEG would mean the HD and decompression algorithm and CPU are fast enough to load and display an image in 1/30th of a second. -- Ethan "...Know-Nothing-Bozo the Non-Wonder Dog, an animal so stupid that it had been sacked from one of Will's own commercials for being incapable of knowing which dog food it was supposed to prefer, despite the fact that the meat in all the other bowls had engine oil poured all over it."
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/21/91)
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: >>"I doubt it has MPEG built in, maybe JPEG, but certainly not >>"reeal-time decompressing JPEG" Even with a Mac IIfx it wouldn't >>be real time, so it's not much use for anims (e.g. Quicktime)" >What do you mean real-time JPEG and animation? JPEG is a still-image >compression standard. Yes, but the C-Cube chip is fast enough to decompress JPEG images at 30 fps. SuperMac and their Digital Video product do just this. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Murphy's Law of Intelism: Just when you thought Intel had done everything possible to pervert the course of computer architecture, they bring out the 860
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/21/91)
Responding to the following: ">And why do you think that is? Try installing a video card to control the >monitor and you'll see about a three-fold improvement! The Mac IIci's >built-in video is S-L-O-W, so why are you using it? It was meant only for >those without the money for a video card, although if you don't have cash >what are you doing with a IIci anyway? I want to get this straight .. So Apple entices people into buying machines by offering `low' prices. But because they're too lazy to design correctly you get inferior performance? And then they nickle & dime you into the poor house in an attempt to get good performance?" No, you don't have it right. The whole problem is that it doesn't have its own VRAM to work with, but instead uses the (slower) DRAM on the bus (bank A) and thus locks that bank out of the CPUs reach during access by the built-in video. THAT's the problem. Of course, they COULD'VE included its own VRAM, but then it wouldn't be as low-cost.
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (06/21/91)
In article <rkushner.0349@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: >dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >>Responding to the following: >> >>">What would happen if say you ran a 20 line BBS and were using your word >>>processor and something on the BBS used the clipboard at the same time as you >>>tried to use it between your word processor and paint program? Problem?" >> >>The clipboard is a user interface device, to be used by humans only! >>No program would use the clipboard to exchange or copy data between >>applications or otherwise. The clipboard is used only when the user >>gives the magic Copy, Cut, or Paste. >> > >Yeah! Its a users only type of thing.... I wouldn't mind a way to cut >something from a text editor and send it to my terminal though....Or cut >something from the BBS and send it to the text editor or from text editor to >the BBS... If you are sitting at the BBS host machine, there is nothing to prevent you (the User) from cutting and pasting from the BBS to some other program. If you are using a terminal emulator to log into a remote system, there is nothing to prevent you from cutting and pasting information on the screen. What the original poster was asking about was what would happen if someone logged onto the BBS tried to access the host machine's Clipboard. This can't happen, so there is no conflict. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 B0 f++ c+ g+ k s+(+) e+ h- pv (qv) | Telephone: 312-702-6900
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/22/91)
>How does this sound...Commodore should be bold, and add on-board SCSI to all >Amigas built after January 1992. Across the line, except the A500C until they >can afford to add it to a $500 machine. Then alot of places that sell Mac only >SCSI drives would jump on the bandwagon of selling external SCSI's for Amigas >as well... They could call them the A500PS, A2000S, and the A2500S. It would >encourage A500PS owners to get Hard Drives, especially if it only costs $400 >for 100 megs...instead of $1000 for 100 megs that it currently costs with >external controllers...Raise the price of the computers $50 if thats what it >takes..People looking at A500P's wouldn't mind paying $50 extra if they know >its saving them $400 in the future... You are correct one one point: all Amigas across the board from the highest A3000 systems down to the lowest A500 systems should definately have on-board SCSI interfaces. Commodore could leave the hard drive out of the A500C, but the SCSI interface should still there as standard hardware so that owners could upgrade to hard drives very easily. This is what Apple is doing with the MAC Classic, and if this accounts for even a fraction of the Classic's success, Commodore should do the same for their entire product line. In addition, all Amiga systems above the A500 should include SCSI interfaces, hard drives, and display enhancers as standard hardware. This includes the A2000, which has become so underpowered and overpriced as of late compared to the A500 below it and the A3000 above it that it creates a gaping hole in Commodore's product line. > >-- C-UseNet V0.42e > Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 > P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis > Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support > UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) > If Americans only cared about their Government as much as their SPORTS!! ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/22/91)
Responding to the following: "You are correct one one point: all Amigas across the board from the highest A3000 systems down to the lowest A500 systems should definately have on-board SCSI interfaces. Commodore could leave the hard drive out of the A500C, but the SCSI interface should still there as standard hardware so that owners could upgrade to hard drives very easily. This is what Apple is doing with the MAC Classic, and if this accounts for even a fraction of the Classic's success, Commodore should do the same for their entire product line." This is what Apple is doing with the Macintosh Classic? This is nothing new. Every Macintosh since the 512KE (1985?) had built in SCSI. But you may be right about that being a major factor in its success.
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/22/91)
Responding to the following: "Look at it this way -- the 80286 has 4 segment registers, just as you said, and each segment is no more than 64KB in length, but it can still physically address 16MB, and its maximum virtual address space is 1GB." I understand that, on the 286, the segment registers (in 16-bit protected mode) are used as pointers to a table of 24-bit addresses, and that's how it addresses 16MB. However, I don't understand the underlying difference between accessing physical memory and virtual memory. That is, why one should be less limited than the other. Maybe I should take a class on CPU design and not bug you guys about it. I also don't understand how it can address 16384 segments if it only has 6 segment registers! (each one-bit, right? Or is that where my mistake is?) But what really intruiged me is that the 68000 line also had a segmented memory model (?). How does this work? It also has 4 segment registers?
frank@hfsi.UUCP (Frank McPherson) (06/22/91)
In article <rkushner.0349@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: > >Yeah! Its a users only type of thing.... I wouldn't mind a way to cut >something from a text editor and send it to my terminal though....Or cut >something from the BBS and send it to the text editor or from text editor to >the BBS... > It's called Snap. I'm using it right now. It's available on Fred Fish Disk #326, but that's a slightly older version. It may have come over comp.{binaries|sources}.amiga sometime recently, but I'm not completely sure about that one. It's quite nice, allowing you to grab text from anywhere and insert if anywhere else which will allow the insertion of text. I haven't done much cutting of graphics, but from what I understand, you can cut graphics images and copy them to the clipboard or to a file. -- Frank McPherson INTERNET: emcphers@manu.cs.vt.edu --
frank@hfsi.UUCP (Frank McPherson) (06/22/91)
In article <1991Jun21.183216.29240@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > > In addition, all Amiga systems above the A500 should include SCSI >interfaces, hard drives, and display enhancers as standard hardware. This >includes the A2000, which has become so underpowered and overpriced as of >late compared to the A500 below it and the A3000 above it that it creates >a gaping hole in Commodore's product line. I agree with you about the SCSI interface; it would be nice if it were standard on everything. I disagree that the A2000 should be priced very low to sell more of them. It makes more sense to me to price the A2000 close enough to the price of an A3000 that most people who are considering getting a higher-end Amiga than a 500 may as well go with the A3000-16/50, since it's only <insert dollar amount here> dollars more than the A2000. The larger the percent of the Amiga ownership we can get on the newer machines, the more of a chance there is for real advances in the architecture (chipset, etc) and the operating system (device independent graphics, etc). -- Frank McPherson INTERNET: emcphers@manu.cs.vt.edu --
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/22/91)
In article <430@hfsi.UUCP>, frank@hfsi.UUCP (Frank McPherson) writes: >In article <1991Jun21.183216.29240@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> >> In addition, all Amiga systems above the A500 should include SCSI >>interfaces, hard drives, and display enhancers as standard hardware. This >>includes the A2000, which has become so underpowered and overpriced as of >>late compared to the A500 below it and the A3000 above it that it creates >>a gaping hole in Commodore's product line. > >I agree with you about the SCSI interface; it would be nice if it were >standard on everything. I disagree that the A2000 should be priced >very low to sell more of them. It makes more sense to me to price the >A2000 close enough to the price of an A3000 that most people who are >considering getting a higher-end Amiga than a 500 may as well go with >the A3000-16/50, since it's only <insert dollar amount here> dollars >more than the A2000. The larger the percent of the Amiga ownership we >can get on the newer machines, the more of a chance there is for real >advances in the architecture (chipset, etc) and the operating >system (device independent graphics, etc). That is not what I said. I don't think the A2000 should be lower-priced, I think it should be discontinued entirely. It costs too much to make, and gives you far too little performance for the dollar compared to the A500 and A3000. The A2000 should be replaced with a machine with fewer slots, smaller case, smaller power supply, and a built-in SCSI controller and display enhancer. The A2000 really is creating a very large, empty void in Commodore Amiga product line. At the top, Commodore has a very competitive machine in the A3000 to compete with other systems priced above $2500. In the low-end, Commodore's A500 is also adequate competition for machines priced below $1000. What does Commodore have to compete against systems from clone makers and Apple priced between $1000 and $2500? Just the A2000 and A2000HD. Let's take the MAC LC as an example. This machine has a list price of $2499. For this price, the A3000/16 is too expensive to compete against the LC because it costs $1000 more. The A500 is far too cheap, and aimed at a different market. The only thing Commodore has to compete against the MAC LC is the A2000HD. Now we'll compare these two systems. Feature Description | Macintosh LC | Amiga 2000HD ------------------------------------------------------------- Hard Disk Size | 40M | 40M Memory | 2M | 1M Max Resolution | 584x386/640x480* | 704x480 Color Palette | 16 Million | 4096 # of on-screen | | colors at max.res | 256/32,768* | 16 Interlaced? | NO | YES CPU | 68020 @ 14Mhz | 68000 @ 7Mhz *With extra VRAM ($300), the MAC LC can display 32,768 colors at once at 584x386 or 256 colors at once at 640x480. As you can see, the A2000HD pales compared to the MAC LC, especially in color capabilities and flicker-free resolutions. Some people might say that it is unfair to compare the LC against the A2000HD, as the A3000 would be a better comparison. However to be fair to both sides, the A2000HD is the best comparison, since the A3000 costs so much more than the LC. The A2000 also has additional problems. For one thing, the included SCSI controller is NOT built-in, but included as a card. This has created problems in that the contacts can eventually become coroded, causing erratic problems with the controller. I hope it is obvious now that Commodore desperately needs something to compete adequately against systems like the MAC LC. > >-- Frank McPherson INTERNET: emcphers@manu.cs.vt.edu -- ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (06/22/91)
In article <88@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >This is what Apple is doing with the Macintosh Classic? This is nothing new. >Every Macintosh since the 512KE (1985?) had built in SCSI. But you may >be right about that being a major factor in its success. It also contributed heavily to the lack of _decent_ SCSI controllers for the Mac. Since Apple's controler is built in, very few companies bother trying to market their own, no matter how much better it would be. Right now there are ~20 3rd party HD controllers for the Amiga. Suddenly including SCSI controllers in stock machines would get a number of people very upset. CBM's controller design is pretty nice, but I'd rather have some other options if I were buying a 2000 or 500. -- Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork is spoken fork() be Amiga Student On-Campus Consultant, U of D here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (06/22/91)
Quoted from <89@ryptyde.UUCP> by dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy): > But what really intruiged me is that the 68000 line also had a segmented > memory model (?). How does this work? It also has 4 segment registers? Who knows, who cares. No one in their right mind will inflict segment registers on a quality 680x0 machine. -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/23/91)
Marc, the A3000/16 is _cheaper_ than the LC right now. Someone told me
the street price of the LC is between $1800-$2200. Well the A3000-16
costs $1850 right now, and this certainly outperforms the LC. When
the power-up program ends, the A3000-16 will go back to being
$2200 still in the price range of the LC.
--
/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \
| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.|
\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/23/91)
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > In addition, all Amiga systems above the A500 should include SCSI >interfaces, hard drives, and display enhancers as standard hardware. This >includes the A2000, which has become so underpowered and overpriced as of >late compared to the A500 below it and the A3000 above it that it creates >a gaping hole in Commodore's product line. You know as well as I do, that the A2000 as it is produced today has to either: A) Get a major price cut B) Mutate into another unit that has more features (A2000S+PRO+??) C) Be replaced with the A3000/16/50 which does better and is also faster than the Amiga 2000HD at a simular price(Power Up probably is not loosing money at the volume they have sold, if local dealers are not lying on thier sales..) -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) No blood for oil! Raising C.A.F.E. to 40MPG is just that!
peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) (06/23/91)
In article <1991Jun22.140127.19580@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > I hope it is obvious now that Commodore desperately needs something > to compete adequately against systems like the MAC LC. No, it needs to make the A3000/16 a $2000-$2500 system full time. The other thing it needs is an ~$1000 system like an A500 with a built in hard drive and a detached keyboard to compete against the clones. Something in an A1000 style case with a 2" drive would be fine. I realise you can upgrade the 500 to that level for that price... but I think it needs to be bundled to catch the people who don't want a machine that will clash with their den. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (06/23/91)
In article <1991Jun22.140127.19580@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > That is not what I said. I don't think the A2000 should be lower-priced, >I think it should be discontinued entirely. It costs too much to make, and >gives you far too little performance for the dollar compared to the A500 >and A3000. The A2000 should be replaced with a machine with fewer slots, >smaller case, smaller power supply, and a built-in SCSI controller and >display enhancer. Some people _like_ having all those slots! A built-in SCSI controller on the 2000 would hurt quite a few 3rd party companies, some to the point of bankruptcy. The display enhancer would be nice.... but at what extra cost? Discontinuing the 2000 would also possibly cause some problems with the market the Toaster's opening up, since the Toaster currently only works on the 2000. > The A2000 really is creating a very large, empty void in Commodore >Amiga product line. At the top, Commodore has a very competitive machine >in the A3000 to compete with other systems priced above $2500. In the >low-end, Commodore's A500 is also adequate competition for machines priced >below $1000. What does Commodore have to compete against systems from >clone makers and Apple priced between $1000 and $2500? Just the A2000 >and A2000HD. > > Let's take the MAC LC as an example. This machine has a list price of >$2499. For this price, the A3000/16 is too expensive to compete against >the LC because it costs $1000 more. The A500 is far too cheap, and aimed >at a different market. The only thing Commodore has to compete against >the MAC LC is the A2000HD. Now we'll compare these two systems. > >Feature Description | Macintosh LC | Amiga 2000HD >------------------------------------------------------------- >Hard Disk Size | 40M | 40M No, 50 M. >Memory | 2M | 1M Just enough to run Sys 7! >Max Resolution | 584x386/640x480* | 704x480 >Color Palette | 16 Million | 4096 ># of on-screen | | > colors at max.res | 256/32,768* | 16 >Interlaced? | NO | YES >CPU | 68020 @ 14Mhz | 68000 @ 7Mhz ^^^ 16-bit data path, some ops are actually faster on 68K machine... Expansion slots | 1 | 5 Amiga + 4 PC + Video +CoProc HD controller | CPU polled | DMA Coprocessors | Bzzzzt! | Several NTSC output | Nope. | Yep. On-site service | Ha! | Yep. There's also the 2000HD/P bundle, which for $200-300 more than a 2000HD, also comes with a bunch of Gold Disk software (PageSetter, Advantage (I think that's GD's spreadsheet), MediaShow, ????? Paint, music SW, Word processor), as well as CrossDOS. > *With extra VRAM ($300), the MAC LC can display 32,768 colors at once >at 584x386 or 256 colors at once at 640x480. With HAM-E ($300) the Amiga 2000 can display some huge # of colors in lo-res. Yes, I know it's not a well-supported type thing, but it's there. > As you can see, the A2000HD pales compared to the MAC LC, especially >in color capabilities and flicker-free resolutions. Some people might >say that it is unfair to compare the LC against the A2000HD, as the A3000 >would be a better comparison. However to be fair to both sides, the >A2000HD is the best comparison, since the A3000 costs so much more than >the LC. And the LC pales in comparison in price, graphics speed, sound capabilities, expandability, upgradeability, operating system (although Finder certainly has a nicer _look_ than WB 1.3....), etc... > The A2000 also has additional problems. For one thing, the >included SCSI controller is NOT built-in, but included as a card. This >has created problems in that the contacts can eventually become coroded, >causing erratic problems with the controller. This is news to me. Guess that makes any expansion device on any computer a problem, even on your vaunted Macs. Everything should be built in to avoid corrosion problems. Slots? We don' need no steenkeeng slots! > I hope it is obvious now that Commodore desperately needs something >to compete adequately against systems like the MAC LC. Seems obvious to me that they've already got several :-) There are a few changes I'd like to see in the 2000 series, but nothing as radical as you suggest. SIMM sockets on the motherboard are one thing I don't see any problem with. Although some 3rd party companies might be hurt by this, there aren't any that I know of who make almost all their money from memory devices. A Faster processor might be feasible, but I'd stay away from an '020. I think the Mac LC is the only thing keeping the 020 in production at this point. With the cheap MMU-less '030s now available, the price advantage of the 020 over its faster descendant is fading. Seems to me that if it weren't for Apple, Moto would be better off dropping the 020 to focus more on the '030 and '040. Anyway, I think a faster 68K would be reasonable, even if it is in the form of Processor Accelerator/AdSpeed type hack... as long as this could be done without adding considerably to the cost (could it?) and without causing many incompatibilities. -- Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork is spoken fork() be Amiga Student On-Campus Consultant, U of D here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/23/91)
In article <1991Jun22.185055.23919@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > > Marc, the A3000/16 is _cheaper_ than the LC right now. Someone told me >the street price of the LC is between $1800-$2200. Well the A3000-16 >costs $1850 right now, and this certainly outperforms the LC. When >the power-up program ends, the A3000-16 will go back to being >$2200 still in the price range of the LC. Bullshit. I was comparing list prices. The "Power Up" program is not an official reduction of the list prices of the A3000 systems. I posted that message a week too early, as the temporary "Power Up" program will be over by next Monday. The list price of the A2000HD is $2700, and the list price of the MAC LC is $2500. This makes the two systems very comparable. BTW, if you really wish to get in an arguement over special-deal discount prices, there is a special program available from Apple in which you can get a 25Mhz MAC IICI system with AUX, 100MB hard drive, monitor, and EtherNET for $2500. A friend of mine bought one, and laughed in my face when I showed him the best prices I could get on comparable A3000 systems. > >-- >/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ >| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| >\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * / ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/24/91)
don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) writes: >In article <88@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >>This is what Apple is doing with the Macintosh Classic? This is nothing new. >>Every Macintosh since the 512KE (1985?) had built in SCSI. But you may >>be right about that being a major factor in its success. > > > It also contributed heavily to the lack of _decent_ SCSI controllers for >the Mac. Since Apple's controler is built in, very few companies bother tryin >to market their own, no matter how much better it would be. > Right now there are ~20 3rd party HD controllers for the Amiga. Suddenly >including SCSI controllers in stock machines would get a number of people very >upset. CBM's controller design is pretty nice, but I'd rather have some other >options if I were buying a 2000 or 500. Piss them off! If the end cost to the user is only $50, and the cheapest DMA controller he can find retail is $130, he won't care how fast it is in most cases. Anyways, Commodore now knows what its doing with SCSI controllers it seems. The hardware in the A3000 proves it, so why not let them go standard? I have had nothing but problems with every hard drive controller I have owned, I got the recipts to prove it! I have a hardframe here I can't sell if my life depended on it that doesn't reconginse Seagate and Maxtor drives, I had a 2090 which worked very good but lacked the polished GUI installation programs and didn't reconginse FFS on the first partition, I had a 2091 that we are still using(with reselection problems), and I had TWO GVP Series II HD controllers that both started acting flaky after a few months of use, and trying to get something exchanged with GVP is hard when you can not have much downtime...My friend has a Supra word-sneek and that sucker gives him wierd DOS library GURU's.... Not only did Commodore get 20 or so 3rd party HD controllers because they never included SCSI in the motherboard design, they probably got 17 or so 3rd party controllers that wouldn't meet Commodore's quality standards if they decided to use them as standard equipment on a certain machine.... -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) No blood for oil! Raising C.A.F.E. to 40MPG is just that!
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/24/91)
In article <17304@chopin.udel.edu>, don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) writes: >> *With extra VRAM ($300), the MAC LC can display 32,768 colors at once >>at 584x386 or 256 colors at once at 640x480. > > With HAM-E ($300) the Amiga 2000 can display some huge # of colors in >lo-res. Yes, I know it's not a well-supported type thing, but it's there. > Can you paint in real-time on the HAM-E, with all of the screen gadgets, windows, menus, etc.. properly displayed along with the picture you are creating? You can with the MAC LC. Also, is the HAM-E output flicker-free at the highest resolutions? The MAC LC display is rock-solid at 640x480 and 584x386. Further, can you use the HAM-E to improve the general look of the GUI? System 7.0 looks *GREAT* on a color MAC (much better than AmigaOS 2.0 looks on any Amiga). > There are a few changes I'd like to see in the 2000 series, but nothing >as radical as you suggest. > SIMM sockets on the motherboard are one thing I don't see any problem with. >Although some 3rd party companies might be hurt by this, there aren't any >that I know of who make almost all their money from memory devices. > A Faster processor might be feasible, but I'd stay away from an '020. I >think the Mac LC is the only thing keeping the 020 in production at this >point. With the cheap MMU-less '030s now available, the price advantage of >the 020 over its faster descendant is fading. Seems to me that if it weren't >for Apple, Moto would be better off dropping the 020 to focus more on the '030 >and '040. > Anyway, I think a faster 68K would be reasonable, even if it is in the form >of Processor Accelerator/AdSpeed type hack... as long as this could be done >without adding considerably to the cost (could it?) and without causing many >incompatibilities. Stay away from a faster processor for the A2000, as this is what the A3000 is for. Just put in on-board SCSI and display enhancer, and everything will be fine. BTW, it is actually coming as quite a shock to me that an *Amiga* user would be opposed to a fully integrated architecture. The Amiga's integrated architecture is what kept it alive in spite of Commodore's bad marketing, at least until the video started becoming obsolete. For a long time, Amiga people would harp the Amiga's integrated system as the best reason to buy it. Now that systems have started becoming available from Apple and others that are even more highly integrated than the Amiga is (for a lower price, too), people are suddenly saying that an integrated architecture is not necessarily a good thing. What gives? > > > >-- > Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork > is spoken fork() be Amiga Student On-Campus Consultant, U of D > here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault. ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ The great thing about standards is that / \ there are so many of them to choose from. / -------------------------------------------------------
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/24/91)
In article <1991Jun23.160353.12438@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >In article <1991Jun22.185055.23919@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> >> Marc, the A3000/16 is _cheaper_ than the LC right now. Someone told me >>the street price of the LC is between $1800-$2200. Well the A3000-16 >>costs $1850 right now, and this certainly outperforms the LC. When >>the power-up program ends, the A3000-16 will go back to being >>$2200 still in the price range of the LC. > > Bullshit. I was comparing list prices. The "Power Up" program is not >an official reduction of the list prices of the A3000 systems. I posted >that message a week too early, as the temporary "Power Up" program will be >over by next Monday. > > The list price of the A2000HD is $2700, and the list price of the MAC LC >is $2500. This makes the two systems very comparable. And the list price of the A3000/16-50 is $2999 and the LC is NOT comparable. Nothing ever sells for the list price, and I regard it as artificial. Commodore could make the A3000-16/50 have a $2799 list price and it barely dent their profits. I compared the power-up price, because _so_ many people have the habit here of comparing street prices on other machines to list prices on the Amiga. > BTW, if you really wish to get in an arguement over special-deal discount >prices, there is a special program available from Apple in which you can >get a 25Mhz MAC IICI system with AUX, 100MB hard drive, monitor, and >EtherNET for $2500. A friend of mine bought one, and laughed in my face >when I showed him the best prices I could get on comparable A3000 systems. Oh yeah, A/UX, boy oh boy, I'm itching to get that. If I had to choose between A/UX and not having Unix at all, well.... you get the picture. -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
jsibley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James Sibley) (06/24/91)
In article <1991Jun23.160353.12438@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >In article <1991Jun22.185055.23919@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> >> Marc, the A3000/16 is _cheaper_ than the LC right now. Someone told me >>the street price of the LC is between $1800-$2200. Well the A3000-16 >>costs $1850 right now, and this certainly outperforms the LC. When >>the power-up program ends, the A3000-16 will go back to being >>$2200 still in the price range of the LC. > > Bullshit. I was comparing list prices. The "Power Up" program is not >an official reduction of the list prices of the A3000 systems. I posted >that message a week too early, as the temporary "Power Up" program will be >over by next Monday. > > The list price of the A2000HD is $2700, and the list price of the MAC LC >is $2500. This makes the two systems very comparable. > Just to add some fuel to the fires here.. In the "Roomers" column in June's Amazing Amiga, it says that the 2000HD has been cut to $1999 list. The ramifications of this are totally apparent (just adding more combustibles). I don't know what the point is but there you have it.. (Gee, I'm sure glad I don't get involved in this stuff.. I don't own any fireproof underwear..) Well, have fun and don't hurt each other.. -- James Sibley Nous Sommes Du Soleil Seeking the truth about lemon curry. We Are Of The Sun jsibley@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu We Can See Amiga: What computers were meant to be. -YES-
es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/24/91)
In article <1991Jun23.190454.16318@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > > Can you paint in real-time on the HAM-E, with all of the screen gadgets, >windows, menus, etc.. properly displayed along with the picture you are >creating? You can with the MAC LC. Also, is the HAM-E output flicker-free >at the highest resolutions? The MAC LC display is rock-solid at 640x480 >and 584x386. Further, can you use the HAM-E to improve the general look >of the GUI? System 7.0 looks *GREAT* on a color MAC (much better than >AmigaOS 2.0 looks on any Amiga). > You CAN paint in real-time on HAM-E. The x400 mode flickers. You CAN use intuition to render gadgets with HAM-E. Marc, please, explain something to me. You bring up valid points (often). Your points about the lack of standardized high-res Amiga graphics are valid. But you post the SAME THING at least 3 times a day! We all here realize that it is a problem. I don't think there is ANYONE here who still believes that the Amiga's chip set and graphics cards are at an acceptable level. I consider myself to be IN AGREEMENT with much of what you say (or at least have said recently). But it is so incredibly annoying that you post it continuously that you lose all credibility. -- Ethan "...Know-Nothing-Bozo the Non-Wonder Dog, an animal so stupid that it had been sacked from one of Will's own commercials for being incapable of knowing which dog food it was supposed to prefer, despite the fact that the meat in all the other bowls had engine oil poured all over it."
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (06/24/91)
In article <rkushner.0343@sycom.UUCP>, rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: > storch@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Matthew Storch) writes: > > [much good stuff deleted] > > > > How does this sound...Commodore should be bold, and add on-board SCSI to all > Amigas built after January 1992. Across the line, except the A500C until they > can afford to add it to a $500 machine. Then alot of places that sell Mac only > SCSI drives would jump on the bandwagon of selling external SCSI's for Amigas > as well... They could call them the A500PS, A2000S, and the A2500S. It would > encourage A500PS owners to get Hard Drives, especially if it only costs $400 > for 100 megs...instead of $1000 for 100 megs that it currently costs with > external controllers...Raise the price of the computers $50 if thats what it > takes..People looking at A500P's wouldn't mind paying $50 extra if they know > its saving them $400 in the future.. Though it would be wonderful for the users to have SCSI added to all Amigas, I think that this would raise the hackle of every major Amiga hardware developer. I believe that the majority of hardware add-ons sold for the Amiga are disk controllers and drives. If you take that away what will the developers have to sell as they develop more interesting products? Every manufacturer needs a cash-cow. Controllers, disk drives and memory boards have been the mainstay of GVP, Supra and IVS. Add a SCSI to every Amiga and kiss some developers goodbye. The A3000 is a working example of this. I truly love my A3000, but how many disk controllers or memory boards can you spot? I can't find any. I think this is ok for the high-end machines, but if Commodore does this to the A2000. Well, you see my point. > > -- C-UseNet V0.42e > Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 > P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis > Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support > UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) > If Americans only cared about their Government as much as their SPORTS!! -mark= +------------------------------------------------------+ ///// | Mark D. Manes | ///// | email: manes@vger.nsu.edu | ///// | phone: (804) 683-2532 | \\\\\///// +------------------------------------------------------+ \\\\// Amiga! "Ohh say can you C!"
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (06/25/91)
In article <89@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: > >I understand that, on the 286, the segment registers (in 16-bit protected >mode) are used as pointers to a table of 24-bit addresses, and that's how >it addresses 16MB. However, I don't understand the underlying difference >between accessing physical memory and virtual memory. That is, why one >should be less limited than the other. Maybe I should take a class on >CPU design and not bug you guys about it. I also don't understand how >it can address 16384 segments if it only has 6 segment registers! >(each one-bit, right? Or is that where my mistake is?) > Each segment register contains a 13-bit index into a table of segment descriptors. Each segment descriptor is a data structure that contains the 24-bit base address, protection bits, an in-memory/swapped bit, a 16-bit segment length, and a couple of other things. Each task has access to a Local Descriptor Table which contains up to 8192 segment descriptors (task-isolated memory), and a Global Descriptor Table, which also contains up to 8192 segment descriptors (systemwide shared memory). That's how you get a virtual memory space of 16384 64K segments (1 GB). Remember that two segments can be mapped to the same 64K block within the 16MB of physically- addressable RAM, as long as only one is loaded into memory at a time and the rest are swapped to disk. So, a segment register is not one-bit; it's 16-bit. Each contains: -- a 13-bit offset into a descriptor table -- a bit indicating whether to use the Local or Global Descriptor Table -- two bits identifying the requested priviledge level -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/25/91)
In article <1108.2865c128@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >The A3000 is a working example of this. I truly love my A3000, but >how many disk controllers or memory boards can you spot? I can't >find any. I think this is ok for the high-end machines, but if >Commodore does this to the A2000. Well, you see my point. > It is a hard decision, but we are talking about the future of the Amiga. Commodore currently has no computer for people who want a machine roughly equivalent to the Mac Classic 2/40 (or a 286) etc. There is the A500 with A590, which is too expensive (same price gets you 1MB RAM, slow 20MB HD on the Amiga and 2MB RAM and 40MB HD on the 500). Or you can go with the 2000HD, which also costs too much. Somehow a mid-range Amiga with display enhancer needs to happen. And it needs to happen with a SCSI controller built in. Perhaps the A500 should remain without one, and leave GVP, etc., that market. But this is too important for Commodore to worry about GVP and Supra. This is their future at hand. -- Ethan FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. Take one down, Pass it to ground, FE buckets of bits on the bus.
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/25/91)
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >In article <rkushner.0343@sycom.UUCP>, rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) wr >> storch@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Matthew Storch) writes: >> >> [much good stuff deleted] >> >> >> >> How does this sound...Commodore should be bold, and add on-board SCSI to all >> Amigas built after January 1992. Across the line, except the A500C until the >> can afford to add it to a $500 machine. Then alot of places that sell Mac on >> SCSI drives would jump on the bandwagon of selling external SCSI's for Amiga >> as well... They could call them the A500PS, A2000S, and the A2500S. It would >> encourage A500PS owners to get Hard Drives, especially if it only costs $400 >> for 100 megs...instead of $1000 for 100 megs that it currently costs with >> external controllers...Raise the price of the computers $50 if thats what it >> takes..People looking at A500P's wouldn't mind paying $50 extra if they know >> its saving them $400 in the future.. > >Though it would be wonderful for the users to have SCSI added to all >Amigas, I think that this would raise the hackle of every major Amiga >hardware developer. I believe that the majority of hardware add-ons >sold for the Amiga are disk controllers and drives. If you take that >away what will the developers have to sell as they develop more >interesting products? > >Every manufacturer needs a cash-cow. Controllers, disk drives and >memory boards have been the mainstay of GVP, Supra and IVS. Add >a SCSI to every Amiga and kiss some developers goodbye. I wouldn't miss GVP or Supra...If you have had the last 6 months worth of bullshit phone calls to GVP, bullshit letters from UPS, and just plain bullshit I have had with GVP, I wouldn't miss them...You think Commodore has bad customer relations, try dealing with GVP... Heck, AT&T wrote me to sign up for selectsaver, because I am calling thr 215 area code enough to qualify for a volume discount!!! And I sold their cheezy Hard Drive controller and my A2000 just because of the hassle!!! Bought a nice new A3000 system...No more lockups with the same hard drives.... What do 3rd party producers make for Mac's??? Whats their bag? -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) Whats wrong with Detroit? Name it, we got it, and if we don't WE'LL TAKE IT!
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/25/91)
In article <rkushner.2129@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: >What do 3rd party producers make for Mac's??? Whats their bag? Make? Accelerators and video cards are the most common add ins (not counting SIMMs and SCSI drives.) Lots of other cards to supplement those main items: cache cards, SCSI accelerators, NTSC converters, video accelerators, video digitizers,... well basically stuff available for the Amiga, but more expensive. I don't recall anything mentioned in c.s.a.hardware that isn't available for the Mac (other than the obvious.)
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/25/91)
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: >What do 3rd party producers make for Mac's??? Whats their bag? They make the usual - accelerator cards, SCSI cards, video cards, network cards. They just have to make them either better than what Apple provides, or make them at a lower price. In terms of SCSI, they're all in the range of 4-5 MB/s, with large on-board caches, controlled by DMA chips from the drive to the board. For video, they're generally accelerated 24-bit cards, or video frame grabbers etc. For network cards, they have 16Mb/s Token Ring, or $199 Ethernet cards etc. However, you shouldn't think that there aren't problems between Apple and its developers when it comes to what Apple sells. Some Mac developers cry foul even if the product is an add-on from Apple{For example, if you're in Europe or the Pacific, you can buy an Apple 21" colour monitor with video card, but you can't buy it here because Radius/RasterOps complained that Apple would have too much of a name advantage. Similarly, Ashton-Tate stopped Apple from buying and distributing the 4th Dimension database, because they complained that it would be unfair to their DBase Mac product [hah, what a joke that was]. Not all developers are like this, though. E-Machines is the biggest seller of 16" colour monitors, which Apple is expected to bring out on their machines in October. However, the president of E-Machines is quoted as saying that "Apple bringing out a product is good for us because it legitimises the market." -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "And in the death, as the last few corpses lay rotting in the slimy thoroughfare, the shutters lifted in inches, high on Poacher's Hill..."
hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) (06/25/91)
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: >using(with reselection problems), and I had TWO GVP Series II HD controllers >that both started acting flaky after a few months of use, and trying to get >something exchanged with GVP is hard when you can not have much downtime...My That is not the story I have about GVP. I have had my GVP system for awhile now and I can say I have had no problems with it. >Not only did Commodore get 20 or so 3rd party HD controllers because they >never included SCSI in the motherboard design, they probably got 17 or so 3rd >party controllers that wouldn't meet Commodore's quality standards if they >decided to use them as standard equipment on a certain machine.... Not what the July 1991 issue of AmigaWorld says. It has a nice review on controlers for Ami. Only two that I remember didn't meet CBM quality standards. -- // Jeff Hyche There can be only one! \\ // Usenet: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com \X/ Freenet: ap255@po.CWRU.Edu
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun24.221425.398@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > In article <1108.2865c128@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >> [my original comments deleted...] >> > It is a hard decision, but we are talking about the > future of the Amiga. Commodore currently has no computer for > people who want a machine roughly equivalent to the Mac Classic > 2/40 (or a 286) etc. There is the A500 with A590, which is too > expensive (same price gets you 1MB RAM, slow 20MB HD on the Amiga > and 2MB RAM and 40MB HD on the 500). Or you can go with the > 2000HD, which also costs too much. I think the solutions is to not really improve the hardware but rather to repackage it. We NEED the hardware developers! The Amiga market is too small to go to all SCSI based computers. Commodore could rebuild the A2000 so that it costs them less, and while they are there doing that, they could improve the look. I want Commodore to concentrate on improving the hardware and the software that they provide. I can deal with the A3000 having a integrated SCSI and display enhancer because there was not a established developer base on 32 bit disk controllers and display enhancers. I realize that the display enhancer does hurt MicroWay, but they are only one developer, not a vast majority like the SCSI market is. Yes, repackage the A2000 in a low-profile case like the A3000, perhaps include the display enhancer and call it the Amiga 1500. Modify the A2000 so that is looks better, integrate the display enhancer and let it out as the Amiga 2001 or something. > Somehow a mid-range Amiga with display enhancer needs to > happen. And it needs to happen with a SCSI controller built in. > Perhaps the A500 should remain without one, and leave GVP, etc., > that market. But this is too important for Commodore to worry > about GVP and Supra. This is their future at hand. Their future is coupled directly with the sucess of the developers. > -- Ethan > > FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. > Take one down, Pass it to ground, > FE buckets of bits on the bus. -mark= manes@vger.nsu.edu
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (06/26/91)
In article <rkushner.2129@sycom.UUCP>, rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: > manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >>In article <rkushner.0343@sycom.UUCP>, rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) wr >>> storch@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Matthew Storch) writes: >>Every manufacturer needs a cash-cow. Controllers, disk drives and >>memory boards have been the mainstay of GVP, Supra and IVS. Add >>a SCSI to every Amiga and kiss some developers goodbye. > > I wouldn't miss GVP or Supra...If you have had the last 6 months worth of > bullshit phone calls to GVP, bullshit letters from UPS, and just plain > bullshit I have had with GVP, I wouldn't miss them...You think Commodore has > bad customer relations, try dealing with GVP... So you had a bad dealing with GVP.... sorry to hear that. I can tell you that my experience with GVP has been nothing short of wonderful. They were very responsive to my troubles, and handle my problem with professionalism that is difficult to find elseware. So you would wish them to go out of business? Hmmm... > > Heck, AT&T wrote me to sign up for selectsaver, because I am calling thr 215 > area code enough to qualify for a volume discount!!! And I sold their cheezy > Hard Drive controller and my A2000 just because of the hassle!!! Bought a nice > new A3000 system...No more lockups with the same hard drives.... > That's the solution... dump it all! :-) > What do 3rd party producers make for Mac's??? Whats their bag? They don't, and that is the point! Apple extracts maximum dollars for its hardware. You as the customer have _NO_ choice (at least until recently) as to what SCSI controller you use. It is part of the package whether you like it or not. Get it? Do you really want Commodore to be the only game in town when it comes time to expand your machine?? > > -- C-UseNet V0.42e > Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 > P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis > Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support > UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) > Whats wrong with Detroit? Name it, we got it, and if we don't > WE'LL TAKE IT! -mark= manes@vger.nsu.edu
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (06/26/91)
In article <1121.2867453d@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >In article <rkushner.2129@sycom.UUCP>, rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: >> What do 3rd party producers make for Mac's??? Whats their bag? > >They don't, and that is the point! Apple extracts maximum dollars for its I'm sorry, try again. Apparently you haven't been doing your research :) Firstly, Apple doesn't make a particularly spectacular harddrive controller, so 3rd parties have enough room to make what we would call a "decent" contoller. Secondly, because Apple has advanced to providing on-board SCSI, 3rd parties have had to push out high-end stuff like disk arrays, etc. >Do you really want Commodore to be the only game in town when it comes >time to expand your machine?? No, but taking the position that advancing the state of the art for the Amiga is a *bad* idea is silly. The 3rd party people who are successful enough will survive by revamping their product line, those that aren't will die. May sound Darwinian, but I'd rather have technically superior hardware instead of what, for example, the PC world is stuck with. Remember that the lead time between product announcement and product shipment will give 3rd parties more than enough time to compensate. Something to think about, anyway. >> Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 >manes@vger.nsu.edu David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu 2.0 :: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/26/91)
hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) writes: >rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: > >>using(with reselection problems), and I had TWO GVP Series II HD controllers >>that both started acting flaky after a few months of use, and trying to get >>something exchanged with GVP is hard when you can not have much downtime...My > > That is not the story I have about GVP. I have had my GVP >system for awhile now and I can say I have had no problems with it. OK, I'll get my I-HATE-GVP fan club on my BBS on here and let them all tell their horror stories with their dealings...I am not alone, and it seems there are quite a few starting to pop up, including another local BBS that has ALOT of downtime because of his GVP HD controller sending his heads out of range on his Seagate hard drive(same problem I had, which started my nightmare with dealing with GVP)... >>Not only did Commodore get 20 or so 3rd party HD controllers because they >>never included SCSI in the motherboard design, they probably got 17 or so 3rd >>party controllers that wouldn't meet Commodore's quality standards if they >>decided to use them as standard equipment on a certain machine.... > > Not what the July 1991 issue of AmigaWorld says. It has a nice >review on controlers for Ami. Only two that I remember didn't meet CBM >quality standards. I have a hardframe here, they want $50++ to make it do what I was told it would do when they sold it to me...My friend has a Supra and it creates the loss of serial data when he's downloading at 2400 baud every hard drive access...I have another guy here that Supra told his autoboot ROM was put in backwards when he sent it back for service for randon crashes(like it would work if it was in backwards)... AmigaWorld takes ads from everyone they reviewed, so they may be less than objective...I hear about all the problems, so I am swayed to knock them all...and my PERSONAL experience with GVP, I realize they are the devil... -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) If I had a nickel for every time Elizabeth Taylor was married I would have $.35
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/26/91)
In article <1120.286743b7@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: > >I think the solutions is to not really improve the hardware but rather >to repackage it. We NEED the hardware developers! The Amiga market >is too small to go to all SCSI based computers. Commodore could >rebuild the A2000 so that it costs them less, and while they are >there doing that, they could improve the look. > The cost of building a card with SCSI and memory is higher than to simply put a SCSI controller chip and sockets right on the motherboard. No other major computer company besides Commodore makes this market AVAILABLE to hardware developers. Keep the A500 as it is. But there needs to be a CHEAP middle ground. You can get a Mac Classic 2/40 (2MB RAM, 40MB HD) for $1,150 on educational program. The Amiga for the same price has 1MB RAM and 20MB HD. We need a "1500" designed for the user who needs just that (2/40). The kind that is today buying the 2000HD but doesn't need the expandability or power supply. -- Ethan FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. Take one down, Short it to ground, FE buckets of bits on the bus.
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/26/91)
Responding to the following: "Though it would be wonderful for the users to have SCSI added to all Amigas, I think that this would raise the hackle of every major Amiga hardware developer. I believe that the majority of hardware add-ons sold for the Amiga are disk controllers and drives. If you take that away what will the developers have to sell as they develop more interesting products?" I really don't understand this attitude. This would be great for hardware developers! Sure, you wouldn't get much business in the SCSI-add-in arena, but think of how cheaper it would be to get a HD! 500 owners, like Macs do now, will have HDs more often. Think of how many Amiga users do/don't have them because they'd have to get a controller too and that's major bucks.
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (06/26/91)
In article <rkushner.2657@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) writes: > >their horror stories with their dealings...I am not alone, and it seems there >are quite a few starting to pop up, including another local BBS that has ALOT >of downtime because of his GVP HD controller sending his heads out of range on >his Seagate hard drive(same problem I had, which started my nightmare with >dealing with GVP)... Huh, there was a long thread here several months before about that "stiction" problem with Seagate drives. Are you sure the problems are with the controller and not with the drive? -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.055708.27495@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > In article <1120.286743b7@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >> >> > The cost of building a card with SCSI and memory is > higher than to simply put a SCSI controller chip and sockets > right on the motherboard. No other major computer company besides > Commodore makes this market AVAILABLE to hardware developers. > Keep the A500 as it is. But there needs to be a CHEAP middle > ground. Ethan, what about the PC. There are tons and tons of PC hard disk controller manufacturers. It was not until recently (last years) that hard drives became standard equipment from the manufacturer. The developers that exist now we can't afford to lose. These developers helped to keep the Amiga alive, and continue to do so. > You can get a Mac Classic 2/40 (2MB RAM, 40MB HD) for > $1,150 on educational program. The Amiga for the same price has > 1MB RAM and 20MB HD. We need a "1500" designed for the user who > needs just that (2/40). The kind that is today buying the 2000HD > but doesn't need the expandability or power supply. > -- Ethan I think we agree in principal on the A1500. I think there is a strong need. I just think the standard equipment should be picked carefully. > > FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. > Take one down, Short it to ground, > FE buckets of bits on the bus. -mark= manes@vger.nsu.edu
es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/27/91)
In article <1130.28689ee9@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >In article <1991Jun26.055708.27495@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >> The cost of building a card with SCSI and memory is >> higher than to simply put a SCSI controller chip and sockets >> right on the motherboard. No other major computer company besides >> Commodore makes this market AVAILABLE to hardware developers. >> Keep the A500 as it is. But there needs to be a CHEAP middle >> ground. > >Ethan, what about the PC. There are tons and tons of PC hard disk >controller manufacturers. It was not until recently (last years) >that hard drives became standard equipment from the manufacturer. >The developers that exist now we can't afford to lose. These >developers helped to keep the Amiga alive, and continue to do so. > Well, we aren't talking about how Commodore should've designed Amigas 3 years ago, we're talking about today. Can you still GET a clone without a built-in hard drive? I'd be surprised. You have to search for a non-laptop with an 8088. So the entire clone and Mac market, at every level, has built-in HDs as options. If there are tons and tons of PC HD manufacturers, I don't know who they're selling to. Maybe people who are dissatisfied with slow built-in controllers. -- Ethan FF buckets of bits on the bus, FF buckets of bits. Take one down, Short it to ground, FE buckets of bits on the bus.
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/27/91)
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: >In article <rkushner.2657@sycom.UUCP> rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) wri >> >>their horror stories with their dealings...I am not alone, and it seems there >>are quite a few starting to pop up, including another local BBS that has ALOT >>of downtime because of his GVP HD controller sending his heads out of range o >>his Seagate hard drive(same problem I had, which started my nightmare with >>dealing with GVP)... > >Huh, there was a long thread here several months before about that >"stiction" problem with Seagate drives. Are you sure the problems >are with the controller and not with the drive? > Yep, its the GVP controllers, for some reason, they somehow go flaky and on 296N's they send the heads out of range. They make an very LOUD POP or CRUNCH and then R/W requester comes up on the next access...If you click Retry it will run fine until the next crunch.. I had a CBM 2091 that no local dealer told me about turning off re-selection (I would still have it today, probably not this A3000), but other than the 2091 lockups now and then, the two drives functioned properly. I went and traded in for the GVP Series II with ramcard, and it ran both drives fine until Christmas or so, then the Seagate started "CRUNCHING", went to CompUSA(Soft Whorehouse at the time) and they swapped the drive for a new one. Took it home and within 3 hours it crunched as well...Called GVP and they suggested sending in the controller, but I can't go down, got too much going on here to totally loose the system. Made an arrangement to have one mailed out and then I would mail my old one back, they took 7 days to ship and then billed me for it after I mailed the defective one back!! Anyways, it fixed the crunching problem for about 2 months (Until March) and it started crunching again..Borrowed a newer 2091 and they worked great for 24 hours(it was common enough to be go down once in a 24 hour period), and then hooked up the GVP and the sucker crunched again within a half hour...Sold the GVP S II and my A2000 and haven't had any simular problems yet with the A3000... (The guy at CompUSA seems to still think its because SCSI isn't standard enough to daisychain a Quantum and a Seagate, I think he's stuck in PC land) I am not alone on this, gfradl@instem.UUCP has the same problem, along with someone else who mailed me(I forget)...It works fine with 1 drive, dies with 2 or more daisychained(with a 296 somewhere in the chain)...Played with termination on first drive, on second drive, no termination, chaning ID jumpers, parity jumpers on/off, you name it...Extra special care was taken with the SCSI cable as well, to make sure it didn't cross any other ribbon cables, or power cables... -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) The lack of money is the root of all evil.
peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.224228.5923@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > If there are tons and tons of PC HD manufacturers, I > don't know who they're selling to. Maybe people who are > dissatisfied with slow built-in controllers. Yes, and the ones who need more than 100 MB drives, or more than 2 drives to a machine, because that's all you can put on an ST506 controller. But that's not a problem with SCSI. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/28/91)
storch@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Matthew Storch) writes: >The engineers at CBM probably thought of this at some point (am I right, >Dave?) but for whatever reason CBM just doen't seem to want to improve >the basic graphics hardware. You don't understand the issues involved. >Instead they have wasted engineering effort on kluges like the (also >infinitely delayed) A2024 "Hedly HiRes" monitor, and the A2091. First of all, if you have ever used an A2024 or Moniterm, you'll realize that, regardless of whether you consider the hardware mechanism involved a hack, the final result is an excellent display system. I like it better than the 1280x1024x1 display on our Apollo systems here at C=. >There is nothing wrong with the 2091, but there was almost no reason for >Commodore to waste precious engineering effort on it; by the time it came >out, third party manufacturers had comparable boards. The only comparable board on the market anywhere near the time the A2091 was out was the Microbotics Hardframe. But you're confused. The "engineering effort" spent on the A2024 and A2091 have nothing to do with new graphics hardware. Hedley Dave and Jeff Boyer, the folks who, respectively, designed these devices, are systems engineers. True, both devices have custom chips in them, but those are gate arrays, not full custom chips. New graphics chips are full custom, and can only be designed by chip designers. The difference between a the complexity and development time of a gate array versus a full custom design is an order or two of magnitude. >Why waste time designing something GVP, etc. already had? Several reasons. Technically, the original GVP controller was far too primitive, especially when you have to consider that C= was planning for UNIX to run on the thing. C= has to have various pieces of hardware to call their own, OEMed or self-designed, since at many times they end up selling whole systems. They can't very well say "oh, a hard disk. Go out see these GVP folks". Especially in countries were GVP doesn't exist. Not only that, they can't adequately support a product that someone else fully controls. >As for the 2024 I think that it's RIDICULOUS to invest in a proprietary >display with no future like the 2024, in light of the excellent and >reasonably priced range of COLOR multisync monitors available. Who cares about the future when the present is at stake. I've been using a 1000x800x2 display now for nearly two years, both at home and work. There is no way I would be willing to wait longer. There's no problem with the A2024, it's sharp and it works good. The only thing proprietary about the display is the controller card (built-in the A2024, external to the Moniterm). -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "This is my mistake. Let me make it good." -R.E.M.
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/29/91)
In article <22755@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>As for the 2024 I think that it's RIDICULOUS to invest in a proprietary >>display with no future like the 2024, in light of the excellent and >>reasonably priced range of COLOR multisync monitors available. > >Who cares about the future when the present is at stake. I've been using a >1000x800x2 display now for nearly two years, both at home and work. There is >no way I would be willing to wait longer. There's no problem with the A2024, >it's sharp and it works good. The only thing proprietary about the display >is the controller card (built-in the A2024, external to the Moniterm). > How well does DPaint work on the A2024 in 64 color mode? What about when you want to look at HAM pictures? I was REAL tempted to get an A2024, but I need to run color software at least half the time. I almost bought a second Amiga just so I could have both (color and monochrome) at the same time... But, thanks to your A3000, I am now using a 1380x484 (slightly flickery) workbench with my original Amiga RGB monitor. I never minded the flicker, all along, anyway. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) (06/29/91)
In <1991Jun23.150753.17086@Sugar.NeoSoft.com> peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >The other thing it needs is an ~$1000 system like an A500 with a built in hard >drive and a detached keyboard to compete against the clones. Something in an >A1000 style case with a 2" drive would be fine. I realise you can upgrade >the 500 to that level for that price... but I think it needs to be bundled >to catch the people who don't want a machine that will clash with their den. Something like a 3B1 perhaps, without the monitor? (Keep the phone and modem as options:-)) There might even be room for a Zorro II card with a third-part expansion bus adaptor, and certainly room for a real power supply. -- Bernd Felsche, _--_|\ #include <std/disclaimer.h> Metapro Systems, / sold \ Fax: +61 9 472 3337 328 Albany Highway, \_.--._/ Phone: +61 9 362 9355 Victoria Park, Western Australia v Email: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au