a577@mindlink.UUCP (Curt Sampson) (01/09/91)
> jon@brahms.udel.edu writes: > > Listen, you guys are simply missing the POINT! > > There is nothing better than the Amiga, and there > never, ever will be. It's just THAT SIMPLE! > > It's quite simple if you would just accept the obvious! Well, I suppose it depends on whether you get educational discounts or not. For $4500 (Canadian) I can get a NeXT with better graphics (though no colour :-(), a bettter OS (BSD 4.3), better sound and amazingly more CPU horsepower and Ethernet built in. Alternatively, I can get an IBM with better graphics, more CPU power and more memory and hard drive space for an equivalant price to any Amiga. And again, I can, for a nominal charge, grab a copy of 386BSD and be running a decent OS on it. The Amiga is a reasonable machine, but pricewise it just doesn't complete. cjs -- Please reply to curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca or curt@cynic.uucp. No silly quotes from this machine....
jon@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Deutsch) (01/09/91)
Listen, you guys are simply missing the POINT!
There is nothing better than the Amiga, and there
never, ever will be. It's just THAT SIMPLE!
It's quite simple if you would just accept the obvious!
X-------------------+--------------+-----------------------X
| | |\ |>jon@brahms.udel.edu<| "For my 2 cents, |
| \|on |/eutsch |>>-----------------<<| I'd pay a dollar" |
X------+--------------------+--------------------+---------Xjsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) (01/10/91)
In article <17417@brahms.udel.edu>, jon@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Deutsch) writes: |> |> There is nothing better than the Amiga, and there |> never, ever will be. It's just THAT SIMPLE! |> |> It's quite simple if you would just accept the obvious! |> Let me guess. Six years ago you were saying the same thing about the Vic 20. -- rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r ___ _ "...but then there was the r r /__ | \ possibility that they were r r ___/hawn |__\ube LaRouche democrats which, of r r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu course, were better off dead." r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) (01/10/91)
In article <1991Jan9.170631.18006@rice.edu> jsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >In article <17417@brahms.udel.edu>, jon@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Deutsch) writes: >|> >|> There is nothing better than the Amiga, and there >|> never, ever will be. It's just THAT SIMPLE! >|> >|> It's quite simple if you would just accept the obvious! >|> > >Let me guess. Six years ago you were saying the same thing about >the Vic 20. > Hmmm, I wouldn't have. But I never expected them to come out with a Vic 3000..... So let's see, in 6 years we went from an Amiga 1000 to a 3000. So in another 6 years we should see the Amiga 9000...... Oh goody! :) Joe Peck peck@ral.rpi.edu
jeremym@brahms.udel.edu (Jeremy A Moskowitz) (01/10/91)
In article <}KY^5K%@rpi.edu> peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >So let's see, in 6 years we went from an Amiga 1000 to a 3000. >So in another 6 years we should see the Amiga 9000...... Oh goody! :) > >peck@ral.rpi.edu Nah! I was thinking of the same thing actually. I hope the name is cooler by then. I was thinking they will call it: The Amiga One It sounds classy as it will be an all in one system and will rock.. and with commodore's pricing, will cost *1* dollar. Keep it up Commodore !! We wuv you! :-) -- E Pluribus // Contacts: jeremym@brahms.udel.edu or jeremym@chopin.udel.edu or Unix // jeremy@freezer.it.udel.edu (line 1 = jeremym) \\ // --->Monitor of comp.sys.amiga.emulations<--- \X/ 2001 Dalmations - My stars, its full of dogs...
kevin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Kevin Klop) (01/10/91)
In article <}KY^5K%@rpi.edu> peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >In article <1991Jan9.170631.18006@rice.edu> jsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >>In article <17417@brahms.udel.edu>, jon@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Deutsch) writes: >>|> >>|> There is nothing better than the Amiga, and there >>|> never, ever will be. It's just THAT SIMPLE! >>|> >>|> It's quite simple if you would just accept the obvious! >>|> >> >>Let me guess. Six years ago you were saying the same thing about >>the Vic 20. >> > >Hmmm, I wouldn't have. But I never expected them to come out with >a Vic 3000..... > >So let's see, in 6 years we went from an Amiga 1000 to a 3000. >So in another 6 years we should see the Amiga 9000...... Oh goody! :) > >Joe Peck >peck@ral.rpi.edu unless you're planning some sort of growth curve as opposed to linear progress, we should be at the Amiga 6000 in another 6 years, no? -- Kevin -- Kevin Klop {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!kevin Commodore-Amiga, Inc. ``Be excellent to each other.'' - Bill and Ted's most excellent adventure Disclaimer: _I_ don't know what I said, much less my employer.
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (01/10/91)
In article <4378@mindlink.UUCP> a577@mindlink.UUCP (Curt Sampson) writes: >> jon@brahms.udel.edu writes: >> >> Listen, you guys are simply missing the POINT! >> >> There is nothing better than the Amiga, and there >> never, ever will be. It's just THAT SIMPLE! >> >> It's quite simple if you would just accept the obvious! > >Well, I suppose it depends on whether you get educational discounts or not. >For $4500 (Canadian) I can get a NeXT with better graphics (though no colour >:-(), a bettter OS (BSD 4.3), better sound and amazingly more CPU horsepower >and Ethernet built in. Alternatively, I can get an IBM with better graphics, >more CPU power and more memory and hard drive space for an equivalant price to >any Amiga. And again, I can, for a nominal charge, grab a copy of 386BSD and >be running a decent OS on it. The Amiga is a reasonable machine, but pricewise >it just doesn't complete. > >cjs >-- >Please reply to curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca or curt@cynic.uucp. >No silly quotes from this machine.... DREAM ON. NOTHING BEATS THE AMIGA. NOTHING! NeXT? It doesn't cook spaghetti so it's no good! IBM? It has Intel chips, that disqualifies it immediately from being useful. Mac? Its made by Apple, get real! Price? Who cares about price. Once you see an Amiga, you'll buy it no matter what the price is, just because its an Amiga. :-) :-) :-) Seriously. NeXT's with 040's are vaporware until the 040 starts shipping in large quantities, so you are forced to compare the Amiga3000 with the CUBE. And in price/performance, the Amiga wins. An Amiga w/A2024 monitor can easily compare to the NeXT's monchrome resolution. Add color toy your NeXT and you just blew your price advantage. IBMs I dont even wanna talk about. They have an operating system that reminds me of Kaypro's running CP/M, and a CPU which reminds me of Z80's. As for Amiga color, there's always Video Toaster, Video Blender, A2410, Color Burst, Firecracker/24, DCTV, HAM-E, Harlequin, VideoMaster 32 and more. Sooner or later the OS will support them in one way or another, or XWindows will become the Amiga's secondary GUI. (Think of running X applications and Intuition windows on the same screen!) And Xwindows contains the necessary components to support DVI/RTG. Amiga... Its not just a computer, its a RELIGION! All hail the king of multimedia since 1985!
a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) (01/10/91)
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > Once you see an Amiga, you'll buy it no matter what the price is, just > because its an Amiga. > > :-) :-) :-) Actually, seeing an Amiga is what made me decide not to buy one. The lousy quality text turned me off. I bought a Mac instead. I never regretted it. > Seriously. NeXT's with 040's are vaporware until the 040 starts shipping in > large quantities, so you are forced to compare the Amiga3000 with the CUBE. You should check the NeXT group; the 040 NeXTstations have been shipping for several weeks now. > Amiga... Its not just a computer, its a RELIGION! Hari Krishna, Hari Krishna! :)
jon@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Deutsch) (01/10/91)
In article <1991Jan10.082327.7378@rice.edu> jsd@grenadier.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >I was planning on getting an Amiga until I saw it. I didn't >like what I saw. Hey! Maybe, JUST MAYBE, the Amiga didn't like what SHE saw and decided not to let YOU buy it. >The two compare? Does the 2024 monitor have 1100x800 resolution??? >But I guess if you want a monitor that flickers alot, the Amiga is >your best bet. Flicker SHMICKER! Just because your EYES can't automatically adjust to the scan rate of the amiga graphics chip, doesn't mean you have the right to put THE AMIGA down!!!!! >What's the big deal w/ the Toaster? Yes, its pretty nice but most >people don't have a need for that type of stuff. WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL???? Are you out of your MIND??? The TOASTER is SOOO needed by EVERYONE that I hear they're making it a bloody FEDERAL LAW TO OWN ONE! >rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr >r ___ _ "...but then there was the r >r /__ | \ possibility that they were r >r ___/hawn |__\ube LaRouche democrats which, of r >r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu course, were better off dead." r >rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Hey! You're the same dude who busted on me before! That's not very nice, y'know. BTW, what computer do YOU OWN?? X-------------------+--------------+-----------------------X | | |\ |>jon@brahms.udel.edu<| "For my 2 cents, | | \|on |/eutsch |>>-----------------<<| I'd pay a dollar" | X------+--------------------+--------------------+---------X
jsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) (01/10/91)
In article <1991Jan10.095304.16900@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: |> > |> >|> |> >|> DREAM ON. NOTHING BEATS THE AMIGA. NOTHING! NeXT? It doesn't cook |> >|> spaghetti so it's no good! |> > |> >That`s the worst you can say about the NeXT???? |> > |> |> Ok, its slow (030 & Display Postscript) colorless (with $$$) and |> doesn't have any games. Why compare Next with the Amiga, the |> Amiga is low-end (majority) and a PC. The NeXT is a multiuser workstation, |> and compared to a Sun Sparc, it loses. I would buy a Sun before |> I bought the NeXT. |> First, I was the not the one who started comparing NeXT and Amigas. Second, The NeXT is not a multiuser workstation. It may have mutli-tasking but I don't think many places are using it as a "multiuser" workstation. Third, compared to a Sparc, it loses but only when it comes to speed. I Sparc doesn't have all of the support hardware that the NeXT has (for example, the digital signal processor or whatever its called). Also, the NeXT has a better user interface (compared to a Sun w/ XWindows or SunTools) and it costs less. |> >|> Seriously. NeXT's with 040's are vaporware until the 040 starts |> >|> shipping in large quantities |> > |> >By that your saying that it is the 040 that is vaporware. The reason |> >that the NeXT 040 are not shipping in large quantities is because Motorola |> >isn't shipping the 040's in high quantity thereby, from what you say, |> >making the 040 vaporware. The 050 is vaporware, the 040 is not. |> |> Its vapor because you cannot reliaby get your hands on any. I can |> buy an Amiga very easy, it make takes weeks or months to ge an Amiga. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ An Amiga is reliaby available although it can take months to get?? Seriously, take a poll and I think that just about everyone WILL NOT consider the NeXT 040 vaporware, esp. the people who have them. |> |> GET REAL! GET AN AMIGA! |> >-- Get real yourself and consider the merits of *ALL* computers and not just yours. -- rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r ___ _ "...but then there was the r r /__ | \ possibility that they were r r ___/hawn |__\ube LaRouche democrats which, of r r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu course, were better off dead." r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (01/11/91)
In article <1991Jan10.151816.13893@rice.edu> jsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >In article <1991Jan10.095304.16900@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >|> > >|> >|> >|> >|> DREAM ON. NOTHING BEATS THE AMIGA. NOTHING! NeXT? It doesn't cook >|> >|> spaghetti so it's no good! >|> > >|> >That`s the worst you can say about the NeXT???? >|> > >|> >|> Ok, its slow (030 & Display Postscript) colorless (with $$$) and >|> doesn't have any games. Why compare Next with the Amiga, the >|> Amiga is low-end (majority) and a PC. The NeXT is a multiuser workstation, >|> and compared to a Sun Sparc, it loses. I would buy a Sun before >|> I bought the NeXT. >|> > >First, I was the not the one who started comparing NeXT and Amigas. >Second, The NeXT is not a multiuser workstation. It may have mutli-tasking >but I don't think many places are using it as a "multiuser" workstation. >Third, compared to a Sparc, it loses but only when it comes to speed. I Sparc >doesn't have all of the support hardware that the NeXT has (for example, the >digital signal processor or whatever its called). Also, the NeXT has a better >user interface (compared to a Sun w/ XWindows or SunTools) and it costs less. It also wastes a good deal of CPU time on that user interface. (for instance copying the entire contents of a window around when dragging, not to mention display postscript) The NeXT (slab) is not very expandible. The DSP in the NeXT is SLOW, and integer only. Even further, the NeXT doesn't seem to share its DSP effectively. On the Amiga, the blitter chip is shared nicely. Its possible to 'OwnBlitter()' but it won't lock it completely. On the NeXT you'll usually see 'DSP Already in Use' I Keep seeing people harp about the fact that the NeXT has a DSP, but I have not seen it used much, unlike the Amiga in which a huge majority of software shares the custom chips effectively. >|> >|> Seriously. NeXT's with 040's are vaporware until the 040 starts >|> >|> shipping in large quantities >|> > >|> >By that your saying that it is the 040 that is vaporware. The reason >|> >that the NeXT 040 are not shipping in large quantities is because Motorola >|> >isn't shipping the 040's in high quantity thereby, from what you say, >|> >making the 040 vaporware. The 050 is vaporware, the 040 is not. >|> >|> Its vapor because you cannot reliaby get your hands on any. I can >|> buy an Amiga very easy, it make takes weeks or months to ge an Amiga. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > An Amiga is reliaby available > although it can take months to get?? Sorry, thate was a mistake, it was supposed to read 'Takes months to get a NeXT' The NeXT is very backlogged, I priced them once, and everyone told me 'We have none in stock, and it may be a month or 2 before we get any.' vapor. OB >Seriously, take a poll and I think that just about everyone WILL NOT consider >the NeXT 040 vaporware, esp. the people who have them. > >|> >|> GET REAL! GET AN AMIGA! >|> >-- > >Get real yourself and consider the merits of *ALL* computers >and not just yours. Lighten up D00D, I was being sarcastic when I started my post. YOUR the person who got upset when I said the NeXT couldn't cook spaghetti, it also can't butter bread, but thats another problem. The Amiga can do TOAST however. :-) As for merits of owning other computers, there are NONE. You still don't get it: NOTHING BEATS THE AMIGA! NOTHING! Crays are crap, RS/6000's? Sludge! >-- >rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr >r ___ _ "...but then there was the r >r /__ | \ possibility that they were r >r ___/hawn |__\ube LaRouche democrats which, of r >r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu course, were better off dead." r >rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr -- Amiga. There should be a law requiring you to own them! Call your congresscritter and petition today!
peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) (01/11/91)
In article <17316@cbmvax.commodore.com> kevin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Kevin Klop) writes: >In article <}KY^5K%@rpi.edu> peck@ral.rpi.edu (Joseph Peck) writes: >>In article <1991Jan9.170631.18006@rice.edu> jsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >>>In article <17417@brahms.udel.edu>, jon@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Deutsch) writes: >>>|> >>>|> There is nothing better than the Amiga, and there >>>|> never, ever will be. It's just THAT SIMPLE! >>>|> >> >>So let's see, in 6 years we went from an Amiga 1000 to a 3000. >>So in another 6 years we should see the Amiga 9000...... Oh goody! :) >> >>Joe Peck >>peck@ral.rpi.edu > >unless you're planning some sort of growth curve as opposed to linear >progress, we should be at the Amiga 6000 in another 6 years, no? > GROWTH CURVES ARE THE ONLY WAY TO GO!!!!!! So, every six years it increases by a factor of three..... :) Besides, I have a plan to help insure that kind of growth rate. > -- Kevin -- > Joe peck@ral.rpi.edu
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (01/11/91)
In article <1991Jan10.151816.13893@rice.edu> jsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: [...] >First, I was the not the one who started comparing NeXT and Amigas. >Second, The NeXT is not a multiuser workstation. It may have mutli-tasking [...] Heh, for once, there is no reason to apologise for making religious comparisons between systems. ;^) That's the name of the game here in c.s.a.advocacy ;^) Have fun, guys... Later, -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (01/11/91)
In article <1991Jan10.082327.7378@rice.edu> jsd@grenadier.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >In article <1991Jan10.010956.8925@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >|> An Amiga w/A2024 monitor can easily compare to the NeXT's monchrome >|> resolution. > >The two compare? Does the 2024 monitor have 1100x800 resolution??? >But I guess if you want a monitor that flickers alot, the Amiga is >your best bet. Yes. It has 1008x800 (or 1008x1024) and has a rock solid display. That seems to compare with the NeXT monochrome. Personally, I use the Moniterm large screen version of the display on my A3000, and it works fine. andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "And Amiga has not forgot the retailer." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
huebner@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert E. Huebner) (01/11/91)
In article <4378@mindlink.UUCP> a577@mindlink.UUCP (Curt Sampson) writes: >Well, I suppose it depends on whether you get educational discounts or not. >For $4500 (Canadian) I can get a NeXT with better graphics (though no colour >:-(), a bettter OS (BSD 4.3), better sound and amazingly more CPU horsepower >and Ethernet built in. Some of the Commodore bundles will have ethernet included. By making part of the standard package a LOT of people are paying for hardware they'll never use. Of course the "better OS" is definitely a matter of opinion. >Alternatively, I can get an IBM with better graphics, >more CPU power and more memory and hard drive space for an equivalant price to >any Amiga. And again, I can, for a nominal charge, grab a copy of 386BSD and >be running a decent OS on it. Oh please. Have you ever tried to really USE 386BSD on an IBM? Its one of those ideas that sounds good on paper but won't get any work done. >The Amiga is a reasonable machine, but pricewise >it just doesn't complete. Hmmmm.. I was under the impression that Amiga UNIX prices haven't been announced yet? Or are you privy to information the rest of us lack. -- | Robert E. Huebner | "Death is nature's way of telling | | huebner@en.ecn.purdue.edu | you to slow down" | | huebner@aerospace.aero.org | - Unknown Author |
tschiller@trillium.uwaterloo.ca (Thorsten Schiller) (01/11/91)
In article <1991Jan10.010956.8925@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <4378@mindlink.UUCP> a577@mindlink.UUCP (Curt Sampson) writes: >>> jon@brahms.udel.edu writes: >>> >>> Listen, you guys are simply missing the POINT! >>> >>> There is nothing better than the Amiga, and there >>> never, ever will be. It's just THAT SIMPLE! >>> >>> It's quite simple if you would just accept the obvious! >> >>Well, I suppose it depends on whether you get educational discounts or not. >>For $4500 (Canadian) I can get a NeXT with better graphics (though no colour >>:-(), a bettter OS (BSD 4.3), better sound and amazingly more CPU horsepower >>and Ethernet built in. Alternatively, I can get an IBM with better graphics, >>more CPU power and more memory and hard drive space for an equivalant price to >>any Amiga. And again, I can, for a nominal charge, grab a copy of 386BSD and >>be running a decent OS on it. The Amiga is a reasonable machine, but pricewise >>it just doesn't complete. >> >>cjs >>-- >>Please reply to curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca or curt@cynic.uucp. >>No silly quotes from this machine.... > > >DREAM ON. NOTHING BEATS THE AMIGA. NOTHING! NeXT? It doesn't cook >spaghetti so it's no good! IBM? It has Intel chips, that disqualifies >it immediately from being useful. Mac? Its made by Apple, get real! >Price? Who cares about price. Once you see an Amiga, you'll buy it >no matter what the price is, just because its an Amiga. > >:-) :-) :-) > >Seriously. NeXT's with 040's are vaporware until the 040 starts >shipping in large quantities, so you are forced to compare the >Amiga3000 with the CUBE. And in price/performance, the Amiga wins. >An Amiga w/A2024 monitor can easily compare to the NeXT's monchrome >resolution. Add color toy your NeXT and you just blew your price advantage. > Actually, just for the sake of interest, I read in PC WEEK the other week (don't ask me which issue :-) that Motorolla IS, in fact, shipping the '040 in large quanities.... Do with this knowledge as you wish :-) > >Amiga... Its not just a computer, its a RELIGION! All hail the king of >multimedia since 1985! Thorsten Schiller (shadow@watcsc.uwaterloo.ca)
mykes@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (01/11/91)
Amiga with a grey scale monitor and the Next are quite similar, looks-wise. The main difference is that the Amiga appears to be much faster since it has hardware assist and *TRUE* multitasking. By *TRUE* multitasking, I mean that not only is the software an outstanding multitasking OS, but the hardware actually has 3 CPUs (680x0, Copper, Blitter) that run in parallel. The OS never has to wait for hardware to do things normally done by the CPU on machines like the next, so the 680x0 is free to execute application logic (rather than GUI logic, graphics primitives, or busywaiting for I/O to some device). Add the complexity of the Unix OS (as the user sees it) and you eliminate the majority of computer users from wanting to use it. And even though the NeXT has an outstanding price/performance value, there is no $499 NeXT. There is no color on the basic machine, very little 3rd party hardware or software support, no games, no video support (i.e. NTSC video packages for digitizing or generating video), or color as a standard feature. Thanks, but no thanks, I think I'd rather stick to the Amiga where I can click on a gadget or window and have it respond immediately. And if you like to write software, the Amiga is great for 'C', assembler, Forth, Modula, etc. And the OS is fairly easy to use and full of powerful features like Message Ports, real-time multitasking (tasks can respond almost immediately to external events) and graphics (a fairly complete GKS style graphics system). Once you start writing software for the machine, you learn to NOT buffer your reads and writes... You see, the machine has PLENTY of RAM available when the system is running and you can just read() virtually any file into RAM all at once. I can't stand to use some of these Unix applications that have been ported to the Amiga because they do buffer their I/O (seems like on a 12MB Unix machine there is not enough RAM to put a large source file and the OS in RAM at the same time :( When I run a program that does one BIG read, it is so fast. When I run a program that reads a small chunk at a time, it is orders of magnitude slower. You just don't have to waste time that should be spent focusing on what the application needs to do. My $.02 Mykes
fetrow@milton.u.washington.edu (David Fetrow) (01/11/91)
In article <1991Jan10.151816.13893@rice.edu> jsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes:
.....
#digital signal processor or whatever its called). Also, the NeXT has a better
#user interface (compared to a Sun w/ XWindows or SunTools) and it costs less.
#
Just for the record: There is another Sun interface (it comes as part of
OpenLook and is bundled) called NeWS that has more than a few things in
common with NeXTstep. I can't discuss prices since I haven't checked this
week :-).
There isn't much available for NeWS though. I won't reflect on the "WHat
Could Have Been" if NeWS had one the battle over X. *sigh*
--
-dave fetrow- fetrow@bones.biostat.washington.edu
dfetrow@uwalocke (bitnet) {uunet}!uw-beaver!uw-entropy!fetrow
The proper tense when discussing the PDP-10 and PDP-20 is PRESENT tense.jsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) (01/12/91)
In article <1991Jan11.145423.21377@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, pab@po.CWRU.Edu (Pete Babic) writes: |> > |> >|> The NeXT (slab) is not very expandible. |> > |> >And the 500 is? |> |> How can you compare a 500 to a machine that costs a few thousand dollars? |> Compare the NeXT slab to a A3000, the A3000 is very expandible. Will the |> expandible NeXT cost $10,000? Your comparison does not make sense. |> The slab and the 500 have two things in common, they are both entry level machines (in a manner of speaking). Both the 500 and the slab were not made to be *internnaly* expandable. This allows the price of the machines to be lower than that of the 2000 and the cube respectively. Its not like NeXT screw-up in designing the machines. NeXT engineer: "Well, we finished designing the slab." Steve Jobs: "Can it be expanded internnaly?" NeXT engineer: "Opps! I guess not." Steve Jobs: "You dumb-ass. Well, we'll have to ship them anyway." -- rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r ___ _ "...but then there was the r r /__ | \ possibility that they were r r ___/hawn |__\ube LaRouche democrats which, of r r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu course, were better off dead." r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
glmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matt Crowd) (01/12/91)
In article <4402@mindlink.UUCP> a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) writes: > >rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >> Once you see an Amiga, you'll buy it no matter what the price is, just >> because its an Amiga. >> >Actually, seeing an Amiga is what made me decide not to buy one. The lousy >quality text turned me off. I bought a Mac instead. I never regretted it. > The Amiga text quality running WB 2.0 at 640*512 is better/equal to the Mac now. It has taken time.... Colin Adams.
mykes@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (01/12/91)
>>From vsi1!apple!portal!cup.portal.com!thad Sat Jan 12 00:13:08 PST 1991 >>Article: 49 of comp.sys.amiga.advocacy >>Path: zorch!vsi1!apple!portal!cup.portal.com!thad >>From: thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) >>Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy >>Subject: Re: AMIGA >>Message-ID: <37883@cup.portal.com> >>Date: 11 Jan 91 15:30:52 GMT >>References: <1991Jan10.082327.7378@rice.edu> >> <1991Jan10.095304.16900@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> >> <1991Jan10.151816.13893@rice.edu> >> <1991Jan11.071410.16032@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> >>Organization: The Portal System (TM) >>Lines: 89 >> >>mykes@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) >>in <1991Jan11.071410.16032@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> writes: >> >> [...] >> Once you start writing software for the machine, you learn to NOT >> buffer your reads and writes... You see, the machine has PLENTY of >> RAM available when the system is running and you can just read() >> virtually any file into RAM all at once. I can't stand to use some of >> these Unix applications that have been ported to the Amiga because >> they do buffer their I/O (seems like on a 12MB Unix machine there is >> not enough RAM to put a large source file and the OS in RAM at the >> same time :( When I run a program that does one BIG read, it is so >> fast. When I run a program that reads a small chunk at a time, it is >> orders of magnitude slower. You just don't have to waste time that >> should be spent focusing on what the application needs to do. >> >>Your post is a joke, right? You start bringing in fully RAM-resident files >>and you're gonna blow all the other tasks right out of the water due to lack >>of memory. >> Sorry, no joke intended. On a 4MB (5 including chip) with a floppy sized RAD:, you still have 3MB of RAM left over. Most AMIGA applications do just as I say you should. Consider 99% of the program editors. They all read 100% of your source files into RAM. Doing this in ONE BIG READ IS AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE FASTER than reading in 2K chunks. Why not read it in ONE CHUNK like CygnusEd does so it will be as fast as possible. I can name you a bunch more programs that also do big reads: DPaint, Devpac Assembler, AudioMaster, and so on and so on. >>Seems you don't understand the concept of "buffering." Buffering is meant to >>be an intermediate holding-area between memory and the disk(s) to facilitate >>optimal data transfer. >> >>Only with poorly-designed software systems have I seen an application, such as >>a spreadsheet, require all its data to be in memory. Now suppose I've used all >>RAM and need to add one more row? Guru city on a non-MMU, non-SVR4 Amiga. >> The common solution is to add more RAM or to dedicate more of your existing RAM (i.e. remove RAM disks, kill programs, etc.) so the spreadsheet (or whatever fits). I would hate to see a 4MB spreadsheet paged out to disk. The recalculation time would be soooooooooo sloooooooow. Why do you want to make a fast machine do things slowly? The machine is built for speed (like 25 DMA channels standard feature), so why not make it perform? >>Or suppose I'm processing receivables, payables, tax statements, etc. all of >>which may reside in 30MB data files. No way is any "reasonable" system going >>to have sufficient RAM available (though I've seen some VAX systems with a >>64MB RAM disk and 256MB main memory :-). >> Obviously an application that generates more data than you have RAM for or one that is designed to work on database applications needs special consideration. But consider this. Before this year ('91) ends, you will see Amigas with 68040's and 64MB of RAM, so your 30MB data file WILL fit in RAM and if your database program DID read the whole thing in, you would only have to wait about 15 seconds for the disk load and would have a program that is zippy in response instead of one that makes you wait a second or more each time you access a record. By the way, a 25 MHz 64MB 68040 Amiga with 700MB hard drive will cost less than $10,000 (ouch). >>There are well-documented and widespread programming algorithms (index files, >>as one for-instance) to permit handling essentially unlimited amounts of data, >>and PROFESSIONAL products use those techniques. Toy products, like dinky >>200x1000 spreadsheets, will suffer you their RAM-resident requirements. I use SuperPlan. It has a limit of 2K by 4K cells. I make some large spreadsheets (a few thousand cells for a stock market charting template) and have not problem fitting them in memory while I do a file transfer in the background in a term program, my editor, and DPaint at the same time. I do highly recommend the spreadsheet, it has a LOT of features and is VERY professional. It does support links between spreadsheets in RAM and on hard disk, so you can make spreadsheets larger than those that fit in RAM out of 2+ files. >> >>And your comment: >> >> I can't stand to use some of these Unix applications that have been >> ported to the Amiga because they do buffer their I/O (seems like on a >> 12MB Unix machine there is not enough RAM to put a large source file >> and the OS in RAM at the same time. >> >>doesn't hold water. The system whose "ps -ef" is shown below sports only 4MB >>RAM, 300MB HD, and is a 68010-based demand-paged virtual-memory system which, >>in some respects, operates MUCH faster than my 68020/68881 Amigas doing things >>such as uncompressing and unpacking 4.5MB tar files (to 12.7MB source) and >>compiling GNU EMACS (FYI it's a 3B1): >> >> thadlabs ksh 24989/24990> date >> Fri Jan 11 07:17:56 PST 1991 >> thadlabs ksh 24989/24990> ps -ef >> UID PID PPID C STIME TTY TIME COMMAND >> root 0 0255 Nov 12 ? 84202:58 swapper >> root 1 0 3 Nov 12 ? 4:50 init >> root 2 0 3 Nov 12 ? 0:02 pagedaemon >> root 3 0 3 Nov 12 ? 131:29 windaemon >> thad 24271 1 3 Jan 9 w1 0:11 ksh >> root 1703 1 3 Dec 17 ? 0:01 uugetty >> root 183 1 3 Nov 12 001 0:01 uugetty >> listen 24989 204 3 Jan 9 p0 0:00 sl >> thad 24990 24989 18 Jan 9 p0 0:18 ksh >> root 117 1 3 Nov 12 ? 0:00 telnetd >> root 97 1 3 Nov 12 ? 0:00 rasdaemon >> root 119 1 3 Nov 12 ? 0:00 ftpd >> root 121 1 3 Nov 12 ? 33:10 rwhod >> root 123 1 3 Nov 12 ? 0:00 fingerd >> thad 26546 24271 3 03:11:51 w1 0:17 emacs >> root 159 1 3 Nov 12 w3 4:14 ph >> root 166 1 3 Nov 12 w4 0:07 wmgr >> root 172 1 12 Nov 12 w5 104:09 smgr >> root 184 1 3 Nov 12 ? 0:00 uugetty >> root 179 1 3 Nov 12 ? 4:47 loadavgd >> root 185 1 3 Nov 12 ? 0:00 uugetty >> lp 17314 1 3 Jan 1 ? 0:01 lpsched >> thad 26575 24990187 07:17:58 p0 0:03 ps >> listen 204 1 3 Nov 12 ? 0:03 listen >> thad 24285 1 8 Jan 9 w1 43:29 sysinfo >> root 24248 1 3 Jan 9 ? 0:00 rexecd >> root 24259 1 3 Jan 9 ? 0:00 rlogind >> uucp 26580 1 25 07:18:03 w5 0:00 uusched >> root 24337 1 3 Jan 9 ? 0:00 rshd >> uucp 26581 1 21 07:18:03 w5 0:00 uuxqt >> thadlabs ksh 24989/24990> >> >> >>Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com ] >> I doubt all this fits in RAM in your 4MB, which is why you need virtual memory. Virtual memory sucks for a lot of reasons (it also has benefits). Disk access is slower than RAM access, especially when you start talking about 68030 and up machines. In a graphic user interface system (like the Amiga and many Unix systems support), the simple depth arrangement of a window can cause ALL of the other windows to require their programs to be paged in just to refresh the window). It must be horrible to see a machine stutter as it refreshes its windows (due to waiting for disk access). I would think it would be MUCH faster to run SO many programs not in parallel, but in serial. I have no doubt that the amount of time required to do all the tasks would be less that way since the work that the computer would be doing would be RAM intensive instead of disk intensive (swapping). There are some cases when you want to look at the displays of more than one program at once, and if virtual memory is required to handle your WORST cases, it is beneficial. An operating system that makes your typical case your WORST case needs help. I bet on a 4MB Amiga, you could run 2 copies of all those programs listed in your PS (the programs need to be compiled/ported to Amiga) without requiring virtual memory. I bet you'd even have a Meg or 2 to spare. If you CAN use RAM, you should, particularly if you want PERFORMANCE. I once took a typical source file from my Amiga and put it on your typical state of the art PC (386 with 2MB RAM, big hard disk). I loaded it up into Brief, which is supposed to be the state of the art in program editors for the PC and has a price tag high enough that you expect great things from it. Well, it started to read my file and after about 10 seconds, it printed a blinking message in the lower left corner of the screen: "paging...". This occured for another half a minute and then it put me in edit mode. I hit the end key on the cursor pad and I went through the "paging..." sequence again for 30 seconds again, and finally I was at the end of file. Now the source file was less than 100K on the Amiga (about 5000 lines). The same files loads into a 2MB Amiga in less than 1 second in CygnusEd. A good example of how you can slow a machine down with virtual memory. Of course the PC is so limited in RAM that you have to inplement virtual memory (over and over again) when you write programs that need to deal with large amounts of data. Who needs it? Cheers! Mykes
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (01/12/91)
jsd@spotted.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: > rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: |> |> It also wastes a good deal of CPU time on that user interface. |> (for instance copying the entire contents of a window around when dragging, |> not to mention display postscript) > How often to you move a window? Sometimes four or five times a minute; that's what they're for; of course, if you find it takes you a couple of minutes to move a window _once_, you're not going to see this as such a handy operation. That's what "crippleware" means. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (01/12/91)
Thad, if I were you I don't think I'd bother getting in an argument with Mike about the best way to do file systems. He writes his own, right to the metal, on the Amiga, just for the fun of it. Watch for his forthcoming book. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
david@starsoft.UUCP (Dave Lowrey) (01/12/91)
In article <1991Jan11.225935.26086@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, Ray Cromwell writes: > In article <4402@mindlink.UUCP> a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) writes: > > > >rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > > > >> Once you see an Amiga, you'll buy it no matter what the price is, just > >> because its an Amiga. > >> > >> :-) :-) :-) > > > >Actually, seeing an Amiga is what made me decide not to buy one. The lousy > >quality text turned me off. I bought a Mac instead. I never regretted it. > > The exact opposite happens with me. Seeing the Mac's pricetag, quality, > non-multitasking, immediately turned me off. The Mac Classic is > almost as bad as a C64, I'd rather have a A500 which Consumer Report > voted Best Buy of the year. > Seeing the price of Mac software is what convinced me that I didn't want one. Seeing software reviews that say " And it's reasonably priced at $659.00." really turned me off! ^^^^^^^^^^ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- These words be mine. The company doesn't care, because I am the company! :-) Dave Lowrey | david@starsoft or {uhnix1,lobster}!starsoft!david Starbound Software Group | Houston, TX | "Dare to be stupid!" -- Weird Al Yankovic
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (01/13/91)
mykes@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) in <1991Jan12.092901.6922@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> wrote some stuff with which I disagree. Before we tackle this point by point, I would like to comment that I'm no stranger to the Amiga having used them since mid-1985 and my systems are not exactly "small", to wit (typical): CLI6> avail Type Size In-Use Available Largest chip 515,864 176,096 339,768 338,608 fast 8,388,568 1,931,736 6,456,832 3,532,304 $C00 0 0 0 0 >16M 0 0 0 0 total 8,904,432 2,107,832 6,796,600 CLI6> cpu The CPU is a 68020 with a 68881 The video is NTSC and system clocking is from a GenLock CLI6> info v Mounted Disks: Unit Size Used Free Full Errs Status Name DH61: 45M 90312 7 99% 0 Read/Write SYS6B DH60: 45M 83535 8093 91% 0 Read/Write SYS6A DH50: 302M 313402 291486 51% 0 Read/Write SYS5 DH40: 47M 93995 851 99% 0 Read/Write SYS4 DH24: 26M 53239 9 99% 0 Read/Write SYS2E DH23: 50M 101243 5 99% 0 Read/Write SYS2D DH22: 50M 93533 7715 92% 0 Read/Write SYS2C DH21: 50M 100712 536 99% 0 Read/Write SYS2B DH20: 50M 101203 45 99% 0 Read/Write SYS2A DF2: 880K 971 787 55% 0 Read/Write UNIX-PC.1991.01 DF1: No disk present RAM: 793K 1585 0 100% 0 Read/Write RamDisk DF0: 880K 813 945 46% 0 Read Only SupraBoot CLI6> >>Your post is a joke, right? You start bringing in fully RAM-resident >>files and you're gonna blow all the other tasks right out of the >>water due to lack of memory. Sorry, no joke intended. On a 4MB (5 including chip) with a floppy sized RAD:, you still have 3MB of RAM left over. Most AMIGA applications do just as I say you should. Consider 99% of the program editors. They all read 100% of your source files into RAM. Doing this in ONE BIG READ IS AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE FASTER than reading in 2K chunks. Why not read it in ONE CHUNK like CygnusEd does so it will be as fast as possible. I can name you a bunch more programs that also do big reads: DPaint, Devpac Assembler, AudioMaster, and so on and so on. Nice how you cleverly avoid and evade the ISSUE. WHAT does reading a file with "one big read" have to do with properly sharing system resources (RAM) with the OTHER programs or tasks that are running? Even with the Amiga whose "stats" are shown at the beginning, I'm UNABLE to unpack into your beloved RAM some of the files I need to process, and I had to resort to gyrations I don't have to do with UNIX (specifically the system I mentioned previously). SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0 UNIX: 1 >>Only with poorly-designed software systems have I seen an application >>such as a spreadsheet require all its data to be in memory. Now >>suppose I've used all RAM and need to add one more row? Guru city >>on a non-MMU, non-SVR4 Amiga. The common solution is to add more RAM or to dedicate more of your existing RAM (i.e. remove RAM disks, kill programs, etc.) so the spreadsheet (or whatever fits). I would hate to see a 4MB spreadsheet paged out to disk. The recalculation time would be soooooooooo sloooooooow. Why do you want to make a fast machine do things slowly? The machine is built for speed (like 25 DMA channels standard feature), so why not make it perform? Because my data is larger than total memory. Are you for real? :-) SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0 UNIX: 2 >>Or suppose I'm processing receivables, payables, tax statements, etc. >>all of which may reside in 30MB data files. No way is any >>"reasonable" system going to have sufficient RAM available (though >>I've seen some VAX systems with a 64MB RAM disk and 256MB main memory Obviously an application that generates more data than you have RAM for or one that is designed to work on database applications needs special consideration. But consider this. Before this year ('91) ends, you will see Amigas with 68040's and 64MB of RAM, so your 30MB data file WILL fit in RAM and if your database program DID read the whole thing in, you would only have to wait about 15 seconds for the disk load and would have a program that is zippy in response instead of one that makes you wait a second or more each time you access a record. By the way, a 25 MHz 64MB 68040 Amiga with 700MB hard drive will cost less than $10,000 (ouch). Right, special consideration that AmigaDOS does not automatically provide but UNIX does. SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0 UNIX: 3 Why read all 30MB when, with intelligent and professional methods, I can read only the 2K or so that I may need in just a few milliseconds? And to read/write the entire 30MB file requires at least 60MB on the disk: 30 MB for the original file plus 30 MB more for the "new" copy being created during a rewrite before the old copy is deleted and the bitmap updated. And gawd knows what you've just done to disk fragmentation. SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0 UNIX: 4 >>There are well-documented and widespread programming algorithms >>(index files, as one for-instance) to permit handling essentially >>unlimited amounts of data, and PROFESSIONAL products use those >>techniques. Toy products, like dinky 200x1000 spreadsheets, will >>suffer you their RAM-resident requirements. I use SuperPlan. It has a limit of 2K by 4K cells. I make some large spreadsheets (a few thousand cells for a stock market charting template) and have not problem fitting them in memory while I do a file transfer in the background in a term program, my editor, and DPaint at the same time. I do highly recommend the spreadsheet, it has a LOT of features and is VERY professional. It does support links between spreadsheets in RAM and on hard disk, so you can make spreadsheets larger than those that fit in RAM out of 2+ files. I use sc (spreadsheet calculator, a Lotus-like clone) which is free and is distributed with source code for use on UNIX systems, and I didn't find any apparent limits to the number of cells. Plus, on UNIX, it will run with all the stuff I showed yesterday, and more. I don't feel strongly about things such as spreadsheets, so this one's a tie. :-) SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0.5 UNIX: 4.5 >>And your comment: >> >> I can't stand to use some of these Unix applications that have >> been ported to the Amiga because they do buffer their I/O >> (seems like on a 12MB Unix machine there is not enough RAM to >> put a large source file and the OS in RAM at the same time. >> >>doesn't hold water. The system whose "ps -ef" is shown below sports >>only 4MB RAM, 300MB HD, and is a 68010-based demand-paged virtual- >>memory system which, in some respects, operates MUCH faster than my >>68020/68881 Amigas doing things such as uncompressing and unpacking >>4.5MB tar files (to 12.7MB source) and compiling GNU EMACS (FYI it's >>a 3B1): Oops. I lied. That specific 3B1 has only 3.5MB RAM. SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0.5 UNIX: 5.0 (Remember: I'm keeping score! :-) I doubt all this fits in RAM in your 4MB, which is why you need virtual memory. Aha. This time YOU lied. See the enclosed output of mapmem: Memory Allocation Total Memory = 3584 KBytes, 336K Kernel, 1708K Free (47.7%) 00000000: kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk 00040000: kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkKKKK.T...T..T.TTT...T...d..TT.....d...TDDK.TkTT. 00080000: .KK.d..TD.K.....T.KKKKKKKKKd...t..Kkkkkkkkk.KK.K.d..t..KKKKKKKKK 000c0000: KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKd.tt.....D....tt.KKKKKKKK 00100000: KKKk.TK.K.KKK..d..t.KK..tK.K.KKKKKKKKKKKKkkkkkkkkkd.dKtDKdddsDd. 00140000: tttdK.dtDt..t....s...Dt.kt..d..tkkkd.ddtttD.DDDKkDDDd..ddddddsD. 00180000: .k.K.D.D.dsKttt...dttt..d.tttD.sK....ttD.t..DTs.K.t..T.KDTdd.tdD 001c0000: .t.KT..t.Dd..t.t.t....d....t.t.Kd.d...D.kt..D....t..K.....D.ddds 00200000: d.D..std..t...t...t.....st..tD...d................t..........ddd 00240000: .D...tk.D...d...d..dK.Dt.....d...T.....d.t.t.d...t...t..t.t..... 00280000: ..t...d.....K..........d.ttd.....Dt..D........t.K...tdd......... 002c0000: .D...D....tt.t......t......dd..d.dd...T...sD....t.d..k.......... 00300000: ........sD....k.dt.d..K.kKs..tD..dd............dd...........T.d. 00340000: ..stt..t....Dt.ttt.T....t.....s....dkdKKs..s.........k.d.td..KKK 00380000: 003c0000: k - kernel virtual memory K - kernel data space t - text segment (shared) d - data segment (private) s - stack segment (private) T - shared library text D - shared library data [m]=memory alloc map [p]=page alloc map [q,x]=exit [+,-]=screen forward/back SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0.5 UNIX: 6.0 (Remember: I'm keeping score! :-) Virtual memory sucks for a lot of reasons (it also has benefits). Disk access is slower than RAM access, especially when you start talking about 68030 and up machines. In a graphic user interface system (like the Amiga and many Unix systems support), the simple depth arrangement of a window can cause ALL of the other windows to require their programs to be paged in just to refresh the window). It must be horrible to see a machine stutter as it refreshes its windows (due to waiting for disk access). Not my machine. NeXT yes, Mac II with A/UX yes. Dunno about Sun. I would think it would be MUCH faster to run SO many programs not in parallel, but in serial. I have no doubt that the amount of time required to do all the tasks would be less that way since the work that the computer would be doing would be RAM intensive instead of disk intensive (swapping). There are some cases when you want to look at the displays of more than one program at once, and if virtual memory is required to handle your WORST cases, it is beneficial. An operating system that makes your typical case your WORST case needs help. Oh ho. Now I understand. You want single-tasking. Like MS-DOS, right? :-) SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0.5 UNIX: 6.0 You: -1 I bet on a 4MB Amiga, you could run 2 copies of all those programs listed in your PS (the programs need to be compiled/ported to Amiga) without requiring virtual memory. I bet you'd even have a Meg or 2 to spare. If you CAN use RAM, you should, particularly if you want PERFORMANCE. Nope. You should look at that list again. That's GNU EMACS, GNU gcc, and other GNU stuff running, along with all the Ethernet, StarLAN, HDB uucp, and multiple users logged on. Even with that kind of a load, I can unpack the 4.5 MB GNU EMACS compressed tar file to its 12.7 MB source, and compile and link everything to form a new version in about 55 minutes. SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0.5 UNIX: 7.0 You: -1 I once took a typical source file from my Amiga and put it on your typical state of the art PC (386 with 2MB RAM, big hard disk). I loaded it up into Brief, which is supposed to be the state of the art in program editors for the PC and has a price tag high enough that you expect great things from it. Well, it started to read my file and after about 10 seconds, it printed a blinking message in the lower left corner of the screen: "paging...". This occured for another half a minute and then it put me in edit mode. I hit the end key on the cursor pad and I went through the "paging..." sequence again for 30 seconds again, and finally I was at the end of file. Now the source file was less than 100K on the Amiga (about 5000 lines). The same files loads into a 2MB Amiga in less than 1 second in CygnusEd. OK, you hate IBM-PCs (welcome to the club!) and you've just proved what I've been saying all along (in other newsgroups: '386 sucks dead bunnies through a straw, they're so slow). You've redeemed yourself! :-) SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0.5 UNIX: 8.0 You:0 A good example of how you can slow a machine down with virtual memory. Of course the PC is so limited in RAM that you have to inplement virtual memory (over and over again) when you write programs that need to deal with large amounts of data. Who needs it? Another anti-PC comment. Good! You're learning! :-) SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0.5 UNIX: 9.0 You:1 OK, let's tally up the score and round them just like the "Big Guys" do when they were trying to prove there were insufficient Amigas in the world to even consider porting "real" software to it: FINAL SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0.0 UNIX: 100 You: 0 Any more questions? :-) Thad P.S. Sure wish we had *.advocacy years ago. At least in THIS newsgroup it's known that everyone is sarcastic, punny, and up to no good! :-) P.P.S. And I hope no-one takes some of my satire (above) seriously; for years, fer crissakes, I've been one of the staunchest Amiga advocates and still am, but for professional work (as I detailed in another comp.sys.amiga.*) with the nature of my clients, we gotta go UNIX. And SVR4 on an Amiga platform is just fine with me! Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com ]
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (01/13/91)
In article <37927@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0.5 UNIX: 9.0 You:1 Many of your points against AmigaDOS are points against particular applications. There are big system-churning applications on UNIX, too... such as GNU Emacs. But I've been able to edit files larger than available memory on UNIX since the days when "available memory" meant "whatever is left out of 64K once you allow for the stack and static data". SCORE: PC-Ware applications: 0, Real programmers: 10. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
dac@prolix.ccadfa.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) (01/13/91)
In article <37927@cup.portal.com>, Thad P Floryan writes: > mykes@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) > in <1991Jan12.092901.6922@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> > > wrote some stuff with which I disagree. Before we tackle this point by point, > I would like to comment that I'm no stranger to the Amiga having used them > since mid-1985 and my systems are not exactly "small", to wit (typical): > Mounted Disks: > Unit Size Used Free Full Errs Status Name > DH61: 45M 90312 7 99% 0 Read/Write SYS6B > DH60: 45M 83535 8093 91% 0 Read/Write SYS6A > DH50: 302M 313402 291486 51% 0 Read/Write SYS5 > DH40: 47M 93995 851 99% 0 Read/Write SYS4 > DH24: 26M 53239 9 99% 0 Read/Write SYS2E > DH23: 50M 101243 5 99% 0 Read/Write SYS2D > DH22: 50M 93533 7715 92% 0 Read/Write SYS2C > DH21: 50M 100712 536 99% 0 Read/Write SYS2B > DH20: 50M 101203 45 99% 0 Read/Write SYS2A > DF2: 880K 971 787 55% 0 Read/Write UNIX-PC.1991.01 > DF1: No disk present > RAM: 793K 1585 0 100% 0 Read/Write RamDisk > DF0: 880K 813 945 46% 0 Read Only SupraBoot I've never ever ever going to boast about my 115Mb ever again. Sigh. > Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com ] Dac --
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (01/13/91)
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan)
in <1991Jan12.124244.11231@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> writes:
Thad, if I were you I don't think I'd bother getting in an argument
with Mike about the best way to do file systems. He writes his own,
right to the metal, on the Amiga, just for the fun of it. Watch for
his forthcoming book.
OK, thanks!
(Will just have to wait until AFTER the book is out, right? :-)
I'll have to learn some restraint. Too bad we didn't have an *.advocacy
groups years ago; I'm just now letting down my hair (so to speak, what little
is left :-) and writing some things I wouldn't have written in the "other"
newsgroups.
But filesystems and schedulers (re: his stance on serial-mono-tasking) are
two different beasts.
And I'm not exactly a stranger to OS design/implementation, just ask some
clients such as Dunegan-Endevco, Macys, UNITOTE/Regitel, etc.
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com ]thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (01/13/91)
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) in <7502@sugar.hackercorp.com> writes: In article <37927@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0.5 UNIX: 9.0 You:1 Many of your points against AmigaDOS are points against particular applications. There are big system-churning applications on UNIX, too... such as GNU Emacs. But I've been able to edit files larger than available memory on UNIX since the days when "available memory" meant "whatever is left out of 64K once you allow for the stack and static data". SCORE: PC-Ware applications: 0, Real programmers: 10. I know. And I know people who have GNU EMACS as their login shell. And you shouldv'e seen the wide-eyed look on a colleague's face when, right in the middle of composing a report for TeX in EMACS, I opened another window and made a binary patch to the kernel file ("/unix") within EMACS itself (yes, this can be done if you don't shift bytes). But Mike kept citing programs by name, and I couldn't resist a satirical rebuttal. I do disagree with some of his contentions, and I trust those did show through the ``scorekeeping "fun-'n-games".'' Another point Mike overlooked was the requirement for STACK under AmigaOS. Under UNIX, it's never a problem, it grows as needed "automagically." On all my Amigas, I have a default stack size of 70000 just to avoid any possibility of a guru given some unforeseen program or memory requirements; that stack setting is totally wasteful for 99.9% of what I do, but if I don't do it I'm guaranteed a guru in no time; even though it takes only about 15 or so seconds to reboot, I don't relish the thought of losing something that might be going on in another (background) process. Mike kept emphasizing SPEED! PERFORMANCE! etc. as if he was still using MS-DOS where one's only hope is a faster clock. And think of the WASTE with DOS on a 33 MHz '486 or Finder on a Mac IIfx sitting in a spin-busy wait-loop doing nothing until, say, the HD has transferred another sector of data or printing has finished. In terms of PEOPLE PRODUCTIVITY, a system like the present multi-tasking Amiga is great. I've "converted" and weaned-away-from-DOS many people who just couldn't believe what they were seeing when I showed them how I use Amigas to to "multiple" things at one time in REAL, not gimmicked, situations. Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com ]
lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren Rittle) (01/13/91)
Comment about Thad's system: <Utterly huge list of disk partitions deleted :-> >> RAM: 793K 1585 0 100% 0 Read/Write RamDisk >> DF0: 880K 813 945 46% 0 Read Only SupraBoot <Humm, looks like I left the wrong part of the list hehe :-> > >I've never ever ever going to boast about my 115Mb ever again. Thad writes: >And I'm not exactly a stranger to OS design/implementation, just ask some >clients such as Dunegan-Endevco, Macys, UNITOTE/Regitel, etc. <Note: these are just very recent postings... I could find many to support my opinion...> Thad, I love your style! (I know it is hard to believe that we are in c.s.a.a hearing a complement!) In the past week, we have seen output from various commands on your system (Oh, we have seen it before too), and I must say most impressive. And I love the little quotes we get ``And I'm not exactly a stranger to OS design/implementation,'' Every time I see a new message from you, I wonder what new bomb- shell you are going to drop on us, too cool. Thad, you boast in style, keep it up. Hey, when are we going to hear the life story of Thad, I'd bet that it would be quite interesting, as I'm studying to go into the same field you are in. Lest you think I jest (I am most sincere), here are my system stats. In your fine tradition, I will let my commands do my talking. R(0);T(00.250)> avail Type Available In-Use Maximum Largest chip 738696 307600 1046296 715440 fast 4668232 3720344 8388576 4641416 total 5406928 4027944 9434872 4641416 R(0);T(00.149)> ps Waiting: task ID 0020108A, pri 20, name "input.device" task ID 0020721C, pri 5, name "gvpscsi.device" task ID 0021AC96, pri 5, name "trackdisk.device" unit 1 task ID 00208A06, pri 5, name "trackdisk.device" unit 0 task ID 003FB9EC, pri 0, name "narrator.device" Process ID 00251FD8, pri 20, name "NewPop" Process ID 0020CC30, pri 10, name "DH0" for DH0: Process ID 0021A738, pri 10, name "File System" for DF1: Process ID 00219BA8, pri 10, name "File System" for DF0: Process ID 003FE198, pri 5, name "CNN" Process ID 00422D70, pri 5, name "CNN" for CLI 5 & ID 0041D940 Process ID 0040E278, pri 5, name "CNN" for CLI 2 Process ID 004086E0, pri 5, name "ID" for ID: Process ID 002283B8, pri 5, name "NULL" for NULL: & CLI 3 & CLI 6 Process ID 003882D8, pri 4, name "RexxMaster" Process ID 0037CB78, pri 4, name "Snap" Process ID 0039E598, pri 4, name "WSH_Completer" Process ID 00381530, pri 4, name "XSize" Process ID 003EDBE8, pri 1, name "CygnusEd" Process ID 003A3FD0, pri 1, name "DMouse" Process ID 003AC438, pri 1, name "modem0.device" CLI 5> ID 00426D60, pri 0, cmd. "!.rexx" Process ID 0041D940, pri 0, name "ARexx" CLI 2> ID 0041C778, pri 0, cmd. "C:VLT" CLI 3 ID 00250E08, pri 0, cmd. "C:back" CLI 6 ID 00425B90, pri 0, cmd. "C:ispell" Process ID 003842D8, pri 0, name "RAM" for RAM: & this output Process ID 003988E8, pri 0, name "WPing" Ready to run: none. Running: CLI 4> ID 0040C2C8, pri 0, cmd. "ps" R(0);T(00.150)> setcpu SYSTEM: 68030 68882 FASTROM (INST: CACHE BURST) (DATA: CACHE BURST) R(0);T(00.350)> info Mounted disks: Unit Size Used Free Full Errs Status Name DF0: No disk present DF1: No disk present DH0: 81M 163109 857 99% 0 Read/Write root RAM: 30K 63 0 100% 0 Read/Write ram [Ed Note: Think I need more hard-drive space...] Volumes available: ram [Mounted] root [Mounted] R(0);T(00.433)> assign Volumes: ram [Mounted] root [Mounted] Directories: apps root:Apps autodocs root:LC/Compiler_Headers/autodocs C root:C cando root:Apps/CanDo CHeads root:LC/Compiler_Headers DEVS root:Devs env ram:env FONTS root:Fonts games root:Games include root:LC/include L root:L lc root:LC/c lib root:LC/lib LIBS root:Libs man root:Manuals MF root:TeX nethack root:Games/NetHack PxS root:Apps/PxS quad ram:t RCS root:C rexx root:Rexx S root:S SYS root: t ram:t TeX root:TeX work root:Work Devices: AUX CNN CON DF0 DF1 DH0 ID IP NULL PAR PATH PIP PIPE PRT RAM RAW SER SPEAK TAPE UUSER R(0);T(01.633)> echo hello there | tail | cat | head | grep th.\* hello there R(0);T(00.733)> todayls --> ls -lP | grep "Jan 13" | "do forever; parse pull inline; if eof(stdin) then leave; say substr(inline,41); end" | mc --> grep "Jan 13" | "do forever; parse pull inline; if eof(stdin) then leave; say substr(inline,41); end" | mc --> "do forever; parse pull inline; if eof(stdin) then leave; say substr(inline,41); end" | mc --> mc --> execio stem lines. root:Manuals R(0);T(01.100)> [Ed Notes: Stupid tricks to show off, sorry...] Have a nice sunday, Loren J. Rittle -- ``In short, this is the absolute coolest computer device ever invented!'' -Tom Denbo speaking about The VideoToaster by NewTek ``your pathetic architectures won't support it'' - Kent Paul Dolan ``Think about NewTek's VideoToaster! Now think about the Amiga!'' Loren J. Rittle lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren Rittle) (01/13/91)
In article <37977@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) in <7502@sugar.hackercorp.com> >writes: > > In article <37927@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) > writes: > > SCORE: AmigaDOS: 0.5 UNIX: 9.0 You:1 > Many of your points against AmigaDOS are points against particular > applications. There are big system-churning applications on UNIX, > too... such as GNU Emacs. But I've been able to edit files larger > than available memory on UNIX since the days when "available memory Anyone know why this article never made it out my way? I am refering to Peter's article that Thad replied to. Loren J. Rittle -- ``In short, this is the absolute coolest computer device ever invented!'' -Tom Denbo speaking about The VideoToaster by NewTek ``your pathetic architectures won't support it'' - Kent Paul Dolan ``Think about NewTek's VideoToaster! Now think about the Amiga!'' Loren J. Rittle lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
yorkw@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Willis F York) (01/13/91)
>> since mid-1985 and my systems are not exactly "small", to wit (typical): >> Mounted Disks: >> Unit Size Used Free Full Errs Status Name >> DH61: 45M 90312 7 99% 0 Read/Write SYS6B >> DH60: 45M 83535 8093 91% 0 Read/Write SYS6A >> DH50: 302M 313402 291486 51% 0 Read/Write SYS5 >> DH40: 47M 93995 851 99% 0 Read/Write SYS4 >> DH24: 26M 53239 9 99% 0 Read/Write SYS2E >> DH23: 50M 101243 5 99% 0 Read/Write SYS2D >> DH22: 50M 93533 7715 92% 0 Read/Write SYS2C >> DH21: 50M 100712 536 99% 0 Read/Write SYS2B >> DH20: 50M 101203 45 99% 0 Read/Write SYS2A >> DF2: 880K 971 787 55% 0 Read/Write UNIX-PC.1991.01 >> DF1: No disk present >> RAM: 793K 1585 0 100% 0 Read/Write RamDisk >> DF0: 880K 813 945 46% 0 Read Only SupraBoot Great Googly Moogly... over 800M of disk space! (Well almost) What DO you DO with yur amiga? Back up abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov ? Gee I just thought haveing a High density drive would make me a Power user............. Sigh........ Time to get a 3000! I'll fill ALL the slots with Hard drives! -- yorkw@ecn.purdue.edu Willis F York ---------------------------------------------- Macintosh... Proof that a Person can use a Computer all day and still not know ANYTHING about computers.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (01/14/91)
In article <37977@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > Another point Mike overlooked was the requirement for STACK under AmigaOS. > Under UNIX, it's never a problem, it grows as needed "automagically." On all > my Amigas, I have a default stack size of 70000 just to avoid any possibility > of a guru given some unforeseen program or memory requirements; that stack > setting is totally wasteful for 99.9% of what I do, but if I don't do it I'm > guaranteed a guru in no time; even though it takes only about 15 or so seconds > to reboot, I don't relish the thought of losing something that might be going > on in another (background) process. Yeh, but just think. We could be using Multifinder or Windows and have to allocate 2 Meg to "Microsoft Word" even when we're only editing a 10K file. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (01/14/91)
In article <1991Jan10.010956.8925@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >IBMs I dont even wanna talk about. They have an operating system that >reminds me of Kaypro's running CP/M, and a CPU which reminds me of Z80's. Please do not blaspheme the Z80 by connecting it in anyway to the IBM architecture PC's. It took many years for the IBM's and clowns to match what I could do on my 6MHz Z80B's. /craig
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (01/14/91)
lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren Rittle)
in <1991Jan13.141911.17636@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> writes:
[...]
Anyone know why this article never made it out my way?
I am refering to Peter's article that Thad replied to.
Good question. SOMETHING seems to be wrong. I've seen (in other newsgroups)
public messages claiming that all mail to me is bouncing (which would explain
why only 3 new emails since last Wednesday, contrasted with the normal 50+ per
day), plus over 20 phone calls since Friday asking me why email and news is
screwed,
AND
everything I've sent to announce@iris.eecs.ucdavis.edu or to Dan at
zerkle@iris.eecs.ucdavis.edu seems to be ending up in a black hole or the
Great Bit Bucket in the Sky. Not even bouncing, just "loost" :-)
Is anyone aware of "net" problems anyplace?
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com ]glmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matt Crowd) (01/14/91)
In article <7512@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <37977@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >> Another point Mike overlooked was the requirement for STACK under AmigaOS. >> Under UNIX, it's never a problem, it grows as needed "automagically." On all >> my Amigas, I have a default stack size of 70000 just to avoid any possibility >> of a guru given some unforeseen program or memory requirements; that stack >> setting is totally wasteful for 99.9% of what I do, but if I don't do it I'm >> guaranteed a guru in no time; even though it takes only about 15 or so seconds >> to reboot, I don't relish the thought of losing something that might be going >> on in another (background) process. > >Yeh, but just think. We could be using Multifinder or Windows and have to >allocate 2 Meg to "Microsoft Word" even when we're only editing a 10K file. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. Peter, 2 Meg for a 10k doc is taking it a bit too far.........as for multifinder, allocating 1meg to each application regardless of size is nausiating. Matt Crowd.
lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren Rittle) (01/14/91)
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com ]a writes: > lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren Rittle) > in <1991Jan13.141911.17636@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> writes: > > [...] > Anyone know why this article never made it out my way? > I am refering to Peter's article that Thad replied to. > > Good question. SOMETHING seems to be wrong. I've seen (in other newsgroups) > public messages claiming that all mail to me is bouncing (which would explain > why only 3 new emails since last Wednesday, contrasted with the normal 50+ per > day), plus over 20 phone calls since Friday asking me why email and news is > screwed, The article in question finally made it here. One day and 10 hours after it was mailed! (I have not checked for ten hours, so it could have come in as soon as 24 hours after it was mailed.) This would not bother me, except for the fact that our site got a higher numbered message from Peter's site (From Peter to be precise) in only a few hours at worst! > zerkle@iris.eecs.ucdavis.edu seems to be ending up in a black hole or the Don't know about this, I was able to mail to that site (not tha person...), as of a few days ago. Strange. Loren J. Rittle -- ``In short, this is the absolute coolest computer device ever invented!'' -Tom Denbo speaking about The VideoToaster by NewTek ``your pathetic architectures won't support it'' - Kent Paul Dolan ``Think about NewTek's VideoToaster! Now think about the Amiga!'' Loren J. Rittle lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
swalton@solaria.csun.edu (Stephen Walton) (01/15/91)
In article <37977@cup.portal.com>, thad@cup (Thad P Floryan) writes: >Another point Mike overlooked was the requirement for STACK under AmigaOS. Thad makes a good point here. I would merely point out (hence the cross post) that there is an AmigaMail article by Bryce Nesbitt called "How to Find the Stack Size at Run Time." It is on page II-73 of AmigaMail. Such code should be put into every program written to run on the Amiga, IMHO. Steve
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (01/15/91)
In article <1991Jan14.092706.10970@marlin.jcu.edu.au> glmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matt Crowd) writes: >Peter, > 2 Meg for a 10k doc is taking it a bit too far.........as for >multifinder, allocating 1meg to each application regardless of size is >nausiating. Word 4.0 requires a 512k partition. I just flipped over to the Finder, launched Word with a 512k partition and opened a 540k text file. Took about 2 seconds to open and no time to use the scroll bar to get to any part of the file. The default partition size for an app is 384k, but good programmers will put in a smaller setting if their program can get by in less. I just pulled up the partition size info for a dozen utilities and they range from 128k to 700.
rjc@pogo.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (01/15/91)
In article <1991Jan15.015644.24380@rice.edu> jsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >In article <17564@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >|> In article <1991Jan10.194127.20625@rice.edu> jsd@spotted.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >|> >|> >|> The DSP in the NeXT is SLOW, and integer only. >|> >|> Well, it's actually 24 bit fixed point. Still, that limits its usefulness >|> tremendously. >|> Opps. Thats what I meant. I usually think of fixed-point as integer math because it always seems that way to me. >Correct me if I'm wrong but the DSP on the NeXT is much more usefull than >not having one at all. If would be useful if the NeXT actually used it effectively, and shared it. Wouldn't it be nice if NeXT software could be compiled to multiprocess with the DSP and the 68040? Wouldn't it be nice if someone implemented a software version of the Discrete Cosine Transform so all NeXT users could have JPEG compression instead of just NeXTDimension? >|> Workstations just about require these days is at least 1.5-2 MFLOPS or better. > >I guess you haven't seen the stats on the 040. It does 2 MFLOPS at 25 MHz. MIPS and MFLOPS are pretty much meaningless as benchmarks. I've heard motorola quotes of 25mips and 3 mflops on a 68040, this was 1 year ago. It has yet to be seen. > >PS: One of my Amiga friends (doubt@owlnet.rice.edu) suggested that I say > something nice about the Amiga before I get labled as another > Dan Beinstien (SP?). So here it is: The Amiga makes a great game machine. Maybe I should reciprocate? The NeXT makes a great...umm..uh..I dunno, it really has no market, I guess its a great Unix Workstation, but I'll hold off on that until I see the next generation of Sparc Machines. I seriously doubt you were being sincere in saying something nice. Everyone knows the 'game machine' image is something Amiga has been trying to get rid of for years. Its more of an insult. The Amiga does have great games, but that's not all it is, clearly its one of the best multimedia machines around, and has enjoyed a great hardware architecture for years, before the NeXT was even dreamed of. When 68040 boards are released for the Amiga soon, what will be your arguement then? The DSP? What if the 68040 board contains a 96001/2 DSP (surpassing the NeXT) Then what? I think comparing machines with faster cpu clocks/newer processors is dumb. Just as soon as 040s ship, 040 cards will be out for the Amiga, so for now, how about comparing the NeXT/030 to the Amiga3000? Or how about ending this thread. If you don't want to buy an Amiga, you can always by a NeXT. Hanging around in Amiga constantly bombarding Amiga users with comparisions presents a negative image to potential buyers Try bugging the IBM groups, or the Sun/Sparc groups and see what they think of Sun Sparc vs NeXT. > >rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr >r ___ _ r >r /__ | \ You thought that was a flame??? r >r ___/hawn |__\ube That was just the pilot light!! r >r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu r >rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (01/15/91)
lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren Rittle) writes: > Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com ]a writes: >> lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren Rittle) writes: >>> [...] Anyone know why this article never made it out my way? I am >>> refering to Peter's article that Thad replied to. >> Good question. SOMETHING seems to be wrong. I've seen (in other >> newsgroups) public messages claiming that all mail to me is bouncing >> (which would explain why only 3 new emails since last Wednesday, >> contrasted with the normal 50+ per day), plus over 20 phone calls >> since Friday asking me why email and news is screwed, > The article in question finally made it here. One day and 10 hours > after it was mailed! (I have not checked for ten hours, so it could > have come in as soon as 24 hours after it was mailed.) This would not > bother me, except for the fact that our site got a higher numbered > message from Peter's site (From Peter to be precise) in only a few > hours at worst! Don't let a little matter of a day or two get you down. I'm still getting reorganization votes, as of yesterday at least. Voting closed December 16th. The net can be as much as 3 MONTHS across, counting both propagation and spool expiry times. Also, news is done by a "flooding" algorithm, and it is rarely the case that two articles from the same person reach your site along the same path. >> zerkle@iris.eecs.ucdavis.edu seems to be ending up in a black hole or the > Don't know about this, I was able to mail to that site (not tha > person...), as of a few days ago. Not the easy way from here; see separate article. > Strange. Loren J. Rittle > ``In short, this is the absolute coolest computer device ever > invented!'' -Tom Denbo speaking about The VideoToaster by NewTek > ``your pathetic architectures won't support it'' - Kent Paul Dolan Ah, fame! ;-) > ``Think about NewTek's VideoToaster! Now think about the Amiga!'' /// It's Amiga /// for me: why Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> \XX/ anything less? -- Convener, COMPLETED comp.sys.amiga grand reorganization.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan15.015644.24380@rice.edu> jsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >In article <17564@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >Correct me if I'm wrong but the DSP on the NeXT is much more usefull than >not having one at all. You missed the point. Of course having something is more useful than having nothing. That's not what you have here. You get a DSP in return for MONEY. That same money could have been spent on something far more useful, such as accelerated graphics. Or it could have been left as an option, to cut the cost of a machine. >|> Workstations just about require these days is at least 1.5-2 MFLOPS or better. >I guess you haven't seen the stats on the 040. It does 2 MFLOPS at 25 MHz. I have known about the 68040 for more than a year. However, NeXT chose to use the DSP when they were building 68030 machines and calling them workstations. Most of the competing 68030 workstations (like HP, Apollo, etc) had faster math options as well as a basic 1/3 MFLOPS 68882. A good floating point DSP can peak at 50 MFLOPS, which would be quite useful for many of the workstation type operations NeXT is supposedly interested in serving. >r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu r -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing, gonna be alright" -Bob Marley
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (01/16/91)
In article <1160@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >In article <1991Jan15.024807.25384@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@pogo.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > What makes people think that the 56001 is worthless just because it can >only do fixed point arithmetic? Even if it was completely worthless for >computations (which it's not) it's still the reason the NeXTs have better >sound than Amigas. The only thing you need to get better than 8 bit sound on any machine is a better D-A converter. Sure, a DSP can drive a D-A, but so can a CPU, a Amiga style DMA slot, etc. You pay $2.00 or less for a CD quality (44.1/48kHz samples, 16 bit resolution) stereo D-A these days. Better sound is hardly a justification for the whole 56001 subsystem. Certainly a DSP is nice to have around for manipulating the sound. Even necessary, if you only have one or two channels and want to combine separate logical voices on the fly without tying up your main CPU or adding additional sound channels. My guess what that Jobs put the DSP in simply for flash factor. There were already machines out with display processors, but no one had a DSP yet. If it doesn't do anything useful for a good number of users, why else would you put it in? It's certainly a good music processor, but anyone really into computer music would want more capability. If the NeXT had RJ11 jacks on the back and software to let anyone run a V.32 modem or fax, you might convince me the money's well spent. >-Aaron Harsh -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing, gonna be alright" -Bob Marley
jsd@elf.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan15.024807.25384@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@pogo.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: |> |> I seriously doubt you were being sincere in saying something nice. Everyone |> knows the 'game machine' image is something Amiga has been trying to get |> rid of for years. Its more of an insult. The Amiga does have great games, |> but that's not all it is, clearly its one of the best multimedia machines |> around, and has enjoyed a great hardware architecture for years, before the |> NeXT was even dreamed of. |> I was being sincere. And yes, the Amiga is probably the best computer for multimedia (unless your willing to pay lots and lots of money). I think that once Amiga gets rid of its game-machine image it will really sell. Probably the thing that would best help it would be high quality traditional productivity software (word-p, spreadsheet, etc.) bundled free with the machine.
news@rice.edu (News) (01/16/91)
In article <17613@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: |> You pay $2.00 or less for a CD quality (44.1/48kHz |> samples, 16 bit resolution) stereo D-A these days. Then why didn't/doesn't Commode put it in its computers????? |> -- |> Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" |> {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy |> "Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing, |> gonna be alright" -Bob Marley
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (01/16/91)
jsd@elf.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: > I think that once Amiga gets rid of its game-machine image it will > really sell. Probably the thing that would best help it would be high > quality traditional productivity software (word-p, spreadsheet, etc.) > bundled free with the machine. Nope. The universal experience has been that this is a horrid idea. First, it isn't "free"; the costs of development and maintenance have to be paid, so it increases the price of the bundle. If the software is also "high quality", it increases the price a _lot_; quality costs. This higher cost hurts your sales compared to unbundled competitive machines. Second, a version of Gresham's law takes place; like silver drove out gold, bundled software drives out developers, so the _really high quality_ software never gets developed, and you end up _degrading_ the software available for your machine. Bundled software can be the kiss of death for your machine's market respectability. You just can't get people to buy something they think they've already gotten for "free", but you sure do get to listen to them complain about the lack of adequate tools until the cows come home. Consider the effect of the several editors bundled with the Amiga on the sales of the much superior Cygnus Ed (or the creation of any other commercial superior programmers' editor), for example. It's taken a _long_ time to build up an installed base such that there is a sufficient number of users willing to ignore the "free" editor software that comes with the Amiga and _pay_ for something really good, to make the risk of developing this product seem acceptable. Now, with the ice broken, a competitor is champing at the bit to enter from the wings. Today's premier example is the Mac, which severely depressed its software market until Apple smartened up and unbundled the productivity software, at which point the really superior word processors and such for which the Mac is justly famous sprang out of the woodwork in droves. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
mykes@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (01/16/91)
In article <42520@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <1991Jan14.092706.10970@marlin.jcu.edu.au> glmwc@marlin.jcu.edu.au (Matt Crowd) writes: > >>Peter, >> 2 Meg for a 10k doc is taking it a bit too far.........as for >>multifinder, allocating 1meg to each application regardless of size is >>nausiating. > >Word 4.0 requires a 512k partition. I just flipped over to the Finder, launched >Word with a 512k partition and opened a 540k text file. Took about 2 seconds >to open and no time to use the scroll bar to get to any part of the file. > >The default partition size for an app is 384k, but good programmers will put in >a smaller setting if their program can get by in less. I just pulled up the >partition size info for a dozen utilities and they range from 128k to 700. You miss the point. You must do a bunch of operations to change an APP's partition size. And you cannot change it while the app is running. And if you use a 384K or 512K partition for you Word 4.0, you can't load a big document into it. Cheers!
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (01/17/91)
In article <1991Jan15.201647.16637@rice.edu> jsd@elf.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >I was being sincere. And yes, the Amiga is probably the best computer >for multimedia (unless your willing to pay lots and lots of money). >I think that once Amiga gets rid of its game-machine image it will >really sell. Probably the thing that would best help it would be high >quality traditional productivity software (word-p, spreadsheet, etc.) >bundled free with the machine. The Amiga will never shuck the "game machine" image. Not as long as Commodore sells the Amiga 500 for $499. In fact it may not be in Commodore's best interest to do so. The A500 is the Premier Home Computer, the C64 of the 90's, and as such it is selling well. If the A500 were dropped, then the Amiga would be rather in the place the NeXT is now: a "business" computer with little software, small user base, and highly questionable future. The fact that the A2000, A2500, and A3000 are all still called "Amiga" relates them to the A500. Do you notice that everybody's main compatability complaint with the A3000 is "it doesn't run all the games"? This illustrates that it is perceived by many as the reigning king of game computers, the only 32 bit game computer a homeowner can buy. But the Amiga has the video niche all to itself. Hold on to this. The Amiga may make a showing in personal Unix workstations; this remains to be seen. -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (01/17/91)
In article <1991Jan16.054633.14564@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >In article <42520@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >>Word 4.0 requires a 512k partition. I just flipped over to the Finder, launched >>Word with a 512k partition and opened a 540k text file. Took about 2 seconds >>to open and no time to use the scroll bar to get to any part of the file. >> >>The default partition size for an app is 384k, but good programmers will put in >>a smaller setting if their program can get by in less. I just pulled up the >>partition size info for a dozen utilities and they range from 128k to 700. > >You miss the point. You must do a bunch of operations to change an APP's >partition size. And you cannot change it while the app is running. And >if you use a 384K or 512K partition for you Word 4.0, you can't load a big >document into it. "bunch of operations"? Select icon. Type command-I. Select numeber in text field and type new number. Run applicaion. It takes a second or so to quit the application and maybe several seconds to restart. Uh, what exactly do you call a big document? I said I opened a 540k file in Word set with a 512k partition. I don't think it is all that shabby to work with a 680k program, 540k data file, and 400-odd k of dictionary and help files in a 512k partition. I know it sounds awkward to mess with partitions, but it ain't. Would I prefer the greater flexibility of the Amiga? Yes. Would I trade some of the features I have on my setup to get it (rhetoricaly, natch)? Maybe. The only way I'll ever really know is if I can compare my setup with an Amiga setup of someone who does much of the same kinds of tasks that I do.
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (01/17/91)
In article <1991Jan16.053729.14144@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >jsd@elf.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: >Bundled software can be the kiss of death for your machine's market >respectability. You just can't get people to buy something they think >they've already gotten for "free", but you sure do get to listen to them >complain about the lack of adequate tools until the cows come home. > >Consider the effect of the several editors bundled with the Amiga on the >sales of the much superior Cygnus Ed (or the creation of any other >commercial superior programmers' editor), for example. It's taken a >_long_ time to build up an installed base such that there is a I agree with you, up to a point. Some basic tools need to be included. A text editor or two. (not a word processor). A language of some kind. (like Basic or Arexx). And so on. I guess I've been influenced by the software mix that comes with almost any Unix system. In terms of advanced editors, compilers, etc, I agree with you; but for basic tools that let you get the job done, I think there is a need. >sufficient number of users willing to ignore the "free" editor software >that comes with the Amiga and _pay_ for something really good, to make >the risk of developing this product seem acceptable. Now, with the ice >broken, a competitor is champing at the bit to enter from the wings. This doesn't explain the lack of a good solid spreadsheet on the Amiga, though ... there are probably other factors at work as well. >Kent, the man from xanth. ><xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "God was able to create the world in only seven days because there was no installed base to consider." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com (01/17/91)
Witch hunt? If you post stupid shit, that is exactly what you will get. - Doug - Doug_B_Erdely@Cup.Portal.Com
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (01/17/91)
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes: > xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >> Bundled software can be the kiss of death for your machine's market >> respectability. You just can't get people to buy something they think >> they've already gotten for "free", but you sure do get to listen to >> them complain about the lack of adequate tools until the cows come >> home. >> Consider the effect of the several editors bundled with the Amiga on >> the sales of the much superior Cygnus Ed (or the creation of any >> other commercial superior programmers' editor), for example. > I agree with you, up to a point. Some basic tools need to be included. > A text editor or two. (not a word processor). A language of some kind. > (like Basic or Arexx). And so on. Sure; trouble is, Ed is actually a pretty competent editor, though the only examples I've got left are the ones on my original C= disks, by now. When you have an editor that can do a _lot_ of desirable tasks, like accept and execute macros, etc., then the buyer is looking at the next purchase in terms of _incremental_ utility, but the seller is pricing it in terms of _total_ development costs. If only Edit had been available, a better programmer's editor might have come quicker. Edit is plenty good to write code, just a bit crufty for use to maintain large suites of software further down the pike. (Of course, this question is considerably confounded by the many PD emacs ports that quickly appeared, since lots of us prefer emacs to lots of the second best stuff.) > I guess I've been influenced by the software mix that comes with > almost any Unix system. Yep, me too. Once you see all that neat stuff, going back to vanilla MS-DOS is pretty painful. That's why the MKS Toolkit sells so well. > In terms of advanced editors, compilers, etc, I agree with you; but > for basic tools that let you get the job done, I think there is a > need. Sure, or you can't _write_ the better tools. The competition between the PD stuff and the commercial stuff is as big a problem as the competition between the bundled stuff and the commercial stuff. Eventually, given a big enough market, you attract the kind of team effort that puts PD stuff to shame, but still you are talking about pretty small companies in at least the Amiga market, and they can't compete on price alone with the development resources of the micro vendor, even though the independent has a lot more motivation to produce a quality product: its survival may depend on its premier product in a way the micro vendors would not depend on a bundled add-on. >> It's taken a _long_ time to build up an installed base such that >> there is a sufficient number of users willing to ignore the "free" >> editor software that comes with the Amiga and _pay_ for something >> really good, to make the risk of developing this product seem >> acceptable. Now, with the ice broken, a competitor is champing at the >> bit to enter from the wings. > This doesn't explain the lack of a good solid spreadsheet on the > Amiga, though ... there are probably other factors at work as well. Yep. The cheap PC-Clones that can run the really mature spreadsheet software are easily able to capture the business market and elbow the Amiga _and_ any software out of the way. If a vendor were to develop a really high quality spreadsheet program to sell into the minor part of the Amiga market that uses the Amiga for business stuff, the software would have to be priced high enough to cost more than the IBM-PC market software with a PC-clone thrown in. I wouldn't develop into a market like that either; I'd fully expect to lose my shirt in the process. When you write for a business market, you're writing for folks who can afford to buy the machine to run the software they like, rather than buy software to run on the machine they have like the home market, and that changes the marketplace a lot. (And I'll frankly admit that if someone _gave_ me an Excel or other supreme quality spreadsheet perfectly ported to the Amiga, I'd probably reformat the disks to store some graphics data, and use the manuals for tinder. Some of us don't _want_ bean counters' software, under any circumstances.) Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
jsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) (01/17/91)
In article <38121@cup.portal.com>, Doug_B_Erdely@cup.portal.com writes: |> Witch hunt? If you post stupid shit, that is exactly what you will get. |> |> - Doug - |> |> Doug_B_Erdely@Cup.Portal.Com I don't post "stupid shit". If you think I do, show me something that I posted that constitutes as being "stupid shit". -- rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r ___ _ r r /__ | \ You thought that was a flame??? r r ___/hawn |__\ube That was just the pilot light!! r r jsd@owlnet.rice.edu r rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (01/18/91)
In article <1991Jan15.202608.16902@rice.edu> news@rice.edu (News) writes: >In article <17613@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >|> You pay $2.00 or less for a CD quality (44.1/48kHz >|> samples, 16 bit resolution) stereo D-A these days. >Then why didn't/doesn't Commodore put it in its computers????? We already have stereo sound in the system, so there's no overriding need for yet another way to make sound. Sure, the built-in sound isn't CD quality. There may come a time when it makes sense to do just that, though there's always a limit on what features you have time to add to a system when you're developing it. Adding additional sound devices to an Amiga system is more complex than adding sound to a machine without sound, since you need to consider control and mixing of multiple sound channels. So this already costs a bit more than it would to drop into a system without sound. We had a great deal of new things to worry about on the A3000. Additional sound would be nice, sure, but it wouldn't buy you much. Games aren't going to use it, because that same hardware isn't on the A500. Musicians aren't going to use it; they have MIDI keyboards to actually generate music, and use the Amiga for sequencing and all, but not usually as a sound generator. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing, gonna be alright" -Bob Marley
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/05/91)
In article <1991Jan11.225935.26086@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes:
Sure. They been shipping for several weeks but haven't arrived. GO
ahead and order one, and see how long it takes, everytime I try to
price one from a place that supposedly sells them, they tell me
they don't have any.
They have been shipping since December.
NeXT's with 040s CAN"T ship in large quantities because the 040 isn't
shipping in huge quantities. What are they gonna do, sell a NeXT with a
coupon saying 'Send this in, and in 4 weeks we will mail your CPU for
installation.'?
NeXTs goal for this year is around 40,000 machines. Their plant is
designed to handle around 100,000 machines a year(from what I hear).
Think Moto. can meet those needs. Sure they can.
We have about a dozen machines at PSU, and we have upgraded them *all*
to the 68040. There is even a new NeXTstation sitting behind me.
Most of the people in the NeXT group are either developers, or
got most of the original batch of NeXTs that Jobs had setting in a
warehouse.
Bzzzzzt. Wrong. Graduate student in computer science here. That
means I should know better than to argue with you guys, but someone
has got to try and save the world :-). I imagine quite a few students
read the group too. Anyway, at least you know the signal to noise
ratio is much higher there, and there is plenty of great help
available.
Even if they were shipping, I wouldn't buy one, unless a few things
happen first:
1) Jobs replaces that lame 56001 DSP with a 96001/2, and shares the DSP
better.
Yeah, the 56001 is only a 10mip DSP, give me something better! CD
quality sound isn't enough.
2) Gets CHEAP color (say under $1000)
hahahhahahah. The monitor costs twice that amount. Try pricing color
monitors from Sony, etc. and see how much they cost. Maybe Jobs
should let us connect the NeXT to a TV?
3) AT&T Unix
Screw SYSVR4. Why is it better than BSD and Mach, anyway?
4) Licenses the Amiga custom chips and installs them in the NeXT so I
can have some awesome games.
Actually, from talking to some people at NeXT, I'm under the
impression that the NeXT can do decent animation. It's just a matter
of people writing the games. I guess when you spend this much money
on a computer, you have to get some work done first.
Anyway, spend $500 and get the A500 to play games, and a NeXTstation
for when you want to get some work done. At $500, I might even buy
one.
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/05/91)
In article <1991Jan15.024807.25384@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@pogo.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes:
If would be useful if the NeXT actually used it effectively, and shared it.
Wouldn't it be nice if NeXT software could be compiled to multiprocess with
the DSP and the 68040? Wouldn't it be nice if someone implemented a software
version of the Discrete Cosine Transform so all NeXT users could have
JPEG compression instead of just NeXTDimension?
What do you mean by multiprocess the DSP and 68040? They both run at
the same time(this can't be what you meant).
MIPS and MFLOPS are pretty much meaningless as benchmarks. I've heard
motorola quotes of 25mips and 3 mflops on a 68040, this was 1 year ago.
It has yet to be seen.
Moto. claimed 20 mips and 3.5Mflops. NeXT tells you what you get:
15mips and 2.5Mflops
Maybe I should reciprocate?
The NeXT makes a great...umm..uh..I dunno, it really has no market, I guess
its a great Unix Workstation, but I'll hold off on that until I see
the next generation of Sparc Machines.
Hang on. Let's what till...doesn't cut it. The new Sparc II's are
out. Waiting for the NeXT generation doesn't cut it. We'll compare
EVERYONES next generation with everyone elses when the time comes.
I seriously doubt you were being sincere in saying something nice. Everyone
knows the 'game machine' image is something Amiga has been trying to get
rid of for years. Its more of an insult. The Amiga does have great games,
but that's not all it is, clearly its one of the best multimedia machines
around, and has enjoyed a great hardware architecture for years, before the
NeXT was even dreamed of.
True. The Amiga used to look damn impressive. Now the Mac is starting
to move into it's market. What exactly do you do with a multimedia
machine anyway? Play the "Killing Game Show"?
When 68040 boards are released for the Amiga soon, what will be your
arguement then? The DSP? What if the 68040 board contains a 96001/2 DSP
(surpassing the NeXT) Then what?
Soon. I've got Amigoids telling me the 040 is here. I bet Amiga OS
2.0 is almost here for the entire Amiga line too. And to answer your
last question, what if the Sun explodes and we all die tomorrow?
I think comparing machines with faster cpu clocks/newer processors is
dumb. Just as soon as 040s ship, 040 cards will be out for the Amiga, so
for now, how about comparing the NeXT/030 to the Amiga3000? Or how
about ending this thread. If you don't want to buy an Amiga, you can
always by a NeXT. Hanging around in Amiga constantly bombarding
Amiga users with comparisions presents a negative image to potential
buyers Try bugging the IBM groups, or the Sun/Sparc groups and see what
they think of Sun Sparc vs NeXT.
Because NeXT doesn't sell an 030 machine!!!! Therefore, you're going
to have to wait longer for it than the 040 machine.
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/05/91)
In article <17348@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes:
Yes. It has 1008x800 (or 1008x1024) and has a rock solid
display.
But can you get a million pixels with color!!!!! :-) :-). Apple
people got cockey when they could finally buy cheap color. I'm just
joking of course.
That seems to compare with the NeXT monochrome. Personally, I
use the Moniterm large screen version of the display on my A3000,
and it works fine.
How is animation on the larger screen? The NeXT actually does quite
well for having so much data to manipulate.
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/05/91)
In article <1991Jan10.151816.13893@rice.edu> jsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes:
First, I was the not the one who started comparing NeXT and Amigas.
Second, The NeXT is not a multiuser workstation. It may have mutli-tasking
but I don't think many places are using it as a "multiuser" workstation.
What do you mean by multiuser? In our lab, we have sometimes have 2-3
people on the server. Everyone goes for the machine with 16MB of RAM.
Third, compared to a Sparc, it loses but only when it comes to
speed. I Sparc doesn't have all of the support hardware that the
NeXT has (for example, the digital signal processor or whatever
its called). Also, the NeXT has a better user interface (compared
to a Sun w/ XWindows or SunTools) and it costs less.
WRONG!!! The 040 NeXT is comparable the the SPARC 1+ in speed. Which
is one of the the reasons that I'm doing my class project on it. The
other reason is that Sun doesn't believe in shipping an ANSC C
compiler with their machine. (i.e. No function prototypes)
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/05/91)
In article <1991Jan10.164423.23644@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes:
It also wastes a good deal of CPU time on that user interface.
(for instance copying the entire contents of a window around when dragging,
not to mention display postscript) The NeXT (slab) is not very expandible.
How much CPU does the the interface take up while you aren't dragging
windows around on the screen?
The DSP in the NeXT is SLOW, and integer only. Even further, the NeXT
It's a 10mip processor. The Amiga 500 is less than 1 mip. Also,
Bzzzzt. The DSP does single precision floating point numbers.
Please, reread your "Don't buy the NeXT it doesn't..." propaganda
published by NCW.
doesn't seem to share its DSP effectively. On the Amiga, the blitter
chip is shared nicely. Its possible to 'OwnBlitter()' but it won't
lock it completely. On the NeXT you'll usually see 'DSP Already in Use'
I Keep seeing people harp about the fact that the NeXT has a DSP,
but I have not seen it used much, unlike the Amiga in which a huge
majority of software shares the custom chips effectively.
Don't know what to tell you. You're right. Perhaps there are
technical reasons for it.
Sorry, thate was a mistake, it was supposed to read 'Takes months to
get a NeXT' The NeXT is very backlogged, I priced them once, and everyone
told me 'We have none in stock, and it may be a month or 2 before we
get any.' vapor.
Try again. I hope you get one.
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/05/91)
In article <17564@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:
While a DSP is a nice idea, I think the NeXT would have been far better off
with a video accelerator from the start. There are all kinds of fast and
cheap processors out there, the kind of things you find in laser printers,
Look at the printer benchmarks in comp.benchmarks. The NeXT
printer(the NeXT itself) faired quite well.
that would have made far more impact for the same price than the DSP.
Especially a DSP that can't be used for mathematics; something most
Workstations just about require these days is at least 1.5-2 MFLOPS or better.
Dave! I didn't expect you to make such a big mistake! Aren't you an
engineer? The NeXT does at least 2.5MFLOPS.
Of course its not NeXT's problem. That doesn't eliminate the problem. If you
need a computer today, you don't buy a NeXTStation.
Of course you do, the NeXT is the hottest thing to hit the market
since the original Amiga. There's a new bad boy on the block, move
over Amiga.
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/05/91)
In article <1991Jan10.123112.29464@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
Where have we heard this story before? Bill Gates saying "most people
don't need multitasking" until Windows 3.0 struggled out of the shop
years late and barely functional? Steven Jobs saying "most people don't
need color" after the NeXT couldn't be delivered with it at an
affordable price? IBM saying "nobody's really doing multimedia with
Of course, everyone would like color. It's just a matter of justify
the extra cost for it. What do you use color for? Some people would
rather buy a 386 instead of the NeXT just so they can get color. But
the NeXT monochrome display looks much better in my opinion. Color
doesn't add nearly as much functionality to the computer as does the
17" 92 dpi high resolution display and Display Postscript.
microcomputers" until they finally started playing catchup, five years
late? Apple saying "what would you ever want to have running with your
current job, except a print spooler or a download, choose one" after the
Finder bogosity kept the Mac from delivering usable multitasking? Atari
saying "why would you want an OS that supports processor upgrades" after
TOS locked the whole Atari software base to the 68000? The Mac and
OS/2/PM and X-windows folks, trying to explain why programming a GUI has
to be worse than having a root canal?
How much multimedia are you doing with your computer?
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/05/91)
In article <MbXTe7S00io8IFr1A0@andrew.cmu.edu> ko0m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin Richard O'Toole) writes:
Oh goody, more NeXT/Amiga haggling. Well, I own an Amiga, and I work
with NeXT 040's. I only have a 2000 at home, with a dinky 1 meg of
memory and no hard disk. Guess what? I still feel it responds faster
in many situations than the NeXT. Not all mind you, but switching from
one application to another, or launching a second application while the
first one is thinking about something still seems more refined on the
Amiga with floppies than the NeXT with a hard disk.
How much memory do you have? 16MB makes the machine more responsive.
Let's see some Amigoid twist this into meaning that the machine is
unusable with 8MB of RAM.
The NeXT is a nice machine with some spiffy graphics, but they slow down
the machine too much. Also, will people please stop moaning about the
interlace flicker? Just buy a little better monitor and you'll be fine.
Yes the flicker is annoying on the older Ami's, but if things are set
up properly it is very tolerable.
Just buy more RAM for your NeXT. It's cheaper than a better Amiga
monitor.
I have only played with 2.0 on the Amiga for a few minutes at a local
store and I wasn't impressed. I didn't really get to see it do that
much, and it appears to be a major step up over 1.3, but I was
disappointed. To be honest however, I like 1.3 better than the
interface on the NeXT. (That one is going to cause trouble, I can feel
Hahahahhaha. Yeah right. Those file cabinets are great.
it in my bones.) Some of the features of the NeXT windowing environment
are good, like being able to store directories and applications at the
top of a viewer. But overall the response time on resizing windows and
the like can be really poor.
Enjoy whatever machine you have, but for myself I'd rather spend an
eternity with Workbench 1.3, than a century with a NeXT '040.
Hmmm. Your choice.
-Mikeandrey@beyond.caltech.edu (Andre Yew) (05/05/91)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >In article <1991Jan11.225935.26086@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > Even if they were shipping, I wouldn't buy one, unless a few things > happen first: > 1) Jobs replaces that lame 56001 DSP with a 96001/2, and shares the DSP > better. Please explain why you'd want to use the 96001 over the 56001 in a host processor situation? Are you trying to do DSP the same time you play "Their Finest Hour", raytrace and read your news? 32-bit addressing on the 96001 onto its own RAM would make that convenient. Also, why is the 56001 lame? >Yeah, the 56001 is only a 10mip DSP, give me something better! CD >quality sound isn't enough. And the 96001 is only a 13.33 MIPS chip. You can get CD quality sound from almost anything -- it's not a function of the processor chip you're using, especially since it's not doing any sampling. An IBM-clone could do 16-bit, 44.1 kHz sampling. Also, I don't think the NeXT can do CD-quality sound by itself. It has a CODEC chip which compresses sound samples, which are probably not 16-bits to begin with. Perhaps you could oversample to get to CD-quality, but I don't know if the sampling software does this, and I don't know if your CODEC is fast enough. >-Mike Andre -- Andre Yew andrey@through.cs.caltech.edu (131.215.131.169)
andrey@beyond.caltech.edu (Andre Yew) (05/05/91)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >In article <1991Jan10.164423.23644@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > The DSP in the NeXT is SLOW, and integer only. Even further, the NeXT >It's a 10mip processor. The Amiga 500 is less than 1 mip. Also, >Bzzzzt. The DSP does single precision floating point numbers. >Please, reread your "Don't buy the NeXT it doesn't..." propaganda >published by NCW. The DSP56001 does 24-bit fixed-point arithmetic. Internally, it has 56-bit registers to preserve precision during calculations. It has a 24-bit data bus and therefore outputs 24 bit results. > doesn't seem to share its DSP effectively. On the Amiga, the blitter > chip is shared nicely. Its possible to 'OwnBlitter()' but it won't > lock it completely. On the NeXT you'll usually see 'DSP Already in Use' > I Keep seeing people harp about the fact that the NeXT has a DSP, > but I have not seen it used much, unlike the Amiga in which a huge > majority of software shares the custom chips effectively. The DSP56001 actually has an interesting interface for talking to other processors, the host interface port. It also has pins that can be used to time DMA transfers into and out of its own memory. The host processor can activate one of 32 vectors in the DSP through the HIP and launch the DSP on some task. Perhaps the DSP is much more complicated than the Amiga blitter, such that if you allowed sharing, the context-switches would take forever. I mean, this chip is loaded -- on-chip, hardware stack, pipelines, lots of registers, so saving its state and loading another on might be impractical. Also, the 56001 has a small program memory space (64 KW, where each word is 24 bits long), so you couldn't keep multiple programs as well as the switcher program in memory and would have to DMA the program from outside, after you save its old state outside somewhere, of course. >Don't know what to tell you. You're right. Perhaps there are >technical reasons for it. That's my best guess. >-Mike Andre -- Andre Yew andrey@through.cs.caltech.edu (131.215.131.169)
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (05/05/91)
In article <1991Jan10.203137.1248@watdragon.waterloo.edu> tschiller@trillium.uwaterloo.ca (Thorsten Schiller) writes: >> > Actually, just for the sake of interest, I read in PC WEEK the >other week (don't ask me which issue :-) that Motorolla IS, in fact, >shipping the '040 in large quanities.... Do with this knowledge as you >wish :-) > > Thorsten Schiller (shadow@watcsc.uwaterloo.ca) In the NeXT article in this months Forbes it said that even the figure of 8000 personal workstations (I think) was high since more than half of those sales figures were for upgrade boards to the 040. It also said that the NeXT factory was only operating at 1/10 of its capacity. This talk of back orders sounds a little fishy to me. I get the idea that NeXT may not be around about this time NeXT year. NCW
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (05/05/91)
In article <24719@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: > >The Amiga will never shuck the "game machine" image. Not as long as >Commodore sells the Amiga 500 for $499. In fact it may not be in > >The fact that the A2000, A2500, and A3000 are all still called "Amiga" >relates them to the A500. Do you notice that everybody's main compatability Well, I don't know... most people still don't know what an Amiga is! What about the 3000UX ...is it a game machine? I personally believe everyone is greatly under estimating what the toaster will do for the Amiga sort of like people under estimated MTV. The toaster and all the the video effects it creates will mytholigise Amiga power. Remember that few people understand anything about computers. The whole purpose of many video effects is that they have a certain power. It is like art or dance... it is a form of nonverbal communication. Now Amiga will be the DTV machine and people will know that. Schools and many other organizations will use Amiga to create videos and poeple will be interested to know how it was done, especially if they see their own images involved. "Video" I believe is perceived as a new form of power and Amiga will be strongly associated with this power and the association will carry over into anything else the Amiga does. Just about everyone I know would like to make their own video. Further, if George Bush gets impeached, the tough IBM father figure will be tainted. (If you don't get it, don't even ask!) NCW Send all flames straight to Hell.
mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) (05/05/91)
In article <-b2Gmg1*1@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > In article <MbXTe7S00io8IFr1A0@andrew.cmu.edu> ko0m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin Richard O'Toole) writes: > How much memory do you have? 16MB makes the machine more responsive. > Let's see some Amigoid twist this into meaning that the machine is > unusable with 8MB of RAM. No, it doesn't make it unusable, it just means that it isn't AS useable. I know, I know, if it's too slow just buy more memory, but that just seems like throwing money at the problem, not really solving its shortcomings - kind of like putting a larger gastank in your car to increase its range rather than tuning it up. You'll also notice that an Amiga with only CHIP RAM can be doggy slow at times, but all it takes is 1/2 Meg of FAST RAM to make it nice and responsive. > -Mike -Matt Pierce
mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) (05/05/91)
In article <.v1G&v0*1@cs.psu.edu>, melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > In article <17564@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > > While a DSP is a nice idea, I think the NeXT would have been far better off > with a video accelerator from the start. There are all kinds of fast and > cheap processors out there, the kind of things you find in laser printers, > > Look at the printer benchmarks in comp.benchmarks. The NeXT > printer(the NeXT itself) faired quite well. I think you missed his point. I and several of the CS faculty persons here at EWU agree with Dave Haney's point about a video accelerator. Just think how fast the display would be if it had it's own graphic coprocessor instead of using the CPU. Since the DSP is very under utilized (not used here @ EWU) we could have benefitted from a graphic coprocessor of some sort. The nExt is an interesting machine, its just that it is very....eccentric. [bunch of stuff deleted] > Of course you do, the NeXT is the hottest thing to hit the market > since the original Amiga. There's a new bad boy on the block, move > over Amiga. > > -Mike I think you forgot your smiley face, so here's a spare :^) -Matt Pierce
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/05/91)
In article <andrey.673399369@beyond> andrey@beyond.caltech.edu (Andre Yew) writes: >melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > >>In article <1991Jan11.225935.26086@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >>Yeah, the 56001 is only a 10mip DSP, give me something better! CD >>quality sound isn't enough. > > And the 96001 is only a 13.33 MIPS chip. You can get CD quality sound >from almost anything -- it's not a function of the processor chip you're >using, especially since it's not doing any sampling. An IBM-clone could do >16-bit, 44.1 kHz sampling. > As I understand it the 56001 is an integer chip and the 96001 is a floating-point chip. That is the primary difference. Ray-tracing is certainly helped by the 96001, but digitized sound certainly wouldn't be.a >>-Mike > Andre > >-- >Andre Yew andrey@through.cs.caltech.edu (131.215.131.169) -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/05/91)
In article <lpbG-s+=1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > hahahhahahah. The monitor costs twice that amount. Try pricing color > monitors from Sony, etc. and see how much they cost. Maybe Jobs > should let us connect the NeXT to a TV? Sounds like an excellent idea to me. > Screw SYSVR4. Why is it better than BSD and Mach, anyway? I can't speak ofr SysV R4, but I'm quite familiar with the ugly bits of V7, System III, System V, and BSD. I must say that SVR3.2 has fewer ugly bits than any of the others. We just got some Sparcstations in at work, and doing system admin on them was pure agony. It was like Jobs had taken all the ugly stuff in V7 and made it bigger, with no attempt to help make the job of the guy administering it easier. Previously I'd hated working on the older System III boxes at work, but after digging around configuring those Sparcs to our network they're almost fun. The System V idbuild stuff is as good as I've seen on any system, and better than the mess most PC users have to put up with. And then there's Sendmail. I thought MMDF was tough to configure. I tore it out and replaced it with smail 2.5. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/05/91)
In article <.v1G&v0*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > Of course you do, the NeXT is the hottest thing to hit the market > since the original Amiga. There's a new bad boy on the block, move > over Amiga. Well, except that the Amiga started out cheaper than the competition. The NeXT starts out more expensive. Here's a question: why would someone get a NeXT rather than a 386 box running Microsoft Windows? Or a Mac? (I'd direct followups to comp.sys.next.advocacy if I could) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) (05/05/91)
In article <1991May5.125041.24784@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <lpbG-s+=1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >> Screw SYSVR4. Why is it better than BSD and Mach, anyway? > >I can't speak ofr SysV R4, but I'm quite familiar with the ugly bits of >V7, System III, System V, and BSD. I must say that SVR3.2 has fewer ugly bits >than any of the others. We just got some Sparcstations in at work, and >doing system admin on them was pure agony. It was like Jobs had taken all >the ugly stuff in V7 and made it bigger, with no attempt to help make the >job of the guy administering it easier. Steve Jobs is responsible for Sun's software?! Wow, I'll bet Bill Joy is pissed about that. Steve Wootton stevew@ecn.purdue.edu stevew@pur-ee.uucp stevew%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm.bitnet
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/05/91)
In article <1991May5.125627.24864@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
Well, except that the Amiga started out cheaper than the competition. The NeXT
starts out more expensive. Here's a question: why would someone get a NeXT
rather than a 386 box running Microsoft Windows? Or a Mac?
Because the NeXT is a faster machine with a better OS, a better
display, a Digital Signal Processor, ... you know everything that the
NeXT has. Windows doesn't even compare. Ever run Toolbook on a Model
70? I program on the PC at work, and I've never seen such a piece of
shit. I can't wait until IBM nukes Microsoft for putting us through
this Windows joke. If IBM does, I might actually have a little
respect for them. The Macs are ok, but you don't get nearly as much
"power" for the money. They still have the advantage of having a lot
more software though.
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/05/91)
In article <1553@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes:
I think you missed his point. I and several of the CS faculty persons here at
EWU agree with Dave Haney's point about a video accelerator. Just think how
fast the display would be if it had it's own graphic coprocessor instead of
using the CPU. Since the DSP is very under utilized (not used here @ EWU) we
could have benefitted from a graphic coprocessor of some sort. The nExt is an
interesting machine, its just that it is very....eccentric.
NeXT needed to have sound in the machine. An IBM beep wasn't good
enough. I think a graphics coprocessor would have added to much to
the cost. People are already complaining that the price is too high.
The NeXTDimension board is available(will be) for people who want to
do some serious animation.
Anyway, tell NeXT. Perhaps their NeXT generation of machines might
satisfy your needs. How much animation do you want? The NeXT is very
capable of doing some now.
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/05/91)
In article <1991May05.070044.15476@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
In the NeXT article in this months Forbes it said that even the figure of
8000 personal workstations (I think) was high since more than half of
those sales figures were for upgrade boards to the 040. It also said
that the NeXT factory was only operating at 1/10 of its capacity. This
talk of back orders sounds a little fishy to me. I get the idea that
NeXT may not be around about this time NeXT year.
Someone yesterday said there were 1500 upgrade boards included in that
figure. Hmmm. Have to read it for myself. And yes, as I have said
the factory is capable of producing 100,000 computers a year.
-Mikemelling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/06/91)
In article <1549@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes:
No, it doesn't make it unusable, it just means that it isn't AS useable. I
know, I know, if it's too slow just buy more memory, but that just seems like
throwing money at the problem, not really solving its shortcomings - kind of
like putting a larger gastank in your car to increase its range rather than
tuning it up. You'll also notice that an Amiga with only CHIP RAM can be
doggy slow at times, but all it takes is 1/2 Meg of FAST RAM to make it
nice and responsive.
RAM is cheap boys and girls. The transition is nearly complete.
64K -> 640K -> 16MB.
-Mikenwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (05/06/91)
In article <&i4Gzkv*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >How much animation do you want? The NeXT is very >capable of doing some now. > >-Mike > > You should see all the articles and advertisements for animation software in my engineering magazines! Animation will be a big market. NCW
andrey@beyond.caltech.edu (Andre Yew) (05/06/91)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > As I understand it the 56001 is an integer chip and the >96001 is a floating-point chip. That is the primary difference. >Ray-tracing is certainly helped by the 96001, but digitized sound >certainly wouldn't be.a Actually, the 56001 can do fixed-point as well as integer. The problem with this is that as you get towards really small numbers, you can't just move your decimal point and still get the same number of significant digits, and so you start losing precision. Also, the range of fixed point numbers is more limited than floats. Another difference -- and I don't know if you'd consider this primary or not -- is the 32-bit addressing of 32-bit sized data. Compare this to the 56001 with only a 16-bit address bus and a 24-bit data bus. And the reason it's named the 96001 is because it uses 96 bits of precision internally when doing calculations. Of course, the 96001 runs at a much higher clock speed than the 56001. > -- Ethan >"Brain! Brain! What is Brain?" Andre -- Andre Yew andrey@through.cs.caltech.edu (131.215.131.169)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May5.125041.24784@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > hahahhahahah. The monitor costs twice that amount. Try pricing color > monitors from Sony, etc. and see how much they cost. Maybe Jobs > should let us connect the NeXT to a TV? Sounds like an excellent idea to me. When TV's go high definition maybe. > Screw SYSVR4. Why is it better than BSD and Mach, anyway? I can't speak ofr SysV R4, but I'm quite familiar with the ugly bits of V7, System III, System V, and BSD. I must say that SVR3.2 has fewer ugly bits than any of the others. We just got some Sparcstations in at work, and Most people claim that SPARCs are great. You think Amiga owners are adament! doing system admin on them was pure agony. It was like Jobs had taken all the ugly stuff in V7 and made it bigger, with no attempt to help make the job of the guy administering it easier. Previously I'd hated working on the older System III boxes at work, but after digging around configuring those Sparcs to our network they're almost fun. The System V idbuild stuff is as good as I've seen on any system, and better than the mess most PC users have to put up with. And then there's Sendmail. I thought MMDF was tough to configure. I tore it out and replaced it with smail 2.5. We use zmailer on the computer science machines. The claim is Sendmail is broken beyond repair. -Mike
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May05.171856.13398@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes:
You should see all the articles and advertisements for animation software
in my engineering magazines! Animation will be a big market.
You'll soon be seeing more of NeXT in those magazines. So sit down
when you open your new issues over the NeXT several months.
-Mikees1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May05.171856.13398@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >In article <&i4Gzkv*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >> >>How much animation do you want? The NeXT is very >>capable of doing some now. >> >>-Mike >> >> >You should see all the articles and advertisements for animation software >in my engineering magazines! Animation will be a big market. > > > NCW That's funny. What frame-rate can you get? 5fps? Will programmers have to work around postscript to get a decent rate? -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May5.185506.5004@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <1991May05.171856.13398@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >>In article <&i4Gzkv*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>> >>>How much animation do you want? The NeXT is very >>>capable of doing some now. >>> >>You should see all the articles and advertisements for animation software >>in my engineering magazines! Animation will be a big market. >> >> NCW > > That's funny. What frame-rate can you get? 5fps? Will >programmers have to work around postscript to get a decent rate? > -- Ethan I've seen Mathematica animations on the Next which are clearly faster than 5 fps (4 gray levels, perhaps 400 x 400 res.), so I think Ethan's guess is way off the mark...does anyone have some actual figures? Are there any animation packages out there for Next? I'm curious...what is the maximum frame rate that can be acheived on the Amiga, and how does this speed compare to other platforms, assuming the same resolution and number of bit-planes? I know that I have seen some excellent HAM animations on an A2000 that seemed reasonably fast, say about 20 fps, but nothing that really blazed. As a parallel question, what is the maximum frame-rate for animations where the frames are not in memory, but being read from disk during the animation? BTW, my (limited) experience is that animation already is a big market in engineering; most CAD/FEM/rendering packages have animation capabilities already. -- Don DeVoe ddev@wam.umd.edu
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May5.185506.5004@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
That's funny. What frame-rate can you get? 5fps? Will
programmers have to work around postscript to get a decent rate?
Actually, I was refering to the NeXT Dimension board for high-end
graphics. I have posted an article by someone at NeXT on some
preliminary results that he got with small programs on low-end NeXTs.
-Mikees1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/06/91)
In article <.ibG1#$*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <1991May5.185506.5004@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > > > That's funny. What frame-rate can you get? 5fps? Will > programmers have to work around postscript to get a decent rate? > >Actually, I was refering to the NeXT Dimension board for high-end >graphics. I have posted an article by someone at NeXT on some >preliminary results that he got with small programs on low-end NeXTs. > >-Mike Mike! Mike! You've got to say that quite clearly! 8-) Considering that the NeXT Dimension board, whenever it is released, will cost $1,500 or so, and that it also won't run on the slab NeXT but instead will require the expandable NeXT which is, I believe, about $2,000-$3,000 more expensive, AND it will require the color monitor, which is about $1,000 more expensive, we're talking about $5,000 more than the $3,200 or so educational price that you love to keep quoting. BTW, I'd quote it too if I were praising the NeXT. 8-) -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May5.160725.4509@en.ecn.purdue.edu> stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) writes: > Steve Jobs is responsible for Sun's software?! Wow, I'll bet Bill Joy is > pissed about that. Ack! My fingers are too used to flaming Jobs. Joy should take that as a compliment: even when I try to flame him my subconscious derails me. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/06/91)
In article <fw5G?kx*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > should let us connect the NeXT to a TV? > Sounds like an excellent idea to me. > When TV's go high definition maybe. No, really. TV output has *created* a whole market for the Amiga: desktop video. Apple and Microsoft are scrambling to catch up, while advertising that they're already ahead (which is the sort of lie you can expect from them these days). > Most people claim that SPARCs are great. You think Amiga owners are > adament! Most people where? At colleges, where you have a built-in pool of free system admins? We paid a bundle for those boxes and the software they run, and the first thing we have to do is start ripping that software out! You had to do the same, which pretty much proves my point. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/06/91)
In article <&i4Gzkv*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > NeXT needed to have sound in the machine. An IBM beep wasn't good > enough. I think a graphics coprocessor would have added to much to > the cost. It doesn't in the $500 Amiga 500. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May5.212810.28755@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: > I'm curious...what is the maximum frame rate that can be acheived on the > Amiga, 60 FPS, of course! > As a parallel question, what is > the maximum frame-rate for animations where the frames are not in memory, > but being read from disk during the animation? 60 FPS, again. > BTW, my (limited) experience is that animation already is a big market in > engineering; most CAD/FEM/rendering packages have animation capabilities > already. Yes, I've seen the best they can do: Autodesk Animator. Pretty proimitive compared to what's available on the Amiga. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/06/91)
In article <fe4G6ev*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > > In article <1991May5.125627.24864@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > Well, except that the Amiga started out cheaper than the competition. The NeXT > starts out more expensive. Here's a question: why would someone get a NeXT > rather than a 386 box running Microsoft Windows? Or a Mac? > Because the NeXT is a faster machine with a better OS, a better > display, a Digital Signal Processor, ... you know everything that the > NeXT has. Yes I do, so I'll ask again. Why would an end-user, not a technical type, get a NeXT rather than a 386 box running Microsoft Windows? Or a Mac? For the Amiga I can point to the lower price, the various niche markets, and so on. What has the NeXT got to attract J. Random *USER*. > Windows doesn't even compare. Ever run Toolbook on a Model > 70? I program on the PC at work, That makes my point. > and I've never seen such a piece of > shit. I can't wait until IBM nukes Microsoft for putting us through > this Windows joke. Are you kidding? Have you seen the OS/2 joke? That's IBM's answer to Windows. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
kris@tpki.toppoint.de (Kristian Koehntopp) (05/06/91)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >Most people claim that SPARCs are great. You think Amiga owners are >adament! Ever tried to install a UUCP connection from an XENIX/386 to a Sparcstation or a Cube? Ever had to do system administration on a Sparc? Kristian Kristian Koehntopp, Harmsstrasse 98, 2300 Kiel, +49 431 676689 (lisp 'kristian) NIL
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (05/06/91)
In article <=-bG-!+=1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > >In article <1991Jan15.024807.25384@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@pogo.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > > > If would be useful if the NeXT actually used it effectively, and shared it. > Wouldn't it be nice if NeXT software could be compiled to multiprocess with > the DSP and the 68040? Wouldn't it be nice if someone implemented a software > version of the Discrete Cosine Transform so all NeXT users could have > JPEG compression instead of just NeXTDimension? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JPEG compression is built into the software starting with 2.0. The DSP is not shared because of data integrity. That is the DSP is for real time processing and data aquisition. The DSP runs its own code seperate from the CPU. That is it relies on the cpu and I/O processors for DMA to the harddrive. Since the DSP does not run an OS it is difficult to do a task switch. If you want to write code for a task switch, be my guest, I won't be using it because I need real time response for digital recording. Also the DSP is a processor but not a general purpose processor. It has no MMU capability. The DSP is a processor with its own local memory and when it runs a process it runs it out of local memory not shared memory. > >What do you mean by multiprocess the DSP and 68040? They both run at >the same time(this can't be what you meant). > > MIPS and MFLOPS are pretty much meaningless as benchmarks. I've heard > motorola quotes of 25mips and 3 mflops on a 68040, this was 1 year ago. > It has yet to be seen. > >Moto. claimed 20 mips and 3.5Mflops. NeXT tells you what you get: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peak performance, not sustained. You have to have true 0 wait state memory, keep the CPU busy for every clock cycle, have very few task task switches or page faults and pray. >15mips and 2.5Mflops ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is realistic and accurate. BTW - MIPS is very deceptive. Also for those of you talking about not being able to upgrade a NeXTslab; how many workstations are upgradeable? Not SUN, ask people who bought SUN 4's, SPARC 1s, 1+s they can't upgrade to a SPARC 2.Also you have NO idea if NeXT will or will not upgrade the slabs if a new slab comes out. They may or may not. If they don't then they must keep making '040 boards for a while for replacement. If they do then they can dedicate new production to the latest machine. This is what they did with the cube. They use trade-in boards to fix broken '030 cubes. For those of you talking about executable bloat. Look at a workstation like a SUN running X. The executables are large. If you have less than 12-16meg of memory don't try to run much because it will crawl. GUI code on UNIX takes memory both real to run and secondary (disk) to store. BTW - I have a PC and WP takes up a couple of megabytes on my PC harddrive so it's not a 'NeXT thing' for applications to take up diskspace. Try running most new Mac and PC applications from floppy. You can't because they fit on multiple floppies. > > Maybe I should reciprocate? > The NeXT makes a great...umm..uh..I dunno, it really has no market, I guess > its a great Unix Workstation, but I'll hold off on that until I see > the next generation of Sparc Machines. > >Hang on. Let's what till...doesn't cut it. The new Sparc II's are >out. Waiting for the NeXT generation doesn't cut it. We'll compare >EVERYONES next generation with everyone elses when the time comes. The NeXT can hold its own against SPARC 1+ and 2s. It places somewhere between the two depending on what benchmark you run. > When 68040 boards are released for the Amiga soon, what will be your ~~~~~~~~~~~ The operative word here is WHEN. > arguement then? The DSP? What if the 68040 board contains a 96001/2 DSP > (surpassing the NeXT) Then what? IF, IF, and more IF. > >Soon. I've got Amigoids telling me the 040 is here. I bet Amiga OS >2.0 is almost here for the entire Amiga line too. And to answer your >last question, what if the Sun explodes and we all die tomorrow? > > I think comparing machines with faster cpu clocks/newer processors is > dumb. Just as soon as 040s ship, 040 cards will be out for the Amiga, so ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '040s are shipping. I upgraded my cube. BTW - For those of you who think that an '040 upgrade to the Amiga will be $800. Don't count on it. Motorola wants $700 a piece for the chip Qty 1000, paid in advance. You add marketing, development, and manufact. cost and my guess is you will be well above $1400. The cheapest Mac '040 board is above $2000. > for now, how about comparing the NeXT/030 to the Amiga3000? Or how > about ending this thread. If you don't want to buy an Amiga, you can > always by a NeXT. Hanging around in Amiga constantly bombarding > Amiga users with comparisions presents a negative image to potential > buyers Try bugging the IBM groups, or the Sun/Sparc groups and see what > they think of Sun Sparc vs NeXT. > >Because NeXT doesn't sell an 030 machine!!!! Therefore, you're going >to have to wait longer for it than the 040 machine. You could always go back in time. > >-Mike KeNT -- /* -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 */
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May6.115535.8982@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >> As a parallel question, what is >> the maximum frame-rate for animations where the frames are not in memory, >> but being read from disk during the animation? > >60 FPS, again. > I'm afraid your hard drive is a tad faster than mine. My Quantum can read slightly greater than 1MB/sec I believe if it is nice and contiguous, but if each frame is 32K then that makes 1920K/sec. However, 60fps is irrelevant. 30 and 24 are far more meaningful. -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
stevew@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) (05/06/91)
In article <1991May6.115535.8982@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Yes, I've seen the best they can do: Autodesk Animator. Pretty proimitive >compared to what's available on the Amiga. The output looks nice, IMHO. What about Animator is primitive in comparison to what software on the Amiga? Steve Wootton stevew@ecn.purdue.edu stevew@pur-ee.uucp stevew%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm.bitnet
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (05/07/91)
ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) asks: > I'm curious...what is the maximum frame rate that can be acheived on the > Amiga, and how does this speed compare to other platforms, Playback from memory? Since personals (including the Amiga) ordinarily only use the cpu for this, the playback rates are a function of cpu speed, video ram access, resolution, delta encoding method and the amount of data actually changing between frames. That's a lot of variables ;-). Even if the latter two are comparable, you may not be able to find the exact same resolution (read: total number of changed bytes) between machines. And the the cpu/videoram speed can vary a lot too, of course. Hmm. As a general statement, I'd say that the Amiga was no better/worse than most other platforms. I've seen Amiga animations played back on good VGA cards; and have done so myself on non-Amiga 68K machines. No big deal. The _factual_ reasons why the Amiga has a great animation reputation are: 1. Programmers have been supporting it for a much longer time on the Amiga. 2. It could do double-buffering, which some others didn't have at first. That's it. But now that PC programmers have recently "discovered" that VGA cards have double-buffering after all (as detailed in my article in the alt.pixutils group a coupla weeks ago -- I'm not a PC user, but do try to watch for new developments), there'll soon be better PC animations and tools available, for example. The same will also happen eventually for most other machines. best - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (05/07/91)
In article <5fDh02JY072Q01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes: > >Also for those of you talking about not being able to upgrade a NeXTslab; >how many workstations are upgradeable? Thats very different. Your talking about systems that are strictly p professional and expensive and that have there own professional market where they can be traded around like construction equipment. > >For those of you talking about executable bloat. Look at a workstation >like a SUN running X. The executables are large. If you have less than >12-16meg of memory don't try to run much because it will crawl. GUI code >on UNIX takes memory both real to run and secondary (disk) to store. >BTW - I have a PC and WP takes up a couple of megabytes on my PC harddrive >so it's not a 'NeXT thing' for applications to take up diskspace. Try >running most new Mac and PC applications from floppy. You can't because >they fit on multiple floppies. This thread about size started with Michael bragging about how big his files were. I think the point from the Amiga side was that a big volume of code doesn't mean that it is better code. > >The NeXT can hold its own against SPARC 1+ and 2s. It places somewhere >between the two depending on what benchmark you run. > NeXT is also somewhere between non-standard and Bohemian. >'040s are shipping. I upgraded my cube. I've heard that the 040 still has some serious bugs in it but Jobs pressured Motorala into releasing it since NeXT is in some serious trouble. Does your 040 cube seem to crash more than the 030? >BTW - For those of you who think that an '040 upgrade to the Amiga will >be $800. Don't count on it. Motorola wants $700 a piece for the chip >Qty 1000, paid in advance. You add marketing, development, and manufact. >cost and my guess is you will be well above $1400. The cheapest Mac >'040 board is above $2000. So what is the point? Did Steve Jobs cut a deal with Motorola to get the 040s with bugs in for $600 ...or what? >KeNT >-- >/* -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 */ NCW
ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May6.115535.8982@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991May5.212810.28755@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >> I'm curious...what is the maximum frame rate that can be acheived on the >> Amiga, > >60 FPS, of course! > Is that really the *maximum* that can be acheived, or just the max. supported by Amiga animation software? >> As a parallel question, what is >> the maximum frame-rate for animations where the frames are not in memory, >> but being read from disk during the animation? > >60 FPS, again. > >> BTW, my (limited) experience is that animation already is a big market in >> engineering; most CAD/FEM/rendering packages have animation capabilities >> already. > >Yes, I've seen the best they can do: Autodesk Animator. Pretty proimitive >compared to what's available on the Amiga. I agree, for the most part. Imagine, for example, has animation capabilities that are superior to more expensive packages on Macs and IBMs (although this seems to be changing; If you have a chance, check out Macromind's new animation package, or better yet Stratvision's animation module). Also, remember that there is more out there than just Autocad (whose animation capabilities I am not familiar with)...the point is that animation *is* a big market in engineering, but it's use seems to be limited to integrated packages (FEM+animation, CAD+animation, etc...). I doubt that the amiga will find its way into use for engineering animation applications without integrated packages that include animation capabilities. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. -- Don DeVoe ddev@wam.umd.edu
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May06.180159.15298@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: > >For those of you talking about executable bloat. Look at a workstation >like a SUN running X. The executables are large. If you have less than >12-16meg of memory don't try to run much because it will crawl. GUI code >on UNIX takes memory both real to run and secondary (disk) to store. >BTW - I have a PC and WP takes up a couple of megabytes on my PC harddrive >so it's not a 'NeXT thing' for applications to take up diskspace. Try >running most new Mac and PC applications from floppy. You can't because >they fit on multiple floppies. This thread about size started with Michael bragging about how big his files were. I think the point from the Amiga side was that a big volume of code doesn't mean that it is better code. WRONG. Someone said that he heard the NeXT executables were quite large, so I showed him how big Improv was. I wanted to know if they were too large for him. > >The NeXT can hold its own against SPARC 1+ and 2s. It places somewhere >between the two depending on what benchmark you run. > NeXT is also somewhere between non-standard and Bohemian. The NeXT is the NeXT standard. Be prepared. I've heard that the 040 still has some serious bugs in it but Jobs pressured Motorala into releasing it since NeXT is in some serious trouble. Does your 040 cube seem to crash more than the 030? I have heard that this is not true. So what is the point? Did Steve Jobs cut a deal with Motorola to get the 040s with bugs in for $600 ...or what? How is this contributing to the debate? It's just a bunch crap, and has nothing to do with the merits of the two computers. -Mike
bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) (05/07/91)
In article <5fDh02JY072Q01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes: >'040s are shipping. I upgraded my cube. >BTW - For those of you who think that an '040 upgrade to the Amiga will >be $800. Don't count on it. Motorola wants $700 a piece for the chip >Qty 1000, paid in advance. You add marketing, development, and manufact. >cost and my guess is you will be well above $1400. The cheapest Mac >'040 board is above $2000. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Okay, now *everybody* sing: WHY IS THIS? 'Cause the '040 boards for ANY Mac will require all that glue, cache, and ram business on the board. It's CPU slot isn't the full 40-whatever pins it takes to interface an '040. The 3000 was built with the '040 ready to drop in. Now, the '040 board for the 2000 series could be more expensive than the '030s out there now, for the same reason. But the 3000's '040 board will pretty much be just the '040, and some logic stuff. 'Least that's how I understand it. >> for now, how about comparing the NeXT/030 to the Amiga3000? Or how >> about ending this thread. If you don't want to buy an Amiga, you can >> always by a NeXT. Hanging around in Amiga constantly bombarding >> Amiga users with comparisions presents a negative image to potential >> buyers Try bugging the IBM groups, or the Sun/Sparc groups and see what >> they think of Sun Sparc vs NeXT. >> >>Because NeXT doesn't sell an 030 machine!!!! Therefore, you're going >>to have to wait longer for it than the 040 machine. > >You could always go back in time. And those of us who have an '030 NeXT and can't afford to upgrade? Well, we can just go straight to hell, I 'spose. My A1000 has more support. 1/2 :-) >>-Mike > >KeNT Dave Hopper | /// Anthro Creep | Academic Info Resources, Stanford |__ /// . . | Macincrap/UNIX Consultant bard@jessica. |\\\/// Ia! Ia! | -- Just remember: love is life, and Stanford.EDU | \XX/ Shub-Niggurath! | hate is living death. :Black Sabbath
MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (05/07/91)
In article <5fDh02JY072Q01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) says: > >Also for those of you talking about not being able to upgrade a NeXTslab; >how many workstations are upgradeable? Not SUN, ask people who bought >SUN 4's, SPARC 1s, 1+s they can't upgrade to a SPARC 2.Also you have This really irritates me for somereason. Just because SUN sells non- expandable workstations, does NOT automatically mean that non-expandable workstations are a GOOD IDEA! If SPARCs delivered an electric shock through the keyboard every time you hit RETURN, would that become a desirable workstation feature too? My feelings? If you were buying a PERSONAL workstation to use all by yourself (as Melling & Co. are pushing) you'd have to be insane to buy something nonexpandable. >NO idea if NeXT will or will not upgrade the slabs if a new slab comes >out. They may or may not. If they don't then they must keep making '040 >boards for a while for replacement. If they do then they can dedicate new >production to the latest machine. This is what they did with the cube. >They use trade-in boards to fix broken '030 cubes. Well, that's our point. Slab owners have NO idea if they'll be left behind when NeXT comes out with the Boulder, or whatever their spiffy next machine is going to be. There's a very good chance they'll be left in the lurch with no way to upgrade, since the Slab is unexpandable. In contrast, Amiga owners do know that they WON'T be left out in the cold when the next Amiga model comes out; there are plenty of expansion slots to bring the computer up to state-of-the-art, no matter what the state-of-the-art may happen to be. >For those of you talking about executable bloat. Look at a workstation >like a SUN running X. The executables are large. If you have less than >12-16meg of memory don't try to run much because it will crawl. GUI code >on UNIX takes memory both real to run and secondary (disk) to store. Once again, just because SUN's executables are large and slow in less than 12 MB of memory doesn't mean that it's a selling point to have bloated, memory-hogging executables... >BTW - For those of you who think that an '040 upgrade to the Amiga will >be $800. Don't count on it. Motorola wants $700 a piece for the chip >Qty 1000, paid in advance. You add marketing, development, and manufact. >cost and my guess is you will be well above $1400. The cheapest Mac >'040 board is above $2000. Sorry. (I am making a superhuman effort not to type "BZZZT! Wrong!" here...) Announced prices by the companies that are releasing '040 upgrade boards average around $1000, and that's retail; "street" prices are always less than that. / Mark "Remixed for Common Household Appliances" Sachs - MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu \ | DISCLAIMER: It's NOT MY FAULT. Kei and Yuri || // || | forced me to say it. || \X/ AMIGA || \== "I think this calls for some diabolical laughter! RAAH HA HA HA HA HA!" ==/
murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) (05/07/91)
>In article <1991Jan10.151816.13893@rice.edu> jsd@pygmy.rice.edu (Shawn Joel Dube) writes: > > First, I was the not the one who started comparing NeXT and Amigas. > Second, The NeXT is not a multiuser workstation. It may have mutli-tasking > but I don't think many places are using it as a "multiuser" workstation. > Hogwash! Shawn you must be on drugs. We have a network of two NeXTs (was three until PUCC repossessed one 8-)) and two PCs. The one PC is on ethernet, the other is on a serial line to the NeXT(s). Let's see, that makes a total of 4 possible Independent users that can be on either of the NeXTs at one time. Does this qualify as multi-user? The only thing that I don't like is that I sometimes ask the shell to display a PostScript file while rlogin'd to the other machine. That results in the process quietly dying, and fews utterances and then trying it again on the proper machine. NFS is a wonderful thing! Bill Murphy murphy@physics.purdue.edu Anything above the line beneath the line below is false. ________________The Line Beneath________________________
murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) (05/07/91)
>In article <17564@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > > that would have made far more impact for the same price than the DSP. > Especially a DSP that can't be used for mathematics; something most > Workstations just about require these days is at least 1.5-2 MFLOPS or better. While the Amiga with the GVP A3000/50 accelerator board may have placed the Amiga at the top end a few months ago, I certainly wouldn't buy and Amiga if I wanted to do serious gronking of calculations. The reason is I don't like the added worry of errant tasks writing into the low memory and crashing the machine. This is not to say that it can't happen on the NeXT, You can crash the window server by trying to run bad PostScript code. There is of course another solution, that is to write out the intermediate results of a simulation or job. For most of the thousands of CPU hours we have logged on our NeXTs, I don't think that it is worth the extra effort to write intermediate results when a job lasts 0.3 to 3.0 hours. When the jobs get in to the range of days and weeks, then it is worth the trouble. So what's the point. When I developed software on my Amiga, I regularly crashed because I am not a great C programmer. I didn't appreciate rebooting once for every compile and test cycle. On the NeXT or any UN*X system with memory protection (I suppose we have to include OS-2 and VMS) it takes something more drastic than "int *data; data=0;" to crash the machine. Bill Murphy murphy@physics.purdue.edu Anything above the line beneath the line below is false. ________________The Line Beneath________________________
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/07/91)
In article <tr1Gvp0*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >In article <1991Jan10.164423.23644@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > The DSP in the NeXT is SLOW, and integer only. Even further, the NeXT >It's a 10mip processor. The Amiga 500 is less than 1 mip. Also, >Bzzzzt. The DSP does single precision floating point numbers. BZZZZT! Don't munge your chip facts when there are hardware folks watching! The DSP (Motorola 56001) does NOT do floating point of any kind. It does do 24 bit fixed point math, which in a pinch can sub for some of the kinds of things people do with 32 bit floating point. For example, most of the video games for the A500 that do quick mathish things are using some application specific fixed point routines, rather than calling the ffp libraries. Of course, you do lose precision, and some problems really require floating point. In general, the 56001 is probably just dandy for a good number of audio manipulations, but insufficient for interesting graphic or scientific things. > doesn't seem to share its DSP effectively. On the Amiga, the blitter > chip is shared nicely. >Don't know what to tell you. You're right. Perhaps there are >technical reasons for it. The technical reason is that neither Motorola nor NeXT provide any sort of multitaking operating kernel for this DSP. There is a 3rd party kernel called SPOC (can't recall who makes it), which Motorola, Analog Devices, and TI are steering users of their floating point DSPs toward, but this doesn't seem to be used by fixed point DSPs. Multitasking requires a proper hardware base to work efficiently, but it's basically just a software trick. Without the right software, your NeXT or Amiga proper wouldn't multitask either. >-Mike -- 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) (05/07/91)
In article <.v1G&v0*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >In article <17564@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > that would have made far more impact for the same price than the DSP. > Especially a DSP that can't be used for mathematics; something most > Workstations just about require these days is at least 1.5-2 MFLOPS or better. >Dave! I didn't expect you to make such a big mistake! Aren't you an >engineer? The NeXT does at least 2.5MFLOPS. Well, I was speaking of the DSP itself. A 68040 could be said perhaps to peak at 2.5 MFLOPs. When running full 68882 code, it can sometimes perform reasonably well. At other times, it seems to go about as fast as an equivalent 68882, that is, 1/3 MFLOPS. Check out the latest UNIX Review for some numbers on one of the HP '040 machines. The HP machines are better 68040 machines than NeXT, plain and simple (of course, HP has for quite some time built the best 680x0 machines in any 680x0 generation). Perhaps NeXT and others will get new FPU code generators that manage this stuff without all those FPU traps. Even though the '040 has a few things that make trap handling better than in the past, they're still very inefficient. And yeah, I are an engineer. >-Mike -- 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) (05/07/91)
In article <&i4Gzkv*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >In article <1553@ewu.UUCP> mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) writes: > I think you missed his point. I and several of the CS faculty persons here at > EWU agree with Dave Haney's point about a video accelerator. Just think how > fast the display would be if it had it's own graphic coprocessor instead of > using the CPU. >NeXT needed to have sound in the machine. An IBM beep wasn't good >enough. Sure it was. This is a Workstation, they keep telling me. What do you need sound for? OK, maybe voice mail, but a bus attached voiceband CODEC would add a couple of bucks to the cost of the system, you don't need DSP for something that low in bandwidth and that seldom used. Only a personal computer would need good quality sound, for use with games, music education, that kind of thing. >I think a graphics coprocessor would have added to much to the cost. People >are already complaining that the price is too high. I'm not talking about something amazingly expensive here, just a simple, low cost DPS rendering engine. Put an '020, or an AMD29K, or anything that happens to be cheap this week in there. This is DPS, after all, 100% device independent. And used for every line drawn in the NeXT display. I'm not suggesting anything that can actually animate for you, just something that'll let you have a nice, snappy display without eating too much of the main CPU's bandwidth. That wouldn't have been much more expensive than the DSP, and everyone would get to use it. Anyway, that was my point. >The NeXTDimension board is available(will be) for people who want to >do some serious animation. Assuming you have a NeXT Cube, and $4000 to spend. But with that much money, why not buy an Silicon Graphics system? You not only get a serious graphics system, but available software that can do something with those graphics. -- 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.
murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) (05/07/91)
In article <21321@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <&i4Gzkv*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>NeXT needed to have sound in the machine. An IBM beep wasn't good >>enough. > >Sure it was. This is a Workstation, they keep telling me. What do you need >sound for? OK, maybe voice mail, but a bus attached voiceband CODEC would add >a couple of bucks to the cost of the system, you don't need DSP for something >that low in bandwidth and that seldom used. Only a personal computer would >need good quality sound, for use with games, music education, that kind of >thing. Our research group is in an unusual situation in that we actually do use the 16-bit sound quite regularly. Our research focus is the study of otoacoustic emissions (sounds originating in the cochlea (inner ear)). We use the NeXT's DSP for doing playback of samples, playback of stimuli, playback of simulations and playback of fun things such as games are manipulations of the voice alerts for the printer 8-). Do we use the DSP for gronking FFTs of our data? No. It's easier to do the coding for the '040 than it is to work in the 8K data space of the 56000. Besides, the '040 is faster when it comes to tallying the time to get the data into the DSP memory and back out. We shall soon have a commercially developed box which will allow us to take samples at 48, 44, 32 kHz per channel (2 channels) and get the data through the DSP port. If the DSP were shared with the system as everyone else has suggested then the sampling would not be assured to be continuous since some other process could preempt the DSP controlling the sampling. I think that the people who chose to make the DSP separate were wise. If you want to do real time in Unix then it makes sense to have something that can be dedicated to doing real time operations independent of the rest of the machine. Not to flame the Amiga, but where can I get 16 bit sound for it? I haven't been following the Amiga for the last 1/2 year, but until that time I hadn't seen a board that handled 100 kHz A/D and D/A. I recall that ADCA ( I think) made a board that did 12 bit A/D and D/A but only up to 40 kHz. I still think that if a company would build some serious hardware for A/D, D/A and DIO for the Amiga, that the Amiga could really make an impact as a laboratory platform. I remember that the company that makes Cygnus Ed (ASDG) had an IEEE488 interface. That is a great start, but I wish they made an A/D board as well. To be fair, I did see a board by the company that makes AudioMaster? in the latest issue of Amiga World. It has a 56000 (imagine that 8-)) and some other software to run it. I didn't read it carefully. I assume that it can do 16-bit out with some reasonable speed. Bill Murphy murphy@physics.purdue.edu Anything above the line beneath the line below is false. ________________The Line Beneath________________________
judge@alchemy.tcnet.ithaca.ny.us (rory toma) (05/07/91)
murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes: > >In article <17564@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Hay > > > > that would have made far more impact for the same price than the DSP. > > Especially a DSP that can't be used for mathematics; something most > > Workstations just about require these days is at least 1.5-2 MFLOPS or be > > While the Amiga with the GVP A3000/50 accelerator board may have placed the > Amiga at the top end a few months ago, I certainly wouldn't buy and Amiga > if I wanted to do serious gronking of calculations. The reason is I don't > like the added worry of errant tasks writing into the low memory and crashing > the machine. This is not to say that it can't happen on the NeXT, You can cr > the window server by trying to run bad PostScript code. > > There is of course another solution, that is to write out the intermediate > results of a simulation or job. For most of the thousands of CPU hours we > have logged on our NeXTs, I don't think that it is worth the extra effort to > write intermediate results when a job lasts 0.3 to 3.0 hours. When the jobs > get in to the range of days and weeks, then it is worth the trouble. > > So what's the point. When I developed software on my Amiga, I regularly > crashed because I am not a great C programmer. I didn't appreciate rebooting > once for every compile and test cycle. On the NeXT or any UN*X system with > memory protection (I suppose we have to include OS-2 and VMS) it takes someth > more drastic than "int *data; data=0;" to crash the machine. > > Bill Murphy > murphy@physics.purdue.edu > Anything above the line beneath the line below is false. > ________________The Line Beneath________________________ OK, then run UNIX on an Amiga... The nice thing about AmigaOS is that it is very useful, quick and takes up a very small space. My current system file space is at 4 megs, which includes a heck of a lot of PD xtras. rory
ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May6.115535.8982@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >> BTW, my (limited) experience is that animation already is a big market in >> engineering; most CAD/FEM/rendering packages have animation capabilities >> already. > >Yes, I've seen the best they can do: Autodesk Animator. Pretty proimitive >compared to what's available on the Amiga. For example? -- ||| Ed Krimen [ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu or al661@cleveland.freenet.edu] ||| Video Production Major, California State University, Chico / | \ SysOp, Fuji BBS: 916-894-1261
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May6.193235.27330@leland.Stanford.EDU> bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) writes: >Okay, now *everybody* sing: WHY IS THIS? 'Cause the '040 boards for ANY >Mac will require all that glue, cache, and ram business on the board. >It's CPU slot isn't the full 40-whatever pins it takes to interface an '040. I don't know how many pins the '040 will require, but my SE/30 has a 120 pin Direct Slot. The IIsi has basically the same slot (or at the very least can get adapted to it.) The reason the Mac '040 upgrades will cost about $2k is that people will be willing to pay that much for them. 030 upgrades for the 68000 models are in the $500 range now. "Whatever the market will bear." >Dave Hopper | /// Anthro Creep | Academic Info Resources, Stanford > |__ /// . . | Macincrap/UNIX Consultant ^^^^^^^^^ It is much easier to bash a computer when you just make it up as you go along. The advice of a consultant who can't be bothered to look up or remember the facts is worth a fart in the wind - maybe.
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (05/08/91)
In <1991May6.164821.8807@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > I'm afraid your hard drive is a tad faster than mine. My >Quantum can read slightly greater than 1MB/sec I believe if it is >nice and contiguous, but if each frame is 32K then that makes >1920K/sec. However, 60fps is irrelevant. 30 and 24 are far more >meaningful. Most Amiga animations are stored in a format that does NOT require a complete copy of EACH frame image, rather, deltas between frames are used whenever possible, usually within a "scene". Between the CPU and the graphics coprocessors, it is easily possible to update the next frame, then use the "copper" to switch at vertical sync. I think the real numbers are more like 60 "fields" per second, which is the 30 frames per second you mentioned. Our disks can sustain near-megabyte per second throughput, but I haven't seen one, myself, that can sustain 2 mbs through the file system. The original ZorroII, as in the A2000 family, has a (roughly) 4 mbs data rate, so it IS possible to run the 2 mbs of disk data, and handle the overhead. Dan Taylor
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (05/08/91)
In <5054@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes: >So what's the point. When I developed software on my Amiga, I regularly >crashed because I am not a great C programmer. I didn't appreciate rebooting >once for every compile and test cycle. Even we more experienced C and Amiga users make mistakes. That's why there was a PD (free) program called G.O.M.F. (which I'm sure is a trademark, only I don't have handy the right person/company to credit) which trapped nearly all of my stupid mistakes. This program is now commercial, but reasonably priced. There is also "enforcer", which I haven't tried, and probably others. There is protection available. I have NEVER crashed my A2500/30, or my A1000, for that matter, since I put G.O.M.F. in my startup, no matter what I was writing and debugging. Dan Taylor
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/08/91)
In article <48628@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <1991May6.193235.27330@leland.Stanford.EDU> bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) writes: > >>Okay, now *everybody* sing: WHY IS THIS? 'Cause the '040 boards for ANY >>Mac will require all that glue, cache, and ram business on the board. >>It's CPU slot isn't the full 40-whatever pins it takes to interface an '040. > >I don't know how many pins the '040 will require, but my SE/30 has a 120 pin >Direct Slot. The IIsi has basically the same slot (or at the very least can >get adapted to it.) > I believe it was 190 pins, even more than the FX direct slot. However, the A3000 has 200 pins. 8-) That's called DESIGN. -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) (05/08/91)
In article <48628@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <1991May6.193235.27330@leland.Stanford.EDU> bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) writes: > >>Okay, now *everybody* sing: WHY IS THIS? 'Cause the '040 boards for ANY >>Mac will require all that glue, cache, and ram business on the board. >>It's CPU slot isn't the full 40-whatever pins it takes to interface an '040. > >I don't know how many pins the '040 will require, but my SE/30 has a 120 pin >Direct Slot. The IIsi has basically the same slot (or at the very least can >get adapted to it.) Well, the -whatever stood for 80. Honest. >>Dave Hopper | /// Anthro Creep | Academic Info Resources, Stanford >> |__ /// . . | Macincrap/UNIX Consultant > ^^^^^^^^^ >It is much easier to bash a computer when you just make it up as you go >along. The advice of a consultant who can't be bothered to look up or remember >the facts is worth a fart in the wind - maybe. All right, so I can't count. Macintosh consultants don't need to. Besides, Allen, watch what you're assuming. I happen to think wind farts are extremely valuable. Who needs a ;-) ? Dave Hopper | /// Anthro Creep | Academic Info Resources, Stanford |__ /// . . | Macincrap/UNIX Consultant bard@jessica. |\\\/// Ia! Ia! | -- Just remember: love is life, and Stanford.EDU | \XX/ Shub-Niggurath! | hate is living death. :Black Sabbath
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/08/91)
In article <937@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: >In <1991May6.164821.8807@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >> I'm afraid your hard drive is a tad faster than mine. My >>Quantum can read slightly greater than 1MB/sec I believe if it is >>nice and contiguous, but if each frame is 32K then that makes >>1920K/sec. However, 60fps is irrelevant. 30 and 24 are far more >>meaningful. > >Most Amiga animations are stored in a format that does NOT require a >complete copy of EACH frame image, rather, deltas between frames are >used whenever possible, usually within a "scene". Between the CPU >and the graphics coprocessors, it is easily possible to update the >next frame, then use the "copper" to switch at vertical sync. I think >the real numbers are more like 60 "fields" per second, which is the >30 frames per second you mentioned. > Oh, I have no doubt that a blitter could do 60fps on a low-res screen, or an 030 on a high-res screen. My question was simply about getting it into memory. Do compressed ANIMs lend themselves to off-disk loading? I hadn't thought it would be as easy: frames aren't fixed size. If it is, how much compression do you usually get? And how about on digitized images? >Our disks can sustain near-megabyte per second throughput, but I haven't >seen one, myself, that can sustain 2 mbs through the file system. The >original ZorroII, as in the A2000 family, has a (roughly) 4 mbs data >rate, so it IS possible to run the 2 mbs of disk data, and handle the >overhead. > Maybe try a Wren drive. I've been told that they'll do 2M/sec, but the question would then be the realistic throughput of the controller. >Dan Taylor -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (05/08/91)
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) asks: >> I'm curious...what is the maximum frame rate that can be acheived on the >> Amiga, and how does this speed compare to other platforms, > >Playback from memory? Since personals (including the Amiga) ordinarily >only use the cpu for this, the playback rates are a function of cpu speed, Huh? where do you get this? Animation on the amiga is 99% blitter. the blitter is a fast BLock Image Transfer chip. BLITter. it can achieve MUCH higher rates of animation than the stock cpu as well as having a dedicated memory space (well, i should say the CPU has a dedicated memory space, so it need not interfere with the video bus) meaning the processor and blitter can both be working at the same time. this comes in quite handy for allowing muti-tasking to go on unimpeded by the video bus. the cpu speed has nothing to do with it. >video ram access, resolution, delta encoding method and the amount of data >actually changing between frames. That's a lot of variables ;-). > >Even if the latter two are comparable, you may not be able to find the >exact same resolution (read: total number of changed bytes) between machines. >And the the cpu/videoram speed can vary a lot too, of course. > >Hmm. As a general statement, I'd say that the Amiga was no better/worse >than most other platforms. I've seen Amiga animations played back on good >VGA cards; and have done so myself on non-Amiga 68K machines. No big deal. >The _factual_ reasons why the Amiga has a great animation reputation are: > > 1. Programmers have been supporting it for a much longer time on the Amiga. > 2. It could do double-buffering, which some others didn't have at first. don't forget #3, graphics co-processing, and #4 cheap video interfaces. > >That's it. But now that PC programmers have recently "discovered" that VGA >cards have double-buffering after all (as detailed in my article in the >alt.pixutils group a coupla weeks ago -- I'm not a PC user, but do try >to watch for new developments), there'll soon be better PC animations >and tools available, for example. The same will also happen eventually >for most other machines. best - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu> .--------------------------------------------------------------------------. | UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks | "I know he's come back | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil | from the dead, but do | | INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org | you really think he's | |-------------------------------------------------| moved back in?" | | Amiga programmer at large, employment options | Lou Diamond Philips in | | welcome, inquire within. | "The First Power". | `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (05/08/91)
In <1991May8.062658.14796@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: In article <937@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: > >> Most Amiga animations are stored in a format that does NOT require a >> complete copy of EACH frame image, rather, deltas between frames are >> used whenever possible, usually within a "scene". > > Oh, I have no doubt that a blitter could do 60fps on a > low-res screen, or an 030 on a high-res screen. Note: Playing back ANIMs almost never (if ever) involves the blitter. The idea is to load the info into fast ram, and then the cpu decodes that delta data into chip ram for display. (I suspect many people mistakenly credit the blitter for a lot of things which the cpu actually handles :-). You'd usually lose a lot of speed and waste tons of memory if you brought the data into blitter chip ram first, and/or if you had an ANIM encoded into the larger rectangular areas the blitter is best at. It's a bigger win to have the cpu decode smaller delta chunks instead, y'see. > My question was simply about getting it into memory. Do compressed ANIMs > lend themselves to off-disk loading? I hadn't thought it would be as > easy: frames aren't fixed size. If it is, how much compression do > you usually get? And how about on digitized images? I grabbed a few typical anims and checked for fun... you can decide: Animated Knight/Sword - 320x200x6-planes, 90+ frames, 7-10K each, digitized? The Dream Goes Berserk - 352x440x5-planes, 30+ frames, 13-20K each, anim Disney Screaming Mouse - 352x240x5-planes, 55+ frames, .1- 4K each, cartoon Sneezing Fish on Beach - 320x200x4-planes,160+ frames, .1- 3K each, cartoon AskMeAnything (MMonroe)- 320x200x5-planes, 45+ frames, 12-13K each, digitized cheers - kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/09/91)
In article <z+1G$hs&1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: > WRONG. Someone said that he heard the NeXT executables were quite > large, so I showed him how big Improv was. I wanted to know if they > were too large for him. They were. > The NeXT is the NeXT standard. Be prepared. The NeXT standard what? You set standards in this business by shipping more units. In the NeXT market segment, near as I can tell, the big shippers are Microsoft Windows and Mac, then System V R 4 and the Amiga. The NeXT isn't even in the running. > How is this contributing to the debate? It's just a bunch crap, and > has nothing to do with the merits of the two computers. More like 6 or 8 contenders. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/09/91)
In article <5060@dirac.physics.purdue.edu> murphy@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (William J. Murphy) writes: >In article <21321@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>In article <&i4Gzkv*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>>NeXT needed to have sound in the machine. An IBM beep wasn't good >>>enough. >>Sure it was. This is a Workstation, they keep telling me. What do you need >>sound for? >Our research group is in an unusual situation in that we actually do use the >16-bit sound quite regularly. That's a typical application for an expandable personal computer. Sure, the NeXT can do this, and may in fact be a very good computer for your particular needs. However, that's not to say, looking at it the other way, that this audio hardware was a good allocation of limited resources for a company like NeXT, trying to build a general purpose workstation. It obviously has some use, but seems far too gee-whiz to me. >If the DSP were shared with the system as everyone else has suggested >then the sampling would not be assured to be continuous since some other >process could preempt the DSP controlling the sampling. I think that the >people who chose to make the DSP separate were wise. Except, that's not how DSP operating systems work. A DSP "exec" would break things down into a possibly programmable time window. Within each window, each task in a realtime queue gets as much time as it needs, then exits. The next one in turn gets scheduled. If there's any time left over, perhaps the non-realtime tasks would get scheduled preemptively. This way, multiple processes can have multiple realtime DSP operations going on, at lest until there's no more time to get them all done. It's prefectly possible to saturate a DSP just as it is any traditional CPU. However, in a real good system, the addition of a few more DSPs on an expansion board would transparently solve the saturation problem by allowing the various tasks, both realtime and non-realtime, to get scheduled on these multiple DSPs. Assuming, of course, you had an expandable system. >Not to flame the Amiga, but where can I get 16 bit sound for it? Well, this new board from SunRize does 16 bit in and out with a 56001 on board to help out. Another company working with DSP, for more scientifically oriented applications, is Active Circuits. I don't what, if anything, they have in the way of audio band CODECs, though. >I haven't been following the Amiga for the last 1/2 year, but until that time >I hadn'tseen a board that handled 100 kHz A/D and D/A. Is that what the NeXT can manage? I've never heard what they do for a CODEC in the thing. For the Amiga market, I would imagine 16 bit stereo in/out at 44.1kHz and 48kHz sampling would be far more important than mono at 100kHz, which is more of a special purpose thing. >To be fair, I did see a board by the company that makes AudioMaster? in the >latest issue of Amiga World. It has a 56000 (imagine that 8-)) and some >other software to run it. I didn't read it carefully. I assume that it can >do 16-bit out with some reasonable speed. That's the one I mentioned above. You could no doubt find any number of these kind of things for ISA bus, but of course that means your programmers all suffer. >Bill Murphy -- 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) (05/09/91)
In article <48628@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <1991May6.193235.27330@leland.Stanford.EDU> bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) writes: >>Okay, now *everybody* sing: WHY IS THIS? 'Cause the '040 boards for ANY >>Mac will require all that glue, cache, and ram business on the board. >>It's CPU slot isn't the full 40-whatever pins it takes to interface an '040. >I don't know how many pins the '040 will require, but my SE/30 has a 120 pin >Direct Slot. The IIsi has basically the same slot (or at the very least can >get adapted to it.) The real question isn't "how many pins", but "which pins". I'm not entirely sure what Mac Processor Direct Slots look like, or what they're for (other than "Expansion" on machines without NuBus). There are really several "levels" of support such a slot could provide: Level Name Examples 1 Slave only None, on the Amiga at least 2 DMA & Slave Zorro bus on the Amiga 3 Coprocessor A2000 Coprocessor Slot 4 Better Coprocessor A3000 Coprocessor Slot As it says, this first level supports only slave devices, like maybe a display card, but doesn't allow any DMA. Level 2 allows DMA, but is insufficient to completely take over the system from some main CPU. Level 3 allows the main CPU to be completely overridden, which means it needs [a] a mechanism to take over from the main CPU and [b] all the signals necessary to run in that main CPU's stead. Level 4 is just a nicer version of level 3. The A3000 coprocessor slot allows the coprocessor CPU to, for example, supply the clocks to the motherboard, rather than slave to them as with most of this kind of interface. It provides lots of signals, more than either the CPU or the general purpose expansion bus generally get. >The reason the Mac '040 upgrades will cost about $2k is that people will be >willing to pay that much for them. That's certainly the bottom line. If you think can get it, you probably will try. If you're the only game in town on something, and it's desirable, you charge much more than you could in light of competition. -- 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.
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (05/09/91)
In <1991May8.062658.14796@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >low-res screen, or an 030 on a high-res screen. My question was >simply about getting it into memory. Do compressed ANIMs lend >themselves to off-disk loading? ANIMs are part of a family of specified file formats called, collectively, IFF. The nearest-to-mind analog is COFF, or ELF, on System V. The file structure has defined header tags that tell the reader program how long the following segment is. Therefore, off-disk loading works well in the faster Amigas. Some of the PD demos assume that the Amiga is a "vanilla" A1000 or A500, so do a disk-to-memory copy first, but it isn't necessary on a DMA, or fast-processor-assisted disk interface. The ability to have 2, 3, or more, full frame buffers, then switch, without processor intervention, during vertical retrace, really helps. Other machines with more power have trouble maintaining the smoothness and sync. I'm not at my Amiga, now, so I don't have compression ratios handy. If I don't see a posting in a day, or so, I'll get some numbers. > Maybe try a Wren drive. I've been told that they'll do >2M/sec, but the question would then be the realistic throughput >of the controller. I've seen 5mbs in synchronous, media to memory, but that's why I qualified it with "through the filesystem". None of the AmigaDOS interfaces I've seen run scatter-gather lists, so there's probably too much setup/completion overhead for block-at-a-time transfers to sustain 2mbs. I was just pointing out that the I/O bus can do it, if the hardware/software is in place. Dan Taylor
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (05/09/91)
In article <21400@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >Well, this new board from SunRize does 16 bit in and out with a 56001 on >board to help out. Another company working with DSP, for more scientifically >oriented applications, is Active Circuits. I don't what, if anything, they >have in the way of audio band CODECs, though. The Sunrize board (I think) does direct transfer to harddisk when sampling (since audio at CD rates can eat your memory VERY fast). -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com BIX: rjesup Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion. Thus spake the Master Ninjei: "To program a million-line operating system is easy, to change a man's temperament is more difficult." (From "The Zen of Programming") ;-)
kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (05/09/91)
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: > kdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >> Playback from memory? Since personals (including the Amiga) ordinarily >> only use the cpu for this, the playback rates are a function of cpu >> speed, video ram access, resolution, delta encoding method and the >> amount of data actually changing between frames. > > Huh? where do you get this? Animation on the amiga is 99% blitter. Yah, it can be; but the current topic was standard _playback_ of animations. > the blitter is a fast BLock Image Transfer chip. BLITter. it can > achieve MUCH higher rates of animation than the stock cpu as well as Kudos for being able to quote the stock response, and it's often correct; but I'm afraid it's a little more involved than that in this case. Most animations have relatively tiny (and non-rectangular) delta changes scattered all over the screen. It is nearly always more efficient in time, memory and disk space to encode each small delta, rather than to deal with large BLOCK transfer areas. Additionally, the blitter works only on data within chip RAM... and with cpu/blitter access restricted by some video modes, it's again simply more efficient to instead bring the delta info into fast RAM for cpu decoding. I'm sure even I could think of exceptions, but that's what they would be. Other systems can certainly animate without a blitter... so can the Amiga! Really Erik, give it some credit :-) kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (05/09/91)
In article <91126.153504MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > >In article <5fDh02JY072Q01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent >L Shephard) says: >> >>Also for those of you talking about not being able to upgrade a NeXTslab; >>how many workstations are upgradeable? Not SUN, ask people who bought >>SUN 4's, SPARC 1s, 1+s they can't upgrade to a SPARC 2.Also you have > >This really irritates me for somereason. Just because SUN sells non- >expandable workstations, does NOT automatically mean that non-expandable >workstations are a GOOD IDEA! If SPARCs delivered an electric shock >through the keyboard every time you hit RETURN, would that become >a desirable workstation feature too? > NeXT does sell an expandable machine; I have one, a NeXTcube. If you want to add extra boards, buy a cube not a slab. So why does it irritate you that NeXT sells a non-expandable machine, don't buy it. >My feelings? If you were buying a PERSONAL workstation to use all by >yourself (as Melling & Co. are pushing) you'd have to be insane to >buy something nonexpandable. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You act like the machine has no scsi, serial ports, dsp port. What do you want???? Just because you can't add a card inside the machine does not make it non-expandable. > >>NO idea if NeXT will or will not upgrade the slabs if a new slab comes >>out. They may or may not. If they don't then they must keep making '040 >>boards for a while for replacement. If they do then they can dedicate new >>production to the latest machine. This is what they did with the cube. >>They use trade-in boards to fix broken '030 cubes. > >Well, that's our point. Slab owners have NO idea if they'll be left >behind when NeXT comes out with the Boulder, or whatever their spiffy >next machine is going to be. There's a very good chance they'll be >left in the lurch with no way to upgrade, since the Slab is unexpandable. >In contrast, Amiga owners do know that they WON'T be left out in the >cold when the next Amiga model comes out; there are plenty of expansion >slots to bring the computer up to state-of-the-art, no matter what the >state-of-the-art may happen to be. > NeXT currently has a better upgrade plan than any other machine on the market. OS upgrades are cheap and hardware upgrades are reasonable. If you want to speculate I'd bet on upgradability by what they have done so far. >>For those of you talking about executable bloat. Look at a workstation >>like a SUN running X. The executables are large. If you have less than >>12-16meg of memory don't try to run much because it will crawl. GUI code >>on UNIX takes memory both real to run and secondary (disk) to store. > >Once again, just because SUN's executables are large and slow in >less than 12 MB of memory doesn't mean that it's a selling point to >have bloated, memory-hogging executables... > Compare X running under UNIX on an Amiga and then tell me the same thing. My NeXT is not and never has been slow. >>BTW - For those of you who think that an '040 upgrade to the Amiga will >>be $800. Don't count on it. Motorola wants $700 a piece for the chip >>Qty 1000, paid in advance. You add marketing, development, and manufact. >>cost and my guess is you will be well above $1400. The cheapest Mac >>'040 board is above $2000. > >Sorry. (I am making a superhuman effort not to type "BZZZT! Wrong!" here...) >Announced prices by the companies that are releasing '040 upgrade boards >average around $1000, and that's retail; "street" prices are always less >than that. Announced price and actual price are very different. Talk to me when '040 upgrades are shipping and the price is below $1000. At $700 per chip IN ADVANCE + development cost + profit + circuit board + glue logic you think you will get one for less than $1500 let alone less than $1000. He, He, He, HA, HA, HA!!!!! Get real here. You think they are not going to recover cost and make a decent profit. Like I said let me know when you can actually buy one. Don't talk tome about vaporware. If it ain't available is just ain't. > >/ Mark "Remixed for Common Household Appliances" Sachs - MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu \ >| DISCLAIMER: It's NOT MY FAULT. Kei and Yuri || // || >| forced me to say it. || \X/ AMIGA || >\== "I think this calls for some diabolical laughter! RAAH HA HA HA HA HA!" ==/ -- /* -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 */
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May8.062658.14796@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > Oh, I have no doubt that a blitter could do 60fps on a > low-res screen, or an 030 on a high-res screen. My question was > simply about getting it into memory. Do compressed ANIMs lend > themselves to off-disk loading? The IFF RLL compression does, pretty well. Better would be JPEG, which not only decompresses fast (though compression is a bitch) but gets 20:1 ratios with minimal loss of information. Not what you'd use for your art prints, but quite good enough for animation. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May5.212810.28755@wam.umd.edu> ddev@wam.umd.edu (Don DeVoe) writes: >In article <1991May5.185506.5004@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >>In article <1991May05.171856.13398@ariel.unm.edu> nwickham@triton.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) writes: >>>In article <&i4Gzkv*1@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>>> >>>>How much animation do you want? The NeXT is very >>>>capable of doing some now. >>>> >>>You should see all the articles and advertisements for animation software >>>in my engineering magazines! Animation will be a big market. >>> >>> NCW >> >> That's funny. What frame-rate can you get? 5fps? Will >>programmers have to work around postscript to get a decent rate? >> -- Ethan > >20 fps, but nothing that really blazed. As a parallel question, what is I think 30 fps is rather common, and I have seen as much as 60 fps. The ANIM format is very efficient, although it is going to be improved somehow when faster chips are available i.e. 25 mhz standard. Most Amigas are still lurking at 8 mhz, although not necesarily those that do animations. >the maximum frame-rate for animations where the frames are not in memory, >but being read from disk during the animation? > >BTW, my (limited) experience is that animation already is a big market in >engineering; most CAD/FEM/rendering packages have animation capabilities >already. > >-- >Don DeVoe >ddev@wam.umd.edu -- David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN "If you think that we're here for the money, we could live without it. But the world isn't too good here, and it wasn't always like that." Un ragazzo di Casalbordino, Italia.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/10/91)
In article <7e7d021W074U01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes: >In article <91126.153504MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >> >NeXT does sell an expandable machine; I have one, a NeXTcube. If you want >to add extra boards, buy a cube not a slab. So why does it irritate you >that NeXT sells a non-expandable machine, don't buy it. > I have no problem with a non-expandable cube. It makes sense for most people. What annoys me is that often when pushed into a corner NeXT people start talking about how great the NeXT Dimension Board will be. But it is almost never mentioned that you need to spend an extra $2,500 to get the cube and not the slab to use it, as well as spend $4K for the board itself, or whatever it ends up selling for on discount. >>My feelings? If you were buying a PERSONAL workstation to use all by >>yourself (as Melling & Co. are pushing) you'd have to be insane to >>buy something nonexpandable. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >You act like the machine has no scsi, serial ports, dsp port. What do >you want???? Just because you can't add a card inside the machine does >not make it non-expandable. > -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May8.062658.14796@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <937@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: >>In <1991May6.164821.8807@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >>> I'm afraid your hard drive is a tad faster than mine. My >>>Quantum can read slightly greater than 1MB/sec I believe if it is >>>nice and contiguous, but if each frame is 32K then that makes >>>1920K/sec. However, 60fps is irrelevant. 30 and 24 are far more >>>meaningful. >> >>Most Amiga animations are stored in a format that does NOT require a >>complete copy of EACH frame image, rather, deltas between frames are >>used whenever possible, usually within a "scene". Between the CPU >>and the graphics coprocessors, it is easily possible to update the >>next frame, then use the "copper" to switch at vertical sync. I think >>the real numbers are more like 60 "fields" per second, which is the >>30 frames per second you mentioned. >> > Oh, I have no doubt that a blitter could do 60fps on a >low-res screen, or an 030 on a high-res screen. My question was >simply about getting it into memory. Do compressed ANIMs lend >themselves to off-disk loading? I hadn't thought it would be as >easy: frames aren't fixed size. If it is, how much compression do >you usually get? And how about on digitized images? > >>Our disks can sustain near-megabyte per second throughput, but I haven't >>seen one, myself, that can sustain 2 mbs through the file system. The >>original ZorroII, as in the A2000 family, has a (roughly) 4 mbs data >>rate, so it IS possible to run the 2 mbs of disk data, and handle the >>overhead. >> > Maybe try a Wren drive. I've been told that they'll do >2M/sec, but the question would then be the realistic throughput >of the controller. > >>Dan Taylor > > > -- Ethan > >"Brain! Brain! What is Brain?" ANIM format is quite good because of XOR compression from frame to frame. ANIM format is NOT good if you are using digitized HAM images (due to noise created during the digitizing process). In fact, HAM images, which require 48K for low res and 96K for 320x400 (recommended) don't compress well at all using standard techniques (LZH et al). The most impressive animations I have seen running from hard disk aren't full screen in size (but still are very impressive none the less). -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) (05/11/91)
In <1991May9.175041.3254@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >The IFF RLL compression does, pretty well. Better would be JPEG, which not >only decompresses fast (though compression is a bitch) but gets 20:1 >ratios with minimal loss of information. Not what you'd use for your art >prints, but quite good enough for animation. NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! JPEG DOES NOT GIVE EXACT RESTORATION (as you said)! Therefore, IMHO, it is a "toy" alogorithm, useful only for braindead systems like Gates' 286-based multimedia system. Real computers do not have to resort to this algorithm, since they are perfectly able to restore compressed images, without data loss, in a reasonable time. The ANIM format, which compresses in the 4th dimension, time (by storing frame deltas), gives reasonable compression, without data loss, a can be restored in real-time, or processors faster than the 7.19 MHz 68000, like a 25MHz 68030. Dan Taylor
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (05/11/91)
> In article <1991May8.062658.14796@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > >simply about getting it into memory. Do compressed ANIMs lend > >themselves to off-disk loading? I hadn't thought it would be as Yes. Or they do on some PClone systems (Autodesk Animator .FLI animations, hokey though they usually are, play back ok from HD). The compression in the .FLI files is not significantly different to the various ANIM options, and we can certainly match or better their IO rates between disk and video, so it must be possible. I've not seen an Amiga animation player even try to play off HD, though. There must be less motivation when we don't face the ridiculous 64K segment thing, and 640K limit (all these 64s...). Is there such a thing floating around on ftp sites? -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. ***
keith@actrix.gen.nz (Keith Stewart) (05/12/91)
In article <3613.tnews@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: > > In article <1991May8.062658.14796@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > > > >simply about getting it into memory. Do compressed ANIMs lend > > >themselves to off-disk loading? I hadn't thought it would be as > > Yes. Or they do on some PClone systems (Autodesk Animator .FLI > animations, hokey though they usually are, play back ok from HD). > > The compression in the .FLI files is not significantly different > to the various ANIM options, and we can certainly match or better > their IO rates between disk and video, so it must be possible. > > I've not seen an Amiga animation player even try to play off HD, > though. There must be less motivation when we don't face the > ridiculous 64K segment thing, and 640K limit (all these 64s...). > > Is there such a thing floating around on ftp sites? > -- > *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** > *** "Endless variations, make it all seem new" - Devo. *** John What about "view" that comes with VISTAPRO. This lets you play the VISATPRO proprietary animation from the hard disk at reasonable from rates especially if you have an accelerator card. This way the animation is only limited by the disk size. 600meg or 20meg in your case :-)
icsu8053@nero.cs.montana.edu (Craig Pratt) (05/13/91)
In article <953@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM> dltaylor@cns.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dan Taylor) writes: >In <1991May9.175041.3254@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >>The IFF RLL compression does, pretty well. Better would be JPEG, which not >>only decompresses fast (though compression is a bitch) but gets 20:1 >>ratios with minimal loss of information. Not what you'd use for your art >>prints, but quite good enough for animation. > >NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! > >JPEG DOES NOT GIVE EXACT RESTORATION (as you said)! Therefore, IMHO, it >is a "toy" alogorithm, useful only for braindead systems like Gates' >286-based multimedia system. YES! YES! YES!........ JPEG CAN GIVE EXACT (LOSSLESS) REPRODUCTION!! The picture quality is determined by a set of parameters. Of course, compression decreases as it aproaches lossless compression. JPEG is hardly a "toy" algorithm. BTW, NeXTStep 2.0+ includes JPEG support. >Real computers do not have to resort to this algorithm, since they are >perfectly able to restore compressed images, without data loss, in a >reasonable time. The ANIM format, which compresses in the 4th dimension, >time (by storing frame deltas), gives reasonable compression, without >data loss, a can be restored in real-time, or processors faster than >the 7.19 MHz 68000, like a 25MHz 68030. > >Dan Taylor JPEG, however, is not intended for animation. MPEG is for animation. MPEG uses interframe (delta) encoding as well as a number of other encoding methods. It. like MPEG, is very flexable as well. See the April 1991 issue of Communications of the ACM if you're interested. -- Craig Pratt icsu8053@cs.montana.edu Montana State University, Bozeman MT Craig.Pratt@msu3.oscs.montana.edu "It's a Buddist meditation technique; it focuses your aggression. The monks used to do it before they went into battle.", Otto, _A_Fish_Called_Wanda_
waynekn@techbook.com (Wayne Knapp) (05/13/91)
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >ANIM format is quite good because of XOR compression from frame to frame. >ANIM format is NOT good if you are using digitized HAM images (due to noise >created during the digitizing process). In fact, HAM images, which require >48K for low res and 96K for 320x400 (recommended) don't compress well at all >using standard techniques (LZH et al). The most impressive animations I have >seen running from hard disk aren't full screen in size (but still are very >impressive none the less). Actually, while XOR is supported in the Anim format, almost no one uses it. Almost all the full screen ANIMs are a straight replace the changes mode. This is know as the commom OP5 format. Anim brushes do sometimes use the XOR format, ala DPIII. Anyway, I know about that because I modified the ANIM code to work with DPIII ANIM brushes for the Commodore Point Sale demo. (The one that is AmigaVision based and works with a laser disk.) As far as HAM goes, the rule of thumb is that HAM sucks for animation. The ramping though bogus colors to get to the right colors generates noise no matter how the frames were produced. Now this isn't 100% true, because if you are clever, and use only red, blue, green shades and only 13 other colors, HAM can look great. But it is very hard to produce an animation in HAM without some HAM noise. Wayne Knapp Consultanting Associate Hash Enterprises -- waynekn@techbook.COM ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}techbook!waynekn Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) Voice: +1 503 646-8257 Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
rivero@dev8g.mdcbbs.com (05/13/91)
In article <1991May10.013614.9548@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > In article <7e7d021W074U01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes: >>In article <91126.153504MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >>> >>NeXT does sell an expandable machine; I have one, a NeXTcube. If you want >>to add extra boards, buy a cube not a slab. So why does it irritate you >>that NeXT sells a non-expandable machine, don't buy it. >> > I have no problem with a non-expandable cube. It makes > sense for most people. What annoys me is that often when pushed > into a corner NeXT people start talking about how great the NeXT > Dimension Board will be. But it is almost never mentioned that > you need to spend an extra $2,500 to get the cube and not the > slab to use it. > This is not accurate. All the printed info NeXT has sent me regarding the NeXT Dimension board clearly states that it will only run in the cube. ========================================================================== \\\\ Michael Rivero | "I drank WHAT!" | "THIS PORTION OF SIG | \ (. rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs | Socrates ------------------- UNDER | )> DISCLAIMER::: |-----------| | CONSTRUCTION | == "Hey man, I wasn't | | | (pardon our | ---/ even here then!" | | | white-out) | ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------+++++++++++++++
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May13.124514.1@dev8g.mdcbbs.com> rivero@dev8g.mdcbbs.com writes: >In article <1991May10.013614.9548@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >> In article <7e7d021W074U01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes: >>>In article <91126.153504MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >>>> >>>NeXT does sell an expandable machine; I have one, a NeXTcube. If you want >>>to add extra boards, buy a cube not a slab. So why does it irritate you >>>that NeXT sells a non-expandable machine, don't buy it. >>> >> I have no problem with a non-expandable cube. It makes ----->slab >> sense for most people. What annoys me is that often when pushed >> into a corner NeXT people start talking about how great the NeXT >> Dimension Board will be. But it is almost never mentioned that >> you need to spend an extra $2,500 to get the cube and not the >> slab to use it. >> > This is not accurate. All the printed info NeXT has sent me regarding the >NeXT Dimension board clearly states that it will only run in the cube. > Whoops, sorry. Meant slab up there. Other than that the article is right. Doesn't make sense to spend another $2,500 to upgrade from a slab to a slab! > >========================================================================== >\\\\ Michael Rivero | "I drank WHAT!" | "THIS PORTION OF SIG | >\ (. rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs | Socrates ------------------- UNDER | > )> DISCLAIMER::: |-----------| | CONSTRUCTION | > == "Hey man, I wasn't | | | (pardon our | >---/ even here then!" | | | white-out) | >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------+++++++++++++++ -- Ethan The constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
kris@tpki.toppoint.de (Kristian Koehntopp) (05/15/91)
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: > I've not seen an Amiga animation player even try to play off HD, > though. There must be less motivation when we don't face the > ridiculous 64K segment thing, and 640K limit (all these 64s...). Videotechnik Diezemann in Germany does such a thing. Videotechnik manufactures a video digitizer for the Amiga. At the latest Amiga-shows in Berlin and Colonge (sp?) he had a quite impressing presentation of pictures and AMINs taken with their devices. They were showing a slide show (10 min) with animated interludes and digitzed background sound playing on an A3000 (18 MB, 2 * Syquest 44 MB removable hdd) with AmigaVision from memory. They also had a digitized animated color sequence of "The Blues Brothers" movie with sound. This sequence (also ~10 min.) was playing entirely from a Syquest showing 25 frames a second - the screen display was only 176*138 at 16 colors (1/4 screen). Using a larger harddisk with more heads Videotechnik managed to replay a fully screen-sized animation in HAM in realtime. The software for the Videotechnik digitizer offers animation sampling to memory, file or SCSI-direct. Generally one wants to play from memory, since this is (of course) the fastest option. But if you have to replay long sequences (as some studios producing raytraced animations had to do), you have to switch to disk. Kristian Kristian Koehntopp, Harmsstrasse 98, 2300 Kiel, +49 431 676689 (lisp 'kristian) NIL
dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (05/16/91)
In article <7e7d021W074U01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) writes: >In article <91126.153504MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >>In article <5fDh02JY072Q01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent >>L Shephard) says: >nExt currently has a better upgrade plan than any other machine on the >market. OS upgrades are cheap and hardware upgrades are reasonable. So your saying that a Commodore 64 owner, with an investment of $130, who gets an Amiga 3000 for $1150 off as an upgrade, is not getting a better deal than a nExt upgrade? Looks like an increase of 900% for the Commodore owner. >My nExt is not and never has been slow. I used to say the same thing about my 64 when I switched from a datasette to a disk drive....amazing how your nExt is comparable to so many fast machines. >>>BTW - For those of you who think that an '040 upgrade to the Amiga will >>>be $800. Don't count on it. Motorola wants $700 a piece for the chip $700 when you round the value up. >>>Qty 1000, paid in advance. You add marketing, development, and manufact. >>>cost and my guess is you will be well above $1400. The cheapest Mac >>>'040 board is above $2000. The Amiga 3000 has the advantage that the 68040 was being developed at the same time as the A3000, so care was taken to make it compatible more easily. >>Sorry. (I am making a superhuman effort not to type "BZZZT! Wrong!" here...) >>Announced prices by the companies that are releasing '040 upgrade boards >>average around $1000, and that's retail; "street" prices are always less >>than that. > >Announced price and actual price are very different. Talk to me when '040 >upgrades are shipping and the price is below $1000. At $700 per chip >IN ADVANCE + development cost + profit + circuit board + glue logic you >think you will get one for less than $1500 let alone less than $1000. He, >He, He, HA, HA, HA!!!!! The current cost of a 68030 Amiga accelerator card is $539, which includes a 25 mhz chip, which is sold to consumers for $289. Even in a worst case scenario, the actual card without the 68030 comes to no more than $250. Now add that to the already-bloated $700, and you will se a $950 price tag, already up a little bit. And with the fierce competition and the amount of time they have had to work on it, it will not be too expensive for long. >Don't talk tome about vaporware. If it ain't available is just ain't. You are talking as a child would. 68040 boards are not vaporware. Vaporware is when one small company announces an incredable product. We have large companies, such as Commodore (who sold more than 100,000 Amigas in England over the 4th quarter), and GVP who has marketed every possible combination of accelerator, ram, and drive controller possible with the most effieciancy. Then we have Supra (by no means a weak company), and then the smaller 'vaporware' companies. I would like to have seen you arguing last Thanksgiving when the nExt was not yet released. 'No it isn't vaporware, it just isn't available yet'. You make it sound as though every new product will come as a shock. Maybe all products should be considered vaporware that are not yet released today. That is the reasoning why I think General Motors will go out of business nExt year; they haven't made any of nExt years cars available yet! Talk about vaporware, from the largest company in the world... >>/ Mark "Remixed for Common Household Appliances" Sachs - MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu \ >>| DISCLAIMER: It's NOT MY FAULT. Kei and Yuri || // || >>| forced me to say it. || \X/ AMIGA || >>\== "I think this calls for some diabolical laughter! RAAH HA HA HA HA HA!" ==/ >/* -The opinions expressed are my own, not my employers. */ >/* For I can only express my own opinions. */ >/* */ >/* Kent L. Shephard : email - kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com */ -- begin 644 dh3:uploads/killchip M```#\P`````````"``````````$````_`````0```^D````_,_Q```#?\)HLH M>0````1![@%"(%!*D&<``'8B:``*(`EK\`R10VAI<&;H#*@`"````!AEWB0\4 M`!```)2H`!@B/``(``"2@B)H`!`@"="I``1*D6<.#(``"```9```,B)18.B3F MJ0`$DZ@`''`(2$`M0``^D((A0``8<@!![@`B<!?26%'(__Q&03"!?@!@!'X*D M=`!X"$A$*@0D1-J%FH(@1'0@T<)"D"8%EH1T():"(4,`!#5\"G\`""5\`/P#I M,@`*-7P`!0`.)40`%"5%`!@E2``0)@66A'0@EH(E0P`<(DI![@%"3J[_$#/\) JP```W_":(`=P`$YU```````````#[`````````/R```#ZP````$```/R+ `` end size 312