melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/04/91)
(Mark Gardner) writes:
You know, I am getting DAMN sick of your snide little comments that the
only quality Amiga software is represented by games. But I'll let that
go.
Well, most people don't buy the Amiga for the DTP packages,
spreadsheets, word processors, or database managers.
And so....
**** FLAME ON ****
Amiga users, strangely enough, APPRECIATE tight code. 1 1/2 megabytes
for one program is a bit steep, to put it mildly. Does that fancy
Objective C compiler you keep harping about do ANY code optimization
whatsoever? Or is most of that space taken up by buttons and sliders
created with the wonderful NeXT interface builder, which has to draw ALL
the graphic elements in Display Postscript? What the heck does Lotus
Improv do, anyway?
Actually, I think the symbol table is included in there too.
Objective C includes it so that it can do dynamic binding. The
software would even be larger by dynamic libraries are used. Yes, I
know the Amiga has them too.
Y'see, if I really like a program, use it a lot, etc., I put it on my
hard drive. No problem. If I only use it once or twice, I'd like to be
able to keep it and its associated files on one or two floppy disks.
HOWEVER, your fine example of bloated and overweight code would need a
bloody SHOEHORN to squeeze onto a high-density floppy, and leave no room
for a user's documents, macros, batch files, whatever. This is a program
which I would not consider buying unless I really, REALLY needed it. So
please, take your overinflated program (dare I say overinflated ego,
too?) and talk about portability somewhere else. Improv sounds about as
portable as a sperm whale.
**** FLAME OFF ****
In closing, I must say that these NeXTwars here are dragging on a little
too much. Don't you guys have your own newsgroups?
I'm just responding to the posts my by Amiga users. When you guys ask
how large is NeXT software, and scream we don't want a program if it's
too large, what am I suppose to say? Yes, the Objective C software is
a little larger, not because the compiler doesn't optimize(it's GCC),
but because the language generates more code and data.
The NeXT is a workstation. Most things are an order of magnitude
larger. The RAM used and needed, the disk space, the speed(not and
order of magnitude, but faster). You're arguments about the size of
the program are stupid. The software performs well on the NeXT and
that's what matters. The guy I responded to thought that it was
better not to have the software than have software that took up too
much disk space. Well, he is wrong. Even if Improv(pick favorite
program) was 5 times as large, it is better to have it than not have
it.
-Mikeaccangel@amix.commodore.com (Mark Gardner) (05/05/91)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > (Mark Gardner) writes: > > You know, I am getting DAMN sick of your snide little comments that the > only quality Amiga software is represented by games. But I'll let that > go. > > Well, most people don't buy the Amiga for the DTP packages, > spreadsheets, word processors, or database managers. Wrong. I bought my A500 for word processing, DTP, and graphics work. Please don't make unqualified statements like the above without first checking out some of the software. Specifically, PageStream v2.1 (Soft-Logik), MaxiPlan (Oxxi), ProWrite v3.0 (New Horizons), and SuperBase 4 (Progressive Peripherals & Software). The games ARE good, too - my pick of the moment is Shadow of the Beast II by Psygnosis. [ flame deleted about code size ] > Actually, I think the symbol table is included in there too. > Objective C includes it so that it can do dynamic binding. The > software would even be larger by dynamic libraries are used. Yes, I Point of fact: the Amiga's libraries are either in the KickStart ROM or on disk as separate files. Only one copy need exist on disk/in memory. Are you telling me that every program compiled on the next has to have the system libraries linked to the executable file? That's just plain WASTEFUL. > know the Amiga has them too. [ rest of flame deleted ] > In closing, I must say that these NeXTwars here are dragging on a little > too much. Don't you guys have your own newsgroups? > > I'm just responding to the posts my by Amiga users. When you guys ask > how large is NeXT software, and scream we don't want a program if it's > too large, what am I suppose to say? Yes, the Objective C software is > a little larger, not because the compiler doesn't optimize(it's GCC), > but because the language generates more code and data. > > The NeXT is a workstation. Most things are an order of magnitude > larger. The RAM used and needed, the disk space, the speed(not and > order of magnitude, but faster). You're arguments about the size of > the program are stupid. The software performs well on the NeXT and > that's what matters. The guy I responded to thought that it was > better not to have the software than have software that took up too > much disk space. Well, he is wrong. Even if Improv(pick favorite > program) was 5 times as large, it is better to have it than not have > it. The NeXT is a workstaton, fine. So please, stop trying to sell it to folks who use their systems as personal computers (probably the majority of Amiga users) all the way up to workstations (the A3000/A3000T/A3000UX, as well as the souped-up A2000/2500 owners). And BTW, this is the first time I have ever heard the argument that program size is not a factor to consider when purchasing software. -MG "In retrospect, we should probably thank Steve Jobs. Otherwise, c.s.a.advocacy would be dead and silent. So, kudos for the Mac and NeXT!" > > -Mike ---------- Mark Gardner UUCP: uunet!cbmvax!amix!undrground!accangel Internet: undrground!accangel@amix.commodore.com
schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) (05/05/91)
In article <4d7Gypu=1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >(Mark Gardner) writes: > > You know, I am getting DAMN sick of your snide little comments that the > only quality Amiga software is represented by games. But I'll let that > go. > >Well, most people don't buy the Amiga for the DTP packages, >spreadsheets, word processors, or database managers. Valid comment, but for the most part they could. DTP - Saxon Publisher doesn't seem too bad. spreadsheet - very valid point, but I'm glad Lotus isn't in the Amiga market. Their corporate policies turn more people off than Commodore's 1/2 :-) word processors - If you don't like WordPerfect 4.1.12, ProWrite 3.0 looks pretty good. This particular market is mature enough so that we have multiple choices. database managers - dBMan V (a dBase III+ clone with improvements) and SuperBasePro 4 (compatible with the MS-DOS version) seem to be covering this niche >The NeXT is a workstation. Most things are an order of magnitude >larger. The RAM used and needed, the disk space, the speed(not and >order of magnitude, but faster). You're arguments about the size of >the program are stupid. The software performs well on the NeXT and >that's what matters. The guy I responded to thought that it was >better not to have the software than have software that took up too >much disk space. Well, he is wrong. Even if Improv(pick favorite >program) was 5 times as large, it is better to have it than not have >it. > >-Mike The Amiga, for the most part is not a workstation. It is a personal computer with the power of a workstation. The 3000UX is a workstation, and seems to be addressing a particular market need for low-end standardized machines. Standardization and portability may not seem that important too you, but many others would disagree. By the way, saying that "You're arguments about the size of the program are stupid" doesn't seem appropriate coming from a CS graduate student. It may not be important to you, but it is an important design issue. Unless you intend to stay in academia forever, it's something to keep in mind (and that is not to say it's not important in academia, also). Jeff Schweiger -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/05/91)
In article <4d7Gypu=1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > I'm just responding to the posts my by Amiga users. When you guys ask > how large is NeXT software, and scream we don't want a program if it's > too large, what am I suppose to say? "You have a point there" > The NeXT is a workstation. The Amiga is a workstation too. But even as UNIX workstations go the NeXT is pretty wasteful of space. Plain BSD can run in 640K on an 80386. That's the latest BSD, by the way. The problem with the NeXT is they took an intermediate port of a research O/S (Mach) and used it. They didn't wait for (or do themselves) a real microkernel version, so the NeXT system image takes up 30M of VM before you load any apps. Why? It's got two operating systems in there: Mach *plus* most of BSD. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/05/91)
In article <2202@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
By the way, saying that "You're arguments about the size of the program are
stupid" doesn't seem appropriate coming from a CS graduate student. It may
not be important to you, but it is an important design issue. Unless you
intend to stay in academia forever, it's something to keep in mind (and that
is not to say it's not important in academia, also).
I meant that software size isn't important unless it affects
performance. I think I said this in one of my posts. On the NeXT it
isn't a big deal to have a program that is 2MB.
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May5.124008.24559@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
But even as UNIX workstations go the NeXT is pretty wasteful of space. Plain
BSD can run in 640K on an 80386. That's the latest BSD, by the way. The problem
with the NeXT is they took an intermediate port of a research O/S (Mach) and
used it. They didn't wait for (or do themselves) a real microkernel version,
so the NeXT system image takes up 30M of VM before you load any apps. Why?
It's got two operating systems in there: Mach *plus* most of BSD.
Glad to see you read Chris Torek's post in comp.arch. We read the
same newgroups :-). Watch out where you say SYSVR4 is easier to
administer than BSD.
The NeXT's swapfile is only 20MB + 8MB of real RAM. It doesn't add
up. But I have heard that both Mach and BSD are in there. The
version of Mach that you are talking about is 3.0? That wasn't even
completed until recently. Again RAM is cheap. Take advantage of the
fact that technology keeps getting better and cheaper. Would you
rather wait N number of years before Commodore(or Apple) gets around
to implementing virtual memory, memory protection, etc? The NeXT's
performance is acceptable with only 8MB(they were originally going to
ship them with only 4MB). I imagine sometime in the future, NeXT will
be able to incorporate Mach 3.0 and all of the functionality will
still be there but it will run more efficiently, or at least take up
less memory.
-Mikegblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (05/06/91)
From article <-?4Gl5w*1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > > > I meant that software size isn't important unless it affects > performance. I think I said this in one of my posts. On the NeXT it > isn't a big deal to have a program that is 2MB. > So I imagine that a 500k program on a 68040 3000 will run as slow as a 2mb program on a NeXT? I imagine NOT. -- All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/06/91)
In article <11798@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
So I imagine that a 500k program on a 68040 3000 will run as slow as a
2mb program on a NeXT? I imagine NOT.
No, it will run at the same speed. Trick question?
-Mikes609@cs.utexas.edu (Classroom Account) (05/06/91)
[Replies to greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu. I'm using my other account and I _never_ read the mail here...] In article <d*bGl.#*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <11798@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: > > So I imagine that a 500k program on a 68040 3000 will run as slow as a > 2mb program on a NeXT? I imagine NOT. > >No, it will run at the same speed. Trick question? No, it will in fact run faster on the 040 A3000, even if the programs are the same size. The system architecture and OS of the A3000 is faster and more efficient. This doesn't even count the fact that the NeXT will probably be swapping _something_ at the time (with NeXTStep, it seems to always find something to swap). Be realistic. No Unix running on the same CPU will compare with a real time OS like AmigaDOS. Greg
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/06/91)
In article <-?4Gl5w*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > I meant that software size isn't important unless it affects performance. Well, it appears that it does. When it takes a $5000 box to get acceptable performance, and the previous 68030 box wasn't quite fast enough, I would say that's significant. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/06/91)
In article <oo5G$dx*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > Glad to see you read Chris Torek's post in comp.arch. No, I got that 30MB of VM from a NeXT enthusiast at a trade show. the guy worked for NeXT, too. > We read the > same newgroups :-). Watch out where you say SYSVR4 is easier to > administer than BSD. I'll say it anywhere. Prior to my current job I had more BSD and V7 than System III/System V experience, and I had a bad attitude towards System V. No more. It was like going from a mud shack out in the sticks to a nice colonial split-level. > But I have heard that both Mach and BSD are in there. The > version of Mach that you are talking about is 3.0? That wasn't even > completed until recently. Again RAM is cheap. Ah! The old "RAM is cheap" argument. I've been hearing it for 10 years, and it's been "oh, we had to worry about that a few years ago but now RAM is finally too cheap to meter!" Never happen. Just you wait. A year or two and those 8- and 16- MB systems will be cramped. Crammed full of Mach+BSD+SysV+MS-DOS+NeXTstep+X+NeWS+... > Would you > rather wait N number of years before Commodore(or Apple) gets around > to implementing virtual memory, memory protection, etc? If it means I can afford a computer in the meanwhile? Sure. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (05/07/91)
From article <d*bGl.#*1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > > In article <11798@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: > > > So I imagine that a 500k program on a 68040 3000 will run as slow as a > 2mb program on a NeXT? I imagine NOT. > > No, it will run at the same speed. Trick question? > > -Mike okay, maybe this will be a little easier to understand. A 500k program on your NeXT will be faster than a 2mb program on it, no? So a 500k program on a 68040 3000 will be faster than a 2mb program on your NeXT. Write a simple "Hello, World" in C, and tell us the size. That will tell us quite a bit, I think. -- All opinions are my own, and not those of my employer. Why? He doesn't know I'm doing this. -Wubba
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/07/91)
In article <ZHyF21w164w@undrground.UUCP> undrground!accangel@amix.commodore.com (Mark Gardner) writes: >melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >> Actually, I think the symbol table is included in there too. >> Objective C includes it so that it can do dynamic binding. The >> software would even be larger by dynamic libraries are used. Yes, I >Point of fact: the Amiga's libraries are either in the KickStart ROM or >on disk as separate files. Only one copy need exist on disk/in memory. As I recall, the NeXT is doing something different here. Or actually, Objective-C. Most non-OOPLs resolve every symbol at compile/link time. C++ does its symbol resolution then too; though it of course can't fully resolve virtual objects, it can resolve their symbols. Most OOPLs, though, work better as interpreted language systems, because they thrive on dynamically modified objects. If you can resolve objects symbols at runtime, you can add new objects to an already established program. Objective-C apparently does some runtime symbol resolution on program startup, which may account for the amazing size of those executables. >> The NeXT is a workstation. Most things are an order of magnitude >> larger. The RAM used and needed, the disk space, the speed(not and >> order of magnitude, but faster). As compared to what? The NeXT isn't architecturally that different than any high-end personal computer. It is noticably different than traditional workstations, like HP or Sun machines. It comes with a workstation sized display, which lets you do workstation things with it. But it doesn't have a faster hard disk controller than an A3000, or faster expansion bus (for cubes only) than an A3000 or a MCA/EISA based PC Clone. Perhaps they ship a faster hard disk with it, which is the current limitation of the A3000 -- the Quantums are good (apparently good enough for Sun; they ship them in all the SparcStations we have), but if you can afford on, a Wren VI or any number of HPs or Fujitsus will go faster. It is true that a NeXT '040 machine, as with most any '040 machine, can compare favorably to modern low-end Workstations like the SparcStation I. Thing is, not everyone wants a Workstation. They are good for certain problems, but this latest "pizza box" trend is generating only closed boxes. That's good if you need a specific amount of memory, display, etc. but not so good if you're trying to suit a variety of needs. I could theoretically replace my office A3000 here at work with a workstation; it has a 1000x800 monochrome display, 200MB of disk space, and ethernet. I would have to give up the 7 extra serial ports, but I could probably live with it. The BridgeCard could be replaced with a software emulator, since I'm not doing much with it. Of course, since the Ethernet isn't a built-in, it costs a bit more to hook this all up, I need an A2065 card. At home, forget it. I need my extra ports; I like two modems and a possibly a fax attached, plus printers and an occasional extra hardware doohicky. I may eventually need more memory than I can fit on the motherboard (obviously a VM system can trade off speed for memory). In the lab, forget it completely. Too much stuff to hook up, plus occasional special purpose boards, logic analyzer, scope, that kind of thing. Another kind of lab may need other data acquisition cards, video devices, music devices, etc. A workstation may have its place, but it is not a general purpose solution. >Mark Gardner -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
sss10@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Homicidal Lunatic) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May6.113553.8351@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <oo5G$dx*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >> But I have heard that both Mach and BSD are in there. The >> version of Mach that you are talking about is 3.0? That wasn't even >> completed until recently. Again RAM is cheap. > >Ah! The old "RAM is cheap" argument. I've been hearing it for 10 years, and >it's been "oh, we had to worry about that a few years ago but now RAM is >finally too cheap to meter!" Never happen. yeah, i mean ram is just so cheap I can plunk down a few dollars and add the 2 megs of ram I really want/need on my 500. You shouldn't have to throw X$ at a problem for it to go away. <X$= money, ram, HD space, 25 Mhtz 040, etc> >Just you wait. A year or two and those 8- and 16- MB systems will be cramped. >Crammed full of Mach+BSD+SysV+MS-DOS+NeXTstep+X+NeWS+... > >> Would you >> rather wait N number of years before Commodore(or Apple) gets around >> to implementing virtual memory, memory protection, etc? > >If it means I can afford a computer in the meanwhile? Sure. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. **********************************PiRho**************************************** "All power comes from the barrel of a gun" // sss10@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu \\ // Amiga makes it possible \X/
dvljrt@cs.umu.se (Joakim Rosqvist) (05/07/91)
In article <11866@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: >From article <d*bGl.#*1@cs.psu.edu>, by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): >> >> In article <11798@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes: >> >> >> So I imagine that a 500k program on a 68040 3000 will run as slow as a >> 2mb program on a NeXT? I imagine NOT. >> >> No, it will run at the same speed. Trick question? >> >> -Mike > >okay, maybe this will be a little easier to understand. A 500k >program on your NeXT will be faster than a 2mb program on it, no? So >a 500k program on a 68040 3000 will be faster than a 2mb program on >your NeXT. > >Write a simple "Hello, World" in C, and tell us the size. That will >tell us quite a bit, I think. >-- Oh NO! Don't write an "Hello World"!!, I did once, and I'm still counting the flames! :-) /$DR.HEX$
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May7.055159.1474@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> sss10@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Homicidal Lunatic) writes: > >Ah! The old "RAM is cheap" argument. I've been hearing it for 10 years, and >it's been "oh, we had to worry about that a few years ago but now RAM is >finally too cheap to meter!" Never happen. yeah, i mean ram is just so cheap I can plunk down a few dollars and add the 2 megs of ram I really want/need on my 500. Four megs of RAM costs less than $200. You should try shopping around. -Mike
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (05/08/91)
Quoted from <1991May7.080524.4409@cs.umu.se> by dvljrt@cs.umu.se (Joakim Rosqvist): > Oh NO! Don't write an "Hello World"!!, I did once, and I'm still counting > the flames! :-) Ha ha! I reckon your program was fine. The C equivalent insists on stuffing some registers on the stack, and storing DOSBase in memory somewhere, and using rts intsead of jmping to the Write(). 128 bytes on my machine, though. 1 tenth the size of an appropriately compiled NeXT version, apparently. > /$DR.HEX$ -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/09/91)
In article <21316@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > As compared to what? The NeXT isn't architecturally that different than any > high-end personal computer. Sure it is. It's not noticably different from the workstation folks, with the same sort of built in capabilities. If the high end PCs are similar to workstations that's convergent evolution. Actually, the Amiga 3000 really isn't that much different from workstations, other than the size of the display. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (05/09/91)
Quoted from <!+5Gs#w$1@cs.psu.edu> by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > Four megs of RAM costs less than $200. You should try shopping around. Is this true for any sort of RAM? > -Mike -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (05/10/91)
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: >Quoted from <!+5Gs#w$1@cs.psu.edu> by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): >> Four megs of RAM costs less than $200. You should try shopping around. > Is this true for any sort of RAM? Our user groups is selling 1MB 80ns SIMMs for $38 each here. The Chip Merchant sells 4MB SIMMs for $159. Side note: One firm has just announced the availability of 16MB SIMMs [using 16Mbit chips]. Price: a cool $7500 each. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Murphy's Law of Intelism: Just when you thought Intel had done everything possible to pervert the course of computer architecture, they bring out the 860
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May8.172853.290@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <21316@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >> As compared to what? The NeXT isn't architecturally that different than any >> high-end personal computer. >Sure it is. It's not noticably different from the workstation folks, with >the same sort of built in capabilities. I was claiming here that the NeXT is more different from a traditional workstation than from a high end PC. That's only hardware architecture I'm speaking of, I'm not commenting at all on the software. >Actually, the Amiga 3000 really isn't that much different from workstations, >other than the size of the display. Guess you aren't using the same display I have... I don't deny they're converging, of course they are. A3000 and apparenly NeXT have real DMA & interrupt driven I/O, rather than this PIO nonsense found in Clones and most Macs and not found in workstations. They have 32 bit expansion buses (if you consider Cubes at least) too. On the down side, both are missing external cache (optional on the A3000) and real fast floating point typical of workstations (well, the '040 helps here alot if you don't run transendentals, but you generally find something better than a 68882 in any "workstation" level '030 machine). Memory in both the A3000 and the NeXT is better than first generation 32-bit Motorola-based personal computers (Mac II for example), but not as good or costly as what you'll usually find in a workstation. I suppose, functionally, all of this makes really little difference at the functional level, other than for cost and performance levels. I would be willing to bet that two ~$5000 Amiga or NeXT systems together do more work than one 680x0 HP/Apollo Workstation system at $10,000. At least until you find out the Mentor CAD tools you need are only available on the HP/Apollo.... >Peter da Silva. `-_-' -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/10/91)
In article <3409.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: Quoted from <!+5Gs#w$1@cs.psu.edu> by melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger): > Four megs of RAM costs less than $200. You should try shopping around. Is this true for any sort of RAM? Huh? I think 80ns 4MB Simms are going for less than $200. They might be 100ns though. -Mike
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May5.124008.24559@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <4d7Gypu=1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >> I'm just responding to the posts my by Amiga users. When you guys ask >> how large is NeXT software, and scream we don't want a program if it's >> too large, what am I suppose to say? > >"You have a point there" > >> The NeXT is a workstation. > >The Amiga is a workstation too. Only when it is running UNIX is it a workstation. Amiga DOS does not qualify as a workstation OS. It is definitely not multiuser and does not do virtual memory. > >But even as UNIX workstations go the NeXT is pretty wasteful of space. Plain ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ How?????? >BSD can run in 640K on an 80386. That's the latest BSD, by the way. The problem When my machine boots without the DP server it has 12Meg of real memory free. It is a 12Meg sytem. I can use it in single user mode. With DP running it still has enough free mem. to run lots of stuff and not swap continuously. >with the NeXT is they took an intermediate port of a research O/S (Mach) and >used it. They didn't wait for (or do themselves) a real microkernel version, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It is not an intermediate research port.I suppose Mt XINU is a research port too????? >so the NeXT system image takes up 30M of VM before you load any apps. Why? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Where do you get your numbers from. I have my swap space low water mark set to 10M and unless I use lots of apps my 12Meg system doesn't swap. >It's got two operating systems in there: Mach *plus* most of BSD. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You should learn something about the NeXT and Mach. Mach is a kernal that runs under BSD. The NeXT uses UNIX with a Mach kernal. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/10/91)
In article <m*aGb75!1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >Huh? I think 80ns 4MB Simms are going for less than $200. They might >be 100ns though. You forgot to mention the little detail that you have to buy four at a time to expand a 32-bit machine... Since you brought up memory speeds, I ought to mention that I saw some discussion on comp.sys.next a while back about the NeXT using 100ns RAMs. Is that true? Is it just NeXT saving some $$$ or does memory faster than that have any benefits on the NeXT? I believe the discussion was about what type of RAMs to use when adding memory, but it was a while back... Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (05/10/91)
In article <21316@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >As compared to what? The NeXT isn't architecturally that different than any >high-end personal computer. It is noticably different than traditional How many personal computers have 2 huge Fujitsu gate arrays with custom Channel Processors, 9 DMA channels on the cube, 8 on the slab. They operate very much like the Channel Processors found on mainframes. How many personal computers come with built in twisted pair and thin ethernet. How many come with a DSP integrated into the system with DMA support to peripherals. How many come with 17" monchrome or color. Architecturally the NeXT is about as different from anything else as you can possibly get. You could not just get DPS and emulate a NeXT like you can do with the Mac roms and a Mac, Atari, or Amiga for that matter. They have similar hardware. The NeXT does not. The NeXT has more in common, architecturally with a mainframe or mini than a PC. >workstations, like HP or Sun machines. It comes with a workstation sized >display, which lets you do workstation things with it. But it doesn't have >a faster hard disk controller than an A3000, or faster expansion bus (for >cubes only) than an A3000 or a MCA/EISA based PC Clone. Perhaps they ship a The expansion may not be faster but form factor is very large. You could fit 3x as much on NeXTbus card vs. MCA/EISA. Put 5 DSPs on a single card in a MCA/EISA PC or an Amiga --- I don't think so. >faster hard disk with it, which is the current limitation of the A3000 -- the >Quantums are good (apparently good enough for Sun; they ship them in all the >SparcStations we have), but if you can afford on, a Wren VI or any number of >HPs or Fujitsus will go faster. It is true that a NeXT '040 machine, as with >most any '040 machine, can compare favorably to modern low-end Workstations >like the SparcStation I. > >Thing is, not everyone wants a Workstation. They are good for certain >problems, but this latest "pizza box" trend is generating only closed boxes. >That's good if you need a specific amount of memory, display, etc. but not >so good if you're trying to suit a variety of needs. I could theoretically I disagree. If you want to fill a variety of needs, get something that has everything except the kitchen sink thrown in. Something that you can add lots of memory to (NeXTstation 32 meg, cube 64 meg). Display that will run all software made for the machine mono or color, etc. >replace my office A3000 here at work with a workstation; it has a 1000x800 >monochrome display, 200MB of disk space, and ethernet. I would have to >give up the 7 extra serial ports, but I could probably live with it. The ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Just use a SCSI adapter and get eight out of the SCSI port. >BridgeCard could be replaced with a software emulator, since I'm not doing >much with it. Of course, since the Ethernet isn't a built-in, it costs a >bit more to hook this all up, I need an A2065 card. > >At home, forget it. I need my extra ports; I like two modems and a possibly >a fax attached, plus printers and an occasional extra hardware doohicky. I >may eventually need more memory than I can fit on the motherboard (obviously a >VM system can trade off speed for memory). When the time comes (in 4-5 years??) and you need more than 32 megabytes of real memory, it will probably be time for a new machine. > >In the lab, forget it completely. Too much stuff to hook up, plus occasional >special purpose boards, logic analyzer, scope, that kind of thing. Another >kind of lab may need other data acquisition cards, video devices, music >devices, etc. A workstation may have its place, but it is not a general >purpose solution. Use SCSI data aquisition or the DSP, it does work. No problem with music devices, we have midi support and the DSP. Other video on a slab is difficult but not impossible. Look at what you can do with a Mac SE or Classic, I've seen SCSI solutions to their video limitations. > >>Mark Gardner > >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M. -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/10/91)
In article <48758@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
You forgot to mention the little detail that you have to buy four at a time
to expand a 32-bit machine...
Actually, I didn't know that.
Since you brought up memory speeds, I ought to mention that I saw some
discussion on comp.sys.next a while back about the NeXT using 100ns RAMs.
Is that true? Is it just NeXT saving some $$$ or does memory faster than
that have any benefits on the NeXT? I believe the discussion was about
what type of RAMs to use when adding memory, but it was a while back...
No, 100ns RAM is all that is required, and faster memory does not
increase the speed of the NeXT.
-Mikerjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (05/10/91)
In article <84LR02ly072m01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes: >In article <21316@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>As compared to what? The NeXT isn't architecturally that different than any >>high-end personal computer. It is noticably different than traditional > >How many personal computers have 2 huge Fujitsu gate arrays with custom >Channel Processors, 9 DMA channels on the cube, 8 on the slab. >They operate very much like the Channel Processors found on mainframes. >How many personal computers come with built in twisted pair and thin >ethernet. How many come with a DSP integrated into the system with DMA >support to peripherals. How many come with 17" monchrome or color. Perhaps you don't know much about the Amiga but the Amiga has been fully DMA driven since day 1. We have video dma, disk dma, sprite dma(8 channels), audio dma, blitter dma (4 channels), and copper dma(the video co-processor). Not to mention 32-bit SCSI DMA on the A3000 and other harddrive controllers. As for 'channel processors' (whatever they are defined as) the Gary and Agnus chips custom chips on the Amiga control 25 DMA channels. Built in ethernet is no big deal, and only usuable in a lab/office environment unless you can afford a home ethernet hookup. The thing NeXT users overplay the most is the DSP. What is it used for? IMHO NeXT really screwed up when they didn't give the DSP it's own real-time microkernel for sharing the DSP. On the Amiga, the blitter is effectively shared constantly. (Disk decoding, screen rendering, custom stuff). You can access it friendly (QB(S)lit()) or take it over completely iwth OwnBlitter(). From what I'm aware of the DSP on the NeXT, only one NeXT app can use the DSP at a time. Further more, if the DSP is not being used in anyway to speed up normal operation of the NeXT it is being wasted. So does NeXTStep use the DSP in a useful manner other than acting like a DAC/Fetch chip for playing sound? This can be done without a DSP. Does NeXT even supply a DSP compiler or do you need to know DSP assembly? >Architecturally the NeXT is about as different from anything else as you >can possibly get. You could not just get DPS and emulate a NeXT like >you can do with the Mac roms and a Mac, Atari, or Amiga for that matter. >They have similar hardware. The NeXT does not. The NeXT has more in >common, architecturally with a mainframe or mini than a PC. Sure you could. The NeXT could be emulated, but why? It's OS is a bloat and there's licensing and copyright problems. No Amigan would buy NeXTStep for the Amiga. Unix is fairly device independent. You'd have more of a problem emulating AmigaOS on the NeXT than vice-versa. >>workstations, like HP or Sun machines. It comes with a workstation sized >>display, which lets you do workstation things with it. But it doesn't have >>a faster hard disk controller than an A3000, or faster expansion bus (for >>cubes only) than an A3000 or a MCA/EISA based PC Clone. Perhaps they ship a > >The expansion may not be faster but form factor is very large. You could >fit 3x as much on NeXTbus card vs. MCA/EISA. Put 5 DSPs on a single >card in a MCA/EISA PC or an Amiga --- I don't think so. You could easily put 5 DSP's on an Amiga Zorro III card. I think Zorro III stands up nicely to the best BUSes in the business. Dave Haynie would know more about this since he designed it, but I see no limiting factor that stops you from putting 5 DSPs on a card. >>faster hard disk with it, which is the current limitation of the A3000 -- the >>Quantums are good (apparently good enough for Sun; they ship them in all the >>SparcStations we have), but if you can afford on, a Wren VI or any number of >>HPs or Fujitsus will go faster. It is true that a NeXT '040 machine, as with >>most any '040 machine, can compare favorably to modern low-end Workstations >>like the SparcStation I. >> >>Thing is, not everyone wants a Workstation. They are good for certain >>problems, but this latest "pizza box" trend is generating only closed boxes. >>That's good if you need a specific amount of memory, display, etc. but not >>so good if you're trying to suit a variety of needs. I could theoretically > >I disagree. If you want to fill a variety of needs, get something that >has everything except the kitchen sink thrown in. Something that you can >add lots of memory to (NeXTstation 32 meg, cube 64 meg). Display that >will run all software made for the machine mono or color, etc. Yes it's nice to put everything but the kitchen sink in a machine, but who is going to afford it? Why do you think NeXT made a stripped down version of the original model (the Slab)? Because people couldn't afford the Cube! The Slab is non-expandible so What-You-See-is-all-you-will-ever-get. >>replace my office A3000 here at work with a workstation; it has a 1000x800 >>monochrome display, 200MB of disk space, and ethernet. I would have to >>give up the 7 extra serial ports, but I could probably live with it. The >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Just use a SCSI adapter and get eight out of the SCSI port. Since when has SCSI become the answer(tm) to all expansion needs? Try adding a graphic card on the SCSI bus, whoops! >>BridgeCard could be replaced with a software emulator, since I'm not doing >>much with it. Of course, since the Ethernet isn't a built-in, it costs a >>bit more to hook this all up, I need an A2065 card. >> >>At home, forget it. I need my extra ports; I like two modems and a possibly >>a fax attached, plus printers and an occasional extra hardware doohicky. I >>may eventually need more memory than I can fit on the motherboard (obviously a >>VM system can trade off speed for memory). > >When the time comes (in 4-5 years??) and you need more than 32 megabytes >of real memory, it will probably be time for a new machine. Nope, on the Amiga you will just add a card that has 32+ megs of memory on it. On the NeXT you will sell your machine andbuy something else, like an Amiga. When I spend $3k on a computer, I expect it to last more than 5 years. How would you like to buy a new car every 5 years? The NeXT in general needs more memory than the Amiga since unix executables are always bloated, especially with all those non-shared link libraries. Try programming a small X-App once, or a hello world using G++ and watch those executable sizes climb. >> >>In the lab, forget it completely. Too much stuff to hook up, plus occasional >>special purpose boards, logic analyzer, scope, that kind of thing. Another >>kind of lab may need other data acquisition cards, video devices, music >>devices, etc. A workstation may have its place, but it is not a general >>purpose solution. > >Use SCSI data aquisition or the DSP, it does work. No problem with music >devices, we have midi support and the DSP. >Other video on a slab is difficult but not impossible. Look at what you >can do with a Mac SE or Classic, I've seen SCSI solutions to their video >limitations. SCSI isn't the holy grail, it can't support video bandiwdth speeds. What if your data aquisition happens to be sampling video data and performing real-time processing on it? >> >>>Mark Gardner >> >>-- >>Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" >> {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy >> "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M. > > >-- >/* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ >/* For I can only express my own opinions. */ >/* */ >/* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */ I'm getting tired of this NeXT debate. I thought Amigan's were defensive about their machines but the _few_ NeXT users in here seem to be arguing to the point of double-standards and contradictions to support the NeXT as the surpreme workstation. One NeXT user alone (Mike) has been generating atleast 10 posts a day. -- / 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 * /
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (05/10/91)
In article <81en02.g073H01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes: > In article <1991May5.124008.24559@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>In article <4d7Gypu=1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>> I'm just responding to the posts my by Amiga users. When you guys ask >>> how large is NeXT software, and scream we don't want a program if it's >>> too large, what am I suppose to say? >> >>"You have a point there" >> >>> The NeXT is a workstation. >> >>The Amiga is a workstation too. > > Only when it is running UNIX is it a workstation. Amiga DOS does not > qualify as a workstation OS. It is definitely not multiuser and does not > do virtual memory. > AmigaDOS does not qualify as a Workstation operating system? I am not sure I understand this. Are you saying that UNIX is the only operating system that is a 'workstation operating system'? If so, will DEC be sad to learn that the VAXStation is not a workstation since it runs VMS? I agree that AmigaDOS does not do virtual memory, nor directly support multiple users, but so what? It does support multitasking, it does support tcp/ip, DECNet as well as X Windows. Most workstations I have used, and see used are used as single user stations. AmigaDOS handles that just fine. With enough memory the virtual memory question becomes insignificant. Certainly it could be said that there are advantages to non-VM systems. I guess I balk at the generalization that the Amiga is not a workstation, nor could it be unless it runs UNIX. To hell with capability, to hell with different thought, UNIX is it. Smells like MS/DOS thinking to me. Perhaps your message did not mean to convey that viewpoint, but it sure seemed like it to me. Please undersstand I don't think the Amiga 3000 is a replacement for Sparcs or the like, and certainly the Amiga operating system could be expanded to better support the workstation community; but in my opinion, the A3000 is a workstation. My Amiga 3000 is indeed a workstation. It allows me to work and performs as well as some of the Suns we have here. >> >>-- >>Peter da Silva. `-_-' >><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. > > > -- > /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ > /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ > /* */ > /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */ -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "The Most lopsided deal since ..." | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ================================================== "I protest Captain! I am not a merry man!" - Lt. Worf
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/11/91)
[Mike: You might want to talk to a sysadmin there and see if there is a
news posting software problem there at PSU. RN (actually RRN) here chokes
sometimes when I try to follow up to your posts, and I have never
experienced that problem before. The error is an interp buffer overflow,
and it looks like the References: line is the problem. The following is
the References line for your post as I saw it here.]
References: <1991May5.124008.24559@sugar.hackercorp.com> <oo5G$dx*1@cs.psu.edu>
<1991May6.113553.8351@sugar.hackercorp.com>
<1991May7.055159.1474@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <!+5Gs#w$1@cs.psu.edu>
<3409.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> <m*aGb75!1@cs.psu.edu>
<48758@ut-em
^This looks like the problem... RRN probably searches
for a closing greater-than and doesn't find one before
overflowing its buffer.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes:
In article <48758@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
You forgot to mention the little detail that you have to buy four at a time
to expand a 32-bit machine...
Actually, I didn't know that.
Well, unless there is some fancy memory controlling going on (which would
also be slower) you have to expand the memory in 32 bit wide chunks. SIMMs
are only 8 bits wide (unless you're expanding a PeeCee, where they use 9
bit wide modules).
Since you brought up memory speeds, I ought to mention that I saw some
discussion on comp.sys.next a while back about the NeXT using 100ns RAMs.
Is that true? Is it just NeXT saving some $$$ or does memory faster than
that have any benefits on the NeXT? I believe the discussion was about
what type of RAMs to use when adding memory, but it was a while back...
No, 100ns RAM is all that is required, and faster memory does not
increase the speed of the NeXT.
Hmmm... How many waits does the memory require? I'm really amazed because
I've seen 80ns RAMs make a big difference in 030 boxes. The recommended
ZIPs for the A3000 are 70ns, with a static column mode that makes the
access time much faster (45ns?) when you access the same memory column.
BTW, the going price for these is about $28 a module, and you need eight at
a time making the price $224 for four megs. At that price I've basically
considered it part of the purchase price for when I buy my 3000.
Why on Earth would NeXT use such slow memory? I'm literally shocked...
Greg
--
Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV,
| against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD."
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovicmelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/11/91)
In article <48808@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
[Mike: You might want to talk to a sysadmin there and see if there is a
news posting software problem there at PSU. RN (actually RRN) here chokes
sometimes when I try to follow up to your posts, and I have never
experienced that problem before. The error is an interp buffer overflow,
and it looks like the References: line is the problem. The following is
the References line for your post as I saw it here.]
Will do.
No, 100ns RAM is all that is required, and faster memory does not
increase the speed of the NeXT.
Hmmm... How many waits does the memory require? I'm really amazed because
I've seen 80ns RAMs make a big difference in 030 boxes. The recommended
ZIPs for the A3000 are 70ns, with a static column mode that makes the
access time much faster (45ns?) when you access the same memory column.
BTW, the going price for these is about $28 a module, and you need eight at
a time making the price $224 for four megs. At that price I've basically
considered it part of the purchase price for when I buy my 3000.
Why on Earth would NeXT use such slow memory? I'm literally shocked...
There might be a wait state, but I don't know. I haven't heard
anything about it one way or the other. Anyone know if a wait-state
is required for a 25MHz 040? The Amiga might need faster RAM because
it has to share memory with the blitter(I'm just guessing, not an EE).
Only the first two megs are chip RAM on the newer models, of course.
To reduce cost is probably the reason why NeXT would add a wait state.
Apple always seemed to have a wait-state or two in their machines too.
I see the NeXTstation as the SE of NeXTs line. Over the next couple
of years it will decrease in price until it fills the void at the
low-end.
-Mikegreg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (05/11/91)
In article <-h6Hqu=@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > Hmmm... How many waits does the memory require? I'm really amazed because > I've seen 80ns RAMs make a big difference in 030 boxes. The recommended > ZIPs for the A3000 are 70ns, with a static column mode that makes the > access time much faster (45ns?) when you access the same memory column. > BTW, the going price for these is about $28 a module, and you need eight at > a time making the price $224 for four megs. At that price I've basically > considered it part of the purchase price for when I buy my 3000. > > Why on Earth would NeXT use such slow memory? I'm literally shocked... > >There might be a wait state, but I don't know. I haven't heard >anything about it one way or the other. Anyone know if a wait-state >is required for a 25MHz 040? The Amiga might need faster RAM because >it has to share memory with the blitter(I'm just guessing, not an EE). >Only the first two megs are chip RAM on the newer models, of course. Well, the Amiga has two types of memory. There's Chip RAM and Fast RAM. The names practically describe what the difference is, but I'll give you the low-down. Chip RAM is shared by the custom chips and the CPU. It runs at the speed of the custom chipset (currently 7.14Mhz in NTSC machines) and I believe the CPU can access it every other cycle. Because the memory has to be shared, it is slow to access. You don't want to run programs on an 030 box out of Chip RAM. Fast RAM is memory that is only accessable by the CPU. It runs at the speed of the CPU (unless, of course, you are using an A2000 with an 030 card in the CPU slot and a 16-bit memory card in a Zorro II slot). Fast RAM is, therefore, fast. Also, the first two megs of the A3000 are not necessarily Chip RAM. It's true that there is space for 2MB of Chip, but the A3000-25/50 ships with 1MB Chip/1MB Fast. You move the meg of Fast over to the Chip bank when you put more memory into the machine, giving you 2MB of Chip and whatever amount of Fast you bought (up to 16MB on the motherboard). Also, the A3000 is not the only Amiga with separate Chip and Fast RAM. All Amigas are built like this. This architecture allows the CPU and the blitter to function independantly without affecting eachother (except for the CPU setting up the blitter registers, of course). This is why an Amiga using an equivalent CPU to another machine tends to outperform it, especially where graphics and sound are involved. BTW, faster memory chips aren't _required_ in an Amiga. It basically doesn't make sense to buy slower chips, though. The price difference is very small nowadays. In fact, when I bought my memory board the company put 80ns memories in it (I'd normally put them in myself, but they had a decent package price). Now, a 7.14Mhz 68000 doesn't need 80ns RAM, nor do I think it can make use of the extra speed. They explained that they no longer even buy slower RAMs. They didn't charge me a higher price than their list for 100ns chips, so I had no reason to complain. I'm no EE, either, but I think a 25Mhz 040 using 100ns RAM would be at least a one-wait-state configuration. >To reduce cost is probably the reason why NeXT would add a wait state. >Apple always seemed to have a wait-state or two in their machines too. >I see the NeXTstation as the SE of NeXTs line. Over the next couple >of years it will decrease in price until it fills the void at the >low-end. Well, I wouldn't use Apple as an example of what's a good practice in computer manufacturing. Remember that A/UX is still SVr2... :) Anyway, I don't understand what makes using slower RAMs that much cheaper. The memories themselves woudn't be much different in price in that kind of volume. Is it an architecture thing? Anyone? Anyone? Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (05/12/91)
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >Why on Earth would NeXT use such slow memory? I'm literally shocked... They're hoping the 040 4K caches will soak up most of the accesses. This is just a design tradeoff, which probably hits NeXT 040 for about 10-15% performance vs. say a 128K cache of SRAM. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Lay me place and bake me pie, I'm starving for me gravy... Leave my shoes and door unlocked, I might just slip away - hey - just for the day."
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/13/91)
In article <21452@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > I was claiming here that the NeXT is more different from a traditional > workstation than from a high end PC. That's only hardware architecture I'm > speaking of, I'm not commenting at all on the software. I understand what you were claiming. I just happen to disagree. Is that OK? > >Actually, the Amiga 3000 really isn't that much different from workstations, > >other than the size of the display. > Guess you aren't using the same display I have... Guess not. > Memory in both the A3000 and the NeXT is better than first > generation 32-bit Motorola-based personal computers (Mac II for > example), but not as good or costly as what you'll usually find in a > workstation. Well, that's mainly because of the lack of external cache. The memory hierarchy is too flat. On the upside, there have been "real" workstations with the same problem. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May10.164604.17674@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > How would you like to buy a new car every 5 years? The thing that really freaked me out when I came to America was the people who basically do this. Actually, 4 years is more common: as soon as they've paid off one car they buy another. And since they only expect to own the car 4 years, they don't maintain it. I dunno. Maybe Steve Jobs knows his market better than I thought. If you think of a computer as a car, many people really do that. And they wonder why they're always in debt. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/13/91)
In article <81en02.g073H01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes: > Only when it is running UNIX is it a workstation. Amiga DOS does not > qualify as a workstation OS. It is definitely not multiuser and does not > do virtual memory. Oh boy, now we get to argue definitions again for a while. In case you hadn't noticed, I *like* doing that. Let's start with the definition of "workstation". How about the Carnegie Mellon "3M" rating? The 3000 certainly blows that out of the water. Of course, it's a trifle dated... How about definig a workstation in terms of *functions*. Not specs: all the folks with 486 boxes running MS-DOS know all about how badly specs can mislead. What does a workstation have to do to make it a workstation? > >But even as UNIX workstations go the NeXT is pretty wasteful of space. Plain > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > How?????? Well, it takes more memory to run NeXTStep efficiently than it does to run X. QED. > >with the NeXT is they took an intermediate port of a research O/S (Mach) and > >used it. They didn't wait for (or do themselves) a real microkernel version, > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > It is not an intermediate research port.I suppose Mt XINU is a research > port too????? Uh-huh. > >so the NeXT system image takes up 30M of VM before you load any apps. Why? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Where do you get your numbers from. NeXT employees at trade shows. > >It's got two operating systems in there: Mach *plus* most of BSD. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > You should learn something about the NeXT and Mach. Mach is a kernal that > runs under BSD. The NeXT uses UNIX with a Mach kernal. No, BSD is an emulator that runs under Mach. I think you need to learn something about it yourself. Send off to CMU for the Mach documents. They're happy to mail them to anyone who asks. It'll put all this specmanship in perspective. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
brett@visix.com (Brett Bourbin) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May11.204458.5903@neon.Stanford.EDU>, torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: |> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: |> |> |> >Why on Earth would NeXT use such slow memory? I'm literally shocked... Why on Earth is this in comp.sys.amiga.advocacy? Let's at least try to talk about Amigas here. Why don't NeXT people start up some NeXT groups? It is amazing when I get to work to see the top most 30 articles all talking about the NeXT machines. I have nothing against the NeXT computers, but this IS NOT the place for them. Remember the post about a week back about cross-positing to comp.sys.next? Well, it is a two-way street. Please return this group to the Amiga users. -- __ Brett Bourbin \ / /(_ /\/ 11440 Commerce Park Drive ..!uunet!visix!brett \/ / __)/ /\ Reston, Virginia 22091 brett@visix.com Software Inc (703) 758-2733
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/14/91)
In article <84LR02ly072m01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes: >In article <21316@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>As compared to what? The NeXT isn't architecturally that different than any >>high-end personal computer. It is noticably different than traditional >How many personal computers have 2 huge Fujitsu gate arrays with custom >Channel Processors, 9 DMA channels on the cube, 8 on the slab. Well, gee, I seem to have 25 DMA channels on my A3000 just devoted to the Chip bus. A good portion of those are slot assigned, meaning no arbitration or contention. Not to mention more traditional style DMA from Coprocessor and expansion bus. That says to me "well designed personal computer", not "workstation" or "mainframe". But then again, I design computers, not spec sheets for marketing wars. >How many personal computers come with built in twisted pair and thin >ethernet. Not too many. A3000UX comes with thin and thick Ethernet. Where you put real networking, on the motherboard or off, is an arbitrary decision, assuming you have an expansion bus of some kind. Most PC Clones also make it a separate card. So do Macs. IBM RS/6000s. At least some of the HP/Apollos. Suns put on the motherboard. That has something to do with where you expect your computers to be used, nothing to do with whether you're a workstation or not. >How many come with a DSP integrated into the system No PCs or workstations, far as I know. You can get add-in DSPs for Amigas, PC Clones, S-Bus, etc. >with DMA support to peripherals. Amigas have DMA driven hard disk, sound, and floppys. I think the Sun floppy is PIO. >You could not just get DPS and emulate a NeXT like you can do with the Mac >roms and a Mac, Atari, or Amiga for that matter. They have similar hardware. >The NeXT does not. The NeXT OS would port just dandy to an Amiga, if NeXT wanted to port it. The only way you can really "emulate" an OS, like that of the Mac, is if the system really doesn't have any hardware to copy, regardless of what that hardware is. And if it provides a way to support drives that'll let you account for unimportant hardware differences. You wouldn't get any further trying to model a NeXT on an Amiga emulating registers than you would an Amiga on a NeXT. Probably, anyway, the Amiga has 100's of registers that would have to be emulated, the NeXT may not be so complicated. >The expansion may not be faster but form factor is very large. You could >fit 3x as much on NeXTbus card vs. MCA/EISA. Put 5 DSPs on a single >card in a MCA/EISA PC or an Amiga --- I don't think so. The form factor is indeed large. There are Amiga cards with one and two DSPs on them, but 5 would require significant minaturization. Then again, if they can get one on an S-Bus card, you might come close to 4 or 5 on an Amiga card with the same level of shrink. >>Thing is, not everyone wants a Workstation. They are good for certain >>problems, but this latest "pizza box" trend is generating only closed boxes. >I disagree. If you want to fill a variety of needs, get something that >has everything except the kitchen sink thrown in. Something that you can >add lots of memory to (NeXTstation 32 meg, cube 64 meg). Display that >will run all software made for the machine mono or color, etc. I can crank my A3000 up to 146MB today. More later with better memory cards. Thing is, you can't possibly put everything anyone could ever need in one machine and still expect to sell it. Big memory and color display are hardly the only things you'd ever want hooked up to a computer. What about those multiple-DSPs you mentioned. Or maybe some real floating point DSPs or other math crunchers. >When the time comes (in 4-5 years??) and you need more than 32 megabytes >of real memory, it will probably be time for a new machine. We already have that need. I get calls from a guy in Canada once a week asking if we have 128MB more for his A3000. Lots of people doing video work, image rendering and all, need more than 16-32MB. They want more MFLOPs and aren't interested in virtual memory or anything that'll slow the system down. Sure, they're the fringe, but they're just one example. >Other video on a slab is difficult but not impossible. Look at what you >can do with a Mac SE or Classic, I've seen SCSI solutions to their video >limitations. SCSI is much too slow for a great deal of lab things, especially Mac's SCSI. Unless you want to build a whole new computer to sit on the SCSI bus. We have a logic analyzer from BioMation that works that way. The $30,000 box sits under the bench, gathers all the data necessary, and then ever so slowly transfers it to the Mac. Maybe that's OK for this particular setup, with that kind of money involved, but SCSI isn't a general purpose bus, it's only good for moderate speed transfers between two computers. Looking at the $1500 SCSI floppy offered for the NeXT is a good indication of what you can expect in the way of SCSI peripherals. >/* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */ -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/14/91)
In article <48816@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >In article <-h6Hqu=@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >I'm no EE, either, but I think a 25Mhz 040 using 100ns RAM would be at >least a one-wait-state configuration. An '040 at 25MHz will take at least three wait states using a single bank of 100ns DRAM. But you don't normally speak of '040s running single cycles, anyway, because their normal mode of memory access is similar to the '030's "burst" cycle, for both reads and writes. Those three waits would be taken on the first bus cycle of the burst. The next three cycles could very likely be one clock each, if the system uses nybble-mode DRAM, or two clocks each, using page or static column memory and some external logic. With 80ns DRAM on an '040 bus, you can just manage two wait states, as it has a somewhat more efficient bus cycle than the '030. With page or static column memories, you can have memory banks as small as 1MB. With nybble modes, you typically need 4MB banks. Both access methods may lend themselves to various bank interleave schemes, which can up the performance using the same kind of memory, at the cost of more external logic and a larger minimum bank size. Minimum bank sizes can also vary by device type -- some of the newer 16 bit wide DRAM can cut this down for you, though standard SIMMs are all 8 bits wide. >Anyway, I don't understand what makes using slower RAMs that much cheaper. >The memories themselves woudn't be much different in price in that kind of >volume. Is it an architecture thing? Anyone? Anyone? They chip yield is the main factor. If 99% of the 80ns dice work, but only 40% of the 70ns dice, you'll see a lower price for 80ns parts. It may also reflect a more expensive chip fab on the faster part, or just market realitites (eg, they can get it because there's not much competition). Currently, you pay about the same for anything 80ns or faster, which implies that most of the chips made work at 80ns. 50-70ns parts are still something of a premium. > Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (05/14/91)
In article <961.282a98ed@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >In article <81en02.g073H01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) writes: >> In article <1991May5.124008.24559@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>>In article <4d7Gypu=1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>>> I'm just responding to the posts my by Amiga users. When you guys ask >>>> how large is NeXT software, and scream we don't want a program if it's >>>> too large, what am I suppose to say? >>> >>>"You have a point there" >>> >>>> The NeXT is a workstation. >>> >>>The Amiga is a workstation too. >> >> Only when it is running UNIX is it a workstation. Amiga DOS does not >> qualify as a workstation OS. It is definitely not multiuser and does not >> do virtual memory. >> > >AmigaDOS does not qualify as a Workstation operating system? I am not sure >I understand this. Are you saying that UNIX is the only operating system >that is a 'workstation operating system'? If so, will DEC be sad to >learn that the VAXStation is not a workstation since it runs VMS? > >I agree that AmigaDOS does not do virtual memory, nor directly support >multiple users, but so what? It does support multitasking, it does >support tcp/ip, DECNet as well as X Windows. > Most people who really know Unix and AmigaDos would rather use AmigaDos. By this criteria, the Amiga is better than a workstation (by choice). VM and memory protection and Multiuser capabilities don't define a workstation OS, and if they do, I don't want it. -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May13.005323.859@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <81en02.g073H01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes: >> Only when it is running UNIX is it a workstation. Amiga DOS does not >> qualify as a workstation OS. It is definitely not multiuser and does not >> do virtual memory. > >Oh boy, now we get to argue definitions again for a while. > >In case you hadn't noticed, I *like* doing that. > >Let's start with the definition of "workstation". How about the Carnegie >Mellon "3M" rating? The 3000 certainly blows that out of the water. Of course, >it's a trifle dated... You are the one who statred with saying that if a machine didn't have VM it didn't have a 32bit OS. My definition of a Workstation is something that is not constrained by physical memory. Which means if it don't have VM it ain't a workstation. You introduce your definitions I'll introduce mine. > >> >But even as UNIX workstations go the NeXT is pretty wasteful of space. Plain >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> How?????? > >Well, it takes more memory to run NeXTStep efficiently than it does to run >X. QED. Well I have a SPARCstation on the desk next to me and to run efficiently it needs 12-16Mb of ram. How is the NeXT any different. I have 12Mb in my machine at home ant the performance is much better than the SPARC next to me. > >> >with the NeXT is they took an intermediate port of a research O/S (Mach) and >> >used it. They didn't wait for (or do themselves) a real microkernel version, >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> It is not an intermediate research port.I suppose Mt XINU is a research >> port too????? > >Uh-huh. Well if you want to be specific Mach in what ever form you have will be a research port. So what do you do, wait until CMU tells you "We have all the Multiprocessor support built into Mach now we will release it." You machine would never make it out of the door. Mach is still evolving just like Unix, AmigaDOS, Mac OS, and MS DOS. Are you saying that Mach on the NeXT is buggy??? INMHO - It is more solid than most Unix boxes I've worked on. Mine at doesn't crash and lock up like the some machines I've seen and definitly doesn't lock up like my PC or a Mac. > >> >so the NeXT system image takes up 30M of VM before you load any apps. Why? >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Where do you get your numbers from. > >NeXT employees at trade shows. You talked to someone that did not know what they were talking about. My machine with the VM swap space set to 1M will boot and run fine. 30M of VM before you load any apps is total bull. Now the OS itself takes 30M of disk space for utilities and all that. But NOT 30M VM at startup. Go to a NeXT machine and look under /privite/vm and look at the swapfile. > >> >It's got two operating systems in there: Mach *plus* most of BSD. >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> You should learn something about the NeXT and Mach. Mach is a kernal that >> runs under BSD. The NeXT uses UNIX with a Mach kernal. > >No, BSD is an emulator that runs under Mach. I think you need to learn >something about it yourself. Send off to CMU for the Mach documents. They're >happy to mail them to anyone who asks. It'll put all this specmanship in >perspective. I do know about Mach. I have the documentation. You are assuming that NeXT is using the full Mach OS. The NeXT uses BSD with a Mach kernal. This information comes from: 1. David Black - Known expert on Mach and gave tutorial at IEEE CompCon this spring. 2. NeXT lterature also states that the machine is running BSD. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. -- /* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ /* For I can only express my own opinions. */ /* */ /* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/16/91)
In article <1991May11.204458.5903@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >>Why on Earth would NeXT use such slow memory? I'm literally shocked... > They're hoping the 040 4K caches will soak up most of the accesses. >This is just a design tradeoff, which probably hits NeXT 040 for about >10-15% performance vs. say a 128K cache of SRAM. It's kind of a general rule that, as processors get more on-board cache, the external memory systems will have less of an effect. What this implies, for example, is that all '040 systems, taken together, will have much less of a performance difference from one another than all '030 systems. That, of course, assumes that no one is building any really stupid '040 designs, just some that are less than perfect. Which, as mentioned here before, always happens. Especially when you're trying to build a system for a PC price, you can't always have the blazing memory speeds most workstations and mini computers get. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (05/16/91)
In article <1991May13.004328.642@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <1991May10.164604.17674@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> How would you like to buy a new car every 5 years? > > The thing that really freaked me out when I came to America was the people > who basically do this. Actually, 4 years is more common: as soon as they've > paid off one car they buy another. And since they only expect to own the > car 4 years, they don't maintain it. > > I dunno. Maybe Steve Jobs knows his market better than I thought. If you > think of a computer as a car, many people really do that. > > And they wonder why they're always in debt. Hmmph. You accusing the NeXTstation of not having slots seem to always ignore one fact. NeXT has the Cube model for those who want to buy their computers with slots. Cube is basically a NeXTstation with slots. And Mike has many times told you the considerable price difference. Do you think it would be better if NeXT didn't have the slotless models at all? I don't. I wouldn't have afforded a NeXT if they didn't have the station. I rather take a slotless NeXT than nothing. And I'd rather spend the price difference of Cube and station for a laser printer (as I did) since it is much more useful for me than empty slots... (The laser printer is a must for me.) > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland Finland NeXT User Group manager
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May16.165711.1@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > Hmmph. You accusing the NeXTstation of not having slots seem to always > ignore one fact. NeXT has the Cube model for those who want to buy their > computers with slots. Cube is basically a NeXTstation with slots. And > Mike has many times told you the considerable price difference. Yes. Commodore has a machine without slots, too... the Amiga 500. But it's still as expandable as the 2000 or 3000. You can put an expansion box on the 500 that gives you real live Zorro slots, coprocessor slots, and so on. Given that the whole 500 costs less than the cheapest NeXT peripheral I can think of, I suspect that Jobs could have done the same. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.