ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) (06/18/91)
Over the past few months I've noticed a trend in "complaint messages" from Amiga users. It seems that the usual style of these messages is to bash the Amiga for lacking certain features that other computers "now have", yet this logic is not always correct. Let's take a few examples here... High Density Disk Drives- How many complaints have you heard from Amiga users about this? The drives do exist for the Amiga (AE and Commodore's new one) so I won't even go into that. The main complaint centers around the fact that one of the Amiga's custom chips can't handle the speed of the "standard" HD drives out for other computers right now. The solution has been to add a bit of hard- ware to the drive to allow the two to work together. It would probably be an easy chip upgrade to allow this chip to handle the speed of standard drives. The point being that people hate the idea that they will probably need a chip upgrade to make the chip capable of handling standard drives. Why? Keep in mind that the new 4 MEG "standard" floppy drive IBM is installing in the new machines REQUIRES a new floppy drive card. Now, I'm no expert on human thinking, but are we going to fault the Amiga for needing a chip upgrade but not fault the IBM computers for needing a whole new floppy disk card? The same logic can be used when talking about any of the 1 MEG+ drives that the IBM computers use. 24 Bit Color- Some people have been bitching about the lack of a new 24 bit color coming standard on Amiga computers while others "have it". The last time I checked, both Apple and IBM didn't ship 24 bit video boards standard with their machines. The video boards found on the higher-end MACs are NOT 24 bit video. You can buy 24 bit video boards for these machines, but you can ALSO buy them for the Amiga. So where is Commodore falling behind in this respect? OK, they need a 24 bit interfacing standard but I understand that they just released it? If not, I know they are at least working on it. General Amiga Features- Many messages have been written about the aging of the features found on every Amiga when compared to current day "standards". Tell me, who is setting those standards? I mean, what machines have those features at a comparable price to the Amiga? The general problem here is that people tend to compare the Amiga to a machine (or even a 3rd party board for a machine that doesn't even come standard with it) costing two or three times the Amiga's price. A good example of this being the < $1000 price range. If the Amiga is so old then show me one machine under $1000 that has all the features of the Amiga. Atari? Not even close, and that's why Atari sales are dead. The Mac Classic? Don't make me laugh! Fact is people that nobody comes close. Then there is the UNIX market....and on and on... The point I'm trying to make here is don't be so critical. True that there are new video boards and such that are somewhat better than what the Amiga comes with, but these are products that don't compete with the Amiga, both in price and in coming standard with a machine. People tend to compare what they can buy for an IBM or Apple to what the Amiga comes with standard. Why can't you give your machine a little credit and compare what we can buy for the Amiga to what you can buy for those machines, and what comes standard for the price to what comes standard for those machines. The Amiga is one hell of a machine, and nobody seems ready to change that. Tom
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/18/91)
In article <30189@know.pws.bull.com>, ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes: > > Over the past few months I've noticed a trend in "complaint messages" from >Amiga users. It seems that the usual style of these messages is to bash the >Amiga for lacking certain features that other computers "now have", yet this >logic is not always correct. Let's take a few examples here... > >High Density Disk Drives- How many complaints have you heard from Amiga users >about this? The drives do exist for the Amiga (AE and Commodore's new one) so >I won't even go into that. The main complaint centers around the fact that one >of the Amiga's custom chips can't handle the speed of the "standard" HD drives >out for other computers right now. The solution has been to add a bit of hard- >ware to the drive to allow the two to work together. It would probably be an >easy chip upgrade to allow this chip to handle the speed of standard drives. >The point being that people hate the idea that they will probably need a chip >upgrade to make the chip capable of handling standard drives. Why? Keep in mind >that the new 4 MEG "standard" floppy drive IBM is installing in the new >machines REQUIRES a new floppy drive card. Now, I'm no expert on human >thinking, but are we going to fault the Amiga for needing a chip upgrade but >not fault the IBM computers for needing a whole new floppy disk card? The same >logic can be used when talking about any of the 1 MEG+ drives that the IBM >computers use. My complaints with Commodore with respect to high-density floppy drives have to do with the stupid way Commodore got the drives to work on Amigas (slowing down the drive motor to allow the Paula chip to keep up? Give me a break!), and the fact that they waited four years to do it. > >24 Bit Color- Some people have been bitching about the lack of a new 24 bit >color coming standard on Amiga computers while others "have it". The last time >I checked, both Apple and IBM didn't ship 24 bit video boards standard with >their machines. The video boards found on the higher-end MACs are NOT 24 bit >video. You can buy 24 bit video boards for these machines, but you can ALSO >buy them for the Amiga. So where is Commodore falling behind in this respect? >OK, they need a 24 bit interfacing standard but I understand that they just >released it? If not, I know they are at least working on it. Granted, full 24-bit color (with 24 bitplanes) is a little bit too much to ask, but a 24-bit palette with 8-15 bitplanes is not at all too much to ask. After being on the market for nearly six years, the Amiga should have a color palette on par with what is commanly available on other platforms. BTW, MAC and IBM are no longer the only systems available with decent color capabilities. Doesn't it bother anyone at all that the new $1500 Magnavox consumer CD-I player offers color capabilities vastly better than Commodore's most expensive Amiga system? Hell, even the $500 Canon Xapshot can display still pictures with millions of colors. Why can't an Amiga? > > Tom ------------------------------------------------------------- / 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. / -------------------------------------------------------
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.205807.13064@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > > My complaints with Commodore with respect to high-density floppy drives >have to do with the stupid way Commodore got the drives to work on Amigas >(slowing down the drive motor to allow the Paula chip to keep up? Give >me a break!), and the fact that they waited four years to do it. > The alternative is to make everyone buy an add-on card, which limits A500 owners to a plug-in module on the side which of course makes adding an HD much harder. That (and a few other possibilities, all of which involved compromises) is the only way to get it to work via the external disk-drive port. -- 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."
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/18/91)
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) writes: > My complaints with Commodore with respect to high-density floppy drives >have to do with the stupid way Commodore got the drives to work on Amigas >(slowing down the drive motor to allow the Paula chip to keep up? Give >me a break!), and the fact that they waited four years to do it. Maybe the motor technoligy wasn't there to run a disk drive at those lower speeds. Or the heads, etc.... I will agree with you on this one, its a major hack in my eyes, but seeing how I can understand how a company like Commodore thinks, they are probably looking to put these HD drives in the US$449 Amiga 500's in a year or two... It would be nice to see the PAULA chip upgraded, with major improvements in the microfloppy controller and some buffers in the UART. But any change is welcome by me from Commodore. We're talking about the company that set the C64 in stone in 1981, except for some minor ROM bug zaps..And has been burned by Management...Remember the 264? How about the 364? How much money was wasted because of someone at the top wanting to put them out of business? I can imagine that some people at Commodore are more conserative because of whats happened in the past... -- 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.
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.213402.24388@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <1991Jun17.205807.13064@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >> >> My complaints with Commodore with respect to high-density floppy drives >>have to do with the stupid way Commodore got the drives to work on Amigas >>(slowing down the drive motor to allow the Paula chip to keep up? Give >>me a break!), and the fact that they waited four years to do it. >> > The alternative is to make everyone buy an add-on card, >which limits A500 owners to a plug-in module on the side which of >course makes adding an HD much harder. That (and a few other >possibilities, all of which involved compromises) is the only way >to get it to work via the external disk-drive port. A problem with Commodore's solution is the we are locked into only being able to use the specially modified drives produced only by Commodore. If Commodore had, instead, developed some sort of hardware interface for standard IBM HD drives, we could buy the interface from Commodore, and then buy whatever HD drive we want to buy. People used to routinely bash Apple for using drives that (for a long time) only they produced, and now Commodore is doing exactly the same thing. > -- 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." ------------------------------------------------------------- / 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. / -------------------------------------------------------
robart@agora.rain.com (Robert Barton) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.205807.13064@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >have to do with the stupid way Commodore got the drives to work on Amigas >(slowing down the drive motor to allow the Paula chip to keep up? Give >me a break!), and the fact that they waited four years to do it. You may think it's stupid, but at least it's available. The one you have been working on there in the frat house basement since 1985 is still vaporware. Talk about late!
ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) (06/19/91)
csn!kessner!david@ncar.UCAR.EDU (David Kessner) writes: %In article <30189@know.pws.bull.com> you write: >Keep in mind that the new 4 MEG "standard" floppy drive IBM is installing in >the new machines REQUIRES a new floppy drive card. %Keep in mind that hard drive/floppy controllers for the PC run about $50, and %floppy only cards run $15. We expect the "4 meg floppy" controllers to run %about $20 once the Asian clone makers start production. So what? I was simply stating that a chip upgrade to make the Amiga able to handle these drives is no more "degrading" than having to plug a new drive card into an IBM. I would hardly expect such a chip to cost more than $30. So we need a chip upgrade, you have to plug in a new card. Which is worse? %Remember: the 4 meg floppies are not the issue. IBM PC's have supported %2 meg floppies for many years. How many times do I have to say this? THERE ARE "2" MEG drives out for the Amiga. If you want to pick then how about this...All I have to do is plug one of these drives into my Amiga. You need a floppy controller card if you don't already have one. How's that for lacking a certain ability? >Now, I'm no expert on human >thinking, but are we going to fault the Amiga for needing a chip upgrade but >not fault the IBM computers for needing a whole new floppy disk card? The same >logic can be used when talking about any of the 1 MEG+ drives that the IBM >computers use. %I do not understand this logic. Up until this statement you seemed to compare %the Amiga's 2meg floppy with the IBM's 4 meg drives. I don't believe that %this is a valid comparison. Your lost man. I was comparing the need of a hardware upgrade to handle HD drives on the Amiga to that of the IBM. People seem almost shocked that the Amiga needs a hardware upgrade to handle normal HD drives. So do other computers, so why b*tch about it? %Then you say, "the same logic can be used...[with IBM's] 1+meg drives." No, %it is not. PC Clones have supported 2meg drives (1.44 formatted) fully for %the past five years. Any controller that has been sold during this time %should (if it is any good) support these drives. %The bottom line is this: IBM's have supported 2 meg drives for quite some %time. The Amiga just recently supported them, but in a brain-dead fashon. The Amiga has "supported" them for over two years now I believe. "Brain-dead fashion"? Because the Amiga HD drives have a little extra hardware in them? What about all that extra hardware your average IBM needs on a card to handle ANY floppy? I'd call that dog-stupid, or IBM-stupid if you like. So the Amiga was a little slow to come out with a HD drive. Tell me, when will IBM come out with any of several hardware features the Amiga has? Dwell on one issue and we can pick at the IBM computers. >The last time >I checked, both Apple and IBM didn't ship 24 bit video boards standard with >their machines. %Do you really expect computers to come STANDARD with 24 bit video? I think %not. To date, the only computer that does (that I know of off hand) is %the Silicon Graphics-- and it is made for video. Neither NeXT, SUN, Apollo, %HP, NEC, IBM, Apple, DEC, Data General, Opus, MIPS, etc-- none of them make a %machine with 24 bit video as standard. Isn't that what I just said? The point I was making was that people compare 24 bit BOARDS on other computers to what the Amiga comes standard with. %That being said, there are many 24 bit video baords for the Mac, PC, Next, SUN, %etc. Need we name brands? What, if anything, does this have to do with the coversation? Did I say that they didn't? No, as a matter of fact I pointed that out. >You can buy 24 bit video boards for these machines, but you can ALSO >buy them for the Amiga. %You cannot run workbench on these boards. In fact, you can only run WB %on the standard display. Forget about 24 bit video, you cannot run WB on a %smaller 8-bit-plane display! That's the real pain. Why would I want to run Workbench on a 24 bit display? Not only would this chew up processor time, but it would serve no purpose. Just how many colors do you need to use this part of the GUI? I think what your trying to say here is that it isn't a solid part of the OS yet. Read before you leap. I mention the lack of it below... %On other systems you can (you need Windows on the PC to do this). >So where is Commodore falling behind in this respect? %Yes. The Amiga does not have device independance when it comes to video. What %good is a 1280x1024 24bit video display if all you can run on it is one %application. More of what I already noted, that Commodore is working on this. >OK, they need a 24 bit interfacing standard but I understand that they just >released it? If not, I know they are at least working on it. %A 24 bit interfacing standard is not what the Amiga needs. It needs the %device independance. These almost define the same thing, and do become the same thing when done properly. I was refering to both when I said "interfacing standard". >General Amiga Features- Many messages have been written about the aging of the >features found on every Amiga when compared to current day "standards". Tell >me, who is setting those standards? %These "standard" features are taken from what people come to expect from their %machines. Most of it is 'adopted' from what we like in UNIX computers, as %in virtual memory. There are other things that we realize is almost required %to make a reliable system, like memory protection. In your view. Some people favor the software method because of cost and other factors. Anyway, when is the last time you saw a UNIX system for under $1000 with the Amiga's features? Again, another user comparing features of a machine costing much more to that of all Amigas. %Just as an aside, the thing that pisses off a lot of us is the fact that %memory protection and virtual memory is strictly a software thing. The %A3000 has the hardware to make this possible, but because of the OS's inital %design these things will be difficult to make a reality (like the Mac's %"multitasking"). >I mean, what machines have those features at a comparable price to the Amiga? %Do you want it in alphabetical order, or in order of importance? Yes, I'd like to see your list IN THE PRICE RANGE OF THE AMIGA, from the 500 to the 3000. None of this $5000 workstation crap that has nothing to do with the vast majority of the Amiga line. You must include price in your comparisons. Leave out price and I can compare a Vic-20 to a Next Station. %There are several UNIX computers that are available in the under $5000 range %that offer these features. Most notably are the many 386/486 clones, several %SPARC clones, the NeXT Station, and several new HP machines. All of these %machines are about the same price as a similarly configured A3000. And none of these machines is in the same price range with any Amiga but, remotely, the 3000UX. I'm no expert on UNIX but I do understand that the 3000UX offers many features that the above machines don't FOR THE PRICE. It may lack a few too, but more than makes up for it in other areas. I'd like to hear your comparisons of the above machines IN THAT PRICE RANGE. >The general problem here is that people >tend to compare the Amiga to a machine (or even a 3rd party board for a >machine that doesn't even come standard with it) costing two or three times >the Amiga's price. %Not me. You just did, several times. >A good example of this being the < $1000 price range. If >the Amiga is so old then show me one machine under $1000 that has all the >features of the Amiga. %The low-end is where the Amiga shines, I cannot deny that. It is in the mid to %high end where the Amiga gets lost in the crowd. This is mainly because the %Amiga has not kept up in the operating system and video arena's. The A3000UX, %in it's current form, is a joke since it lacks many of the features that most %buyers consider minimal (a COLOR, HIGH-RES, X11r4 being one of them). I would expect you'll get a lot of mail for calling the 3000UX a "joke". I'm still waiting for that comparison/price comparison. And how far down is "low- end" to you? Last time I checked the < $1500 market a "joke". >Atari? Not even close, and that's why Atari sales are >dead. The Mac Classic? Don't make me laugh! Fact is people that nobody comes >close. Then there is the UNIX market....and on and on... %You ignore several things. One is the fact that some computers are better %suited for some tasks than others. Take MIDI, for instance. UNIX is just %about unuseable with MIDI because of the real-time nature of music. The Mac %has the best applications/hardware for music. PC's have good applications/ %hardware, but there are many "industrial grade rack-mountable PC's" as well %as many laptops (good for the musican on the move). The Atari ST has good %applications as well (Atari is to MIDI as Amiga is to video). There are %several 'good' Amiga MIDI applications, but they are not as high-quality or %numerous as other platforms. The bottom line is this: if I were putting You might want to do a little research. I can quote several of Atari's top music authors ported their software to the Amiga. True that the Atari may still hold the edge, but that edge is dulling against rocks as we speak. %a computer in a studio I would buy a Mac, but if I were taking one on the %road I would but a rack-mount PC or a laptop. The reason: These computers %get the job done better than the Amiga (at least for this task). %Note: In musical applications the Amiga's built-in sound is next to %worthless. Aside from sample-rate and 8-bit resolution, there is the number %of voices. It may be suitable for games and dinking around, but in a %professional studio four non-pannable voices are not enough. The Amiga %cannot reproduce 99% of the songs that I play. Once again we have a BOARD comparison to a STOCK comparison. Tell me who (he says like a broken record) IN THE PRICE RANGE OF THE AMIGA has better built-in sound? Last time I checked the Amiga had one of the best built-in sound chips around. The Amiga also has many new music boards to do professional work, so what? > The point I'm trying to make here is don't be so critical. %I don't think that it is folks being "critical", just observant. As I %mentioned, the Amiga really shines in the low-end market-- and I don't hear %many A500 owners expecting the high-end features. Where the Amiga is below %par, as in the high end (A3000), I hear lots of screaming for better video %boards, better memory management, etc. So in short, those who paid the money %and expect these features are the only ones really screaming (or it could be %those that would buy a high-end Amiga were it not for these features). The Amiga has "video boards" out for it. "Better memory management"? Take a look at the multitasking memory hog running on a lot of IBM computers and tell me that. Oh, you must mean a MMU? Isn't funny how stable the Amiga's multi- tasking is even without one. Makes you realize what a good OS can do for a computer. >True that there >are new video boards and such that are somewhat better than what the Amiga >comes with, but these are products that don't compete with the Amiga, both in >price and in coming standard with a machine. %Again, only the low-end Amiga's shine. In the high end, the standard A3000's %video is lack-luster when compared to other machines in the same price range. %In the higher-end market there is no such things as "standard" equiptment %since everyone specifies a system like, "Ok, I want XXX System with XXX type %video and XXX size/speed/type hard drive." >People tend to compare what they >can buy for an IBM or Apple to what the Amiga comes with standard. Why can't >you give your machine a little credit and compare what we can buy for the >Amiga to what you can buy for those machines, and what comes standard for the >price to what comes standard for those machines. The Amiga is one hell of a >machine, and nobody seems ready to change that. %Again, it is only a good machine in the low-end market. It just does not %compete anywhere else. (God, it sounds like a broken record.) Oh yea, your right. That 3000UX is a real dog. Everybody knows how junky DMA can be. And that fantastic speed of the OS, please! The 3000UX comes standard with a video board for better graphics. Tom Why purchase a MAC when an Amiga with the same CPU will run 99% of all __ MAC software..and FASTER at that?! The same can be said of the IBM and __/// Atari computers, and I can run those in a window. IBM's greatest sales \XX/ tool is ignorance on the consumer's part. IBM=(I)'ve (B)een (M)islead. A If you want to be popular then buy a MAC....If you want to be powerful M then buy an Amiga..and use all that money you save to buy friends. :') I Classic=B&W, no blitter, no DMA, almost no sound, almost no expansion, G price tag of $1000. Amiga 500=4096 colors, DMA galore, great sound, an A 86 pin expansion port, price tag of $500. Confused? Only the Amiga!!!!
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.121129.28202@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: > > A problem with Commodore's solution is the we are locked into only >being able to use the specially modified drives produced only by Commodore. >If Commodore had, instead, developed some sort of hardware interface for >standard IBM HD drives, we could buy the interface from Commodore, and >then buy whatever HD drive we want to buy. > > People used to routinely bash Apple for using drives that (for a long >time) only they produced, and now Commodore is doing exactly the same thing. > I guess I'm missing something. Why is that any different from the way normal low-density 3.5" drives have been working on the Amiga for the past 6 years? I can't go get a low-density IBM 3.5" drive and put it on my Amiga. I would HOPE that the Commodore drive and the AE drive can read each other's disks. If they can't then there is a problem that I admit to. Otherwise, it is a standard that any hardware company can use. -- 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@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (06/19/91)
In article <30203@know.pws.bull.com> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes: >%Keep in mind that hard drive/floppy controllers for the PC run about $50, and >%floppy only cards run $15. We expect the "4 meg floppy" controllers to run >%about $20 once the Asian clone makers start production. > So what? I was simply stating that a chip upgrade to make the Amiga able to >handle these drives is no more "degrading" than having to plug a new drive >card into an IBM. I would hardly expect such a chip to cost more than $30. So >we need a chip upgrade, you have to plug in a new card. Which is worse? > How many times do I have to say this? THERE ARE "2" MEG drives out for the >Amiga. If you want to pick then how about this...All I have to do is plug one >of these drives into my Amiga. You need a floppy controller card if you don't >already have one. How's that for lacking a certain ability? > Your lost man. I was comparing the need of a hardware upgrade to handle HD >drives on the Amiga to that of the IBM. People seem almost shocked that the >Amiga needs a hardware upgrade to handle normal HD drives. So do other >computers, so why b*tch about it? >%The bottom line is this: IBM's have supported 2 meg drives for quite some >%time. The Amiga just recently supported them, but in a brain-dead fashon. > > The Amiga has "supported" them for over two years now I believe. "Brain-dead >fashion"? Because the Amiga HD drives have a little extra hardware in them? >What about all that extra hardware your average IBM needs on a card to handle >ANY floppy? I'd call that dog-stupid, or IBM-stupid if you like. So the Amiga >was a little slow to come out with a HD drive. Tell me, when will IBM come out >with any of several hardware features the Amiga has? Dwell on one issue and >we can pick at the IBM computers. Ok, lets put this in perspective. You seem to think that the drive controller cards in the PC are a big deal. In one of the paragraphs I quoted above, you seem to imply that some folks don't have floppy controllers ("You need a floppy controller card if you don't already have one...") In the traditional design of a PC, only the bare bones of the system are on the motherboard and everything else is on cards (drive controllers, video, etc). Currently, floppy controllers are places on the same card as hard drive controllers because that's the most logical place for them and it adds about $5 to the cost of the board. This has been so common that it is really considered STANDARD. It is so standard that all controllers that have been sold in the past five years support 2 meg floppies (1.44 meg formatted). What this means is that 2 meg floppies on the PC is very painless. Now, if all you has to do is swap a chip to make an Amiga support 2 meg drives then there would not be an issue. Rather, you have to find one of these strange two speed floppy drives that are no-where near standard. All in all, I would rather deal with standard hardware. >>The last time >>I checked, both Apple and IBM didn't ship 24 bit video boards standard with >>their machines. > >%Do you really expect computers to come STANDARD with 24 bit video? I think >%not. To date, the only computer that does (that I know of off hand) is >%the Silicon Graphics-- and it is made for video. Neither NeXT, SUN, Apollo, >%HP, NEC, IBM, Apple, DEC, Data General, Opus, MIPS, etc-- none of them make a >%machine with 24 bit video as standard. > > Isn't that what I just said? The point I was making was that people compare >24 bit BOARDS on other computers to what the Amiga comes standard with. I have never in my life compared a 24 bit video system with the standard Amiga display. I compare them with the 24 bit displays on the Amiga. In the same vein, I compare 8 bit displays on the PC/MAC/UNIX with Amiga 8 bit displays (a.la. U of L board). >%You cannot run workbench on these boards. In fact, you can only run WB >%on the standard display. Forget about 24 bit video, you cannot run WB on a >%smaller 8-bit-plane display! That's the real pain. > > Why would I want to run Workbench on a 24 bit display? Not only would this >chew up processor time, but it would serve no purpose. Just how many colors do >you need to use this part of the GUI? I think what your trying to say here is >that it isn't a solid part of the OS yet. Read before you leap. I mention the >lack of it below... My, how ignorant we are. Humph! It is not just 24 bit displays, it is even the 8 bit boards. Sure it would chew up co-processor time, but not many folks make 24 bit displays without a fast co-processors (usually 34010/34020's, 29K, i860's etc). In fact, if you are counting, the standard blitter in the A3000 cannot support these devices because (ignoring speed all together) these displays need 3-4 meg of video RAM-- much more than the 2 meg of CHIP RAM. Sure, 24 bit workbench screens would be a little overkill (but I can think of where they would be useful), but 8 bits is minimum for me-- and I still cannot run WB on it! It's not that I am saying that "it is not a solid part of the OS yet", but more like, "Support for device independant displays was never designed into the OS from the start." I dare say that in the next four years you will not see an 8-bit-video Amiga running workbench (unless that board actually uses the blitter rather than something like a 34010). > In your view. Some people favor the software method because of cost and other >factors. Anyway, when is the last time you saw a UNIX system for under $1000 >with the Amiga's features? Again, another user comparing features of a machine >costing much more to that of all Amigas. No. I have said many times (of which you did not quote), that the Amiga really shines in the low end market (less than $1000). As you probably expected, I cannot find ANY UNIX computer for less than $1000, much less one with the Amiga's features-- but I am not debating this. What I do compare is machines with similar price/features as the A3000, not the low end A500. For instance, I compare the A3000 with other machines in the $3500 to 4500 price range like the cheap UNIX boxes, NeXT's, etc-- putting in some lee-way for drive/RAM/video configurations. This type of comparison is quite fair. I don't compare the A3000 with a RS/6000, SPARCstation 2, etc. >>I mean, what machines have those features at a comparable price to the Amiga? >%Do you want it in alphabetical order, or in order of importance? > > Yes, I'd like to see your list IN THE PRICE RANGE OF THE AMIGA, from the 500 >to the 3000. None of this $5000 workstation crap that has nothing to do with >the vast majority of the Amiga line. You must include price in your >comparisons. Leave out price and I can compare a Vic-20 to a Next Station. Ok, Mr. Big Shot. You asked for it. As I already mentioned (and you already forgot), I think the Amiga has the low end market so I will not bother mentioning that price range. What I will do is compare several machines with an A3000, C='s top of the line. I will include machines up to $5000 since it's only fair-- adding RAM, Eithernet, good video to the A3000 would more than make up for this difference. I also with to imply a fudge factor of about plus or minus $500 since prices vary more than that much from one state to another (also, a difference of $500 is not that big when you are looking at several thousands of dollars). That being said: 386sx, 20mhz, 8meg RAM, 200 meg drive, standard stuff (VGA, mouse, 1.44meg floppy, 2 serial ports, one parallel, etc). And UNIX. This goes for about $3200. It's slower than the A3000, but it has all the feature of real UNIX-- with a REAL X11r4 server rather than the brain-dead version that comes with the $7000 A3000UX. Run's X-Windows at 1024x768 256 colors. Same as above, but with a 386/25, $3400. CPU roughly as fast as the A3000, slower disk I/O and Video. Same as above, but with 33mhz CPU and 64K of cache, $3700. CPU is signifigantly faster than A3000. Same as above, but with 25mhz 486, $4300. CPU is about twice as fast as the stock A3000. For 34010 board, yeilding 1024x768 256 color displays with speed that is faster than the A3000's blitter. Add $700. I offer the several configurations for comparison only. It shows that you can get a 386/25 UNIX box with 34010 for about the same price as a 8 meg A3000 and the 3000 still does not offer comparable video. There is no comparison with the A3000UXD. NeXTStation, 8meg, 105 meg HD, a 56001 DSP, Ethernet, 25mhz 040, and a high-res grayscale monitor. $4995 List price. I believe that added features of this machine (040, dsp, ethernet) more than make up for the added $1000 in cost. A similarly configured A3000 would cost well over $5000. There are several other SPARC Clones right about $5000 which are configured similarly to the NeXTStation, but lack the DSP. These are just out and are expected to drop to $4000 by years end. All of these machines offer better memory/system management, device independance, and non-kludged HD floppy drives. > And none of these machines is in the same price range with any Amiga but, >remotely, the 3000UX. I'm no expert on UNIX but I do understand that the >3000UX offers many features that the above machines don't FOR THE PRICE. It >may lack a few too, but more than makes up for it in other areas. I'd like to >hear your comparisons of the above machines IN THAT PRICE RANGE. In the price range of the A3000UXD ($7000-8000 list) you can get 486/33's with the EISA bus (roughly equal to the Zorro III in speed) and still have money left over for a 34010 board. This would be twice as fast as the A3000UXD (roughly), have faster video, and great disk performance. There is also the Color NeXTStation's with larger hard drives, or Color Sparc's. All are faster than the A3000UXD and have a more robust version of X Windows. The problem with the A3000UX is the version of X that ships-- there are several problems. First, it is X11R3 rather than the faster R4. Second, it is BLACK and WHITE, not even grey scale. And third, it's resolution is very limited (700x??? with overscan) in a world where 1024x768 is MINIMAL for X. There are two ways to fix this: Get the U of L board, or get Amiga UNIX version 2.0. Neither is out yet, although C= keeps dangling them in front of us. We cannot even get a demo U of L Board to show clients! I will not consider VAPORWARE. Imagine showung a bad black and white display workstation and a high-res-color Next side by side. Which would you buy? The NeXT of course, and so do the buyers. (If C= is listening, I know several Amiga dealers that will not show the UX simply because they are ashamed of the X. They would be very pleased to see a demo U of L board, hint hint.) >>The general problem here is that people >>tend to compare the Amiga to a machine (or even a 3rd party board for a >>machine that doesn't even come standard with it) costing two or three times >>the Amiga's price. > >%Not me. > > You just did, several times. No I did not. Please re-read. Again, I am not even thinking about the low-end market, since we agree there. BTW, my definition of low end is about $1200 on down. High end is $3500 on up to about $10,000. Above that you are in GOD class. > You might want to do a little research. I can quote several of Atari's top >music authors ported their software to the Amiga. True that the Atari may >still hold the edge, but that edge is dulling against rocks as we speak. I agree with you here. I am sure that the market will level out as good applications are written for new platforms (and bail out of old ones). But right now there is a huge advantage to using a Mac for MIDI over the Amiga. This is a lot like desktop publishing several years ago. Everything was for the Mac, but you can do good DTP on just about any computer now. >%Note: In musical applications the Amiga's built-in sound is next to >%worthless. Aside from sample-rate and 8-bit resolution, there is the number >%of voices. It may be suitable for games and dinking around, but in a >%professional studio four non-pannable voices are not enough. The Amiga >%cannot reproduce 99% of the songs that I play. > > Once again we have a BOARD comparison to a STOCK comparison. Tell me who (he >says like a broken record) IN THE PRICE RANGE OF THE AMIGA has better built-in >sound? Last time I checked the Amiga had one of the best built-in sound chips >around. The Amiga also has many new music boards to do professional work, so >what? No, you are wrong. I was comparing the suitability of machines, and used MIDI as an example of where the Amiga might not be the right choice. I have had similar discussions with 'others like you' and the next thing to be brought up is the Amiga's internal sound and how it can be used to 'preview' the work. In an attempt to cut that off at the pass, I put in the little 'Note:'. I should have called it "As an aside:", it would have been more obvious. I fail to see how you can call it a "BOARD vs STOCK" comparison, since the Amiga's sound was not compared with ANYTHING. I was simply stating why the Amiga's internal sound really isnt useable in the professional world (even just to preview the work). > The Amiga has "video boards" out for it. "Better memory management"? Take a >look at the multitasking memory hog running on a lot of IBM computers and tell >me that. Oh, you must mean a MMU? Isn't funny how stable the Amiga's multi- >tasking is even without one. Makes you realize what a good OS can do for a >computer. Yes, the Amiga has video boards. I might actually give a hoot when there is a 1024x768x256 display running WB. Yes, better memory management. Things like virtual memory and memory protection is nice. But even more down home, how about using the MMU in the 030 to un-fragment RAM? Don't you just hate it when you have 500K free but it is broken up in 50K chunks? I have looked at multitasking under MS-DOS (Windows), and can still say that the Amiga needs memory protection. MS-DOS is stupid and doesn't make any baring on this discussion... Compared to machines with memory protection, AmigaDOS is not stable at all. When watching several friends program they reboot about every hour during software testing. When not programming, they reboot due to gurus about once every six hours. Otherwise, they reboot about once every six hours due to memory fragmentation. My computer has been running for at least six months (24 hours a day with several users) and has only rebooted twice because of power failures. My 'ballpark' figure says that it's several orders of magnitude more reliable. > Oh yea, your right. That 3000UX is a real dog. Everybody knows how junky DMA >can be. And that fantastic speed of the OS, please! The 3000UX comes standard >with a video board for better graphics. Yes, it is. Compare the A3000UX with a SPARC Clone of the similar price. The SPARC is about twice as fast as the 25mhz 030. It comes STANDARD with 1024x768x256 video. It's bus is roughly as fast as Zorro III (It uses SUN's S-Bus) Now, compare it with a Color NeXTStation, at $7500: 25mhz 040 is at least 2 to 3 times faster than the A3000UXD. 1120x832 16 bitplane video. A DSP for those compute intensive signal analisys applications, and CD quality sound. No DMA problems here. How about the 486/33 EISA machine with 34010, at $7500: The CPU is 2 to 3 times faster than the 25mhz 030. 1024x760 256 color video with a REAL co-processor. Overkill on the DMA with the EISA bus (forget the ISA bus). Gee, lets look at the A3000UXD, at $7500 (or so): CPU is several times slower than others listed here. 700x??? BLACK & WHITE video. DMA is average. > Tom -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | Reunite PANGEA! Compuserve? Isn't that some sort of FIDO BBS? |
taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.043057.24705@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > I guess I'm missing something. Why is that any different >from the way normal low-density 3.5" drives have been working on >the Amiga for the past 6 years? I can't go get a low-density IBM >3.5" drive and put it on my Amiga. The 3.5" drives that Commodore uses are standard 1M IBM drives. With a $5 interface, you can just plug in any IBM 3.5" 720K drive and it will work fine. > I would HOPE that the Commodore drive and the AE drive >can read each other's disks. If they can't then there is a >problem that I admit to. Otherwise, it is a standard that any >hardware company can use. > -- Ethan As far as I know, the AE and Commodore drives are totally incompatible (at least they are incompatible in the high-density mode). The two companies used totally different schemes to get the drives to work on Amigas. The Commodore drives format to the full 1.76MB capacity, while the AE drives only format to 1.52MB in high-density. > >"...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." ------------------------------------------------------------- / 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) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.170209.397@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: >In article <1991Jun19.043057.24705@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >> I guess I'm missing something. Why is that any different >>from the way normal low-density 3.5" drives have been working on >>the Amiga for the past 6 years? I can't go get a low-density IBM >>3.5" drive and put it on my Amiga. > >> I would HOPE that the Commodore drive and the AE drive >>can read each other's disks. If they can't then there is a >>problem that I admit to. Otherwise, it is a standard that any >>hardware company can use. >> -- Ethan > > As far as I know, the AE and Commodore drives are totally incompatible (at >least they are incompatible in the high-density mode). The two companies >used totally different schemes to get the drives to work on Amigas. The >Commodore drives format to the full 1.76MB capacity, while the AE drives >only format to 1.52MB in high-density. That's probably not it Marc. Commodore says their drives are 880k and (2*880k=1.76mb) but when formatted they are less. AE's drive is probably 1.76mb too, but when formatted by the OFS they are probably less. Even if they aren't compat, C='s drive will eventually prevail and AE will have to fix their trackdisk.device to read and write Commodore's disks. >> >>"...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." > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > / 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 * /
dusek@motcid.UUCP (James P. Dusek) (06/20/91)
ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes: > Over the past few months I've noticed a trend in "complaint messages" from >Amiga users. It seems that the usual style of these messages is to bash the >Amiga for lacking certain features that other computers "now have", yet this >logic is not always correct. Let's take a few examples here... > If you do not wish to see these complaints just put mark bennet in your kill file and most of them will go away :). -J.Dusek-
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/22/91)
> Why can't you give your machine a little credit [...] Hey, if everyone was willing to give their own machine (and others!!) a little credit, then c.s.a.advocacy would die. Tho that might be good. > I mean, what machines have those features at a comparable price [...]? > A good example of this being the < $1000 price range. If the Amiga is > so old then show me one machine under $1000 that has all the features > of the Amiga. Atari? Not even close, and that's why Atari sales are dead. > Mac Classic? Don't make me laugh! Fact is people that nobody comes close. Systems that "come close" _do_ exist. But they're from small companies who simply use today's nice off-the-shelf hardware and software components. For example (the actual name isn't germane to this discussion), there's... Machine "X" - 15Mhz 68070. Multitasking/user. NTSC interlace and overscan. Hires same as the Amiga; but lores is 256 colors/pixel. A 24-bit palette. Simple copper. Pixel logic in hardware. Multiple screens and simple windows. DMA high density floppy port. DMA SCSI port. 1Meg ram -> 9meg using SIMMs. Also clock, 2 parallel ports, 5 serial ports (cheap MIDI adapter optional), analog joystick port, and DMAable stereo line-level output AND input ports. Basic, C, uucp, intermachine networking, and various tools come standard. In a low-profile 4-drive case with one 3.5" 1.4meg drive included, (you add inexpensive PC keyboard/mouse of your choice), it's just under $1000. That sounds pretty "close", assuming it fits your needs. At the best street prices I could find, a fairly comparable A2000 came to about $3K. What's especially relative here about the above machine and its cousins, is that they were all created _because_ an expanded Amiga cost too much. The target buyers had all indicated their desire for certain base features, and no 68K system had fit the price/ports profile, altho Amiga came closest. Still, they're not perfect either. Who's found anything yet that is? ;-) But they may prove that a _little_ bit of criticism isn't unwarranted... regards - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> PS: you also asked "Who sets these standards?" The answer is: you ask yourself what you would pick as standard in a brand new model machine.
cazabon@hercules (Charles Cazabon (186-003-526)) (06/22/91)
In article <1991Jun19.225700.16473@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: :In article <1991Jun19.170209.397@news.iastate.edu> taab5@isuvax.iastate.edu writes: :> :> As far as I know, the AE and Commodore drives are totally incompatible (at :>least they are incompatible in the high-density mode). The two companies :>used totally different schemes to get the drives to work on Amigas. The :>Commodore drives format to the full 1.76MB capacity, while the AE drives :>only format to 1.52MB in high-density. : : That's probably not it Marc. Commodore says their drives are :880k and (2*880k=1.76mb) but when formatted they are less. AE's :drive is probably 1.76mb too, but when formatted by the OFS they are :probably less. Even if they aren't compat, C='s drive will :eventually prevail and AE will have to fix their trackdisk.device :to read and write Commodore's disks. : Uhh, sorry, thanks for playing. The AE high density drive supports two modes: 880K and 1.52 meg. That's the equivalent of 11 and 19 sectors per track. It can't read the 18 sectors per track of the 1.44 meg standard. Commodore's drive ABSOLUTELY HAD TO read the 1.44 meg standard to be able to qualify for System V, Release 4 Unix. CBM's drive supports 880K mode, 1.44 meg mode, and 1.76 meg mode. These are equivalent to 11 sectors per track, 18 sectors per track, and 22 sectors per track. Oh yes, and of course 720K (9 sector per track) mode, which the AE drive also handles. These are FORMATTED capacities. Unformatted, any high density drive is called a 2 meg drive. --Chuck Cazabon, cazabon@hercules.uregina.ca * My Opinions Are Not My Own...Feel Free To Plagiarize
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (06/26/91)
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: Heh.. you mean the MM/1. This machine is still vaporware from what i understand, since i know people that have expressed that they would buy it if they could. they have all the docs and are in contact with the company. That 070 is also highly non-standard, so there's no real way to pop in an 030 without crippling the I/O. >Machine "X" - 15Mhz 68070. Multitasking/user. NTSC interlace and overscan. >Hires same as the Amiga; but lores is 256 colors/pixel. A 24-bit palette. >Simple copper. Pixel logic in hardware. Multiple screens and simple windows. >DMA high density floppy port. DMA SCSI port. 1Meg ram -> 9meg using SIMMs. >Also clock, 2 parallel ports, 5 serial ports (cheap MIDI adapter optional), >analog joystick port, and DMAable stereo line-level output AND input ports. >Basic, C, uucp, intermachine networking, and various tools come standard. >In a low-profile 4-drive case with one 3.5" 1.4meg drive included, (you >add inexpensive PC keyboard/mouse of your choice), it's just under $1000. Last price i heard was 1800. have they lowered their estimated cost? > >That sounds pretty "close", assuming it fits your needs. At the best street >prices I could find, a fairly comparable A2000 came to about $3K. > >What's especially relative here about the above machine and its cousins, >is that they were all created _because_ an expanded Amiga cost too much. >The target buyers had all indicated their desire for certain base features, >and no 68K system had fit the price/ports profile, altho Amiga came closest. >Still, they're not perfect either. Who's found anything yet that is? ;-) >But they may prove that a _little_ bit of criticism isn't unwarranted... > regards - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> Umm.. actually they were created for people who wanted OS/9 on a 68000 (OS/K). they threw in the extras to "show off". there's no real thought out reason for much of it. no Blitters.. etc.. > >PS: you also asked "Who sets these standards?" The answer is: you ask >yourself what you would pick as standard in a brand new model machine. .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | 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". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/27/91)
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >>Machine "X" - [feature list deleted] > This machine is still vaporware from what i understand, since i know > people that have expressed that they would buy it if they could. Excuse me? The message thread was about what kind of standard Amiga features might be possible within a $1000 retail price range, and why having those features might be needed to attract sales. To update you, that machine has been shipping for at least a month. Therefore it qualifies as an example of what can be done, if wished. > That 070 is also highly non-standard, so there's no real way to pop in > an 030 without crippling the I/O. > Last price i heard was 1800. have they lowered their estimated cost? They must have :-) Everyone who now owns one, bought it for around $1000. And no, an 030 board wouldn't "pop in" where the 070 is. That'd be insane. It would come on a separate cpu board with its own 32-bit ram, and plug into the multiprocessor bus. The 070 would be relegated to I/O chores. >>What's especially relative here about the above machine and its cousins, >>is that they were all created _because_ an expanded Amiga cost too much. >>The target buyers had all indicated their desire for certain base features, >>and no 68K system had fit the price/ports profile, altho Amiga came closest. > > Umm.. actually they were created for people who wanted OS/9 on a 68000 > (OS/K). they threw in the extras to "show off". there's no real thought > out reason for much of it. no Blitters.. etc.. Not quite. They _were_ created for people who wanted to run OS-9, but even a tiny bit of knowledge would tell you that they *already* had a wide choice of potential OS-9 systems, including (but not limited to) the IBM 386s, the Mac, the Atari ST, and the Amiga. This was 18 months ago, btw. My own first choice was the Amiga, but adding to its base I/O features (gfx, disk, # of serial/par ports) wasn't cost effective (or possible) at the time. So the question of "What do you want?" was put out on the nets and services, and months of debate followed. The end result was three companies creating new machines to fit various users' minimum stated needs/desires/price ranges. >>Still, they're not perfect either. Who's found anything yet that is? ;-) >>But they may prove that a _little_ bit of criticism isn't unwarranted... I repeated that, since you missed both of the main points. It _is_ possible to include more standard features in a $1000 system. Furthermore, not including them means that competition will surely fill the market void. - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> PS: You can stop wasting time on ill-informed bash attempts, since no one is asking Amiga owners to buy these machines :-)
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (06/27/91)
In article <5220@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >Heh.. you mean the MM/1. This machine is still vaporware from what i >understand, since i know people that have expressed that they would buy it if >they could. Well, then, I'm typing on vapor, I guess, since an MM/1 is sitting in front of me. :-) (For completeness's sake, I should mention that I'm waiting on part of it--IMS has been delayed thanks to a Western Digital SCSI chip that does not perform as advertised.) >Last price i heard was 1800. have they lowered their estimated cost? I paid $975 for a "kit" (needs a screwdriver and a drill, the latter to put holes in the right place in a PClone case) plus case, which is something like $200 under what it would otherwise have been (assembled). Now, by the time I add the cost of keyboard, Magnavox 1CM135 monitor, a couple megabytes of RAM, and a Quantum 105 Mbyte SCSI drive, yeah, it's pushing $2K. >Umm.. actually they were created for people who wanted OS/9 on a 68000 >(OS/K). they threw in the extras to "show off". there's no real thought out >reason for much of it. no Blitters.. etc.. Hmmm...no blitters, so they must not have thought about the design. I don't quite see how that follows. :-) James Jones (unassociated with IMS, save as a customer)