genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) (06/13/91)
>I'm getting a bit tired of all these ATTEMPT to crush the Amiga, >to make it cower before the "superior" Mac OS and the "incredible" >IBM graphics. A few points: >1) Most people who bash Amigas just plain don't know what they're talking about > They've maybe seen an Amiga, but just arne't familiar with how powerful they > are. Obviously, you are not familiar (or should I say "you know nothing") about the other systems either. Get some info before. Open your mind AND your eyes. >2) Amigas make IBMs look like toys and Macs look like 1mhz machines. No other > microcomputer operating system multitasks as well as AmigaDOS. NONE. Other > system just don't have the hardware support for it - they spend 3/4s the > machine time processing graphics and i/o. Amigas can handle HUGE amounts of > using VERY little system time. As I said to someone else on the net already, Amiga WAS the best computer around you could buy when it was launched. Now the other systems (Mac, NeXT, PeeCee) are catching up (and real fast). What makes the Amiga so great is the software, not the hardware (at least not anymore) (about the hardware topic, I know it would be long/boring/flaming to go over it again, so let's drop it or drop dead). Do you know why "they" spend 3/4s of the CPU for graphics and I/O and the Amiga's don't? Remove the graphics/sound/bus/... coprocessors from the Amiga and let's see how it's going to behave this time. Or add the appropriate coprocessors to the other ones (system) and compare. About multitasking, I want to know what you are using multitasking for?? Do you use it a lot?? I know I could not live without multitasking, but very often (when I do serious work), I want my computations to take exactly 20 minutes and not 30-40 minutes because I am playing some chess or tetris games in another window. (don't tell me that there is no difference, context swithing and games/modem take CPU times). And can the Amiga multitasks "Dungeon Master" and "Blazemonger" and a WP???? >3) The Amiga starting out as a video (game) machine, yes it did. Fine. It still > has much better integration of graphics and MUCH better animation abilities As I said, go look around. Check out the softwares and hardwares of the other systems (especially the Mac and PeeCee) NOW on the market. You will be surprised. And what is/are your criterion/a to say one graphic system is better than the other ?? The Amiga community is better to get moving and get out now from their hibernation state if they want to keep their domination in the multimedia field. Waiting until july would be too late. > than any other micro. Amigas are beaten not by these joke Mac and IBM single > processor non-multitasking throwbacks, but rather by much more expensive woe > processor SLOW monsters, but rather by much more expensive minicomputer > workstations. Why are many universities chosing the Amiga 3000 as their > primary UNIX system for students? Because it's a video game machine with > low quality video? Because it's slow compared to IBMs and Macs running UNIX? > I DON'T THINK SO. Where are your facts?? How many universities?? Here at McGill, they (the system staffs) were planning to replace the old dumb ASCII terminals by either the Amiga or the NeXTstation. They chose the NeXTstations. I support that decision. We are using those machines (about 40) for 6 months now. > >I could go on and on and on. So, in summary, Amiga bashers just aren't familiar > Please go on. I want to know how far you can get. You are just like some of the Mac/NeXT/PeeCee users: ignorant (not stupid) and narrow minded. >-- > // | Email: mnc@turing.acs.virginia.edu > // | > \\ // Where the REAL power is. | From the desk of Michael Chapman > \X/ IBM, Mac, get REAL! | Don't get me wrong here, I like the Amiga (esp. for games), and I know its potentials and capabilities, and so the potentials and capabilities of the other systems. No flames intended, although I realize that responding to the article is a declaration of war by itself. So... Lt. Worf, shields up, and prepare the phasers. *************************************************************************** "L'avocat du diable" ***************************************************************************
tinyguy@cs.mcgill.ca (Yeo-Hoon BAE) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun13.065150.3529@cs.mcgill.ca> genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) writes: > >Obviously, you are not familiar (or should I say "you know nothing") >about the other systems either. Get some info before. Open your mind AND >your eyes. > But there ARE some people who do know what they are talking about. Perhaps, you should listen to some of them seriously... >As I said to someone else on the net already, Amiga WAS the best computer >around you could buy when it was launched. Now the other systems (Mac, >NeXT, PeeCee) are catching up (and real fast). What makes the Amiga so great Agreed. >is the software, not the hardware (at least not anymore) (about the hardware >topic, I know it would be long/boring/flaming to go over it again, so let's >drop it or drop dead). But I like it! :) >Do you know why "they" spend 3/4s of the CPU for graphics and I/O and the >Amiga's don't? Remove the graphics/sound/bus/... coprocessors from the Amiga >and let's see how it's going to behave this time. Or add the appropriate >coprocessors to the other ones (system) and compare. But why would I do that? Those are what defines Amiga. You wanna compare Amiga with other computers? Leave them there! >About multitasking, I want to know what you are using multitasking for?? >Do you use it a lot?? I know I could not live without multitasking, but >very often (when I do serious work), I want my computations to take >exactly 20 minutes and not 30-40 minutes because I am playing some >chess or tetris games in another window. (don't tell me that there is >no difference, context swithing and games/modem take CPU times). And can >the Amiga multitasks "Dungeon Master" and "Blazemonger" and a WP???? > Well, for one thing, what are your most common applications that you use on your machine? For most applications, there's no way that each application takes that much CPU, especially on A3000. Even on 7.14MHz 68000, I can download, un-lharc, and edit a file without much distraction. In fact, you can start downloading a file and simply forget about it, as if it doesn't exist. Try that on Windows.(I have both machines :) The most distracting thing about Windows is that it does NOT update screens(windows) similtaneously. You start formatting a disk, and switch to another window, the window freezes. Nice multitasking. :) >As I said, go look around. Check out the softwares and hardwares of the other >systems (especially the Mac and PeeCee) NOW on the market. You will >be surprised. And what is/are your criterion/a to say one graphic system >is better than the other ?? The Amiga community is better to get moving and >get out now from their hibernation state if they want to keep their domination >in the multimedia field. Waiting until july would be too late. > Believe me, I have(and still do). In my opinion, both machines have their pros and cons. On Amiga, by biggest dissapointment is the resolution. And on the IBM, the performace of the display, until you spend $700 on ATI Ultra + $200 on another SVGA card. But up here in Canada, Amigas are not that cheap, and PCs do look pretty attractive if you consider value for money. :( > >Where are your facts?? How many universities?? Here at McGill, they (the >system staffs) were planning to replace the old dumb ASCII terminals by >either the Amiga or the NeXTstation. They chose the NeXTstations. >I support that decision. We are using those machines (about 40) for 6 months >now. > Oh, I didn't know they were also considering Amigas... But common, you have to consider the fact that the former System Manager was one of the craziest NeXT lover(sorry Peter!). No other platform would have changed his mind. >>I could go on and on and on. So, in summary, Amiga bashers just aren't familiar >> > >Please go on. I want to know how far you can get. >You are just like some of the Mac/NeXT/PeeCee users: > ignorant (not stupid) and narrow minded. > As I said before, there are some who know both(not me, yet:) and are keeping quiet for now. I think 'bashing' isn't so bad as long as they don't exaggerate. >Don't get me wrong here, I like the Amiga (esp. for games), and I know >its potentials and capabilities, and so the potentials and capabilities >of the other systems. > Aha, but you should go and study about Amigas a little more, just merely trying out isn't good enough. How much do you know about customizing your own environment? Amongst my Amiga friends, almost every user has a completely different setup, with some help from fish libraries. Until you try them properly, you won;t appreciate it, that much I can tell you. >No flames intended, although I realize that responding to the article is a >declaration of war by itself. So... Lt. Worf, shields up, and prepare the >phasers. > Yup. And better make that Torpedo. :) >*************************************************************************** > > "L'avocat du diable" > >*************************************************************************** > > +-----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+ | Yeo-Hoon Bae tinyguy@homer.cs.mcgill.ca | /// | | Dept. Computer Science, McGill University, Canada | /// | |-----------------------------------------------------------| \\\/// | | Amiga2000 & 386SX | \XX/ | +-----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted) (06/14/91)
genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) writes: >Do you know why "they" spend 3/4s of the CPU for graphics and I/O and the >Amiga's don't? Remove the graphics/sound/bus/... coprocessors from the Amiga Why would anyone want to do that? >and let's see how it's going to behave this time. Or add the appropriate >coprocessors to the other ones (system) and compare. Yes, this would be a good idea. >About multitasking, I want to know what you are using multitasking for?? >Do you use it a lot?? I know I could not live without multitasking, but I don't know about him, but I use it a lot. Mostly to text process/program, while I convert something(pictures from GIF to whatever, read ftp'ed stuff from 720 kb PC disks to my harddisk, or) or raytrace. Playing games while the computer is doing some of this, is not impossible(and would not be either on PC's / Macs, if they could multitask, and will be possible, as soon as they go multitasking). If you want scrolling shootemups of course, but playing adventures/roleplaying games does not need much processor time. >very often (when I do serious work), I want my computations to take >exactly 20 minutes and not 30-40 minutes because I am playing some If playing tetris takes half the processing power of your computer, I feel sorry for you(I suppose you mean Amiga). >As I said, go look around. Check out the softwares and hardwares of the other >systems (especially the Mac and PeeCee) NOW on the market. You will >be surprised. And what is/are your criterion/a to say one graphic system >is better than the other ?? The Amiga community is better to get moving and >get out now from their hibernation state if they want to keep their domination >in the multimedia field. Waiting until july would be too late. Why didn't you do multimedia back in 86 ? It has been 5 years for you to start... Funny thing this multimedia, I find/have no use for it, yet. >either the Amiga or the NeXTstation. They chose the NeXTstations. I'd like to have a NeXT too, but doesn't they cost money? And where are the colours. They are coming, aren't they?(This is a question, not a flame. I wouldn't know it even if they had had colours for years) >Don't get me wrong here, I like the Amiga (esp. for games), and I know >its potentials and capabilities, and so the potentials and capabilities >of the other systems. >No flames intended, although I realize that responding to the article is a >declaration of war by itself. So... Lt. Worf, shields up, and prepare the >phasers. If you do not split up the Enterprise, you miss the full potential of the Battle section... >*************************************************************************** > "L'avocat du diable" >*************************************************************************** Fandens til advokat. Eller er det avekat? -- From the notorious Jakob Gaardsted, Computer Science Department Bed og arbejd ! University of Aarhus, Jylland (!) (Pray and work!) AMIGA! pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk | I'd rather play Moria.
genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) (06/14/91)
> But there ARE some people who do know what they are talking about. > Perhaps, you should listen to some of them seriously... Ok, ok tinyguy, don't be such a wise guy. I was talking to the guy who wrote the original posting. I know that within each group, there are people who know what they are talking about and other don't. And yes I will listen to them if they do. But here we are talking about someone who doesn't... so what's your point?? > But why would I do that? Those are what defines Amiga. You wanna > compare Amiga with other computers? Leave them there! Ok, then compare the Amiga with a all-coprocessed Mac or PeeCee. There is maybe a definition of a Mac but not a PeeCee. Let's be fair here. The guy was saying that the display is faster in the Amiga (compared to a non-coprocessed system), I was merely explaining to him why is that so. > Well, for one thing, what are your most common applications that > you use on your machine? For most applications, there's no way > that each application takes that much CPU, especially on A3000. > Even on 7.14MHz 68000, I can download, un-lharc, and edit a file > without much distraction. In fact, you can start downloading a > file and simply forget about it, as if it doesn't exist. Try that > on Windows.(I have both machines :) ^^^^^^^^^^ I did and still do and it works fine. Maybe you don't know how to set up your .ini files. Drop me a mail and I'll show you. Is this your most common applications?? downloading files, un-lharc, and edit a file?? ok. good for you. I don't do that anymore as you know 2400 is slow, and we (you and me, yes) have the NeXTstations with a 1.44 drive, I use that instead. My most common apps was AutoCAD. Now it's games, and Fractals. And I was talking about _serious_ work (I know it's very subjective). If you go into a company (such as a bank, a lawyer's firm, pharmaceutical lab, etc...), do you think the people are spending most of the time downloading, archiving and playing Blazemonger in a window? How about developper/grad students/prof./reseachers?? (it's becoming a little too much childish, so I stop here). > The most distracting thing about Windows is that it does NOT update > screens(windows) similtaneously. You start formatting a disk, and > switch to another window, the window freezes. Nice multitasking. :) The handicap is not Windows, it's DOS. DOS is my worse nightmare. Knowing that DOS is a brain-dead OS and what Windows can do, I'll say 'nice touch' for Windows (3.0 of course). From all the GUI I have seen/ tried/worked on, NeXTstep is best (graphically speaking), followed by Windows 3.0, then Motif, and the Mac. Amiga GUI comes last (although with 2.0, I'll prefer 2.0 over the Mac even 7.0). > Believe me, I have(and still do). In my opinion, both machines have > their pros and cons. On Amiga, by biggest dissapointment is the > resolution. And on the IBM, the performace of the display, until > you spend $700 on ATI Ultra + $200 on another SVGA card. > But up here in Canada, Amigas are not that cheap, and PCs do look > pretty attractive if you consider value for money. :( > > Oh, I didn't know they were also considering Amigas... But common, > you have to consider the fact that the former System Manager was one > of the craziest NeXT lover(sorry Peter!). No other platform would > have changed his mind. you didn't know. I though everybody in CS knew. Anyway, I think the staff have receive some of the Amigas for evaluation purpose (correct me if I am wrong here Luc). > As I said before, there are some who know both(not me, yet:) and > are keeping quiet for now. I think 'bashing' isn't so bad as long > as they don't exaggerate. > Aha, but you should go and study about Amigas a little more, just > merely trying out isn't good enough. How much do you know about > customizing your own environment? Amongst my Amiga friends, almost > every user has a completely different setup, with some help from > fish libraries. Until you try them properly, you won;t appreciate it, > that much I can tell you. I have a friend who happens to own an Amiga 2000 for 2 years now (I think), and I happen to play with it some time. He has customized his env. alright, but still I didn't like it. I have spend almost 4 hours playing with an Amiga3000 and UX with 2.0 (playing: try DynaCADD, try the Toaster, run several apps, some games, trying to customize the env., and some sound prgs). I could stay (it was at SIMM) and try longer, but I got bored :-( . I follow (but not as religiously as I should) some of the Amiga Mags (that's why I spend most of my time at Camelot). What is for you "properly"? Knowing what it can do and what it does isn't enough? Did I say I don't appreciate the Amiga?? If I did, my mistake. My posting was for the guy who said the Amiga can beat the shit out of the Mac and PeeCee. I say no and I was trying to tell him why. I think you miss the point here. > Yup. And better make that Torpedo. :) Let's call Q. >+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+ >| Yeo-Hoon Bae tinyguy@homer.cs.mcgill.ca | /// | >| Dept. Computer Science, McGill University, Canada | /// | >|-----------------------------------------------------------| \\\/// | >| Amiga2000 & 386SX | \XX/ | >+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+ *************************************************************************** "L'avocat du diable" ***************************************************************************
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun14.033035.21572@daimi.aau.dk> pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted) writes: >If you do not split up the Enterprise, you miss the full potential of the >Battle section... Well, that is kind of true; however, when is it a good idea to drop off 90% of the crew in a relatively defenseless hull barely capable of making warp 1 ? I always wonder why the Federation opponents don't pop over, capture the easy part, and force the battle section to surrender ? If cloaking devices exist, seems like the perfect strategy. :-) 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.
judge@alchemy.ithaca.ny.us (rory toma) (06/14/91)
pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted) writes: > genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) writes: > > >Do you know why "they" spend 3/4s of the CPU for graphics and I/O and the > >Amiga's don't? Remove the graphics/sound/bus/... coprocessors from the Amiga > > Why would anyone want to do that? > > >and let's see how it's going to behave this time. Or add the appropriate > >coprocessors to the other ones (system) and compare. > > Yes, this would be a good idea. > Darn, some of you guys are thick! Why stop there? Let's compare theAmiga to a '586 I've got, complete with a 68040 card, as well as several graphics cards - gee look, it's faster thanthe Amiga. We Amigoids get flamed when we compare a 68040 Amiga to something, but you think that it's unfair to compare an Amiga to a Mac or a PC because the Amiga has coprocessors, and they don't. Hint:C= hired somebody to design that, i.e. to make the Amiga different. Get real. rory
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun14.062332.2079@cs.mcgill.ca> genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) writes: > If you go into a company (such as a bank, a lawyer's firm, pharmaceutical > lab, etc...), do you think the people are spending most > of the time downloading, archiving and playing Blazemonger in a window? Actually, yes! The latest soon-to-appear version of BLAZEMONGER has a new "productivity mode" (tm) that does your financial calculations so quickly that you don't even know you're EARNING MONEY. And spreadsheets? Databases? BLAZEMONGER is so MIND-NUMBINGLY FAST that any storage of data is a complete WASTE OF TIME. Anything you store is out of date even before it can hit the disk! This gives you more time to do your archiving and downloading. :-) On a related matter, we have just put BLAZEMONGER stock on the NY Stock Exchange. Buy BLAZEMONGER stock NOW -- it is the fastest-moving stock EVER! This morning it opened at 9.4, and now it's up to 156! 157! 158! 205! 12,476,394.21! 9! (Oops! Had a little dip there!) 2984! Buy it now, sell it in 5 seconds, make a 4000% profit! Or a 20,000% loss! Wheee!! Whatever happens, your money won't just SIT THERE like on those WIMPY stocks like IBM and the US Treasury. 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 | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
tinyguy@cs.mcgill.ca (Yeo-Hoon BAE) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun14.062332.2079@cs.mcgill.ca> genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) writes: > > > I did and still do and it works fine. Maybe you don't know how to set > up your .ini files. Drop me a mail and I'll show you. > Is this your most common applications?? downloading files, un-lharc, > and edit a file?? ok. good for you. I don't do that anymore as you There is a good reason why I do lots of modem use. That's becuase it is so convinient. Right now, I am using my IBM to type this and, YES, this is not very comfortable. Funny, since they are sharing the same modem... > know 2400 is slow, and we (you and me, yes) have the NeXTstations with > a 1.44 drive, I use that instead. My most common apps was AutoCAD. > Now it's games, and Fractals. Again, those NeXT drives really annoy me, since it doesn't always work... Ok, so more recently, I had a better success, but still I can't trust on some important data. In any case, I'd rather let 2MB of files downloaded over night when I'm sleeping, than wait in front of NeXTs copying them at 5KB/s(Yes, I measured...) > The handicap is not Windows, it's DOS. DOS is my worse nightmare. > Knowing that DOS is a brain-dead OS and what Windows can do, I'll say > 'nice touch' for Windows (3.0 of course). From all the GUI I have seen/ > tried/worked on, NeXTstep is best (graphically speaking), followed by > Windows 3.0, then Motif, and the Mac. Amiga GUI comes last (although > with 2.0, I'll prefer 2.0 over the Mac even 7.0). > Yes, everyone agrees that MS/PC DOS is brain-dead. Don't mis-under stand me, I do like windows, especially considering the limitation DOS has... It's just that Windows is not as good as some systems with their OS designed as a multi-tasking OS from the beginning. Funny thing about Windows is, why is it not able to perform pre-emtive multi-tasking for Windows software while it can do it perfectly well for DOS apllications? And what do you like about Windows? Looks? Functionality? Feels? Really, these are honest questions which I'd like to know from experienced Window users. Admitedly, I had Amigas for far longer period. > I have a friend who happens to own an Amiga 2000 for 2 years now (I think), > and I happen to play with it some time. He has customized his env. > alright, but still I didn't like it. I have spend almost 4 hours playing > with an Amiga3000 and UX with 2.0 (playing: try DynaCADD, try the Toaster, > run several apps, some games, trying to customize the env., and some > sound prgs). I could stay (it was at SIMM) and try longer, but I got > bored :-( . I follow (but not as religiously as I should) some of > the Amiga Mags (that's why I spend most of my time at Camelot). > What is for you "properly"? Knowing what it can do and what it does > isn't enough? > What I meant by 'proper' means that YOU set up your environment to suit YOUR own needs. Of course, if you go to other people's machines which are highly customised for his own taste, you will probably not like it. It took me over half a year to go through all PD libraries and set up near ideal to my taste. 4 hours is hardly enough... YES, just knowing it's capcability isn't enough. It's hard to explain the feelings, but once you get used to Amiga's environment, everything else looks sluggish. Whenever I thought 'that's it, this is the limitation of the OS', here comes another PD to rescue. I have a question to ask : If you have LOTS of files to copy or move around your HD, which program would you use? > Did I say I don't appreciate the Amiga?? If I did, my mistake. > My posting was for the guy who said the Amiga can beat the shit out > of the Mac and PeeCee. I say no and I was trying to tell him why. > I think you miss the point here. > Ok, so I missed the original point, I guess. But, I am merely telling you the feelings that I have. I may have to change my machines next year, and the leading candidate could be a 486 system :(, but even if I own a 486, my feelings towards Amigas will never change. I'm sure lots of Amigans are also fallen into this trap :) > Let's call Q. > Now you are telling me. Should have put this at the beginning of this letter! > >*************************************************************************** > > "L'avocat du diable" > >*************************************************************************** What does this mean? I don't know French... -TG +-----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+ | Yeo-Hoon Bae tinyguy@homer.cs.mcgill.ca | /// | | Dept. Computer Science, McGill University, Canada | /// | |-----------------------------------------------------------| \\\/// | | Amiga2000 & 386SX | \XX/ | +-----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (06/16/91)
In article <1991Jun13.065150.3529@cs.mcgill.ca> genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) writes: > What makes the Amiga so great > is the software, not the hardware (at least not anymore) It always *was* the software. > Do you know why "they" spend 3/4s of the CPU for graphics and I/O and the > Amiga's don't? I want to know why they spend the remaining 25% for context switching. Even UNIX does a better job than that. Actually, I know why... because they have so much context to switch, and because the context switching is under control of the application (both Multifinder and Windows use polled multitasking). > Or add the appropriate > coprocessors to the other ones (system) and compare. OK, a blitter is roughly on a par with a 68020 (both can keep the bus saturated 100%, so any additional speed is irrelevant). Given that, an Amiga 1000 and a basic Mac II should be equivalent. In fact, under a moderate load (say, 3-4 applications) Multifinder acts like an 11/70 with 60 users. Performance drops off faster than linearly with the number of apps because of the high cost of context switching. > About multitasking, I want to know what you are using multitasking for?? Everything. > Do you use it a lot?? I know I could not live without multitasking, but > very often (when I do serious work), I want my computations to take > exactly 20 minutes and not 30-40 minutes because I am playing some > chess or tetris games in another window. So run chess at -1 priority and it will *never* chew up any CPU time when your application is ready to run. You will have a few extra context switches... maybe 10-20 per second. I've run processes that required 1200 context switches per second on a 1000 and watched Perfmeter drop by about 7%, so 10-20 aren't going to be noticed. > As I said, go look around. Check out the softwares and hardwares of the other > systems (especially the Mac and PeeCee) NOW on the market. You will > be surprised. I have. Gorgeous graphics. But they're about as responsive as a deaf cat. When I want to switch to another window I want it *now*, not after every app on the screen has been scheduled, cleaned up its damage list, done its housekeeping, and so on. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) (06/16/91)
>> Do you use it a lot?? I know I could not live without multitasking, but >> very often (when I do serious work), I want my computations to take >> exactly 20 minutes and not 30-40 minutes because I am playing some >> chess or tetris games in another window. >So run chess at -1 priority and it will *never* chew up any CPU time when your >application is ready to run. You will have a few extra context switches... >maybe 10-20 per second. I've run processes that required 1200 context switches >per second on a 1000 and watched Perfmeter drop by about 7%, so 10-20 aren't >going to be noticed. So, correct me if I'm wrong here, if you set the chess (or/and all the other apps except the *serious* computation prg) at priority -1, how long do you have to wait before the chess game makes its move or the tetris block makes 1 move down? ...not until the 20 minutes computations is finished? Or do you have to take a coffee between each move (for tetris)? So what's the point? >> As I said, go look around. Check out the softwares and hardwares of the other >> systems (especially the Mac and PeeCee) NOW on the market. You will >> be surprised. >I have. Gorgeous graphics. But they're about as responsive as a deaf cat. When >I want to switch to another window I want it *now*, not after every app on ^^^^^ Does the Chess prg set at priority -1 satisfy you? >the screen has been scheduled, cleaned up its damage list, done its >housekeeping, and so on. Tell me Peter, what have you seen? >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. > 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?" ************************************************************************** "L'Avocat du Diable" **************************************************************************
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/16/91)
Responding to the following: "from 720 kb PC disks to my harddisk, or) or raytrace. Playing games while the computer is doing some of this, is not impossible(and would not be either on PC's / Macs, if they could multitask, and will be possible, as soon as they go multitasking)." Are you saying the Macintosh cannot multitask? Wake up and smell the toast burning, man! "I'd like to have a NeXT too, but doesn't they cost money? And where are the colours. They are coming, aren't they?(This is a question, not a flame. I wouldn't know it even if they had had colours for years)" NeXT has had KILLER color for a while now (full 32-bit, the last byte used for transparency/reflectance).
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/16/91)
Responding to the following: "Well, that is kind of true; however, when is it a good idea to drop off 90% of the crew in a relatively defenseless hull barely capable of making warp 1 ?" Actually, the main section can only reach 1mps slower than Warp 1 (186,281 miles per second, max, which is 1 mps slower than light)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (06/16/91)
In article <56@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Responding to the following: > >"from 720 kb PC disks to my harddisk, or) or raytrace. Playing games while >the computer is doing some of this, is not impossible(and would not be either >on PC's / Macs, if they could multitask, and will be possible, as soon as >they go multitasking)." > >Are you saying the Macintosh cannot multitask? Wake up and smell the toast >burning, man! > Macintosh multitasking requires the programmer to write their code in a very specific way. Additionally, the task you are interacting with gets the vast majority of time, even if it doesn't need it. Which needs the time more: Tetris or the compile job that is running in the background? >"I'd like to have a NeXT too, but doesn't they cost money? And where are >the colours. They are coming, aren't they?(This is a question, not a flame. >I wouldn't know it even if they had had colours for years)" > >NeXT has had KILLER color for a while now (full 32-bit, the last byte used >for transparency/reflectance). They didn't ship their 12-bit NeXT until about 3 months ago. Since when did they start shipping the NextDimension board? I don't know what your definition of "a while now" is, but I guess it isn't mine. Get a ... -- 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
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (06/17/91)
In article <56@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: > Are you saying the Macintosh cannot multitask? Wake up and smell the toast > burning, man! The Macintosh cannot multitask well enough to do things that are second nature to Amiga users. Try running anything significant on a Mac in the background and watch interactive response go to hell. <click click> I'm now running a mandelbrot set generator at -1 priority. It's getting almost 100% of the CPU, but because the term program I'm using gets its CPU time guaranteed when it needs it by the scheduling algorithm I can't even tell it's running. <click click> I'm also formatting a floppy. Still no problems. You just can't *do* that on a Mac. Any Mac. I've been doing it since I got my Amiga 1000 years ago. An operating system is basically a resource allocator. The Mac operating system does not allocate CPU time at all, it waits for each program to give up its share. Programs that want to provide good interactive response have to busy-wait, so they use up CPU time even when idle. And every applications programmer has the responsibility of duplicating all sorts of operating system code in the core of his program. Here's the tasks running on my 3000 right now. If this was a Mac, it'd be dead in the water. According to PM, I have 0% idle time. And as far as interactive response goes, I can't even detect that anything's going on. ADDRESS Q PRI WAITSIG TYPE NAME 7f34590 W 0 80001000 CLI 2 Background Process 7f45b90 W 4 c0000000 PROCESS RexxMaster 7f5db88 W 0 e3149000 CLI 3 Background Process 7f5ca98 W 0 2000 PROCESS FMS-Dummy 7f2e040 W 0 10 PROCESS ramlib 7f4c6e8 W 1 c0000000 TASK 7f58eb0 W 10 40000100 PROCESS FF0 9aad0 W 0 100 PROCESS SYS:System/CLI 7f0e342 W 0 f0000000 TASK console.device 7f17448 W 10 40000100 PROCESS DF0 7f19b80 W 10 40000100 PROCESS DF2 7f226e8 W 10 40000100 PROCESS Peter 7f28520 W 10 40000100 PROCESS Stephanie 7f77248 W 1 c0000000 CLI 4 Workbench 7f0fbc8 W 5 300 TASK trackdisk.device 7f1c0e8 W 5 300 TASK trackdisk.device 7f74dc0 W 0 f1000000 PROCESS JR-Comm 7f449d8 W 0 f8000000 TASK jrcomm-clock 7f116b0 W 10 40000100 PROCESS WB_2.x 7f0afd0 W 12 c0000000 TASK SCSI bus handler 7f0a3f8 W 11 e0000000 TASK scsi.device 7f08af2 W 20 c0000000 TASK input.device 7f1c698 W 10 40000100 PROCESS Work 7f33c38 W 0 c0000100 PROCESS RAM 99900 W 5 100 PROCESS CON 72f28 R -1 20 PROCESS Mandel (26 jobs 1 ready) > NeXT has had KILLER color for a while now (full 32-bit, the last byte used > for transparency/reflectance). And with a price to match. The cheapest NeXT hardware is priced higher than any Amiga. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun16.062152.17153@cs.mcgill.ca> genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) writes: > So, correct me if I'm wrong here, if you set the chess (or/and all the other > apps except the *serious* computation prg) at priority -1, how long do you > have to wait before the chess game makes its move or the tetris block makes > 1 move down? ...not until the 20 minutes computations is finished? Or do > you have to take a coffee between each move (for tetris)? No, you set the serious computation app at -1, and let it soak up the CPU time. It still gets nearly 100% of the CPU. Read the last message I wrote: Mandel was eating all the spare CPU time. I just paused it, and now PM shows as near to zero CPU time usage as I can tell, no matter what *interactive* tasks I run. So it was virtually unaffected by them. That's what real-time process scheduling is all about. > Does the Chess prg set at priority -1 satisfy you? No, at priority 0. Mandel is at -1. Think about it. > Tell me Peter, what have you seen? Hundreds of Macs, all of which die horribly as soon as I start doing what I consider normal things on them. X-windows, with many of the same design flaws as the Mac, and which take a 17 MIPS CPU to get the same responsiveness as my 0.7 MIPS Amiga 1000. Microsoft Windows, which is gorgeous but an excersize in frustration. Oh, and the original Xerox Star and 1100 running Smalltalk and Interlisp-D. As well as any number of older UNIX windowing systems that, simply because they had to run in small systems, were conservative of resources. Really, the 68010-based 3b1 was more responsive under WM or MGR than a sparc-1 under X. You can cover up poor design by throwing MIPS at it, or adapt to it so it doesn't hurt you too much, but it doesn't go away. "God created the world in 7 days because he didn't have to worry about backwards compatibility". -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J Eric Townsend) (06/17/91)
In article <56@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >Are you saying the Macintosh cannot multitask? Wake up and smell the toast >burning, man! I'll say it, the MacIntosh under System you-name-it.whatever does not multitask. Under Minix, it multitasks. -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2126 Skate UNIX! (curb fault: skater dumped) -- If you're hacking PowerGloves and Amigas, drop me a line. --
dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) (06/17/91)
Responding to the following: " Macintosh multitasking requires the programmer to write their code in a very specific way. Additionally, the task you are interacting with gets the vast majority of time, even if it doesn't need it. Which needs the time more: Tetris or the compile job that is running in the background?" First off, nearly all applications written before Multifinder multitasked in it, and you DON"T have to "write your code in a very specific way". Anything that involves user interaction calls WaitNextEvent(), which does tell the OS that the app is waiting for user input and you should switch to the next app. WaitNextEvent() is called all the time, not just when apps are waiting for user input, because they always have to take user input into account. For example, during a lengthy operation, an application has to check to see if the user has clicked on the Cancel button. I KNOW Macintosh multitasking isn't pre-emptive and isn't priority-based, but it's there and available from all applications, although some (Hypercard, Stuffit Classic) take up a lot of processing power. And yes, foreground applications take up about twice as much processing power as background (I tested this), but that's cooperative multitasking for you.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun16.152251.17044@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
They didn't ship their 12-bit NeXT until about 3 months
ago. Since when did they start shipping the NextDimension board?
I don't know what your definition of "a while now" is, but I
guess it isn't mine.
The NeXTstation color has been shipping since the second week in
February. The NeXTDimension board has only been shipping for 3 or 4
weeks. It hasn't been long, but all of their products are out(and
NeXT's OS does support 24bit color with 8 bits of alpha).
-Mike
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (06/17/91)
In article <1991Jun16.170632.22749@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > NeXT has had KILLER color for a while now (full 32-bit, the last byte used > for transparency/reflectance). And with a price to match. The cheapest NeXT hardware is priced higher than any Amiga. Even the Amiga 3000 Unix machine? It's not like you aren't getting what you pay for when it comes to a NeXT computer. It would be nice if a 15 mip,.... box cost $2000 but it's only 1991. Many more people would be better off with the Amiga, but people in corporate America sure aren't. Neither are the people in education. -Mike
genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) (06/17/91)
In response to Peter da Silva, >No, you set the serious computation app at -1, and let it soak up the CPU >time. It still gets nearly 100% of the CPU. Read the last message I wrote: >Mandel was eating all the spare CPU time. I just paused it, and now PM shows >as near to zero CPU time usage as I can tell, no matter what *interactive* >tasks I run. So it was virtually unaffected by them. >That's what real-time process scheduling is all about. >No, at priority 0. Mandel is at -1. Think about it. It's clearer to me now. Any process at -1 will have maximum priority over the other ones at > -1. That's however will not change anything at all. Even if you have the best real-time process scheduling in the world, and if the CPU is already running at 100%, when you throw in a CPU intensive apps, the overall performance will be degraded, not matter what. But I guess it does not apply in your case as most of the time you seem to have a lot (if not only) of *interactive* apps with iddle and waiting time. You cannot throw in an intensive CPU apps into a CPU already working at 100% and expect the same overall performance. If you still don't understand what I mean, tell me and I'll mail you an uudecoded TIFF picture. I know you can play a couple of animated demos, play a stereo sound music, downloading a couple of meg of files and archiving and compute a Mandelbrot image (320x200x32??) and format a diskette with your Amiga very nicely. But I don't. I don't format diskettes everyday, I don't play demos everyday, I rarely download files at 2400 baud. But I work everyday. So while I work, I work. Sure I play games, but I don't swicth between work and games/demo/sounds as easyly as the Amiga or Unix do. Maybe it's my flaws. >Hundreds of Macs, all of which die horribly as soon as I start doing what >I consider normal things on them. X-windows, with many of the same design >flaws as the Mac, and which take a 17 MIPS CPU to get the same responsiveness >as my 0.7 MIPS Amiga 1000. Microsoft Windows, which is gorgeous but an >excersize in frustration. Yes it takes a "17 MIPS" machine for X-windows, but it is more than just any window manager or process manager or GUI, it has all the system protocol for communication and networking (Client/server), that's where the real power of X and it's not an OS. But I guess you already know that also. What are the flaws in X? Have you ever try X in Amiga 3000UX? Windows in a 386sx is faster. Yes Windows 3.0 is "an exercice in frustration". But considering that Windows 3.0 is working on top of DOS which is a brain-dead OS, I say "chapeau!" for Windows. >Oh, and the original Xerox Star and 1100 running Smalltalk and Interlisp-D. >As well as any number of older UNIX windowing systems that, simply because >they had to run in small systems, were conservative of resources. Really, >the 68010-based 3b1 was more responsive under WM or MGR than a sparc-1 >under X. >You can cover up poor design by throwing MIPS at it, or adapt to it so it >doesn't hurt you too much, but it doesn't go away. Throw in Mathematica, a couple of rendering or fractal computations and you will see how poor is ANY design. When you will need more than 17 MIPS (but I doubt it considering what you do most of the time) one day, I guess you will not upgrade to a 68040, it only shows how poor design the 68030 is. >"God created the world in 7 days because he didn't have to worry about > backwards compatibility". Yeah, but it took more than 7 mega years for EVOLUTION to get from a simple Ameoba to Homo Sapiens, because of backwards compatibility. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. > 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?" *************************************************************************** "L'Avocat du Diable" ***************************************************************************
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (06/18/91)
From article <1991Jun17.160936.14622@cs.mcgill.ca>, by genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN): > > It's clearer to me now. Any process at -1 will have maximum priority > over the other ones at > -1. No, it just got worse. :) Because the Mandel process is running at -1 (probably the lowest task), it catches everything that isn't being used by anything else, therefore, if something else needs time, it is given it immediately, and the Mandel process is held. But since nothing in the foreground is processor intensive (due to the fact that the Amiga _NEVER_ uses polled IO), even a 2400 baud download takes little processor time, and almost no slowdown exists. I often raytrace in the background at -2 (I have other things at -1). Now, if the raytrace is all I'm doing, and I set it at 5, it takes 30 minutes. When I drop it into the back at -2 when I run it, it takes 35 doing a 60 minute ZModem download. (just so the transfer was continuous, and that the cpu was ALWAYS loaded down just that much). Not bad, really. :) > That's however will not change anything at all. Even if you have the best > real-time process scheduling in the world, and if the CPU is already > running at 100%, when you throw in a CPU intensive apps, the overall Right, but it takes quite a bit to get that cpu to run at 100%. QUITE a bit. Something like a raytrace, or a monstrous spreadsheet, or perhaps a mandelbrot generator. And then if you give it a priority of one below the lowest task (they're usually all at 0), it will eat all unnecessary cpu cycles that would usually go unused. > performance will be degraded, not matter what. But I guess it does not > apply in your case as most of the time you seem to have a lot > (if not only) of *interactive* apps with iddle and waiting time. Yes, I do use a lot of interactive apps. I also use a lot of interactive ones, such as The Art Department Professional, Imagine (3d raytracing/anim/objed), and various other thingies. :) > You cannot throw in an intensive CPU apps into a CPU already working at 100% > and expect the same overall performance. If you still don't understand what > I mean, tell me and I'll mail you an uudecoded TIFF picture. So you run the intensive CPU stuff at a lower priority than the interactive stuff, and since the majority of interactive stuff is waiting, and since there is no such thing as busy waiting, 99.9% of the CPU time goes to your intensive apps. > I know you can play a couple of animated demos, play a stereo sound music, > downloading a couple of meg of files and archiving and compute a Mandelbrot > image (320x200x32??) and format a diskette with your Amiga very nicely. But > I don't. I don't format diskettes everyday, I don't play demos everyday, > I rarely download files at 2400 baud. But I work everyday. So while I work, > I work. Sure I play games, but I don't swicth between work and > games/demo/sounds as easyly as the Amiga or Unix do. > Maybe it's my flaws. So what DO you do? And if you had real multitasking, you can always find use for it. As a current IIcx owner, I can vouch. I'll admit, it's not a real world example above, but okay, it does show you what can be done. > Yes it takes a "17 MIPS" machine for X-windows, but it is more than just > any window manager or process manager or GUI, it has all the system protocol > for communication and networking (Client/server), that's where the real > power of X and it's not an OS. But I guess you already know that also. > What are the flaws in X? Have you ever try X in Amiga 3000UX? Windows > in a 386sx is faster. Have you ever tried X under AmigaDOS? It's faster than my IIcx, and it's on a 2000... > Throw in Mathematica, a couple of rendering or fractal computations and > you will see how poor is ANY design. When you will need more than > 17 MIPS (but I doubt it considering what you do most of the time) one day, > I guess you will not upgrade to a 68040, it only shows how poor design > the 68030 is. Yes, but imagine how much better if the Mac's OS were as efficient as AmigaOS, and offered better multitasking than it currently does? It's the reason that a NeXT runs an 030 at 5 mips, and an Amiga runs it at 7. Everything's the same, but the OS is different. Architecture is also something to consider... But it does at least hint at what I'm trying to say. And I DO consider the NeXT environment to be better than 7.0... Not as nice as AmigaOS, but it's Unix. As a Unix workstation, it's a lovely os. :) > Yeah, but it took more than 7 mega years for EVOLUTION to get from > a simple Ameoba to Homo Sapiens, because of backwards compatibility. Ooh, I didn't know I was compatible with an Amoeba. :) That could lead to some really strange college parties. :D Greg -- Socrates: "I drank WHAT????" LMFAP: "Next time you see me, it won't be me." Wubba: "A dream is nothing more than a wish dipped in chocolate and sprinkled with a little imagination." (From my poem, "A Dream") -Wubba
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (06/18/91)
In article <60@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: > First off, nearly all applications written before Multifinder multitasked > in it, and you DON"T have to "write your code in a very specific way". Yes you do. Whether under multifinder or not, a Mac application has to be written in a manner reminiscent of a device driver, with frequent calls to the operating system to allow it to schedule other tasks and DAs. The DAs themselves are even more complex, being similar to an interrupt handler or a task in an old-fashioned single-loop control system. In any case, all Mac apps are written to the same "event loop" model. Programs like HaiCalc, which use a client-server model, are impossible. Conventional UNIX programs that often spin for a protracted period number-crunching are extremely unfriendly to the Mac. > Anything that involves user interaction calls WaitNextEvent(), Or GetNextEvent in older apps. > which does > tell the OS that the app is waiting for user input and you should switch > to the next app. WaitNextEvent() is called all the time, not just when > apps are waiting for user input, because they always have to take user > input into account. I.e., all Macintosh apps are designed as interactive editors. Including inherently batch processes like compilers, or server-type programs like sequencers. > [various problems with the Mac], but that's cooperative multitasking for you. Yep... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (06/18/91)
[ NeXT more expensive than any Amiga ] In article <t54Hs?cy@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > Even the Amiga 3000 Unix machine? That's not an Amiga. It's a workstation. It's using the Amiga hardware, but it's not running the Amiga operating system nor does it take any real advantage of the Amiga's unique hardware. It might as well *be* a NeXT. > It would be nice if a 15 mip,.... box cost $2000 You mean like the Archimedes? > Many more people > would be better off with the Amiga, but people in corporate America > sure aren't. No, they're better off with an IBM PC or a Macintosh. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.160936.14622@cs.mcgill.ca> genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) writes: > >That's what real-time process scheduling is all about. > It's clearer to me now. Any process at -1 will have maximum priority > over the other ones at > -1. No, you're not listening. ANY small I/O intensive program on any reasonable CPU uses up essentially zero CPU, whether it's at highest priority or not. So, when you're running Tetris, or I'm running JRComm, I'm running at 0%. Misconception #2: priority -1 is lower than priority 0. That is, whenever nothing else is ready to run the CPU-intensive task crunches away at data. Since nothing is in the run queue most of the time (see my PS output in a previous message: only "mandel" was ready to run), there's virtually no delay. The only problem would come from a high priority program busy-waiting. Busy-waiting is normal for Mac and IBM programs, because they were written before any real operating system was available for that hardware. But very few Amiga programs do it. > But I guess it does not > apply in your case as most of the time you seem to have a lot > (if not only) of *interactive* apps with iddle and waiting time. That's right. Not only that, but most of your IBM and Mac users are running 99% interactive applications. It's only the things they have had to do to deal with the lack of system services that makes them all CPU hogs. > You cannot throw in an intensive CPU apps into a CPU already working at 100% > and expect the same overall performance. I never said otherwise. But you *can* usefully multitask while running your long-term CPU intensive program. > I rarely download files at 2400 baud. But I work everyday. So while I work, > I work. And while you're working, unless you're extremely unusual, you're mostly running interactive programs that soak up very little CPU. > Yes it takes a "17 MIPS" machine for X-windows, but it is more than just > any window manager or process manager or GUI, it has all the system protocol > for communication and networking (Client/server), The X windows protocol is fundamentally flawed, because it puts the responsibility for basic window management tasks (repainting, menus, and so on) on the application. So the application has to duplicate O/S operations in real-time. *That* is where the flaw is. Things like menus, scroll-bars, buttons, window repainting, window moving, and so on belong in the server... not in the client or a separate window-manager program. > What are the flaws in X? "Tools, not rules" A basic flaw in the fundamental system design. > Have you ever try X in Amiga 3000UX? Windows in a 386sx is faster. Of course. It's not a 17 MIPS CPU. X: "Sometimes when you fill a vacuum, it still sucks" -- Dennis Ritchie. > Throw in Mathematica, a couple of rendering or fractal computations and > you will see how poor is ANY design. I see. I'm pointing out that the steering wheel is in the back seat and you think I'm talking about the 4 cylinder engine. My car has a 4 cylinder engine. But it doesn't have to tow around 5 tons of chrome. So it runs fine. > When you will need more than > 17 MIPS (but I doubt it considering what you do most of the time) one day, > I guess you will not upgrade to a 68040, it only shows how poor design > the 68030 is. If I need more than 17 MIPS to do some real work... not cover up bugs... I'll get it. Right now 3/4 of a MIPS is enough. > Yeah, but it took more than 7 mega years for EVOLUTION to get from > a simple Ameoba to Homo Sapiens, because of backwards compatibility. Yep. Isn't it great that we can start over again now and again with a fresh design in *our* tools. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun17.160936.14622@cs.mcgill.ca> genius@cs.mcgill.ca (Michel NGUYEN) writes: > >It's clearer to me now. Any process at -1 will have maximum priority >over the other ones at > -1. >That's however will not change anything at all. Even if you have the best >real-time process scheduling in the world, and if the CPU is already >running at 100%, when you throw in a CPU intensive apps, the overall >performance will be degraded, not matter what. But I guess it does not >apply in your case as most of the time you seem to have a lot >(if not only) of *interactive* apps with iddle and waiting time. >You cannot throw in an intensive CPU apps into a CPU already working at 100% >and expect the same overall performance. If you still don't understand what >I mean, tell me and I'll mail you an uudecoded TIFF picture. Yes, as soon as you have 2 processes using the CPU performance really goes down, esp. on a 7.14 Mhz 68000. It's fine though if you're in the middle of compiling 15 or so files and you can use the editor at the same time without much slow down at all. The 3000 can usually run 2 cpu intensive processes at once ok, although in my limited experience on one (too expensive here!), the mouse pointer did appear to jump about like a Mac with 1 process, or X-Windows... :-) >*************************************************************************** > > "L'Avocat du Diable" > >*************************************************************************** -- 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) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.111805.13387@marlin.jcu.edu.au> cpca@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Colin Adams) writes: >Yes, as soon as you have 2 processes using the CPU performance >really goes down, esp. on a 7.14 Mhz 68000. It's fine though if >you're in the middle of compiling 15 or so files and you can use the >editor at the same time without much slow down at all. The 3000 can >usually run 2 cpu intensive processes at once ok, although in my >limited experience on one (too expensive here!), the mouse pointer >did appear to jump about like a Mac with 1 process, or X-Windows... :-) Really? In my experience, the only things that cause the mouse pointer to become jerky on an Amiga are programs that: 1) Use the GEL/AnimOB system heavily For an example of this, run 2 copies of the anim example on the RKM companion disk. I suspect this is caused because of 2) 2) make too many calls to mrgcop/loadview/rethinkdisplay 3) OwnBlitter() and Disable() for long periods of time. 4) Layer.library getting bogged down by an exponential explosion of ClipRects. (e.g. Open 20 GZZ windows) If I run a ray-tracer and a mandelbrot generator, my 7mhz 68000 does not experience a jerky mouse pointer, however the gadget rendering is a little clunky. However, the problem can be easily solved by running CPU intensive programs at a lower priority (as long as they aren't poorly programmed. e.g. Make excessive calls to ReThinkDisplay, open too many windows, or Disable()/Forbid() for too long) >>*************************************************************************** >> >> "L'Avocat du Diable" >> >>*************************************************************************** > > >-- >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 * /
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/19/91)
In the spirit of Dan and Marc, BLAZEMONGER CORP, LTD, INC is proud to
intruduce.....
COLORMONGER
THE ULTIMATE VIDEO DISPLAY BOARD!
Due to BLAZEMONGER CORP, LTD, INC's incredible R&D budget of $.02
a new display BREAKTHROUGH has been achieved. Forget about wimpy Super-VGA,
forget about MEGAPIXELS, COLORMONGER supports pixel sizes of up to
1 ANGSTROM! Who cares if your EYES can't see the pixels, just THINK of
the BRAGGING POWER you'd have with such a display. PALETTE? This is
where COLORMONGER leaves ALL DISPLAYS BEHIND! COLORMONGER can display
ANY color in the entire ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM! From INFRARED to
GAMMA rays, COLORMONGER displays them ALL! And when utilitized with
the new BLAZEMONGER IV you can actually get SUNBURNED by playing
too long CREATING the EFFECT that you actually have A LIFE!
SCAN RATES? COLORMONGER has the fastest update rate of ANY display!
COLORMONGER refreshes at SEVEN-HUNDRED-AND-FIFTY-THOUSAND GIGAHERTZ!
PIXELS literally EXPLODE onto the screen, in fact, they do EXPLODE
onto the screen causing you to REPLACE the monitor every 10 DAYS!
A SMALL PRICE TO PAY FOR THE POWER OF COLORMONGER! COLORMONGER 32-bit?
Forget THAT!, COLORMONGER has NO BUS, NO WAIT STATES, and NO CLUE,
screens are stored by BLASTING pits into the GLASS of your MONITOR, no
RAM at ALL is required!
THERE IS ONLY ONE DISPLAY BOARD FOR YOU,
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE,
YOU WILL BUY,
COLORMONGER!!!!
Only $9.95 at a dealer near you, pick up a demo copy of BLAZEMONGER IV
free and AWE as "GAME OVER" is ROASTED into your FOREHEAD in COLORMONGER
mode.
Disclaimer: BLAZEMONGER CORP, LTD, INC. is not liable for loss of hair,
skin cancer, third degree burns, blindness, and fires that may occur
during extended BLAZEMONGER play (longer than .7 milliseconds).
--
/ 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 * /daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun17.225758.10283@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <60@ryptyde.UUCP> dant@ryptyde.UUCP (Daniel Tracy) writes: >In any case, all Mac apps are written to the same "event loop" model. Programs >like HaiCalc, which use a client-server model, are impossible. Conventional >UNIX programs that often spin for a protracted period number-crunching are >extremely unfriendly to the Mac. In fact, I never though of it that way, but it's true, Mac and UNIX programs have exactly opposite call requirements. A Mac program needs to call the OS as frequently as reasonable, in order to get swapped when needed. A UNIX program would like to make as few kernel calls a possible, especially in time critical areas, since kernel calls are often expensive (MMU context swaps, cache dumps, etc. needed to invoke kernel mode). There's a reasonable amount of UNIXish software ported to the Amiga, especially usenet and GNU stuff. I've only done a couple of these, but as long as you have a reasonable compiler library, they're pretty easy to port. Does anyone know if the Mac has much in the way of UNIX ports, and if so, whether they can behave well without major redesign? -- 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.
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.185029.25544@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In the spirit of Dan and Marc, Look, just because we have the same last name doesn't mean we have the same SPIRIT! :-) >COLORMONGER can display ANY color in the entire ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM! >COLORMONGER refreshes at SEVEN-HUNDRED-AND-FIFTY-THOUSAND GIGAHERTZ! >[other slanderous statements] Hey, buddy, haven't you ever heard of LOOK AND FEEL?? That's MY posting style!!! It's trademarked, patented, copyrighted, and copy PROTECTED! I'm gonna sue, I'm gonna sue.... Jeez, next thing you know, somebody will start posting articles with the look & feel of other USENETers. Can you imagine: ? "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if Commodore doesn't produce a 25-bit chipset immediately, they won't stand a chance against the new Japanese game machine." ? "Yup, you are nearly correct. The 68040 cache disables the VPL interrupt several nanoseconds before the beam hits the disk. It doesn't need to go to the bus." ? "X is a bloated pig that deserves to die. My old 3B1 moves windows faster." ? "Why buy an A3000UX for $5000 when you can get a NeXT for $3000? It's clearly the superior machine in all respects." ? "HEY DOODZ LIKE KNOW ANY PIRATE BOARDZ???" ? "BADGE (Bay Area Amiga Developers' GroupE) will host its July 1997 meeting at 7:30pm in the SLAC Main Auditorium. The featured speaker will be Dr. Ray Cromwell discussing his COLORMONGER Card Mark XII." ? "but thats not what I meant! In asembler you do not use the jmp without first mov sr,ea!" ? "*** I want games that look like Madonna but play like an old, scratchy, 78 rpm record. ***" ? "Captain! The Marketroids are closing in!" ? "Responding to the following: 'The Macintosh reminds me of tuna fish.' Where did you hear this? It's not true at all. In fact, the Mac's new 7.0 priority scheduler makes it much more like halibut." ? "No idiot in his right mind would use the Amiga OS source code to break the rules. In fact, the rules break the Amiga OS source code. Or something like that." ? "Please throw out your OS disassembly and use only the RKM's. Also, throw out all of your software and use only the manuals that came with it. If there wasn't a manual at all, then you should not have bought the program." ? "Even since my grand reorganization, these groups are still too big! I'd prefer only one or two articles per day. And maybe only one word per line." So PLEASE everybody, let's avoid this kind of horror by posting in our OWN, DISTINCT STYLES. Otherwise, somebody's gonna get flamed. And it will probably be me! :-) 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@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/19/91)
In article <8750@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes: > >In article <1991Jun18.185029.25544@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>COLORMONGER can display ANY color in the entire ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM! >>COLORMONGER refreshes at SEVEN-HUNDRED-AND-FIFTY-THOUSAND GIGAHERTZ! >>[other slanderous statements] > > Hey, buddy, haven't you ever heard of LOOK AND FEEL?? That's MY >posting style!!! It's trademarked, patented, copyrighted, and copy >PROTECTED! I'm gonna sue, I'm gonna sue.... Heheh,Touche' Dan. > Jeez, next thing you know, somebody will start posting articles >with the look & feel of other USENETers. Can you imagine: [I'm going to take some guesses. This could be fun. "Name that USENETTER"] >? "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if Commodore doesn't > produce a 25-bit chipset immediately, they won't stand a chance > against the new Japanese game machine." A:MB >? "Yup, you are nearly correct. The 68040 cache disables the VPL > interrupt several nanoseconds before the beam hits the disk. It > doesn't need to go to the bus." A:Dave H >? "X is a bloated pig that deserves to die. My old 3B1 moves windows > faster." A:Peter S >? "Why buy an A3000UX for $5000 when you can get a NeXT for $3000? > It's clearly the superior machine in all respects." A:Mike M >? "HEY DOODZ LIKE KNOW ANY PIRATE BOARDZ???" A:Clueless_Newbie >? "BADGE (Bay Area Amiga Developers' GroupE) will host its July 1997 > meeting at 7:30pm in the SLAC Main Auditorium. The featured speaker > will be Dr. Ray Cromwell discussing his COLORMONGER Card Mark XII." A:Tom R or Willy L >? "but thats not what I meant! > In asembler you do not use the jmp without first mov sr,ea!" A:Stephen Schaem? >? "*** I want games that look like Madonna but play like an old, > scratchy, 78 rpm record. ***" Hahah, A:Mike S >? "Captain! The Marketroids are closing in!" A:Dunno >? "Responding to the following: A:Daniel T > 'The Macintosh reminds me of tuna fish.' A:Dan "no relation to MB" B, hmm,"DB" it has a nice ring to it. > Where did you hear this? It's not true at all. In fact, the Mac's > new 7.0 priority scheduler makes it much more like halibut." A:Evan T? >? "No idiot in his right mind would use the Amiga OS source code to > break the rules. In fact, the rules break the Amiga OS source code. > Or something like that." A:Valentine P? >? "Please throw out your OS disassembly and use only the RKM's. > Also, throw out all of your software and use only the manuals that > came with it. If there wasn't a manual at all, then you should > not have bought the program." A:Peter C >? "Even since my grand reorganization, > these groups are still too big! > I'd prefer only one or two > articles per day. > And maybe only > one word > per > line." A:Kent P D >So PLEASE everybody, let's avoid this kind of horror by posting in our OWN, >DISTINCT STYLES. Otherwise, somebody's gonna get flamed. > > And it will probably be me! :-) Sarcasm and Satire are the only humor I know, the original BLAZEMONGER post was very inspiring it was the first post usenet that actually caused me to laugh outloud, burst into tears, and almost die from lack of breath. So when is BLAZEMONGER IV due to be released? And will it have a COMPACT BLAZEMONGER version? -- / 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 * /
sutela@polaris.utu.fi (Kari Sutela) (06/19/91)
rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > Really? In my experience, the only things that cause the mouse >pointer to become jerky on an Amiga are programs that: [4 reasons deleted] You forgot (at least, this applies to an A3000): 5) Numerous Enforcer hits (ie. a buggy program) The mouse pointer being really jerky is the most visible symptom of illegal memory accesses on an A3000. -- Kari Sutela sutela@polaris.utu.fi
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun18.221253.6991@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >? "X is a bloated pig that deserves to die. My old 3B1 moves windows > > faster." > A:Peter S Not so! I never had a 3B1. Too bad. :-> > >? "Captain! The Marketroids are closing in!" > A:Dunno Mike Smithwick. > >? "No idiot in his right mind would use the Amiga OS source code to > > break the rules. In fact, the rules break the Amiga OS source code. > > Or something like that." > A:Valentine P? Mark S? > So when is BLAZEMONGER IV due to be released? And will it have > a COMPACT BLAZEMONGER version? I want Blazemonger for my Nintendo Gameboy. (Well, it's my son's) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"