jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu (Jonathan David Abbey) (03/05/91)
In Reply To: raible@cbmvax.commodore.com I just thought I'd mention that in interviews, Jay Miner and R.J. Mical have stated that while the original investors who provided the front money for the Amiga wanted a great game machine to ride the game boom that was being ridden by Colecovision et al, the Amiga team from the beginning were interested in making the ultimate personal computer. That's why you have things like a multitasking operating system, the seeds of which were done as early as January 1983. In fact, Jay Miner had to fight for the expense of having an expansion port, as well as seperating the keyboard from the CPU. I think, personally, that the 1000 fulfills their vision of the ultimate personal computer to a large degree. The trouble is that the people who buy computers in volume are not so interested in them as devices akin to hyper television sets, but as work tools. This is why you also find such a large cult in Amigaland. Many who bought the Amiga did so because they wanted the best personal computer around, just because it was such a great personal computer, and not because it had great software, or because there it had lots of useful software which would help them get practical problems solved. Commodore's greatest problem now, of course, is finding a way to solve practical problems with the machine in such a stunning fashion that it is compelling to buy the Amiga over a Mac or PC compatible. A rather difficult (some would say nigh impossible) proposition, all things considered. The Amiga may well end up an Atari 800 ten years from now, granted. But it will not be because the original Amiga team wanted to make a game machine, but because the original Amiga team wanted to make a personal computer, rather than a business computer. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan David Abbey \"I am stronger than the passing time" -Frost the university of texas at austin \ jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu "Does any of this computer science/math?/psychology? \ (512) 472-2052 make sense?" -Me
patrick_meloy@outbound.wimsey.bc.ca (Patrick Meloy) (03/05/91)
Blain Gardner writes: [stuff deleted] >As to the hard drive speed, surely you jest! Unless someone managed to >get a dog-slow HD and controller on the Amiga (Possible, there are some >bad ones out there), the Amiga simply flies compare to the Mac's pokey >hard drive speeds. With the Quantum and Wren drives I've got on my A3000 [more stuff deleted] I think the drive 'speed' complaint has more to do with the display of drawers/directories then actual transfer rates. Since the Amiga does not use the same style of 'directory track' that Mac and IBM do (we gain 80k disk space over the Mac and 160k over the IBM because of it) it has to search out the files themselves to see what is where. This results in delays when drawing icons or sorting dirs. The Mac and IBM aren't all that much faster in these areas either, they are just smart enough to wait until all the information is at hand before displaying anything. The 'Display as you find' method gives the illusion of slowness.. --------------------------------------- | patrick_meloy@outbound.wimsey.bc.ca | | 'The Outbound' BBS Vancouver BC | ---------------------------------------
farren@sat.com (Michael J. Farren) (03/05/91)
robbins@arcadien.rice.edu writes: >What's the deal? My friend says that it's because it has built-in >graphics co-processors. It's partly that, and partly the fact that there hasn't been a great effort to do whiz-bang games for the Mac for the simple reason that they do not sell. Great sales figures for the Mac, for a game, are anything above 5,000 copies. A good Amiga game will sell that many copies in a week. The market for games for the Mac, for many reasons, is very limited compared to that for the Amiga - and the biggest reason is sheer cost. Yeah, your IIsi _could_ run games like "Lemmings" just fine - but how many of them are there out there, and how many of _those_ will buy a game? >I'm actually considering buying one of these, to supplement my mac. >(Heaven help me--a machine with DOS!) IS IT WORTH IT? I would use it >only for games, but I worry at buying a machine that's already four >years old, what with computer equipment being obsolete even before the >ink on your check is dry. And heck, it's only about the price of a good >modem! All the more reason to buy one - and don't be too surprised if, once you have your hands on it, you find that it does a lot of things better than the Mac does - as well as not doing a lot of things as well. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael J. Farren farren@sat.com | | He's moody, but he's cute. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
nwickham@carina.unm.edu (Neal C. Wickham) (03/05/91)
In article <227@atacama.cs.utexas.edu> jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu (Jonathan David Abbey) writes: >In Reply To: raible@cbmvax.commodore.com > > >Commodore's greatest problem now, of course, is finding a way to solve >practical problems with the machine in such a stunning fashion that it is >compelling to buy the Amiga over a Mac or PC compatible. A rather difficult >(some would say nigh impossible) proposition, all things considered. The Amiga >may well end up an Atari 800 ten years from now, granted. But it will not be >because the original Amiga team wanted to make a game machine, but because the >original Amiga team wanted to make a personal computer, rather than a business >computer. > > Oh, ...somehow I'm not too worried. Mac is well emulated, ...that has to bug whoever is about to buy a Mac. MSdos is old and clunky, Windows blew new life into it but as people become more familiar with computers they will see the short commings of msdos. I'm sure, however, that IBM will always be the leader in anything computer. Call me crazy-happy, call me un-Amgian, but I think it looks pretty bright for Amiga. Graphics, sound, ...makes for a friendly interface that will probably continue to be exploited by programeres. Also, you know, I'll bet the toaster gives Amiga a lot (mucho) free press. We're all going to start seeing stuff in video and on TV produced on Amiga with the toaster and we're sometimes going to get a look behind the sceens on how it was done. ...especially since this new "video literacy" concept is for real. Also, what does millions of TVs, millions of VCRs, millions of cam- corders, and the video toaster add up to anyway? And, boy, I saw a 3000 for the first time the other day and it is nice. As nice (with all the technical connotations) as a system as I've seen. ...I think it looks pretty good for Amiga. I'd buy stock if I had any money. (I'm just a student.) NCW
blgardne@javelin.es.com (Blaine Gardner) (03/05/91)
patrick_meloy@outbound.wimsey.bc.ca (Patrick Meloy) writes: >Blain Gardner writes: >[stuff deleted] >>As to the hard drive speed, surely you jest! Unless someone managed to >>get a dog-slow HD and controller on the Amiga (Possible, there are some >>bad ones out there), the Amiga simply flies compare to the Mac's pokey >>hard drive speeds. With the Quantum and Wren drives I've got on my A3000 >[more stuff deleted] >I think the drive 'speed' complaint has more to do with the display of >drawers/directories then actual transfer rates. Since the Amiga does not use >the same style of 'directory track' that Mac and IBM do (we gain 80k disk >space over the Mac and 160k over the IBM because of it) it has to search out The original complaint was that the Amiga _hard_drive_ was horribly slow. Unless you've got a dog-slow (Seacrate) hard drive, and a dog-slow non-DMA interface, this simply isn't the case. A good DMA interface like the Hardframe, A2091, or especially the A3000's controller is FAR faster than the Mac's non-DMA interface. I/O speed is one of the Amiga's strengths. I don't have all the numbers handy, but I've run one hard drive on the Amiga 3000, an IBM PS/2 70 (80386), and a Mac II. The drive in question was a Fujitsu 1.2 gigabyte SCSI drive. On the A3000 DiskSpeed 3.1 reported a max read speed of 1.9 megabytes per second. The owner of the IBM and the Mac was floored by the speed of the Amiga because the same drive on the other two systems was running at about 1/4 to 1/2 of that speed. -- Blaine Gardner @ Evans & Sutherland 580 Arapeen Drive, SLC, Utah 84108 blgardne@javelin.sim.es.com or ...dsd.es.com!javelin!blgardne DoD #0046 My other motorcycle is a Quadracer. BIX: blaine_g Anticipation, anticipation, is making me late, is keeping me waiting.
jph@ais.org (Joseph Hillenburg) (03/08/91)
In article <00668212609@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM> elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) writes: >From article <19467@cbmvax.commodore.com>, by raible@cbmvax.commodore.com ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ (Bob Raible - LSI Design): >> In fact Jay Miner (former Atari guru) and Co. designed the Amiga to be >> the ultimate game machine. It wasn't until CBM came along that the >> decision was made to make a personal computer out of it. Soon afterwards > >Wrongo. Check who you're following up on next time. >-- >Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 >elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg > Looking for a job... tips, leads appreciated... inquire within... -- // Joseph Hillenburg, Secretary, Bloomington Amiga Users Group \X/ joseph@valnet.UUCP jph@irie.ais.org jph@albert.ai.mit.edu "Only Apple could slow down a 68030 chip" --Computer Shopper
elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) (03/11/91)
From article <3$P-B6-@irie.ais.org>, by jph@ais.org (Joseph Hillenburg): > In article <00668212609@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM> elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) writes: >>From article <19467@cbmvax.commodore.com>, by raible@cbmvax.commodore.com > (Bob Raible - LSI Design): >>> In fact Jay Miner (former Atari guru) and Co. designed the Amiga to be >>> the ultimate game machine. It wasn't until CBM came along that the >>> decision was made to make a personal computer out of it. Soon afterwards >>Wrongo. > Check who you're following up on next time. I *KNOW* who I'm following up to :-). Actually, it's not Bob's fault. Most of Commodore's present engineers came on board long after the original Amiga team had been laid off/dispersed/quit/whatever. Not to mention that Bob is an LSI designer, not a programmer, and thus is probably a hobbiest, at best, when it comes to Amiga software etc. (Not that there's anything wrong with that... Dave Haynie's a hardware guy, but his DiskSalv, a hobby software project, has saved many people's hard drives). Not to mention that I talked to a Commodore engineer oh, a month or so ago, who confides that he's a Unix guy basically, a latecomer to the Amiga. Of course, the guy had also produced a decent-selling Amiga utility before joining Commodore... but he wasn't there when the Amiga was introduced, he doesn't know. -- Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (03/13/91)
In article <91MAR12.134551@ducvax.auburn.edu> cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: >3) Apple comes out with more innovative products than any other computer >company. What company has slashed prices like Apple? ;^) Yeah, they slashed their prices *SO LOW*, they're almost as reasonable as the Amiga has *always* been. ;^) > ... What company has >introduces new models almost every single year? Yeah, right. Like the Classic is a real advance in the state of the art. Commodore gave Amiga users an open machine, so now we just add on in order to upgrade. We don't have to wait for a new model just to take advantage of new features. How many 16-bit Macs have a direct upgrade path to a 68040 designed into the machine? > ... Face it, Apple is on the >cutting edge. ... of Nazi anti-American litigation against anyone who innovates... > Yes, it needs to add a graphics coprocessor, but considering a >16 mhz SE/30 doing all its own graphics can outpreform a 20 mhz 386 running >Windows with a separate processor, it's obvious Apple does some amazing >technology tricks. Naw, Apple technology is mundane until you spend $10,000. PCs are crippled by IBM's system architecture, so no fair comparing to those poor things. --
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/13/91)
In article <91MAR12.134551@ducvax.auburn.edu> cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: > Yes, it needs to add a graphics coprocessor, but considering a > 16 mhz SE/30 doing all its own graphics can outpreform a 20 mhz 386 running > Windows with a separate processor, it's obvious Apple does some amazing > technology tricks. Gimme a break. My Amiga 1000 is peppier than your Mac-II class machine, and I *know* the 68030 at 16 MHz can outperform a 7.14 MHz blitter. The 68020 can, for that matter (a tight bitblt loop on the 68020 can keep the data bus 100% busy: you can't go any faster than that). Windows is tied down by mid-'70s technology: MS-DOS, an 8088 based clone of CP/M. It's tied down by the 8086 segmented memory model, even on an 80386. Windows is a dancing bear... it is not expected to dance well: it is remarkable that it dances at all. Apple's amazing technology tricks are simply not having quite as great a load of obsolete technology weighing them down. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) (03/14/91)
In article <1991Mar12.224905.4774@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > been overpricing their products for years! The Mac Classic is nothing more than > a repackaged Mac (e.g. Old technology) with a slightly lower price and a The Classic was totally redesigned. I forget the numbers, but it uses significantly less amount of chips than the Mac Plus, and it is faster than the old SE. I believe Amax or Spectre for the ST would have trouble keeping up with it now. > new name. Apple release more innovative products than any computer company? > NAME THEM. Not a single Mac computer is ahead of it's time, nor does it > deliver hardware power for a low price. The 7mhz Amiga 1000 can > outperform the Mac IIfx at graphics sound and animation, and it was released > in 1985. I would like to see how an Amiga 1000 would compare to a IIfx!! (Right, this is a good matchup.) The IIfx is a mighty formidable machine, I'd like to see Unix running on a A1000. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins Question for IBM Users: rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET |||| Power Without How DO you move/copy a rc1dsanu@miamiu.BITNET / || \ The Price!! Subdirectory? R.COLLINS1 on GEnie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (03/14/91)
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <91MAR12.134551@ducvax.auburn.edu> cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: >> 3) Apple comes out with more innovative products than any other computer >> company. >The last innovative product that came out of Apple... let's see. How about the >original Macintosh? What have they done since then that wasn't just putting >faster chips in the same basic box? What happens if you apply the exact same reasoning to Commodore? You could say "The last innovative product to come out of Commodore was the original Amiga. What have they done since then that wasn't just putting faster chips in the same basic box?" One could argue that Apple has been more innovative than Commodore over the last 5 years. Apple started off with a monochrome, one-size monitor non-expandable system. Since then they've added things like 32-bit colour, expansion slots, RISC graphics coprocessors, monitors of any size you can afford to pay for - and software like Truetype, Hypercard, Multifinder and even A/UX [which runs old Mac applications as a task under Unix...something the Amiga can't do comparably with Amiga applications]. What has Commodore done in the same period? Amigas still seem to have the same old colour restrictions, pretty much the same old resolutions, pretty much the same old graphics chip set. If anyone's been resting on their haunches putting out incremental improvements, it's Commodore, not Apple. [Before you flame, read and consider carefully. Ask yourself, "What has Commodore done over the past 5 years to the Amiga?" ] -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "And in the death, as the last few corpses lay rotting in the slimy thoroughfare, the shutters lifted in inches, high on Poacher's Hill..."
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (03/14/91)
In article <1991Mar13.221028.8703@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >>In article <91MAR12.134551@ducvax.auburn.edu> cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: >>> 3) Apple comes out with more innovative products than any other computer >>> company. > >>The last innovative product that came out of Apple... let's see. How about the >>original Macintosh? What have they done since then that wasn't just putting >>faster chips in the same basic box? > > What happens if you apply the exact same reasoning to Commodore? >[Before you flame, read and consider carefully. Ask yourself, "What >has Commodore done over the past 5 years to the Amiga?" ] Hmm, let's see, starting from the original A1000 they created [in no particular order] 1) The A500, totally new motherboard and design, GARY chip 2) The A2000, Zorro II bus, and the Buster 3) ECS Denise and Agnus 4) Bridgecard 5) AmigaDOS 2.0 6) Amigavision 7) A2232 card 8) Ethernet, TSSnet, and Decnet cards + software 9) The AMIGA 3000! Ramsey, SuperDMAC, Amber, Zorro III(yeah Dave!) 10) Arexx is standard 11) A2620, 2630 12) Unix SYS VR4, Xwindows, and Openlook 13) A2320 14) A2410 15) A1300(when it first came out) 16) A590 and 2091 controllers (very fast) 17) AmigaDOS 1.2 and 1.3 18) A2500/30 The reason Commodore doesn't come out with new models everyyear is because they don't have to. The A2000/3000 are innovative and open enough to last years! The Mac was never innovative, it was a slow piece of trash in 1985, and if you want to expand it EFFECTIVELY you have to buy a whole new model. (like the NeXT pizzabox) The Custom Chips aren't the only thing that makes the Amiga innovative, its the overall design of the system. The open expansion possibilities, the operating system, the pricing. And with third party companies like ASDG, NewTek, MAST, Blackbelt and Digital Creations, it's hard for Commodore to keep up. I DARE Apple to price systems competitively. The prices of the Mac IIsi/ci/fx are more expensive than most workstations, yet the Mac II line are no faster than what you can already put in an A2000 CPU slot, or the A3000, or the NeXT. I also DARE Apple to play fair and just, and stop trying to sue other companies just because they are competing(GUI wise) or to put excessive restrictions on their ROMs. >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu >"And in the death, as the last few corpses lay rotting in the slimy > thoroughfare, the shutters lifted in inches, high on Poacher's Hill..."
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (03/14/91)
In article <4239.27de4b9d@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >In article <1991Mar12.224905.4774@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> been overpricing their products for years! The Mac Classic is nothing more than >> a repackaged Mac (e.g. Old technology) with a slightly lower price and a > >The Classic was totally redesigned. I forget the numbers, but it uses >significantly less amount of chips than the Mac Plus, and it is faster than >the old SE. I believe Amax or Spectre for the ST would have trouble keeping >up with it now. (I wonder whathappened to all those old Mac Plus's setting in warehouses then. ;-)) >> new name. Apple release more innovative products than any computer company? >> NAME THEM. Not a single Mac computer is ahead of it's time, nor does it >> deliver hardware power for a low price. The 7mhz Amiga 1000 can >> outperform the Mac IIfx at graphics sound and animation, and it was released >> in 1985. > >I would like to see how an Amiga 1000 would compare to a IIfx!! (Right, >this is a good matchup.) The IIfx is a mighty formidable machine, I'd like >to see Unix running on a A1000. I was talking about SOUND & Animation, not Unix. You'll never see anything like Shadow of the Beast on the IIfx. This whole Apple thread is becoming boring. Apple, THE COMPANY, stinks as far as their business ethics are concerned. Mac Classic, the computer, stinks as far as what you get with it for the price. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Ryan 'Gozar' Collins Question for IBM Users: rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET > |||| Power Without How DO you move/copy a rc1dsanu@miamiu.BITNET > / || \ The Price!! Subdirectory? R.COLLINS1 on GEnie >------------------------------------------------------------------------------
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/14/91)
In article <1991Mar13.221028.8703@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >>In article <91MAR12.134551@ducvax.auburn.edu> cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: >>> 3) Apple comes out with more innovative products than any other computer >>> company. > >>The last innovative product that came out of Apple... let's see. How about the >>original Macintosh? What have they done since then that wasn't just putting >>faster chips in the same basic box? > > What happens if you apply the exact same reasoning to Commodore? >You could say "The last innovative product to come out of Commodore was >the original Amiga. What have they done since then that wasn't just >putting faster chips in the same basic box?" > This discussion is getting unrealistic on both sides. Apple is still coming out with new and good products, but to call the 3 new machines they just came out with "innovative" is ridiculous too. They are step backwards. They are marketing revolutions, not technical revolutions. This isn't to say that they are unimportant, but they are not steps forward. From what I've seen, the System 7.0 font manager is a technical innovation, with the ability to use scalable fonts for all languages with automatic kerning in the OS and the ability to enter text left-to-right, right-to-left and top-to-bottom. Of course, it is well known that Commodore is working actively on Compugraphic support for the Amiga OS as well. > One could argue that Apple has been more innovative than Commodore >over the last 5 years. Apple started off with a monochrome, one-size >monitor non-expandable system. Since then they've added things like >32-bit colour, expansion slots, RISC graphics coprocessors, monitors >of any size you can afford to pay for - and software like Truetype, >Hypercard, Multifinder and even A/UX [which runs old Mac applications >as a task under Unix...something the Amiga can't do comparably with >Amiga applications]. > Yes, but most people don't consider the A/UX to be Unix. I know the arguments, but the final industry decision was against A/UX. Besides A/UX will be truly hurt by the NeXTs (not that Amigas won't be hurt as well). > What has Commodore done in the same period? Amigas still seem to >have the same old colour restrictions, pretty much the same old >resolutions, pretty much the same old graphics chip set. If >anyone's been resting on their haunches putting out incremental >improvements, it's Commodore, not Apple. > Admittedly, over the first appr. 2.5-3 years Commodore floundered. They were coming from the highs of the C=64 and the Amiga wasn't yet a significant entity. Commodore wasn't used to the concept of R&D. Given that, I think it is fair to consider what they've done since then. In 1990, they came out with a whole range of networking hardware and software that follow industry standards. They came out with AmigaVision. They came out with the A3000 and all of its variants. And the A3000 is a significant advance because it comes with a full 32-bit bus running at 25MHz, built in 32-bit SCSI and up to 18MB on the motherboard, as well as a built-in flicker fixer. So far in 1991 they've come out with a deinterlacer for the A2000 line. There is Unix, as well as a Tape-drive system. They will be coming out with CDTV, Workbench 2.0, the University of Lowell board. This is all that we know of. Commodore has placed ads looking for new employees to help with the areas of Device Independant Graphics and scalable fonts, and we already know that they are actively working on new chip sets. So don't count Commodore out. Those are pretty impressive contributions to the state of the Amiga. Commodore is finally working actively on developing the Amiga, I'm hoping that it isn't too late from a marketing perspective. >[Before you flame, read and consider carefully. Ask yourself, "What >has Commodore done over the past 5 years to the Amiga?" ] > This wasn't a flame. 5 years ago there was only the A1000 with 256K, Workbench 1.0 and no software or hardware. I think CBM's come a long way. >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu >"And in the death, as the last few corpses lay rotting in the slimy > thoroughfare, the shutters lifted in inches, high on Poacher's Hill..." -- Ethan Upon leaving office, Ronald Reagan began renting an office in the penthouse of the Fox Plaza, the Los Angeles high-rise used as the location for the terrorist movie "Die Hard".
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/14/91)
In article <4239.27de4b9d@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: > >I would like to see how an Amiga 1000 would compare to a IIfx!! (Right, >this is a good matchup.) The IIfx is a mighty formidable machine, I'd like >to see Unix running on a A1000. > Boy have you got something coming! Most A1000 owners are big computer hackers. There are already PD accelerator projects for it and I have no doubt that SOMEONE will get it running. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Ryan 'Gozar' Collins Question for IBM Users: rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET > |||| Power Without How DO you move/copy a rc1dsanu@miamiu.BITNET > / || \ The Price!! Subdirectory? R.COLLINS1 on GEnie >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Ethan Upon leaving office, Ronald Reagan began renting an office in the penthouse of the Fox Plaza, the Los Angeles high-rise used as the location for the terrorist movie "Die Hard".
blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) (03/14/91)
>This whole Apple thread is becoming boring. Apple, THE COMPANY, stinks >as far as their business ethics are concerned. Mac Classic, the computer, >stinks as far as what you get with it for the price. > No, the A500 stinks as far as what you get with it for the price. You get a 1 meg machine with no SCSI, no hard drive case or powersupply, no networking, no ability to use SIMM memory (cheapest), an OS that may or may not work with your software (you have to individually match your software to a reliable OS), no ability to add IBM compatibility for $150, no 1.4 meg drive, no detachable keyboard (you must use the Amiga KB), 4 (he he) channel sound, and not a respectable spreadsheet in sight. Ethics? Let's deal with Commodore corporate if you want to talk about dumb. But are you saying Apple has no ethics because they are trying to protect their intellectual property? hmm.
jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (03/14/91)
In article <1991Mar13.230616.1544@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >I also DARE Apple to play fair and just, and stop trying to sue other >companies just because they are competing(GUI wise) or to put excessive >restrictions on their ROMs. Whether or not Apple owns the rights to the various GUI concepts over which they are litigating, and whether or not it is legitimate to even claim ownership of such things, is definitely debatable, but Apple's ownership of and rights to their ROMs is not. NO MATTER WHAT, Apple's programmers wrote the code in those ROMS. That code is therefore APPLE'S PROPERTY and they can restrict it HOWEVER THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE. Whether it makes business sense to do so is up to Apple to decide. Just because you want something belonging to someone else does not mean they have any obligation to make it available to you under any terms. BTW, Apple is not sueing companies like Commodore and NeXT which have actually innovated in the design of their GUIs. It is Microsoft Windows which is the target, and specifically because of alleged violations of a license agreement signed by Microsoft. If Microsoft hadn't signed the stupid thing, Apple might not have had a leg to stand on for this lawsuit. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900
sss10@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Napalm) (03/14/91)
In article <7816@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) writes: >>This whole Apple thread is becoming boring. Apple, THE COMPANY, stinks >>as far as their business ethics are concerned. Mac Classic, the computer, >>stinks as far as what you get with it for the price. >> >No, the A500 stinks as far as what you get with it for the price. You get >a 1 meg machine with no SCSI, no hard drive case or powersupply, no >networking, no ability to use SIMM memory (cheapest), an OS that may or may >not work with your software (you have to individually match your software to >a reliable OS), no ability to add IBM compatibility for $150, no 1.4 meg >drive, 1- Wrong. Applied Engineering has been making a High Density drive for all amigas for several months now <its 1.5 megs> 2- whoopee. HD disks are much more expensive. :-D 3- Workbench 1.3 is very reliable, 90% of all software out right now will work with it. If it doesnt work, its a very old game, from 1.2 or 1.1 days. You are thinking of Workbench 2.0 which should be out any day now, any day. 4- I dont understand your "Hard drive case or powersupply" whine but I can hook up a HD to my 500 rather easily. >no detachable keyboard (you must use the Amiga KB), 4 (he he) channel sound, whats wrong with 4 channel sound? >and not a respectable spreadsheet in sight. Well we can just use amax and run a mac spreadsheet then :-D >Ethics? Let's deal with Commodore corporate if you want to talk about dumb. >But are you saying Apple has no ethics because they are trying to protect >their intellectual property? hmm. No, they have no ethics because they are suing everyone over look and feel infringements. They are trying <and succeeding> in styfling innovations and they have done a pretty good job of preventing Mac clones which enables them to charge the ridiculous prices that they have been charging for years. Commodore may not have been smart but they were never corrupt.
dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) (03/14/91)
In article <4239.27de4b9d@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, Ryan 'Gozar' Collins writes: > I would like to see how an Amiga 1000 would compare to a IIfx!! (Right, > this is a good matchup.) The IIfx is a mighty formidable machine, I'd like > to see Unix running on a A1000. I would like to see UNIX ('AUX' or whatever they call the Apple variant) running on a Max Classic. Ho de ho! Can you imagine, trying to use GREP, SED, VI, EMACS, or, well, anything, really, without a CLI! Sure, no problem. You're significantly fucked in the head if you think that that A plain-jane MAC can out-grunt the Amiga, or that a super-MAC can out-grunt an A3000. On ALL levels, disk speed, capacity, CPU speed, memory addressing, multitasking capability, and above all, bang/$, your Mac's lose to the Amiga. You're living in a dreamworld. Or nightmare-world. Depending on what side of reality that you're on! Dac -- David Andrew Clayton. // _l _ _ dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au *or*|I post.I am. Canberra, Australia.\X/ (_](_l(_ ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au!prolix!dac@munnari.oz
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar13.230616.1544@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >The reason Commodore doesn't come out with new models everyyear is because >they don't have to. The A2000/3000 are innovative and open enough to last years! Yeah, and I'm sure the expense of coming out with new models has nothing to do with it. Uhuh. >The Mac was never innovative, it was a slow piece of trash in 1985, and >if you want to expand it EFFECTIVELY you have to buy a whole new model. >(like the NeXT pizzabox) Name the other GUI mass-market machine that was out in 1984. Define effectively. It is trivial to add an accelerator and large display to a MacPlus. You can go to 4 meg RAM on the motherboard and pile on several hard disks. >I DARE Apple to price systems competitively. The prices of the >Mac IIsi/ci/fx are more expensive than most workstations, yet the Mac II >line are no faster than what you can already put in an A2000 CPU slot, or >the A3000, or the NeXT. Apple is becoming more competitive with their low-cost line and the recent (March 11) price drops. (The IIfx 4 meg RAM 160 meg HD model is $5460 at our university store.) I love this. You feel free to compare stock Apple equipment with 3rd party enhanced Amiga's. You can add cache cards to the IIci and accelerators to the entire II line, including the IIfx. The fx doesn't do too badly with a 50Mhz '030. Or how about a SCSI-2 Nubus busmaster SCSI coprocessor. >I also DARE Apple to play fair and just, and stop trying to sue other >companies just because they are competing(GUI wise) or to put excessive >restrictions on their ROMs. Ridiculous. Why should Apple stop sueing when so many other companies are also doing it. As for the ROMs, why should Apple have to sell you ROMs?
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (03/15/91)
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <1991Mar13.221028.8703@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >>peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >>>The last innovative product that came out of Apple... let's see. How about the >>>original Macintosh? What have they done since then that wasn't just putting >>>faster chips in the same basic box? >> >> What happens if you apply the exact same reasoning to Commodore? >>[Before you flame, read and consider carefully. Ask yourself, "What >>has Commodore done over the past 5 years to the Amiga?" ] >Hmm, let's see, starting from the original A1000 they created >[in no particular order] >1) The A500, totally new motherboard and design, GARY chip >2) The A2000, Zorro II bus, and the Buster >[etc] But Apple has done exactly comparable things and more. Why does Apple get flamed for lack of innovation but Commodore can do no wrong? Methinks if Apple came out with a quad-88110 voice-recognition computer, you'd flame them for lack of innovation. But if Commodore discontinued the Amiga and told everyone they were reverting to a C-64 design, you'd call them forward thinking and innovative. Note, I don't think you can blame Apple or Commodore for being non-innovative. It's always a problem when everything you do has to be compatible with an installed base. For example, over the past 5 years, the only innovation I've seen in the PC market is NeXT and Go... both of who have had start-up operations. >The Mac was never innovative, it was a slow piece of trash in 1985, and >if you want to expand it EFFECTIVELY you have to buy a whole new model. >(like the NeXT pizzabox) The Macs with slots don't seem to have this problem... >I also DARE Apple to play fair and just, and stop trying to sue other >companies just because they are competing(GUI wise) or to put excessive >restrictions on their ROMs. Why do people insist on perpetrating this nonsense? Apple is not trying to restrict competing GUIs... Do you see them complaining about the Amiga? or NeXT? or Motif? or Openlook? Apple has a very specific suit - they signed an agreement with Microsoft on Windows 1.0, which Apple claims Microsoft broke when they introduced Windows 2.0. The courts, however, will decide if this is true. As for putting excessive restrictions on their ROMs... that's Apple's decision and only Apple's. If I were to write a book, should I be forced to make the publishing rights available to anyone?? I damn well wrote the book... I should have say over what happens to it. I don't think you can call Apple unfair or unjust for deciding to keep their ROMs to themselves. They spent however many 100 man-years writing that code, and if they want to keep the profits all to themselves, that's perfectly fair in my book. If it makes economic sense for Apple to license the ROMs, I imagine they will do so in the future (which incidentally looks quite likely to happen). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "And remember, whatever you do, DON'T MENTION THE WAR!"
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (03/15/91)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > This discussion is getting unrealistic on both sides. >Apple is still coming out with new and good products, but to call >the 3 new machines they just came out with "innovative" is >ridiculous too. They are step backwards. Steps sideways perhaps :-), except they did add sound input as standard (something only NeXTs can otherwise claim to have). And they are innovative in their pricing (for Apple at least). >technical innovation, with the ability to use scalable fonts for >all languages with automatic kerning in the OS and the ability to >enter text left-to-right, right-to-left and top-to-bottom. Actually, the left-to-right stuff etc has been in Apple's system for a number of years via the Script Manager (another Apple innovation) > Yes, but most people don't consider the A/UX to be Unix. >I know the arguments, but the final industry decision was against >A/UX. Was it? I guess we'll have to inform the U.S. Govt of that - they seem to like A/UX a lot. >with a full 32-bit bus running at 25MHz, built in 32-bit SCSI and Is this SCSI-2? SCSI-1 is an 8-bit protocol. >up to 18MB on the motherboard, Well, you can put 128MB on the motherboard of a Mac II today... not that it's really relevant. >They will be coming out with CDTV, Workbench 2.0, the University >of Lowell board. CDTV IS innovative - I forgot about that... but it seems to suffer the age-old Commodore problem of being announced 10 years before it's ready to ship :-) Look at what Apple is doing this year - first the StyleWriter ink-jet, plus a whole new range of high speed Laserwriters due later, System 7.0 (on May 13), 68040 Tower Mac, and at least one notebook Mac. >>[Before you flame, read and consider carefully. Ask yourself, "What >>has Commodore done over the past 5 years to the Amiga?" ] >> > This wasn't a flame. 5 years ago there was only the A1000 >with 256K, Workbench 1.0 and no software or hardware. I think >CBM's come a long way. And 7 years ago, there was only a 128K Mac, System 0.97, Finder 1.0, no software, definitely no hardware... Apple has also come a long way. Neither Commodore nor Apple can be praised for being wildly innovative in their designs - but then we shouldn't expect them to be either given that they have to be compatible with their installed base. When Commodore or Apple break with their Amiga and Macintosh designs respectively, we'll see what innovation means again. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "And remember, whatever you do, DON'T MENTION THE WAR!"
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/15/91)
In article <45597@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <1991Mar13.230616.1544@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >>The reason Commodore doesn't come out with new models everyyear is because >>they don't have to. The A2000/3000 are innovative and open enough to last years! > >Yeah, and I'm sure the expense of coming out with new models has nothing to do >with it. Uhuh. > To end all this petty bickering, Commodore DOES come out with a new model every year. In 1990 they came out with the 3000. In 1989 they came out with the A2000HD and A2500/20 and A2500/30. This year there is CDTV and the Unix Amigas, and probably a tower Amiga called the A3500. > Or how about a SCSI-2 Nubus busmaster SCSI coprocessor. Yes, both Apple and Commodore do that in their high-end machines. -- Ethan A tourist in New York City was overheard asking a New Yorker, "Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to the statue of liberty, or should I go f*ck myself?"
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/15/91)
In article <00668668801@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM> elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) writes: >From article <3$P-B6-@irie.ais.org>, by jph@ais.org (Joseph Hillenburg): >> In article <00668212609@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM> elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) writes: >>>From article <19467@cbmvax.commodore.com>, by raible@cbmvax.commodore.com >> (Bob Raible - LSI Design): >>>> In fact Jay Miner (former Atari guru) ... >>>Wrongo. >> Check who you're following up on next time. >I *KNOW* who I'm following up to :-). Actually, it's not Bob's fault. Most >of Commodore's present engineers came on board long after the original >Amiga team had been laid off/dispersed/quit/whatever. Well, a few of us, like me and Bob, have been at C= since before the Amiga. Some of us were among the first to get "into" the Amiga, but it started out on the user or hobby level first. For instance, I started using and programming an Amiga in 1985, but I didn't get to work on the hardware until the very end of 1986. Some of the IC folks now working on Amiga stuff got into it even later. Even old timers get their stories a little mixed up, and of course, we here on the Right Coast got a totally different picture of the goings on at Amiga than those who started the whole thing over there on the Left. Bob's chip designs are far more accurate than his story telling. And it wasn't that far off, anyway. The _stated_ goal, orginally, of the Amiga design team was to make an ultimate game machine, and that's how they started attracting money. That they wanted to, and actually managed to do more was certainly apparent by the time C= got involved. And the term "game machine" really shouldn't be a degradation, anyway. Basically, video games need to do many of the same kinds of things that personal computers need to do, only faster. The guts of many commercial video games, especially back in '85 when the Amiga was introduced, are far more sophisticated than your typical PC. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) (03/15/91)
>>No, the A500 stinks as far as what you get with it for the price. You get [stuff deleted] >1- Wrong. Applied Engineering has been making a High Density drive for all >amigas for several months now <its 1.5 megs> >2- whoopee. HD disks are much more expensive. :-D >3- Workbench 1.3 is very reliable, 90% of all software out right now will work >with it. If it doesnt work, its a very old game, from 1.2 or 1.1 days. You >are thinking of Workbench 2.0 which should be out any day now, any day. >4- I dont understand your "Hard drive case or powersupply" whine but I can >hook up a HD to my 500 rather easily. My only point is that the A500 is a rip off. Yes, you can add a drive, case, and powersupply. But only at a price. For $499 you get a machine without a monitor, SCSI, HD case, SIMM memory, Appletalk(even cheapo Tandys have this). For $749 you get a classic with SCSI, appletalk, _monitor_, and a killer OS. There is no better buy today than the Classic. > >>and not a respectable spreadsheet in sight. >Well we can just use amax and run a mac spreadsheet then :-D Again, at additional cost. [stuff deleted] >No, they have no ethics because they are suing everyone over look and feel >infringements. They are trying <and succeeding> in styfling innovations and >they have done a pretty good job of preventing Mac clones which enables them >to charge the ridiculous prices that they have been charging for years. >Commodore may not have been smart but they were never corrupt. They are suing two companies: HP & Microsoft. They are suing over a stolen look and feel. Commodore and NeXT were not sued, because they _innovated_ when they wrote their OS. Micosoft saw a good thing and xeroxed (pun intended) it. Apple is within their right (and duty) to protect the validity of their copyright on look and feel. Can you imagine a world where anyone could make a functional copy of Excel by analyzing the operation of it and release it as their own program without innovating. Look at Windows. Use it. Use a mac. Tell me Microsoft innovated.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar13.221028.8703@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>In article <91MAR12.134551@ducvax.auburn.edu> cs220x2a@ducvax.auburn.edu writes: >>> 3) Apple comes out with more innovative products than any other computer >>> company. >>The last innovative product that came out of Apple... let's see. How about the >>original Macintosh? What have they done since then that wasn't just putting >>faster chips in the same basic box? > What happens if you apply the exact same reasoning to Commodore? >You could say "The last innovative product to come out of Commodore was >the original Amiga. What have they done since then that wasn't just >putting faster chips in the same basic box?" It all depends on where you look. This certainly is the place for flames, so I guess we can look... > One could argue that Apple has been more innovative than Commodore >over the last 5 years. Apple started off with a monochrome, one-size >monitor non-expandable system. Letsee. Apple introduced the Mac in 1983. You're claiming here that between '83 and '86, Apple did absolutely nothing? Is that right? Amiga was introed in '85. In 1986, they introduced the expansion bus specifications. In '87, an affordable Amiga (A500) and one with slots (A2000). In '89, a 68020 system. In '90, a 68030 system. In '91, the A3000, a fully 32 bit system (expansion bus, memory, hard disk, etc). Except for the Amiga chips, a completely new architecture. Apple has its innovations, but hardware isn't generally where they shine. The Mac II and IIx, basically the same computer, were underpowered 68020/30 systems, using slow memory and the same 8 bit PIO hard disk. Sure, you could have decent graphics via an add-in, if speed wasn't a problem. The IIcx is essentially the same computer in a different box. The IIci was the first decent Mac, from a hardware point of view. They still used the same primitive hard disk system, same primitive I/O support (no 68030 system should have to read mouse quad clocks on its own) but at least did a decent job on the on-board graphics and memory system. The IIfx was a very good effort, though about twice as expensive as it should have been. And even now, the Mac OS can't take advantage of the I/O processors or DMA driven hard disk. At least that machine has the potential to be an acceptible UNIX system; earlier Mac IIs don't have the system bandwidth for any hard disk intensive OS. >Since then they've added things like 32-bit colour, You have to get 24 bit color from 3rd parties on the Amiga (no one is selling 32 bit color displays for Macs, or much anything else, actually). >expansion slots, Well, the Amiga had expansion slots before any Mac did. The A3000's Zorro III bus is far superior to the Mac's NuBus, as 32 bit buses go. Amiga expansion is far ahead of Mac expansion, basically due to the confusion in the Mac market. Apple provided "PDS" slots on some Macs, but they changed the PDS slot for different systems. NuBus was too slow for lots of needs, so they started putting a PDS slot on systems with NuBus slots. Now they have yet another kind of raw slot, which can be used as-is, or converted into NuBus or one kind of PDS slot. It's certainly enough to confuse me. And there's still no proper way to add in faster processors in most Macs, other than resorting to some kind of hack. Apple really seems to think you should buy a new computer rather than upgrading your current platform. >RISC graphics coprocessors, Commodore's high end graphics board uses a graphics coprocessor instead, and goes for CAD resolutions rather than bitplane depth. Both are certainly valid goals, depending on what you're after. Commodore has lots of other hardware for their expansion bus too -- PC-Clone on a card, memory boards, Ethernet, Arcnet, RS-232 x 7, etc. >Hypercard, Amiga has AmigaVision. Not the same thing, but it answers many of the same questions, and it's far easier for a novice user to program in. >Multifinder Well, obviously the Amiga OS didn't need anything in that category, since it started out multitasking. And still does this far better and more efficiently than the Mac Multifinder. After all, the Amiga OS will multitask in 256K (though C= doesn't sell a 256K system anymore). >and even A/UX [which runs old Mac applications as a task under Unix... >something the Amiga can't do comparably with Amiga applications]. That's true. What's also true is that Commodore's UNIX is a modern, standard UNIX, rather than being based on an old version of UNIX with nonstandard additions. Which is better for you depends, again, on what you're after. I doubt Apple considered A/UX a way to attrach UNIX people to Macs, since most of the Macs out there will have substandard performance under UNIX (eg, you need DMA, interrupts, and intelligent I/O for any multitasking OS, not PIO). But A/UX is a valid way to attract Mac users to UNIX, and lets the government "Supports UNIX" box get checked on order forms. The Amiga UNIX has the potential to attract UNIX people to the Amiga, since it is in all ways a modern, standard UNIX. If you want UNIX on your home system, and still want the advantages of a personal computer (expansion, cheap native OS software, etc.), the Amiga is an excellent system. > What has Commodore done in the same period? Amigas still seem to >have the same old colour restrictions, pretty much the same old >resolutions, pretty much the same old graphics chip set. So, in your opinion, graphics architecture is the whole thing? While Amigas do now have the second generation Amiga chip set, and A3000s support every basic display mode in either NTSC/PAL or VGA compatible resolutions, it's not a great leap from the original display. Of course, I'm running on this great 1000x800x2 Moniterm display that I've been using for over a year, and I have a similar one, the C= A2024, at home. That's hardly something we were doing back in '85. Graphics on the Amiga is a little like the hard disk interface on the Mac -- they're still reading that 8 bit SCSI chip with the processor, any time you're not on a Mac IIfx or whenever you run the Mac OS. Software follows a similar path. Apple's QuickDraw is nicely device independent. But everything else seems to hard wired in the OS. Amiga's only real drawback is that the graphic subsystem is too hard wired. All other I/O, either at the device or filesystem level, is fully device independent. So Macs drive a variety of displays. Amigas talk to zillions of different filesystems. Amiga OS 2.0 (which has been out on the A3000 for quite some time) fixed pretty much every GUI advantage the Mac had over the Amiga, but didn't stop there. It also added most of the things that Apple claims will be in Mac OS version 7, some day. It made it even easier to write an Amiga GUI based program, something that for the most part was already easier to do than the equivalent on a Mac. New technology isn't always the kind of thing that jumps right out and grabs you. In fact, if it grabs you too strongly (Multifinder maybe?), that's probably because it is making up for a long standing problem, not that it's all that amazing when standing on its own. >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/15/91)
In article <4239.27de4b9d@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >In article <1991Mar12.224905.4774@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> been overpricing their products for years! The Mac Classic is nothing more than >> a repackaged Mac (e.g. Old technology) with a slightly lower price and a >The Classic was totally redesigned. I forget the numbers, but it uses >significantly less amount of chips than the Mac Plus, and it is faster than >the old SE. I believe Amax or Spectre for the ST would have trouble keeping >up with it now. I doubt it. Most of the redesigns for Macs have been "further integration", or "should have been this way to begin with". As with any system, you can build a single new chip to replace a handful on an older board. The problems fixed in the SE, like the old Mac variable speed floppy, really shouldn't have been there in the first place. After all, the C64's 1541 used variable sectoring, like the Mac, and was doing it via variable density read/write rather than changes in motor speed since the beginning. Other reductions in unnecessary CPU overhead in the newer Macs can only bring them up to the level of the Amiga, or the ST for that matter. And any graphics manipulations on these slower 68000 machines will be done faster if you let the Amiga blitter do it, no question about it. >I would like to see how an Amiga 1000 would compare to a IIfx!! (Right, >this is a good matchup.) The IIfx is a mighty formidable machine, I'd like >to see Unix running on a A1000. Strangely enough, the first 68020 prototypes and primitive Amiga UNIX was run an A1000. UNIX isn't going to run on a stock A1000 any better, of course, that it would run on a stock Mac SE or Atari ST. You can, however, upgrade an A1000 to be UNIX capable in an Amiga supported fashion, something you can't do on most of these other systems. >Ryan 'Gozar' Collins Question for IBM Users: rlcollins@miavx1.BITNET -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar14.182414.11033@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >>with a full 32-bit bus running at 25MHz, built in 32-bit SCSI and > Is this SCSI-2? SCSI-1 is an 8-bit protocol. Well, actually, the A3000 ships with SCSI-1 now, but can easily support SCSI-2 with a chip change. SCSI-1, and most SCSI-2 implementations as well, use 8 bit datapaths. So what? AppleTalk and RS-232 use 1 bit data paths, that doesn't mean I'm going to make my computer read each of these in one bit at a time. In most Mac, that's exactly what you're doing with SCSI. In the A3000, data from the SCSI bus goes into a FIFO. When the FIFO is full, the hard disk controller masters the bus and dumps that data to memory, going fast and using the full system bus with of 32 bits. Then it goes away, and waits for the FIFO to fill again. When the transfer is complete, it send the CPU an interrupt. Amiga SCSI works the same on A2000s and A500s, except they use the 16 bit data path on those machines. >>up to 18MB on the motherboard, > Well, you can put 128MB on the motherboard of a Mac II today... not >that it's really relevant. Certainly not MOST Mac IIs. The IIcx here in my lab only has two banks of SIMMs. It supports (at least I think it does...) up to 16Mbit SIMMs, which would give you 32MB, if fully populated. It is a moot point, since the Mac OS can't use more that 16MB (sure, cheap shot, but it was a big target...). > CDTV IS innovative - I forgot about that... but it seems to suffer >the age-old Commodore problem of being announced 10 years before it's >ready to ship :-) Gee, guess I missed that 1981 announcement. Of course, I was kind of out of touch in college... > Look at what Apple is doing this year Well, that's what Apple is announcing this year. Like CDTV, or Mac OS release 7, we'll believe it when it's out. >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/15/91)
In article <7906@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: > >My only point is that the A500 is a rip off. Yes, you can add a drive, case, >and powersupply. But only at a price. For $499 you get a machine without >a monitor, SCSI, HD case, SIMM memory, Appletalk(even cheapo Tandys have this). For $749 you get a classic with SCSI, appletalk, _monitor_, and a killer OS. >There is no better buy today than the Classic. While admittedly it is time the A500 went in for an overhaul, hey, I don't want the Classic's _monitor_. It is a tiny $6 B&W screen. The A500 for $500 comes with the ability to connect it directly to your TV if you really want to save money. And I do agree that most real applications don't need color, still the SIZE of the display is frustrating. It also comes with starter software. Admittedly, there is no SCSI, which would be nice. Admittedly there is no AppleTalk, which can be useful for some, although many people who need networking would do better with Arcnet/Ethernet. And, we won't get into another OS debate. > >They are suing two companies: HP & Microsoft. They are suing over a stolen >look and feel. Commodore and NeXT were not sued, because they _innovated_ when >they wrote their OS. Micosoft saw a good thing and xeroxed (pun intended) it. > >Apple is within their right (and duty) to protect the validity of their >copyright on look and feel. > >Can you imagine a world where anyone could make a functional copy of Excel by >analyzing the operation of it and release it as their own program without >innovating. Look at Windows. Use it. Use a mac. Tell me Microsoft innovated. This is the way I look at it: 1) All VCRs look alike 2) All Blenders look alike 3) All telephones look alike etc. etc. etc. They all have the same look and feel, almost without exception. There is no "innovation" between different brands of blenders. Yet there are no lawsuits there. I think the same should apply here. As long as it isn't duplicated exactly and there is no copying of actually source or binary, so be it. -- Ethan A tourist in New York City was overheard asking a New Yorker, "Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to the statue of liberty, or should I go f*ck myself?"
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/15/91)
In article <19880@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In '89, a 68020 system. >In '90, a 68030 system. In '91, the A3000, a fully 32 bit system (expansion >bus, memory, hard disk, etc). Except for the Amiga chips, a completely new >architecture. Doesn't this guy know anything? The A2500/20 was out in '88, the A2500/30 in '89, and the A3000 in '91. Maybe he was thinking of something else. Probably beer.... -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (03/15/91)
In article <7906@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: >My only point is that the A500 is a rip off. Yes, you can add a drive, case, >and powersupply. But only at a price. For $499 you get a machine without >a monitor, SCSI, HD case, SIMM memory, Appletalk(even cheapo Tandys have this). For $749 you get a classic with SCSI, appletalk, _monitor_, and a killer OS. >There is no better buy today than the Classic. >> Color is extra for the Classic. Performance is slow. No animation or sprites. HD is extra. Amiga 500 + A590 (SCSI,2mb memory,20mb HD,case) + monitor=$1100 All total, this package would would have 3mb of ram. The A590's SCSI would be much faster than the Classic's, and it would still have all the basic amiga abilities, like color, multitasking, sound,animation. >>Well we can just use amax and run a mac spreadsheet then :-D > >Again, at additional cost. Heh, so pirate it. Just kidding ;-) >[stuff deleted] >>No, they have no ethics because they are suing everyone over look and feel >>infringements. They are trying <and succeeding> in styfling innovations and >>they have done a pretty good job of preventing Mac clones which enables them >>to charge the ridiculous prices that they have been charging for years. >>Commodore may not have been smart but they were never corrupt. > >They are suing two companies: HP & Microsoft. They are suing over a stolen >look and feel. Commodore and NeXT were not sued, because they _innovated_ when >they wrote their OS. Micosoft saw a good thing and xeroxed (pun intended) it. > >Apple is within their right (and duty) to protect the validity of their >copyright on look and feel. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Apple has no copyright on 'look and feel.' It's an impossible concept. Like copyrighting the Look-And-Feel of Mac Donalds. Burger King, Hardees, Roy Rogers(bought by Hardees), etc would be out of business. Apple has the right to protect their OS code, that's it. >Can you imagine a world where anyone could make a functional copy of Excel by >analyzing the operation of it and release it as their own program without >innovating. Look at Windows. Use it. Use a mac. Tell me Microsoft innovated. Look, all things start somewhere. Everyone borrows elements of someone elses ideas (it's called research, and learning) and improves upon them. It's perfectly OK to clone the functionality of someone elses software as long as you didn't REVERSE ENGINEER the code. Look. If you invented the automobile, it's perfectly ok for me to make a machine that performs the same functions exactly, as long as I don't steal your blue prints, disassemble your engine to find out how it works. The only way I see Apple's claim as valid is if they: 1) Supplied source code to Microsoft on how to implement a GUI 2) Microsoft disassembled Apple roms, and copied the algorithms
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (03/15/91)
In article <4239.27de4b9d@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: >I would like to see how an Amiga 1000 would compare to a [Mac] IIfx!! That's an easy comparison. For the price of 1 Mac IIfx, I can buy 30-35 Amiga 1000's (assuming about $300 each, which seems to be the going price these days on the used market). :-) Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (03/15/91)
[ I don't care how irrelevant the Subject: line is. This is .advocacy, after all. ] In article <1991Mar14.180927.10017@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > Why do people insist on perpetrating this nonsense? Apple is not >trying to restrict competing GUIs... Do you see them complaining >about the Amiga? or NeXT? or Motif? or Openlook? Neither the Amiga nor the NeXT are a specifc threat to the Mac. Apple has nothing to gain and dollars and time to lose in persuing them, time and dollars better spent in persuing infractors with more cash... Open Look uses technology specifically licensed to AT&T by Xerox, which is the origin of all this desktop-metaphor, overlapping-windows & mice stuff anyway. Xerox technology was the seed for the Mac's interface. That Apple hasn't licensed this technology has not been an issue in the courts; and if Apple leaves Open Look and Xerox alone, it may not arise. Oh, and speaking of "innovations", the only time innovation appears is when a new computer architecture is introduced. The old original Mac 128 was an innovation in software and user interface technology on a PC. The Amiga 1000 was an innovation as a balanced custom VLSI hardware/ multitasking software combination with an emphasis on performance. Neither has really advanced past these basic innovations, the changes in both lines have merely been refinements. -- 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 / / ckp@grebyn.com \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) (03/15/91)
[stuff deleted] > Color is extra for the Classic. Performance is slow. No animation or sprites. >HD is extra. HD is _less_ extra than for the 500. SCSI is there. A 40 meg is $199 total for the mac. > [stuff deleted] >>>Well we can just use amax and run a mac spreadsheet then :-D >> >>Again, at additional cost. >Heh, so pirate it. Just kidding ;-) Well actually this is a very serious point about the Amiga. The main reason "big" software developers ignore the amiga. The Amiga has the most pirates of any platform. They don't pirate to "try and buy". They just pirate. [stuff deleted] >>Apple is within their right (and duty) to protect the validity of their >>copyright on look and feel. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Apple has no copyright on 'look and feel.' It's an impossible concept. >Like copyrighting the Look-And-Feel of Mac Donalds. Burger King, >Hardees, Roy Rogers(bought by Hardees), etc would be out of business. > We'll see what the judge rules. Paperback already lost to Lotus on look and feel. >Apple has the right to protect their OS code, that's it. > Again, we'll see. Anyone can write code. It takes a little more to do it with a good interface. NeXT has a great interface. They innovated, Microsoft didn't. [stuff deleted] > Look. If you invented the automobile, it's perfectly ok for me >to make a machine that performs the same functions exactly, as long >as I don't steal your blue prints, disassemble your engine to find >out how it works. Cars aren't computers. Read that out loud a few times. Most of the work of computer programs is on the interface. Ask a programmer. This is the work that should be protected. Most of the work of a car is engineering. Ditto for the Mac. > >The only way I see Apple's claim as valid is if they: >1) Supplied source code to Microsoft on how to implement a GUI >2) Microsoft disassembled Apple roms, and copied the algorithms What is the weather like on your planet?
blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) (03/15/91)
> While admittedly it is time the A500 went in for an >overhaul, hey, I don't want the Classic's _monitor_. It is a tiny >$6 B&W screen. The A500 for $500 comes with the ability to >connect it directly to your TV if you really want to save money. Good point. The 9" screen is small. BUT, for $300 you can add a 640x480 VGA monitor as a second monitor (i.e., use both at once for different data. That $300 is darn close to the ~300 a monitor costs for an Amiga. [stuff deleted] >Admittedly there is no AppleTalk, which can be useful for >some, although many people who need networking would do better >with Arcnet/Ethernet. True, but Appletalk is great for 3 or 4 machine networks (sharing modems, printers, plotters). It's all I've ever used at a non-university location. Ethernet is overkill for most of the small businesses I've seen using macs. Appletalk is flexible and cheap and widely supported.
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (03/15/91)
In article <7920@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: |[stuff deleted] | Color is extra for the Classic. Performance is slow. No animation or sprites. |HD is extra. | |HD is _less_ extra than for the 500. SCSI is there. A 40 meg is $199 total for the mac. They must be some REAL slow HD's. 40mb Quantum's or Fujitsu's which are between 11ms and 19ms cost about $400 in bulk. |Apple is within their right (and duty) to protect the validity of their |copyright on look and feel. | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |Apple has no copyright on 'look and feel.' It's an impossible concept. |Like copyrighting the Look-And-Feel of Mac Donalds. Burger King, |Hardees, Roy Rogers(bought by Hardees), etc would be out of business. | |We'll see what the judge rules. Paperback already lost to Lotus on look and |feel. Apple is going to have to contend with the LPF and EFF. I hope AT&T applies their backing store patent to Apple. Patents override copyrights. Hehe :-) Yeah, and let's get Xerox in there and have them sue Apple. |Apple has the right to protect their OS code, that's it. | |Again, we'll see. Anyone can write code. It takes a little more to do it |with a good interface. NeXT has a great interface. They innovated, |Microsoft didn't. Interface's can be designed with a little thought and an interface builder. Designing good algorithms is the hardest part of coding. | |[stuff deleted] | Look. If you invented the automobile, it's perfectly ok for me |to make a machine that performs the same functions exactly, as long |as I don't steal your blue prints, disassemble your engine to find |out how it works. | |Cars aren't computers. Copyrights, Look-and-feel, and the laws of nature apply to everything. |Read that out loud a few times. Most of the work of computer programs is on |the interface. Ask a programmer. This is the work that should be protected. |Most of the work of a car is engineering. Ditto for the Mac. I am a programmer. I've been programming for 7 years. Try writing an OS, or designing a file system, or a compiler. The interface is the easy part of the programming. Coding the interface is straightforward. You can lay it out on paper, or use an interface builder. | |The only way I see Apple's claim as valid is if they: |1) Supplied source code to Microsoft on how to implement a GUI |2) Microsoft disassembled Apple roms, and copied the algorithms | |What is the weather like on your planet? As usual with Mac users. Your a complete computer neophyte. You seem to know nothing about programming or engineering. Most programmers don't want to have to live in fear of being sued for using an OBVIOUS idea that someone else patented or copyrighted. I don't speak for all programmers, but I know this is the general feeling of alot of them, including myself. Especially since my account resides onthe FSF machines. Home of GNU and the League of Programming Freedom. The laws need to be changed concerning electronic media.
blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) (03/15/91)
>| Color is extra for the Classic. Performance is slow. No animation or sprites. >|HD is extra. >| >|HD is _less_ extra than for the 500. SCSI is there. A 40 meg is $199 total fo r the mac. > They must be some REAL slow HD's. 40mb Quantum's or Fujitsu's which >are between 11ms and 19ms cost about $400 in bulk. > > If you want a Quantum: Quantum 40 11ms $239 including cables and mounting bracket Club-mac 800-CLUBMAC The Mac Market is very competitive thus pricing is low. Where'd you come up with $400 for a quantum? 105 meg quantums are $349.
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (03/15/91)
x.commodore.com> Sender: Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Keywords: In article <19885@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <19880@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > >>In '89, a 68020 system. >>In '90, a 68030 system. In '91, the A3000, a fully 32 bit system (expansion >>bus, memory, hard disk, etc). Except for the Amiga chips, a completely new >>architecture. > >Doesn't this guy know anything? The A2500/20 was out in '88, the A2500/30 in >'89, and the A3000 in '91. Maybe he was thinking of something else. Probably >beer.... You need more beer, dave. I think you mean '90 for the A3000. '91 is for something else (BTW, what day does hannover start?) -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com BIX: rjesup The compiler runs Like a swift-flowing river I wait in silence. (From "The Zen of Programming") ;-)
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (03/15/91)
In article <7921@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) writes:
True, but Appletalk is great for 3 or 4 machine networks (sharing modems,
printers, plotters). It's all I've ever used at a non-university location.
Ethernet is overkill for most of the small businesses I've seen using macs.
Appletalk is flexible and cheap and widely supported.
Ethernet is overkill. You must be joking. Anything less is
unacceptable.
-Mikecs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) (03/15/91)
In article <7920@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) writes: >Well actually this is a very serious point about the Amiga. The main reason >"big" software developers ignore the amiga. The Amiga has the most pirates >of any platform. They don't pirate to "try and buy". They just pirate. Humm, glad to hear you represent so many "big" software developers. I'd be willing to bet that (because of sheer numbers) there are more pirates on the MS/DOS platform. If you really meant percentage wise, who knows, you don't. Could we please refain from makinf BS remarks? Thanks. Loren J. Rittle -- ``NewTek stated that the Toaster *would* *not* be made to directly support the Mac, at this point Sculley stormed out of the booth...'' --- A scene at the recent MacExpo. Gee, you wouldn't think that an Apple Exec would be so worried about one little Amiga device... Loren J. Rittle l-rittle@uiuc.edu
cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) (03/15/91)
In article <7924@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) writes: >>| Color is extra for the Classic. Performance is slow. No animation or sprites. >>|HD is extra. >>| >>|HD is _less_ extra than for the 500. SCSI is there. A 40 meg is $199 total >>|for the mac. <response removed...> >If you want a Quantum: >Quantum 40 11ms $239 including cables and mounting bracket I like how the price went up $40. Oh well, that point is irrelevant, as... > >Club-mac 800-CLUBMAC > >The Mac Market is very competitive thus pricing is low. Where'd you come >up with $400 for a quantum? 105 meg quantums are $349. ...the Amiga can use the same cheap SCSI drives you are talking about. I don't think you know the first thing about the Amiga. If you did, you would have known that Amiga HD controllers could use the same `Club-mac 800-CLUBMAC' number you give above... What is your point, are you just a stupid Hack-n-Slosher who *wants* to get flamed in c.s.a.a? Loren J. Rittle -- ``NewTek stated that the Toaster *would* *not* be made to directly support the Mac, at this point Sculley stormed out of the booth...'' --- A scene at the recent MacExpo. Gee, you wouldn't think that an Apple Exec would be so worried about one little Amiga device... Loren J. Rittle l-rittle@uiuc.edu
pswanson@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Paul Swanson) (03/15/91)
In article <7920@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: > >Well actually this is a very serious point about the Amiga. The main reason >"big" software developers ignore the amiga. The Amiga has the most pirates >of any platform. They don't pirate to "try and buy". They just pirate. What a Crock! I don't want to incriminate anyone I know but let me just say that I know at least 50 Mac users (and that is a very conservative estimate) and EVERY SINGLE ONE IS A PIRATE. And these are not people who do things like subscribe to pirate BBSes. They are what Mac users would describe as the typical Mac user. So called "big" software developers can absorb massive pirating on systems like the Mac or IBM because there is such a large installed user base. Only a small fraction of the total users have to pay for the program to make it profitable. Personally I am unable to pirate amiga programs since I am the only amiga user I know. >> >We'll see what the judge rules. Paperback already lost to Lotus on look and >feel. [stuff wiped out] >Cars aren't computers. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is the basic problem with the law and computers. Basically I think that leagal types are not competent to deal with issues relating to computers. Look and feel IS a bogus argument. First off, I can think of several Mac programs, such as Hypercard, where you can make the case that they don't have the same "feel" even on all Macs. On an SE/30 your stack may work great but you will want to throw your Plus out the window due to the lack of speed. Second, what constitues similar look and feel is extreemly subjective, but even worse, it is basically arbitrary. When this is combined with the basic ignorance of the judges the winner in any look and feel case will be the one willing to spend the most money on lawyers. Of course even worse than look and feel is the idea of software patents. I think the best way to deal with these is to declair all code up to this point in time as obvious and therefore not worthy of a patent. Even beter would be to not allow software patents at all. Perhaps this is my own personal prejudice showing through since I am a REAL engineer (as in chemical). Paul.
blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) (03/15/91)
>Ethernet is overkill. You must be joking. Anything less is >unacceptable. > Anything less than an Acura is undrivable too. Believe it or not some people do not need the speed of ethernet. With background peer to peer networking and print services I find Appletalk quite acceptable.
don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (03/15/91)
In article <7920@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: >> Color is extra for the Classic. Performance is slow. No animation or sprites. >>HD is extra. > >HD is _less_ extra than for the 500. SCSI is there. A 40 meg is $199 total for the mac. What's the point in having the SCSI controller without a drive? You're paying extra for something you're not using. You'll also be getting a very fast, DMA-driven HD on the Amiga (unless you buy a really cheap controller) vs. a slow, CPU-polled drive on the Mac. > >Well actually this is a very serious point about the Amiga. The main reason >"big" software developers ignore the amiga. The Amiga has the most pirates >of any platform. They don't pirate to "try and buy". They just pirate. Most pirates of any platform? Funny, our local Computerland no longer carries Mac software... the reason? Doesn't sell. Too much piracy. Their Amiga software, on the other hand, is doing quite well. On what are you basing your "facts"? Are you trying to tell us that <2.5 million Amigas have more piracy in their community than the tens of million of PCs out there? Games happen to be one of the Amiga's strengths, and obviously the game market is likely to be the one most heavily pirated. But I'd guess (note that I'm not blatantly claiming my assumptions to be fact) that in the area of professional level software, the Amiga is much less pirated (percentage-wise) than the Mac and PC markets where millions of people just bring home their software from the office without a second thought. The main reason the big software developers ignore the Amiga is that it has that Commodore name associated with it. For the most part this is a very out-of-date attitude, as CBM as a company has really gotten its act together. Pirates on any platform are about equally likely to "try and buy"... i.e. ~0% chance... {stuff about stealing looks, feels, cars, & fast food deleted } -- Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork is spoken fork() be Contact don@brahms.udel.edu for more information. here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.
sss10@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Napalm) (03/15/91)
In article <7906@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: >>>No, the A500 stinks as far as what you get with it for the price. You get >[stuff deleted] >>1- Wrong. Applied Engineering has been making a High Density drive for all >>amigas for several months now <its 1.5 megs> >>2- whoopee. HD disks are much more expensive. :-D >>3- Workbench 1.3 is very reliable, 90% of all software out right now will work >>with it. If it doesnt work, its a very old game, from 1.2 or 1.1 days. You >>are thinking of Workbench 2.0 which should be out any day now, any day. >>4- I dont understand your "Hard drive case or powersupply" whine but I can >>hook up a HD to my 500 rather easily. > >My only point is that the A500 is a rip off. Yes, you can add a drive, case, >and powersupply. But only at a price. For $499 you get a machine without >a monitor, SCSI, HD case, SIMM memory, Appletalk(even cheapo Tandys have this). For $749 you get a classic with SCSI, appletalk, _monitor_, and a killer OS. >There is no better buy today than the Classic. scuse my ignorance but what is apple talk? for $500 you get a 1/2 meg amiga. ive seen advertisments for 1 meg amigas for about the same price though thats usually Montgomery Grant or other mail order houses. There are a plethora of monitors available for the amiga. the 1084S is probably the most commonly purchased one for the 500 and I do agree its expensive <~$300> but to compare it to the mac monitor, you can get a b&w monitor for barely $200 and it will be larger than the Mac monitor. >>>and not a respectable spreadsheet in sight. >>Well we can just use amax and run a mac spreadsheet then :-D > >Again, at additional cost. for ~$1000 a person can run Amiga software and whatever software works on a Mac plus <provided you find the roms to the mac>. Thats close to list price for the classic <which is very close to that mac plus>
metahawk@itsgw.rpi.edu (Wayne G Rigby) (03/15/91)
In article <19884@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: [stuff deleted] >Well, that's what Apple is announcing this year. Like CDTV, or Mac OS release >7, we'll believe it when it's out. > I have had the opportunity to use a Beta copy of System 7 fairly extensively. Much of the things that are immediately evident is a reworking of the way the GUI looks. Much of it (like the textured "thumbs" on the sliders) is pretty, and nothing much else. There are some nice new additions like the scripts allowing 'Launcher' like capabilities built into the OS. I found this Beta copy just a little less stable than 6.0.5 with the things that would run on it. It was extremely easy to crash the system at times. (I was really surprised when PSpice crashed the system.) It also was completely incompatible with Apple's 8.24 card (did not work at all). The System file took easily 2 megs (we had over 3 megs for a while) and would not fit/work on anything with less than 2 megs of RAM. I didn't find any real improvement with multitasking; the mouse pointer was smoother than system 6, still couldn't do anything during floppy formatting, and couldn't access 2 or more drives at once. I do like the scalable fonts though. I have heard that a new Beta copy (Gamma?) has been released since I've played with the one I tinkered with, but from the feel I've had so far, it's going to be just a while longer before it's compatible enough to ship (of course, this is just my opinion). It's nice, but I have friends with Macs who've been talking about System 7 for much more than a year now. I didn't know about Workbench 2.0 until the 3000 was out (or there about). Talking about dangling an apple in front of the donkey (puns intended). Now, anybody willing to trade their A3000 for my C128 one for one? I'd really appreciate it, as I can't afford one while paying about $14,000/year in tuition alone (before loans/scolarships). :) > >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett Wayne Rigby - Computer and Systems Engineer (in training) metahawk@rpi.edu
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (03/15/91)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1991Mar14.182414.11033@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >>es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >>>with a full 32-bit bus running at 25MHz, built in 32-bit SCSI and >> Is this SCSI-2? SCSI-1 is an 8-bit protocol. >> Well, you can put 128MB on the motherboard of a Mac II today... not >>that it's really relevant. >Certainly not MOST Mac IIs. The IIcx here in my lab only has two banks of >SIMMs. It supports (at least I think it does...) up to 16Mbit SIMMs, which >would give you 32MB, if fully populated. Hmm... you must have been thinking of beer last night Dave. 2 banks of SIMMs = 8 SIMMs * 16MB each = 128MB. A firm demonstrated just such a setup at January's MacWorld (of course I wouldn't like to pay for that much memory!) >It is a moot point, since the Mac >OS can't use more that 16MB (sure, cheap shot, but it was a big target...). Depends what version of the OS you're using, 6.0 or 7.0. >Well, that's what Apple is announcing this year. Like CDTV, or Mac OS release >7, we'll believe it when it's out. Apple has a better track record than Commodore of making products available immediately upon announcement... when was that OS 2.0 for non-3000 owners supposed to be available?? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "If it weren't for your gumboots, where would you be? You'd be in the hospital, or in-firm-ary..." F. Dagg
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (03/15/91)
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: >[ I don't care how irrelevant the Subject: line is. This is .advocacy, >after all. ] >Open Look uses technology specifically licensed to AT&T by Xerox, which >is the origin of all this desktop-metaphor, overlapping-windows & mice >stuff anyway. Xerox technology was the seed for the Mac's interface. >That Apple hasn't licensed this technology has not been an issue in the >courts; and if Apple leaves Open Look and Xerox alone, it may not arise. Isn't there an urban legend that Apple did indeed license technology from Xerox before announcing the Lisa. There was mention of this in one of the books on Silicon Valley, but it seems to be fairly uncertain whether this is actually true. Anyone out there in wonderland know the answer? >Oh, and speaking of "innovations", the only time innovation appears is >when a new computer architecture is introduced. The old original Mac >128 was an innovation in software and user interface technology on a PC. >The Amiga 1000 was an innovation as a balanced custom VLSI hardware/ >multitasking software combination with an emphasis on performance. >Neither has really advanced past these basic innovations, the changes in >both lines have merely been refinements. Exactly what I said, although a few people don't seem to agree with you and me. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "If it weren't for your gumboots, where would you be? You'd be in the hospital, or in-firm-ary..." F. Dagg
kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (03/15/91)
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >Isn't there an urban legend that Apple did indeed license technology >from Xerox before announcing the Lisa. There was mention of this in >one of the books on Silicon Valley, but it seems to be fairly >uncertain whether this is actually true. I'm glad you've got a healthy skepticism about those books. But yes, I believe Apple licensed Smalltalk from Xerox. One of the more interesting interviews in BYTE magazine btw, was with the Lisa team back when it was unveiled... Q: "Do you have a Xerox Star here that you work with?" A: "No, we didn't have one here. We went to the NCC when the Star was announced and looked at it. And in fact it did have an immediate impact. A few months after looking at it we made some changes to our user interface based on ideas that we got from it. For example, the desktop manager we had before was completely different; it didn't use icons at all, and we never liked it very much. We decided to change ours to the icon base. That was probably the only thing we got from the Star, I think. Most of our Xerox inspiration was Smalltalk rather than Star." kevin <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
cr1@shark.cis.ufl.edu (Anubis) (03/15/91)
In article <7906@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: >>>No, the A500 stinks as far as what you get with it for the price. You get >[stuff deleted] What do you Expect in their low end machine? I'll tackle this later in this message. >>3- Workbench 1.3 is very reliable, 90% of all software out right now will work I dare say it is a higher percentage then that. We're talking 1.3 here, not 2.0...heh heh. >>4- I dont understand your "Hard drive case or powersupply" whine but I can >>hook up a HD to my 500 rather easily. Right. You can also get some pretty decent powersupply replacements. >They are suing two companies: HP & Microsoft. They are suing over a stolen >look and feel. Commodore and NeXT were not sued, because they _innovated_ when Give them time. If apple wins one 'lookie feelie' lawsuit, I guarrantee you there will be more...and not just from apple. Now as far as The A500 goes, come on guys...the author of the message who is complaining about its lack of expandability is trying to make it something it is not. It is a low end machine in the Amiga line. It is meant to run perfectly fine without a harddrive or all that other stuff. If you want to expand it, fine...but you're going to have to pay for it. I don't understand how you can complain about that point. Talk about grasping for straws. I hate apples...
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar15.092920.16477@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: [...] >>Certainly not MOST Mac IIs. The IIcx here in my lab only has two banks of >>SIMMs. It supports (at least I think it does...) up to 16Mbit SIMMs, which >>would give you 32MB, if fully populated. ^^^ > > Hmm... you must have been thinking of beer last night Dave. 2 banks of SIMMs >= 8 SIMMs * 16MB each = 128MB. A firm demonstrated just such a setup >at January's MacWorld (of course I wouldn't like to pay for that much memory) [...] I don't know, Evan, but it sounds like you are the one who is confused. Dave clearly stated 16 Mbits, not 16 Mbytes. If you want to take issue, you should do it over the size of the simms, not the math. I believe Dave's math is correct here. You just ignored the fact that he was talking about 16 Mbit simms. --
passaret@brahe.crd.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar15.092920.16477@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: # # >It is a moot point, since the Mac # >OS can't use more that 16MB (sure, cheap shot, but it was a big target...). # #Depends what version of the OS you're using, 6.0 or 7.0. Well, I'm using 6.07, and I'm looking at the docs right here, and it says "Your Macintosh computer can hold 8 1MB SIMMs or 8 4MB SIMMs for a total of 8 or 32 MB" I tried 32 MB, but only 8 showed up. Oh well. Guess I'll go out and get System 7.0. What? I can't buy that? For ANY Mac? Oh. So I should put 128MB in and not see 120MB of it? Great idea there. # >Well, that's what Apple is announcing this year. # >Like CDTV, or Mac OS release 7, we'll believe it when it's out. # # Apple has a better track record than Commodore of making products #available immediately upon announcement... when was that OS 2.0 #for non-3000 owners supposed to be available?? Commodore has not yet announced the release of that product. Shall I repeat that? Commodore employees have said that such a thing will, no doubt, happen, but there has been (as far as I know, and I read a LOT of the industry rags) no OFFICIAL announcement of a release date. While this may be a fine point, it's better than announcing it and moving it 3 or 4 times, then trimming off features to make even those dates. At least there are legitimate USER copies of 2.0 available, and not Beta mumble.mumble stuff that everybody can Ooh and Aah over, but you can't go out and buy. Not even with a IIfx can I get System 7.0. End of comparison. I've been running 2.0 now for about 6 months, and I have yet to find anything that's not a game that doen't run seamlessly (except for some PD stuff). And it will run on my 1000. System 7.0 REALLY doen't like my Plus. And you can forget the 512e that's gathering dust here somewhere. Oh, and the Amiga OS has, for a long time, supported as much memory as you can throw at it. Of course, it doesn't require a 2MB machine to run it either, so you may not need as much. 'Nuff said. #Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu #define CHEAP_SHOT Wait to you get out in the "Real World"(tm) before you start telling people who've been doing this for a living for years how the industry works, OK? #endif /* CHEAP_SHOT */ - MM P.S. Sorry for the flamage, but the misinformation about 7.0 AND 2.0 on the net is worse than anything Ollie and co. ever dreamed of. -- passaretti@crd.ge.com {whatever}!crdgw1!brahe!passaret
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/16/91)
In article <19885@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <19880@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > >>In '89, a 68020 system. >>In '90, a 68030 system. In '91, the A3000, a fully 32 bit system (expansion >>bus, memory, hard disk, etc). Except for the Amiga chips, a completely new >>architecture. > >Doesn't this guy know anything? The A2500/20 was out in '88, the A2500/30 in >'89, and the A3000 in '91. Maybe he was thinking of something else. Probably >beer.... If I remember correctly, the A2000HD and A2500/20, along with the AT BB, were released at AmiExpo NYC on March 3 of 1989. I believe the 2500/30 came out in November of that year. >-- >Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy > "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett -- Ethan A tourist in New York City was overheard asking a New Yorker, "Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to the statue of liberty, or should I go f*ck myself?"
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/16/91)
In article <17621@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <passaretti@crd.ge.com> writes: > >In article <1991Mar15.092920.16477@neon.Stanford.EDU> >torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: ># Apple has a better track record than Commodore of making products >#available immediately upon announcement... when was that OS 2.0 >#for non-3000 owners supposed to be available?? > >Commodore has not yet announced the release of that product. >Shall I repeat that? Commodore employees have said that such a >thing will, no doubt, happen, but there has been (as far as I >know, and I read a LOT of the industry rags) no OFFICIAL >announcement of a release date. While this may be a fine point, This is not the case. Back when the A3000 was launched last April, CBM sent out a press release claiming a September shipment of 2.0. That makes then 6 months late. Of course, Mac System 7.0 is a lot later than that. >#Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu > >#define CHEAP_SHOT > >Wait to you get out in the "Real World"(tm) before you start >telling people who've been doing this for a living for years how >the industry works, OK? > >#endif /* CHEAP_SHOT */ > > - MM > >P.S. Sorry for the flamage, but the misinformation about 7.0 AND >2.0 on the net is worse than anything Ollie and co. ever dreamed >of. > >-- >passaretti@crd.ge.com {whatever}!crdgw1!brahe!passaret -- Ethan A tourist in New York City was overheard asking a New Yorker, "Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to the statue of liberty, or should I go f*ck myself?"
farren@sat.com (Michael J. Farren) (03/16/91)
blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu writes: >Well actually this is a very serious point about the Amiga. The main reason >"big" software developers ignore the amiga. The Amiga has the most pirates >of any platform. They don't pirate to "try and buy". They just pirate. Oh, please. The Amiga doesn't have the "most pirates", by my experience. I don't know where you came up with that idea, but my own investigations show that IBM systems have by far the "most pirates", and that that is due to the simple fact that there are more of those systems out there. The actual percentage of piracy seems to be remarkably similar from system to system - I know that I have _never_ seen a purchased copy of Lode Runner on the Mac, just as I have rarely seen a purchased copy of WordStar on the IBM. The reason "big" software developers ignore the Amiga (if they do, which I also question - I know, for example, that Aldus once seriously investigated the idea of porting PageMaker to the Ami) is because they perceive the Amiga business market as being small. Which it is, unfortunately for us. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael J. Farren farren@sat.com | | He's moody, but he's cute. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
farren@sat.com (Michael J. Farren) (03/16/91)
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com writes: > You need more beer, dave. I think you mean '90 for the A3000. '91 >is for something else (BTW, what day does hannover start?) ^^^^^^^^^^^ hint? ^^^^^^^^^^ You guys make me crazy! :-) -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael J. Farren farren@sat.com | | He's moody, but he's cute. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (03/16/91)
In article <> trotter@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Russell T. Trotter) writes: >I agree being forced to insert a disk with no cancel box is a >bit inconveinent....maybe more in your case but anyway..just for >future reference you can "cancel" that dialog by typing >Command - period , or hold the open apple button down and press >the "." Of course. How intuitively obvious. <sarcasm, folks> You know, there are many instances in the Mac operating system where potentially useful features of the computer are obscurely hidden behind this sort of stuff. For reference -- how do you save the current Mac screen to disk? Where on the disk would that file exist? etc. etc. Not that I am trying to say the Amiga is any better -- to cancel an Amiga requester, you can hit the <cancel> box (which is nice), or you can use Amiga-B (which is not intuitive either). Hasn't anyone ever seen that ESC key? What do people suppose it might be useful for? Geez people, it's part of the Motif spec too... >Also I don't think it's fair for you to note isolated instances such >as your slow appletalk and apply this to your opinion of Macs. At our >university we have Mac and PC networks. Our Mac network is quite >efficient and relatively fast, whereas some PC net setups are much >slower, but I still don't hate PC's }) It is quite fair to quote from experience to support a given conclusion. If that experience is limited, it limits the support for the conclusion, but it does not invalidate the reasoning. It's just as logical for a Mac user to say that in his experience Amiga drives were dog slow, the interface was a piece of non-intuitive <expletive> and he would never buy one, as it is for the Amiga user to say that the Macs he has used had inbuilt networking that would never compel him to buy a Mac. Don't you think? Frankly I think Apple can improve their interface by leaps and bounds, and Commodore *needs* to improve their interface by leaps and bounds. I think Commodore can improve their operating system, and Apple *needs* to improve theirs. I think Apple does not completely address the latter with 7.0, and Cmdre does not address the former with 2.0. Both are still playing to their strengths. That's unfortunate, because I want the best computer for everything that I do, and such a computer does not exist, and is not likely to exist until somebody turns around and fixes their flank. Of course, that's just my opinion, as always. David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu Signature erased, because it used to be something snide against the Mac. undergoing recnstrctn. [Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus]
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar15.012234.1827@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > They must be some REAL slow HD's. 40mb Quantum's or Fujitsu's which >are between 11ms and 19ms cost about $400 in bulk. Bzzzt. Next contestant. Call Warehouse 54 for your 105 meg external Quantum for $400 (1-800-955-0054).
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (03/16/91)
In article <ml5G*ez!@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >Ethernet is overkill. You must be joking. Anything less is >unacceptable. > >-Mike You don't know what you are talking about. I have 36-odd Macs, 1 PC, 4 laserprinters, and 3 networked ImageWriters on LocalTalk and I haven't seen the network bog down yet. We have one file server and 2 users on a multi-user database. Faster would be nice, but we don't have the $.
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (03/16/91)
In article <45654@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <1991Mar15.012234.1827@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >> They must be some REAL slow HD's. 40mb Quantum's or Fujitsu's which >>are between 11ms and 19ms cost about $400 in bulk. > >Bzzzt. Next contestant. Call Warehouse 54 for your 105 meg external Quantum >for $400 (1-800-955-0054). Do they come with power supply, a case, a fan, and a 5 year warranty?
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (03/16/91)
In article <45655@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <ml5G*ez!@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>Ethernet is overkill. You must be joking. Anything less is >>unacceptable. >> >>-Mike > >You don't know what you are talking about. I have 36-odd Macs, 1 PC, 4 >laserprinters, and 3 networked ImageWriters on LocalTalk and I haven't seen >the network bog down yet. We have one file server and 2 users on a multi-user >database. Faster would be nice, but we don't have the $. What's you defintiion of bogged down? Come on, AppleTalk as a fileserver? The suns and hp's on these FSF machines use 1 netmounted fileserver for all 1000+ users on this system. The transfer rates are in the megabytes per second, and these machines STILL bog down sometimes. Guess what, there are only about 8 workstations on this Ethernet network (including a Sun Sparcstation). If Sun and HP workstations bog down on Ethernet, think what 36 Mac's on a slow networking system like AppleTalk will do. My definition of bogged down is, if I try to copy a 1 megabyte file and it takes 20-30 seconds. This AppleTalk discussion is overlooking 2 important points. 1) DoubleTalk on the Amiga supports AppleTalk (Amiga<-->Mac) and a modified version of AppleTalk (Amiga<-->Amiga) which is faster and better. 2) DNET/Parnet/NET can provide AppleTalk like networking for free. If I were in charge of setting up a lab full of networked machines the obvious choice would be Ethernet, hands down. (or AmigaNet for an Amiga only lab.) Why Ethernet? It's Fast, it's standard, and it's fairly universal. BTW, when is Commodore going to get an Internet connection? I'd like to see an ftp site set up on an A3000UX :-)
sschaem@starnet.uucp (Stephan Schaem) (03/16/91)
Speaking of A500 HD, I dont if its MAST or Vortex or however but I saw in europe an internal 100meg HD for the A500.Plug on the CPU do not use the expesion memory. Also most A500 drive simply plug on the expansion port? what is the problem, coulnd be more simple.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (03/16/91)
In article <12014@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: >In article <> trotter@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Russell T. Trotter) writes: >>I agree being forced to insert a disk with no cancel box is a >>bit inconveinent....maybe more in your case but anyway..just for >>future reference you can "cancel" that dialog by typing >>Command - period , or hold the open apple button down and press >>the "." > >Of course. How intuitively obvious. <sarcasm, folks> > >You know, there are many instances in the Mac operating system where potentially >useful features of the computer are obscurely hidden behind this sort of stuff. Command-. documented in the manuals, and is given in many circumstances in which length procedures are taking place. Anyone who has canceled a print job on a Mac knows that. The messages stares you in the face as you print. >For reference -- how do you save the current Mac screen to disk? Where on the >disk would that file exist? etc. etc. Command-shift-3 to dump the screen to disk. Command-shift-4 to print the current window to an ImageWriter. These commands are on the command reference card that comes with the Mac. OK, so they fudged when they said you don't have to RTFM. (The screen dump goes to the root level of the disk with the currently active System, I think.) >Hasn't anyone ever seen that ESC key? What do people suppose it might be >useful for? Geez people, it's part of the Motif spec too... Terminal emulation, of course.
elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) (03/16/91)
From article <7920@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, by blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin): > Well actually this is a very serious point about the Amiga. The main reason > "big" software developers ignore the amiga. The Amiga has the most pirates Really? I thought that the dubious piracy honor went to the Atari ST folks, where there's a pirate on every street corner. A tale: I recently bought an ancient 8088 XT Bridgeboard for my Amiga 2000. It was being sold off from a store that went out of business, so I got it at a price I couldn't pass up -- $100. Installed it, and presto... one useless hunk of hardware. Need software, right? No problemo. Mention it to a friend. "Oh here. Take PC Tools. And Procomm. And ...". I didn't take him up on the offer, I'd already downloaded some basic tools from BIX, certainly good enough for my purposes, but the point remains the same -- piracy is as rampant on MS-DOS machines as it is on any machine. And nobody has accused MS-DOS piracy of killing the software market. The reason: There's just so MANY of them out there, and they're being bought by BUSINESSES, which have the money to spend on a copy of 1-2-3 here, a copy of Autocad there. *THAT* is why big software companies aren't developing for the Amiga. There's just not enough paying customers out there to make a big-budget product worthwhile. > We'll see what the judge rules. Paperback already lost to Lotus on look and > feel. A major disaster, in my view. I was once part of a partnership that wrote a BBS program... we had been running a BBS using the current leader in the field at that time (1985), and were seriously disappointed with many bugs and misfeatures. Our BBS program ended up with a user interface quite similar to the competitor's... but that's because it's what we were accustomed to, and what was "standard" at the time. Under the hood, our guts were all "new and improved", and we had features that the competitor didn't have. This set off a two-year "features war", where we and the competition hop-skip-and-jumped over each other. Each vendor's product was better at the end of this period of time. If the competition had been allowed to rest on their look-and-feel laurels, we'd still be in 1985. BTW, Workbench 2.0 looks quite a bit closer to the Macintosh than Workbench 1.3 did. I suspect that if Commodore ever manages to MARKET the Amiga, and get substantial numbers into traditionally-Mac markets, Commodore will be the next target. After all, Commodore *DOES* have a garbage can in the root directory (remember Apple's forcing Digital Research to change the garbage can design for GEM?). Surely this is "significantly close enough" to make Commodore infringe on Apple's copyright? (Well, I don't think so, but that's because I'm a human being, not a lawyer). -- Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg Looking for a job... tips, leads appreciated... inquire within...
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (03/16/91)
kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) writes: >But yes, I believe Apple licensed Smalltalk from Xerox. One of the >more interesting interviews in BYTE magazine btw, was with the Lisa >team back when it was unveiled... >Q: "Do you have a Xerox Star here that you work with?" >A: "No, we didn't have one here. We went to the NCC when the Star was >announced and looked at it. And in fact it did have an immediate impact. Yes, this Lisa team included Larry Tesler (now head of Apple Advanced Products). Larry had worked at Xerox for some years before Apple - I recall his articles on Smalltalk which appeared in Byte [remember when Byte used to devote each year's August issue to a new computer language... Smalltalk was in one of those (Aug 1980 I think off the top of my head). I remember it had another beautiful Robert Tinney cover drawing. Ahhh those were the days - maybe we should take this to alt.folklore.computers :-)] -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Today's maxim: All socialists are failed capitalists
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (03/16/91)
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >In article <1991Mar15.092920.16477@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >>daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > [...] >>>Certainly not MOST Mac IIs. The IIcx here in my lab only has two banks of >>>SIMMs. It supports (at least I think it does...) up to 16Mbit SIMMs, which >>>would give you 32MB, if fully populated. ^^^ >> >> Hmm... you must have been thinking of beer last night Dave. 2 banks of SIMMs >>= 8 SIMMs * 16MB each = 128MB. A firm demonstrated just such a setup >>at January's MacWorld (of course I wouldn't like to pay for that much memory) > [...] >Dave clearly stated 16 Mbits, not 16 Mbytes. If you want to take issue, you Whoops. I missed the Mbit, although I can offer in my defense the fact that I've never seen anyone quote SIMM capacities in terms of bits. When I go down to the local Fry's I buy 256K byte SIMMs, or 1M byte SIMMs, or 4M byte SIMMs. Anyway, the maths [<- note the spelling :-)] is still wrong. If you have a 16Mbit SIMM, that means there's 2MB of RAM on the SIMM. Now, there are EIGHT SIMM sockets on the Mac IIcx, so that would make 16MB of RAM total, not 32. Also, the IIcx doesn't accept 2MB SIMM chips, only 256K, 1MB, 4MB and 16MB SIMMs, so plugging in a 16Mbit SIMM wouldn't work. Who cares really? What's a factor of 4 between friends? :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Today's maxim: All socialists are failed capitalists
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (03/16/91)
passaret@brahe.crd.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti) writes: >In article <1991Mar15.092920.16477@neon.Stanford.EDU> >torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: ># ># >It is a moot point, since the Mac ># >OS can't use more that 16MB (sure, cheap shot, but it was a big target...). >#Depends what version of the OS you're using, 6.0 or 7.0. >up. Oh well. Guess I'll go out and get System 7.0. What? I >can't buy that? For ANY Mac? Oh. So I should put 128MB in and >not see 120MB of it? Great idea there. Of course, the Mac OS is not the only game in town. A/UX works fine with >8MB of memory. In fact, it works a lot better with 20MB, which is what a lot of A/UX people seem to have. Incidentally, there is a product (Optima), which lets you make use of that extra memory above the 8MB in MacOS mode. This was being bundled with the 128MB system being shown. Admittedly it was only a partial solution - I don't think Multifinder would recognise it (only the Finder), but it did allow you to make some use of that memory until System 7.0 came round. ># >Well, that's what Apple is announcing this year. ># >Like CDTV, or Mac OS release 7, we'll believe it when it's out. ># ># Apple has a better track record than Commodore of making products >#available immediately upon announcement... when was that OS 2.0 >#for non-3000 owners supposed to be available?? >Commodore has not yet announced the release of that product. >Shall I repeat that? That is not what I read from the press releases around when the A3000 was released. As I recall, the press releases announced a release for non 3000 owners sometime "in the fall". This is only going from memory though, since I don't have those releases on hand. Apple of course, has also taken it in the back for their "before Christmas" - whooops, make that "first half of 91" release. My point was that Apple does this less often than Commodore. >#define CHEAP_SHOT Sorry, but it missed the target [P.S. Class of 199? => grad school] -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Today's maxim: All socialists are failed capitalists
jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar16.013410.13890@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: > >>In article <1991Mar15.092920.16477@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >>>daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >> [...] >>>>Certainly not MOST Mac IIs. The IIcx here in my lab only has two banks of >>>>SIMMs. It supports (at least I think it does...) up to 16Mbit SIMMs, which >>>>would give you 32MB, if fully populated. ^^^ >>> >>> Hmm... you must have been thinking of beer last night Dave. 2 banks of SIMMs >>>= 8 SIMMs * 16MB each = 128MB. A firm demonstrated just such a setup >>>at January's MacWorld (of course I wouldn't like to pay for that much memory) >> [...] > >>Dave clearly stated 16 Mbits, not 16 Mbytes. If you want to take issue, you > > Whoops. I missed the Mbit, although I can offer in my defense the >fact that I've never seen anyone quote SIMM capacities in terms of >bits. When I go down to the local Fry's I buy 256K byte SIMMs, or 1M >byte SIMMs, or 4M byte SIMMs. > Anyway, the maths [<- note the spelling :-)] is still wrong. If you >have a 16Mbit SIMM, that means there's 2MB of RAM on the SIMM. Now, >there are EIGHT SIMM sockets on the Mac IIcx, so that would make 16MB >of RAM total, not 32. > Also, the IIcx doesn't accept 2MB SIMM chips, only 256K, 1MB, 4MB >and 16MB SIMMs, so plugging in a 16Mbit SIMM wouldn't work. > > Who cares really? What's a factor of 4 between friends? :-) SIMMS are sized in megaBYTES. Most SIMMs have 8 (9 with parity) Nx1 chips on them, making the SIMM capacity N bytes. (yes, I know Apple's newer 256K SIMMS have two 256x4 instead of eight 256x1). I suspect (never having seen one) that the SIMMs in question have eight 16megabitx1 chips, giving each a capacity of 16MB. I suspect the original poster merely made a typo. -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar15.204122.23502@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > Do they come with power supply, a case, a fan, and a 5 year warranty? ^ yes ^ yes ^ yes ^ no, 2 year with the possibility of extending with charge cards. I wouldn't be too impressed with 5 year warranties. You're gambling that the company will still be around in 5 years, and in many cases, they aren't.
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar15.210028.23985@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > My definition of bogged down is, if I try to copy a 1 megabyte file and >it takes 20-30 seconds. OK, my networked is bogged down by definition. However, we still use it. I do network mail, file service, network management, and the occasional network game over it, and I don't have many problems. > If I were in charge of setting up a lab full of networked machines >the obvious choice would be Ethernet, hands down. (or AmigaNet for >an Amiga only lab.) I wish you luck on getting the funding. Funny what budgeting restrictions do to one's neatly spec'd out network of workstations. >Why Ethernet? It's Fast, it's standard, and it's fairly universal. Yep, and for most personal computers you just added a couple hundred $ to the price. With a printer cable I can set up a simple network between any two Macs.
jimmy@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Jimmy Chan) (03/16/91)
In article <7920@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: >Well actually this is a very serious point about the Amiga. The main reason >"big" software developers ignore the amiga. The Amiga has the most pirates >of any platform. They don't pirate to "try and buy". They just pirate. >[stuff deleted] The main reason "big" software developers don't develop for the Amiga is because most of the so-called "big" software developers, you happen to be talking about are located in the US. Admittedly the number of Amigas in the US is small but in Europe the Amiga is a big seller. Everyone seems to be clamoring about having the "big" software developers writing for their machines but if a similar product was developed for a computer by a "small" software developer and was done as good or even better, then I would be just as satisfied. I do think that your image of Amiga have the most pirates is absurd. Amigas have their share of pirates just like any other computer, except for game consoles...8-), no more and no less. The one problem with pirates on the Mac is that they don't realize that they are stealing as a major portion of users that I have to deal with a novices and don't have any idea that what they are doing is highly illegal. I work in a Macintosh lab and even after working with the Mac I still went out and bought an Amiga. Working in the a Mac Lab, I've seen many, many users come into our Lab to print on the Laserwriters with their own software that when I asked, they mostly say they got it from their professor, friend or just copied from another lab. Someone even posted many For Sale Ads on the bulletin boards in our building selling his Mac SE w/ Hard Drive for $1200 with many commercial programs installed that he definitely pirated.
jimmy@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Jimmy Chan) (03/16/91)
In article <45655@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <ml5G*ez!@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>Ethernet is overkill. You must be joking. Anything less is >>unacceptable. >You don't know what you are talking about. I have 36-odd Macs, 1 PC, 4 >laserprinters, and 3 networked ImageWriters on LocalTalk and I haven't seen >the network bog down yet. We have one file server and 2 users on a multi-user >database. Faster would be nice, but we don't have the $. Try usingAldus Pagemaker 4.0 on the ntwork with only two users using Pagemaker. Or try having 10 people on the network open Microsoft Word 4.0 at the same time. Btw, these are with Mac Pluses and SEs with only 1 meg. Talk about being sadistic...8-)...
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (03/17/91)
In article <1991Mar16.020812.14656@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: [...] >SIMMS have two 256x4 instead of eight 256x1). I suspect (never having seen >one) that the SIMMs in question have eight 16megabitx1 chips, giving each >a capacity of 16MB. I suspect the original poster merely made a typo. [...] I am not aware of 16 Mbit drams available anywhere, except perhaps in very small numbers to OEMs for evaluation. I do not believe anyone has begun a production run of 16Mbit chips. --
greyfire@ecst.csuchico.edu (Thomas L. Talley) (03/17/91)
In article <1991Mar15.210028.23985@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >In article <45655@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >>In article <ml5G*ez!@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >>>Ethernet is overkill. You must be joking. Anything less is >>>unacceptable. >>> >>>-Mike >> >>You don't know what you are talking about. I have 36-odd Macs, 1 PC, 4 >>laserprinters, and 3 networked ImageWriters on LocalTalk and I haven't seen >>the network bog down yet. We have one file server and 2 users on a multi-user >>database. Faster would be nice, but we don't have the $. > > What's you defintiion of bogged down? Come on, AppleTalk as a fileserver? >The suns and hp's on these FSF machines use 1 netmounted fileserver >for all 1000+ users on this system. The transfer rates are in the megabytes >per second, and these machines STILL bog down sometimes. Guess what, >there are only about 8 workstations on this Ethernet network (including >a Sun Sparcstation). If Sun and HP workstations bog down on Ethernet, >think what 36 Mac's on a slow networking system like AppleTalk will do. > I work in a computer lab with 25 Macs, 10 PC's, 1 laserprinter, and 3 imagewriter II's. The Macintosh side runs under the native AppleTalk while the IBM side of the network runs on ethernet. Yes the one IBM [actually a Zenith] '286 with a 77Mb drive acts as the file server. Of course your not complaining as much about the speed. Your running LocalTalk, that is the step up in networks from AppleTalk. I know the 1 SE/30 in the network has it and it works about 2 to 3 times faster on loading things from the server. To load your typical program takes 1 to 1.5 minutes. Loading Pagemaker takes 2.5 minutes. That is a very bogged down network. On the IBM side with the ethernet it takes 20 seconds to load Word Perfect, And we are running a script that does 3 or 4 other things during loading as well. > My definition of bogged down is, if I try to copy a 1 megabyte file and >it takes 20-30 seconds. > Tom Talley -- Tom Talley greyfire@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu
mpierce@ewu.UUCP (Mathew Pierce) (03/17/91)
In article <7816@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) writes: [stuff about how Apple and their computers stink.] > No, the A500 stinks as far as what you get with it for the price. You get > a 1 meg machine with no SCSI, no hard drive case or powersupply, no > networking, no ability to use SIMM memory (cheapest), an OS that may or may > not work with your software (you have to individually match your software to > a reliable OS), no ability to add IBM compatibility for $150, no 1.4 meg drive With the A500, you get your CHOICE of what SCSI controller to use, you're not stuck with the dogged slow one that is built in. There are a large number of memory expansion cards, and if there are cards that use SIMMS, they can be easily added in a card cage along with the networking cards. You DO GET a power supply with the A500, so I don't know where you get your information, and you don't have to individually match your OS with your software, unless you are talking about the few incompatiblities between WB1.3 and WB2.0. Don't tell me that all software on the Apples are compatible through every OS upgrade, it simply isn't true. I use one and only one OS with all my apps - WB1.3, and when 2.0 is released for my A2000, I'll get that. Talking about IBM compatibility, it may cost alittle more to use the software (unless you count the Transformer software - very cheap, certainly less than $150 - but what does it cost to run IBM HARDWARE on the Mac? , > no detachable keyboard (you must use the Amiga KB), 4 (he he) channel sound, > and not a respectable spreadsheet in sight I agree about the keyboard, but tha's not that much of a problem, but what about the sound? The Amiga's sound beats Mac sound hands down (chuckle snort). You really should get your info straight before you pop-off. -Matt Pierce .
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (03/17/91)
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >In article <1991Mar15.012234.1827@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >> They must be some REAL slow HD's. 40mb Quantum's or Fujitsu's which >>are between 11ms and 19ms cost about $400 in bulk. > >Bzzzt. Next contestant. Call Warehouse 54 for your 105 meg external Quantum >for $400 (1-800-955-0054). I was in a local store today an pulled an issue of MacWorld off the shelves to see exactly what these Mac Mail-order prices were. cheapes i found a mac 105 quantum was 569. that was at Mac Wharehouse or somesuch. UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (03/18/91)
In article <1991Mar15.185025.29135@sat.com> farren@sat.com (Michael J. Farren) writes: >jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com writes: >> You need more beer, dave. I think you mean '90 for the A3000. '91 >>is for something else (BTW, what day does hannover start?) > ^^^^^^^^^^^ hint? ^^^^^^^^^^ >You guys make me crazy! :-) The CeBIT faire at Hannnover started on 13th Mar, and lasts until 20th Mar. Commodore shows there an A3000T (yes, TOWER), and heavily CDTV. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/18/91)
In article <4239.27de4b9d@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins) writes: > I would like to see how an Amiga 1000 would compare to a IIfx!! On the right, an Amiga 1000 with 512K of internal RAM, 1 meg SOTS. On the left, Mac IIfx with 5 megabytes. The crowd goes still. Hands over power switches, the dedicated users stand prepared to do battle... and THEY'RE ON! The Amiga 1000 pops up a "workbench?" screen, meanwhile the Mac is booting. The Amiga user inserts Workbench. Meanwhile the Mac is loading DAs. The Amiga is up. Double-click on Deluxe Paint II. The Mac is loading INITs. Up comes the deluxe paint menu, select screen size. Mac is still booting. The Amiga user needs to format a floppy! Oh no, workbench has vanished! Ah, tell DPII to give workbench back, and we're back in business. The Amiga user starts formatting a floppy and goes back to work. The Mac is up. Photon Paint is booted! The Mac user needs to format a floppy... no problem. Mac handles that. He inserts a floppy and it's automatically formatted... now we wait for that to finish... The Amiga user saves his finished work on disk. The Mac user is still formatting that floppy. It's not the speed of the CPU, it's the speed of the user. Amiga: 20 chairs, no waiting. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/18/91)
In article <7816@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) writes: > No, the A500 stinks as far as what you get with it for the price. You get > a 1 meg machine with no SCSI, no hard drive case or powersupply, no > networking, no ability to use SIMM memory (cheapest), True, but you can add all that and still come out in the ballpark with the Mac. Meanwhile the Mac has no color, no NTSC compatible video, slow and unreliable system software (I've been there. Even a Mac II is slower than my 1000). > an OS that may or may > not work with your software (you have to individually match your software to > a reliable OS), This is a complete lie. > no ability to add IBM compatibility for $150, You want *what*? > no 1.4 meg drive, > no detachable keyboard (you must use the Amiga KB), > 4 (he he) channel sound, Instead of the Mac's 1 channel sound? > But are you saying Apple has no ethics because they are trying to protect > their intellectual property? hmm. You mean Xerox' intellectual property? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/18/91)
> Anything less than an Acura is undrivable too. Believe it or not some people > do not need the speed of ethernet. With background peer to peer networking > and print services I find Appletalk quite acceptable. We're not talking about speed... we're talking about utility. What good is a network that I can't hook up to the rest of my computers? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/18/91)
In article <7920@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: > Well actually this is a very serious point about the Amiga. The main reason > "big" software developers ignore the amiga. The Amiga has the most pirates > of any platform. Aren't you thinking of the Apple-II and Commodore 64? Or the Atari ST? > We'll see what the judge rules. Paperback already lost to Lotus on look and > feel. Just because the law may be perverted to protect crap like "look and feel" doesn't mean it's right. Look around you. It's legal for the government to seize property without trial (Operation Sun Devil, War on Drugs, RICO), but it's illegal to sell sexual favors. Law is a morass of virtue and vice, the result of the chance colission of morality, special interests, and an occasional enlightened statesman or jurist. > Again, we'll see. Anyone can write code. It takes a little more to do it > with a good interface. NeXT has a great interface. They innovated, > Microsoft didn't. Microsoft Windows has about the best user interface I've seen on any machine. It's the only one reasonably usable from the mouse *or* the keyboard... everyone else has made a stab at supporting keyboard control (and don't tell me Apple does any better at this... they're not), Microsoft has made it work. > What is the weather like on your planet? Ah, abuse. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/18/91)
In article <1991Mar13.221028.8703@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > What happens if you apply the exact same reasoning to Commodore? > You could say "The last innovative product to come out of Commodore was > the original Amiga. What have they done since then that wasn't just > putting faster chips in the same basic box?" OK, let's grant that point. That means that Commodore hasn't come out with an innovative product in 5 years. Apple hasn't come out with one in 7 years. IBM hasn't come out with one in... hmmm... I seem to have run out of fingers. > One could argue that Apple has been more innovative than Commodore > over the last 5 years. Apple started off with a monochrome, one-size > monitor non-expandable system. Since then they've added things ... that they should have had in the first place. And they have resources most companies only dream of. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/18/91)
In article <1991Mar14.010630.25513@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: > BTW, Apple is not sueing companies like Commodore and NeXT which have ... not yet developed enough of a market to compete with Apple... > actually innovated in the design of their GUIs. It is Microsoft Windows ... which has probably the best designed UI, quite unlike Apple's... > which is the target, and specifically because of alleged violations of a > license agreement signed by Microsoft. If Microsoft hadn't ... attempted to satisfy Apple in the first place... > signed the > stupid thing, Apple might not have had a leg to stand on for this lawsuit. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (03/18/91)
In article <7920@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: >[stuff deleted] >>>copyright on look and feel. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>Apple has no copyright on 'look and feel.' It's an impossible concept. >>Like copyrighting the Look-And-Feel of Mac Donalds. Burger King, >>Hardees, Roy Rogers(bought by Hardees), etc would be out of business. >> >We'll see what the judge rules. Paperback already lost to Lotus on look and >feel. But Apple stole code from Xerox. If anyone owns look and feel it is Xerox and Xerox lost the first round to Apple. Paperback used the same command structure as Lotus, so look and feel here is different from look and feel of Windows, HP NewWave. >>Apple has the right to protect their OS code, that's it. I agree. >> >Again, we'll see. Anyone can write code. It takes a little more to do it >with a good interface. NeXT has a great interface. They innovated, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ True it's a great interface (I own a NeXT). But Sun used Display Postscript(DP) before NeXT even DEC has Display Postscript. Sun using DP wasn't accepted real well so the migrated to X but they still have some support for DP. >Microsoft didn't. > >[stuff deleted] >> Look. If you invented the automobile, it's perfectly ok for me >>to make a machine that performs the same functions exactly, as long >>as I don't steal your blue prints, disassemble your engine to find >>out how it works. > >Cars aren't computers. True, but look and feel is ridiculous. If Apple keeps it up they will have problems. Look at IBM and PCs. The only way the Mac will become as widely accepted as the PC is if someone makes clones. > >Read that out loud a few times. Most of the work of computer programs is on >the interface. Ask a programmer. This is the work that should be protected. >Most of the work of a car is engineering. Ditto for the Mac. The actual code that makes up the interface but not the interface itself. If I want a work alike interface and write my own code without looking at your code, what's the problem? Apple is afraid of the competition plain and simple. What if someone had been able to patent the H shift pattern for manual transmissions. I mean, how the hell can you patent the way one window overlaps another. Not the code but the look. This is totally crazy. >> >>The only way I see Apple's claim as valid is if they: >>1) Supplied source code to Microsoft on how to implement a GUI >>2) Microsoft disassembled Apple roms, and copied the algorithms I agree. MS made a mistake by Lic. stuff from Apple in the first place. They should have let them sue 6 years ago. > >What is the weather like on your planet? Just look at the news, or do you get it on Mars or what???? -- /* -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 */
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (03/18/91)
In article <7921@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: >> While admittedly it is time the A500 went in for an >>overhaul, hey, I don't want the Classic's _monitor_. It is a tiny >>$6 B&W screen. The A500 for $500 comes with the ability to >>connect it directly to your TV if you really want to save money. > >Good point. The 9" screen is small. BUT, for $300 you can add a 640x480 >VGA monitor as a second monitor (i.e., use both at once for different data. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wrong the Classic does not directly support color or other monitors. The LC does. This means that you need a graphics card and monitor. Is anyone making a graphics card to fit that slot in a Classic? -- /* -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 */
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (03/19/91)
In article <4342@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >I was in a local store today an pulled an issue of MacWorld off the shelves to >see exactly what these Mac Mail-order prices were. cheapes i found a mac 105 >quantum was 569. that was at Mac Wharehouse or somesuch. Monthly magazines have about a 3 month lead time for advertising. That means the prices you saw were 3 months old (basically). I get my prices from MacWEEK, a weekly magazine. If you were looking in the April MacWorld, I recommend you look again. I saw ads for Quantum drives for well under $569. Try looking at pages 230 and after.
jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Sheckel) (03/19/91)
jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: > >BTW, Apple is not sueing companies like Commodore and NeXT which have >actually innovated in the design of their GUIs. It is Microsoft Windows >which is the target, and specifically because of alleged violations of a >license agreement signed by Microsoft. > OK, let's get in touch with a little reality here. Apple is not taking companies like Commodore and NeXT to court simply because they pose no threat to Apple, but Microsoft does. Things like Wingz, PageMaker 4.0, QuarkXPress, WordPerfect, and Ventura Publisher have been brought over to Windows. You think that doesn't make the geniuses at Apple, with their "Desktop Publishing Advantage", even a little bit worried? > >John Cavallino > -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (03/19/91)
In article <12014@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: > >Not that I am trying to say the Amiga is any better -- to cancel an Amiga >requester, you can hit the <cancel> box (which is nice), or you can use >Amiga-B (which is not intuitive either). This topic was discussed heavily among developers. The result is: Those key combinations are INTENTIONALLY UNUSUAL! Again this comes from the issue that you have to consider multitasking at every moment. When an Amiga system requester appears, its window is instantly activated, so every key press goes into this requester window. Now, if they chose some "normal" keys to answer the requester, the following might happen: A user is deep inside his wordprocessor (or a vi clone), that also uses the Esc key heavily. Now the user is just about to press this key, when a requester from a quite different process appears. The Esc key goes into the requester window and causes a valuable answer, before the user at all noticed what happened. And he might have taken a very bad selection for his actual case through Esc. - Please don't consider this scenario as of too low probability. It CAN happen, and Murphy lives, so it WILL happen, and blame would be on the OS. So now you know why the system designers HAD to choose those funny keys for system control. (Perhaps on a monotasking system this could be solved differently, but multitasking needs some additional considering.) BTW, had to cancel crossposting to comp.sys.mac.misc, our cbm newsfeed doesn't know this (bogus?) newsgroup :-)). -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/19/91)
In article <1991Mar15.092920.16477@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>> Well, you can put 128MB on the motherboard of a Mac II today... not >>>that it's really relevant. >>Certainly not MOST Mac IIs. > Hmm... you must have been thinking of beer last night Dave. 2 banks of SIMMs >= 8 SIMMs * 16MB each = 128MB. I was under the impression the Macs used standard 30 pin SIMMs. Apparently only the IIci does, which does in fact limit it to 32MB. These standard parts have parity support. If you eliminate the two parity support pins, you do in fact have enough address to allow for 128MB in the same space. I assume that's what Apple does. > Apple has a better track record than Commodore of making products >available immediately upon announcement... when was that OS 2.0 >for non-3000 owners supposed to be available?? They never officially announced a date for that. When was System 7.0 supposed to be available? Seems I read about it in BYTE two years ago or so. You know, before they started cutting out features (yes, another cheap shot, but it is after all Monday...). >Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/19/91)
In article <1991Mar15.182447.559@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <19885@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>In article <19880@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>>In '89, a 68020 system. ... >>Doesn't this guy know anything? The A2500/20 was out in '88.. > If I remember correctly, the A2000HD and A2500/20, along >with the AT BB, were released at AmiExpo NYC on March 3 of 1989. >I believe the 2500/30 came out in November of that year. That may have been the first US show with the A2500/20, but the actual A2500/20 started shipping in late November or early December of '88 (I don't recall the exact date). I think A2620s became available alone in January or February. The A2500/30 did come out in November of '89. The A3000 was first introduced on April 24, 1990, and shipped, right on schedule (as announced in April), in June of 1990. The A3000 shipped with Version 2.00 of the operating system; they're now up to at least 2.02 out there in the real world. >>Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" > -- Ethan -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) (03/19/91)
In article <16661@chopin.udel.edu>, don@chopin.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) wrote: >carries Mac software... the reason? Doesn't sell. Too much piracy. Their I have yet to meet a single person, face to face, that actually *bought* any of the Mac software that they use. Of course, to a lot of people that is a decided attraction in buying any system :-) -- Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,## Everyone should try to kill themselves once in a TCD,EIRE. <mike@maths.tcd.ie>## while, it gives you a whole new outlook on life. ###############################DON'T MISS TRINCON400 7th, 8th, 9th FEBRUARY 1992 And she wore Black Contact Lenses when you said you liked her eyes......Toasties
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (03/19/91)
In article <7906@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: >They are suing two companies: HP & Microsoft. They are suing over a stolen >look and feel. Commodore and NeXT were not sued, because they _innovated_ when >they wrote their OS. Micosoft saw a good thing and xeroxed (pun intended) it. > NeXT used technology proven by Adobe they did not crate display postscript. Postscript is device independent. It runs on basically any platform from RISC (IBM RS6000) to CISC(NeXT, SUN, DEC). This is taken from the Sept 1989 issue of Computer published by the IEEE. Xerox Star was first to use WYSIWYG, 72 dpi bitmapped display, 1:1 screen ratios. The first to use a desktop metaphor, icons and iconic file management, tiled and overlapping windows, object oriented enviornment. Application consistency was unheard fo until Xerox Star system. Below is a chart (crude) that shows the evolution of window based systems that are taken from Xerox research. Memex _________________|_________________ | | | V V V Simula Reactive Engine NLS Sketchpad \ | | ___|___ / \ | | | | / \ | \ / | / \ | \ / | / \_____ | v v /----|------- | | ____________ Alto__/_____|_______________________ | | | | | | / | || | | | | | | | | |/ | || | | | V V V V | V V V| V V V SRI Smalltalk Bravo | Sil Draw| Flyer Markup Press | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |___+__| | | _______ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\ V | / \ | | | | | | \ Gypsy | / \ | | | | | | \ | \ ++ \ | +________________ | | | \ | \ / ______+__| | | | | | \/ \ / | \ | | | V V /\ V | V | | | Mesa Pygmalion/ | BravoX | Office Talk | | V | \ / | | | | | Interpress /\ \/ | | / | | | | \ /\ \ | / V | | | \ / \ /\ | / Doodle | | | V / \/ \ | / | | | | Tajo / /\___\__|__/ | V | | (XDE) / / | | Augment | | | / /<--------| | | | | | / V | | | | |<---/ Star<--------------------------------------| | | | (8010) | | | | | | | | | | V |_______ | | | | Lisa | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | V | | | _______________| | Cedar | V | | | | |Macintosh | | V | | | | | Deluxe Paint | | | -------------+------------ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | V | | | V V | Postscript ------------------------> ViewPoint | | | (6085) | | | | V | | | Interleaf | V | | Metaphor | | Workstation | | | | | | | V V MacII ViewPoint 2.0 This what follows is a quote from Byte magazine interview of Lisa designers. Byte: Do you have a Xerox Star here that you work with? Tesler: No, we didn't have one here. We went to the NCC (National Computer Conference) when the Star was announced and looked at it. And in fact it had an immediate impact. A few months after looking at it we made some changes to our user interface based on ideas that we got from it. For example, the desktop manager we had before was completely different; it didn't use icons at all, and we never liked it very much. We decided to change our to icon based. That was probably the only thing we got from Star, I think most of our Xerox inspiration was Smalltalk rather than Star. Also Steve Jobs admitted to visiting Xerox to take a look at some projects in the early 80's but never lic. anything. >Apple is within their right (and duty) to protect the validity of their >copyright on look and feel. A copyright they should have never received since it was base on work and ideas of others. Apple is full of shit. They don't sue NeXT, Sun, or DEC because they lic. their Postscript stuff from Adobe who pays Xerox. >Can you imagine a world where anyone could make a functional copy of Excel by >analyzing the operation of it and release it as their own program without >innovating. Look at Windows. Use it. Use a mac. Tell me Microsoft innovated. Command structure is one thing like a spreadsheet clone. Look and feel like that of a GUI is something else. Apple didn't innovate by their own admission. They stole the ideas. -- /* -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 */
ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug Dyer) (03/19/91)
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Microsoft Windows has about the best user interface I've seen on any machine. >It's the only one reasonably usable from the mouse *or* the keyboard... >everyone else has made a stab at supporting keyboard control (and don't tell >me Apple does any better at this... they're not), Microsoft has made it work. I thought it sucked. True, you can use a keyboard well, but for using MW as an operating system its terrible (ie, running setup to install software, dos shells one at a time, not having a drawer inside a drawer, drawers don't represent directories,...). Its also funny to click on the close box and get a menu, although thats reaching... keyboard pull-down windows is nice. Isn't there a recent program that does that on a fish disk? -- "It is recommended that each servicer have a pair of balls for maintaining optimum customer satisfaction, and that any customer missing his balls should suspect local personnel of removing these necessary functional items. " -- abstract from computer accessory parts catalog (mouse balls)
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (03/19/91)
In article <1991Mar13.221028.8703@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >Hypercard, Multifinder and even A/UX [which runs old Mac applications >as a task under Unix...something the Amiga can't do comparably with >Amiga applications]. Could this be because Mac aps are so severly limitied in the first place, being deisgned for a *still* single tasking, single threaded OS that it makes little difference if it is running under Unix, and that they make so little use of the real hardware available that it again matters little what they are running on? > What has Commodore done in the same period? Amigas still seem to >have the same old colour restrictions, pretty much the same old >resolutions, pretty much the same old graphics chip set. If Gee, I don't seem to remember being able to do 1280x450 when I got my first Amiga 1000. I don't remember being even able to do more than 16 colors at 640x400, and certainly no more than 32 than at 320x400, nowhere near the colors/resolutions available widely today with HAM or HAM-E. Besides, the graphics are only one part of ANY machine. I care more about how much CPU horsepower is left for running *MY* tasks, not spent on an O/S that gets in the way of what I want to do. >[Before you flame, read and consider carefully. Ask yourself, "What >has Commodore done over the past 5 years to the Amiga?" ] Gee, how about things like: 1) Added the fastest 16-bit BUS in the <less than mini sized> computer world? 2) Added the fastest 32-bit BUS in the <less than mini and maybe some mini sized> computer world? 3) Provided an OS which will allow you to basically add enough RAM to your system to satisfy *ANY* user, with no real limitations in sight. Compare to OS/2 which is STILL (even though OS/2 is not widely used anyway) limited to a mere 16 meg of RAM, and almost ALL of the Macs in existance, which can't even use more than a fourth of that RAM without some kind of hardware hack. Just a few, which to me are more important than any amount of "pretty" graphics. Dave
sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) (03/20/91)
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: > Quoted from <971@cbmger.UUCP> by peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY): > > In article <12014@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: > > > >Not that I am trying to say the Amiga is any better -- to cancel an Amiga > > >requester, you can hit the <cancel> box (which is nice), or you can use > > >Amiga-B (which is not intuitive either). > Hm. I thought it was because they were close to the C= key, and > on the front row of the keyboard. Same goes for N and M, which flip > the Workbench screen around. Speaking of such, is it possible to make both Amiga keys work the same? I don't know of many circumstances where I want them to be different, but'I do know of some where I want them to be the same. -- Sleeping Beagle (aka Thomas Farmer) sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz The Kennels Ph. +64-4-796306 (voice) 25 Awarua St, Ngaio, Wellington, New Zealand. "You ain't nothin' but a Hound Dog."
jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) (03/20/91)
Quoted from <971@cbmger.UUCP> by peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY): > In article <12014@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: > >Not that I am trying to say the Amiga is any better -- to cancel an Amiga > >requester, you can hit the <cancel> box (which is nice), or you can use > >Amiga-B (which is not intuitive either). > This topic was discussed heavily among developers. The result is: > Those key combinations are INTENTIONALLY UNUSUAL! Again this comes > from the issue that you have to consider multitasking at every moment. Hm. I thought it was because they were close to the C= key, and on the front row of the keyboard. Same goes for N and M, which flip the Workbench screen around. Can't say I find them any easier to use because of that, but then I'm not a typist, and the original designers' hands may have been different to mine size- and position-wise. > Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... -- *** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz *** *** "Patterns multiplying, re-direct our view" - Devo. ***
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (03/20/91)
In article <08Vj02t8061R01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >In article <7906@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Corey) writes: >>They are suing two companies: HP & Microsoft. They are suing over a stolen >>look and feel. Commodore and NeXT were not sued, because they _innovated_ when >>they wrote their OS. Micosoft saw a good thing and xeroxed (pun intended) it. >NeXT used technology proven by Adobe they did not crate display postscript. Display Postscript, however, is the NeXT imaging model. The Graphical User Interface, NeXTStep or whatever you call it, is something new, created at NeXT. Display Postscript only defines the graphics language used to describe any particular screen display, not the display itself. So Apple, if they felt inclined, could certainly attempt to sue NeXT over the NeXT GUI. I think they would have a problem with that, certainly; the MicroSoft case did involve software previously under license from Apple, NeXT software does not involve Apple. >Postscript is device independent. It runs on basically any platform from >RISC (IBM RS6000) to CISC(NeXT, SUN, DEC). Sure does, you could even run it on Amiga if you chose. That's not what's meant by Device Independent Graphics, however. Postscript is device independent in that the program creating the an image doesn't need to know anything about the device it is creating the image for. A wordprocessor could create a postscript description of a page, and display it very nicely on a screen. That same description sent to a laser printer or a photo printer would print at the appropriate resolution of those devices. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "What works for me might work for you" -Jimmy Buffett
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (03/20/91)
In article <54c4y1w164w@kennels.actrix.gen.nz> sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) writes: >jbickers@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes: >> Quoted from <971@cbmger.UUCP> by peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY): >> > In article <12014@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: >> >> > >Not that I am trying to say the Amiga is any better -- to cancel an Amiga >> > >requester, you can hit the <cancel> box (which is nice), or you can use >> > >Amiga-B (which is not intuitive either). > >> Hm. I thought it was because they were close to the C= key, and >> on the front row of the keyboard. Same goes for N and M, which flip >> the Workbench screen around. This is only an issue for the choice which key to add to the Amiga key(s). But the principle is to use weird Amiga-key-combinations. >Speaking of such, is it possible to make both Amiga keys work the same? > >I don't know of many circumstances where I want them to be different, but'I do >know of some where I want them to be the same. Oh, you must take a look at 2.0! We now have many more menu items with key shortcuts, and they all use Amiga keys. There's some official guideline for which Amiga key for what purpose (can't remember details), but there was a real struggle between developers and engineering about which Amiga key should be used for Shell window copy/paste. So we definitely need both, and with different function. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar16.015049.15226@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > Of course, the Mac OS is not the only game in town. If you're not going to run Mac OS, why do you want a Mac? > partial solution - I don't think Multifinder would recognise it (only > the Finder), but it did allow you to make some use of that memory > until System 7.0 came round. Sounds like "extended/expanded" memory to me. Apple is trying real hard to emulate the IBM-PC. First segments, now this! -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
pwb@newt.phys.unsw.OZ.AU (Paul W. Brooks) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar19.025518.17215@NCoast.ORG>, davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: [lots of stuff about Apple GUI and other bits removed > 1) Added the fastest 16-bit BUS in the <less than mini sized> computer world? > 2) Added the fastest 32-bit BUS in the <less than mini and maybe some mini > sized> computer world? > 3) Provided an OS which will allow you to basically add enough RAM to your > system to satisfy *ANY* user, with no real limitations in sight. > Compare to OS/2 which is STILL (even though OS/2 is not widely used > anyway) limited to a mere 16 meg of RAM, and almost ALL of the Macs > in existance, which can't even use more than a fourth of that RAM > without some kind of hardware hack. And on that note, I found out today that even most of the major Unix's for the PC (from Intel, AT&T, Interactive, SCO, etc) cannot use more than 16 MB, as that is the most you can use on the standard AT bus. In fact, as far as I know, only Interactive supports more than 16MB in an EISA-bus machine, and that only as an optional (expensive) extra. With the Amiga there are No Such Limitations. Go Amiga :-) Paul Brooks |Internet: pwb@newt.phys.unsw.edu.au Uni. of N.S.W. |If you have trouble sleeping, try lying on the end of Kensington NSW 2033| your bed. With a little luck you'll drop off. AUSTRALIA | - Mark Twain.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (03/21/91)
In article <1991Mar19.015116.11764@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug Dyer) writes: >peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > >>Microsoft Windows has about the best user interface I've seen on any machine. >>It's the only one reasonably usable from the mouse *or* the keyboard... >>everyone else has made a stab at supporting keyboard control (and don't tell >>me Apple does any better at this... they're not), Microsoft has made it work. > >I thought it sucked. True, you can use a keyboard well, but for using >MW as an operating system its terrible (ie, running setup to install >software, dos shells one at a time, not having a drawer inside a drawer, >drawers don't represent directories,...). Its also funny to click on the >close box and get a menu, although thats reaching... > >keyboard pull-down windows is nice. Isn't there a recent program that >does that on a fish disk? >-- True, as an operating system it stinks. But as an application environment it is SOO frustrating that they've been out so little time and yet already have a word processor (Word) and a spreadsheet (Excel) far better than we have. My experiences with Windows are on a 16MHz PS2/70 and the speed has been acceptable. It is better integrated than the Amiga with such things as printing, where enormous control is provided by windows. I'd rather have Workbench (with good software) than Windows, but there are still important things to take from it. -- Ethan A tourist in New York City was overheard asking a New Yorker, "Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to the statue of liberty, or should I go f*ck myself?"
cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) (03/21/91)
In article <1991Mar19.015116.11764@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug Dyer) writes: >peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > >>Microsoft Windows has about the best user interface I've seen on any machine. >>It's the only one reasonably usable from the mouse *or* the keyboard... >>everyone else has made a stab at supporting keyboard control (and don't tell >>me Apple does any better at this... they're not), Microsoft has made it work. > >keyboard pull-down windows is nice. Isn't there a recent program that >does that on a fish disk? A friend of mine and myself wrote a little input handler called AltMenu that does what you are talking about (and what Windows does...) You can tap the alt key and the menu for the current window opens! Then you can use the arrow keys to `walk' between the different sub-menus and entries. Each tap of an arrow key move the pointer one entry (not one pixel! of course...) You can tap alt again to abort the menu picking process at any time or you can hit return to pick the currently selected item. Just as in Windows, you can type the first letter of an item's name and the cursor instantly jumps to the item. For people who like how Windows does it's menu picking via the keyboard, AltMenu is for them (hi Peter!). As an aside, I hate the way Windows works, but my friend really like it, so I guess to each his own. To avoid mass confusion let me state, AltMenu has never been release to the public. I would have to talk to my friend (still at Iowa State University) before giving it out. If this sounds neat and you have never seen such a beast write me a small message stating that you *love* the way Windows does it's keyboard based menu stuff. I will pass it along to my friend and if his ego brusts, then he will agree to let me give out copies... Loren J. Rittle -- ``NewTek stated that the Toaster *would* *not* be made to directly support the Mac, at this point Sculley stormed out of the booth...'' --- A scene at the recent MacExpo. Gee, you wouldn't think that an Apple Exec would be so worried about one little Amiga device... Loren J. Rittle l-rittle@uiuc.edu
elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM (Eric Lee Green) (03/21/91)
From article <1991Mar18.140031.9799@sugar.hackercorp.com>, by peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva): > In article <7816@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> blissmer@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Kevin) writes: >> no ability to add IBM compatibility for $150, > > You want *what*? IBM compatibility. Simple. Plug in an ATonce for, what is it, $300? This gives you an 8mhz 80286 processor that can co-exist with the Amiga's 68000 processor (i.e., you can run AT programs and Amiga programs at the SAME TIME). Sounds preferable to a $150 software-only product to me, hmm? Considering that the software-only products that I've seen are slower than molasses... -- Eric Lee Green (318) 984-1820 P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 elg@elgamy.RAIDERNET.COM uunet!mjbtn!raider!elgamy!elg
sysop@tlvx.UUCP (SysOp) (03/21/91)
In article <1991Mar16.015049.15226@neon.Stanford.EDU>, torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > passaret@brahe.crd.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti) writes: > >In article <1991Mar15.092920.16477@neon.Stanford.EDU> > >torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > ># > ># >It is a moot point, since the Mac > ># >OS can't use more that 16MB (sure, cheap shot, but it was a big target...). > > >#Depends what version of the OS you're using, 6.0 or 7.0. > > >up. Oh well. Guess I'll go out and get System 7.0. What? I Heh, this reminds me of when I went to a Mac user's group meeting. They were talking about adding megs in anticipation of System 7 "this September". And I thought that was pretty funny THEN, last spring. (Is it just me?) > >can't buy that? For ANY Mac? Oh. So I should put 128MB in and > >not see 120MB of it? Great idea there. > > Of course, the Mac OS is not the only game in town. A/UX works fine > with >8MB of memory. In fact, it works a lot better with 20MB, which > is what a lot of A/UX people seem to have. Hmm, seems like I just read a post here yesterday where someone was saying that the Mac doesn't need to worry about a fast hard disk system, since people just use the normal Mac OS (or at least that's the way I understood the message). When it comes to the issue of RAM, here comes A/UX, but what happened to the issue of the fast hard disk system? ;-) [product to allow more memory with finder mentioned...] [release of 2.0 for non 3000 discussed...] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu > Today's maxim: All socialists are failed capitalists I would like to "upgrade" from my Amiga 1000, and don't like any of my options. Amiga: it has all the graphics and can do most of what I need, but as a programmer, I'm constantly frustrated by my attempts to get things running (compilers, my own code, etc.). I don't worry too much about lack of business software for myself. I would like to get animation software in the future, and like the inexpensive color boards coming out. Clone: Here's where I know I can program, but the 640K limit just won't die. Very frustrating to work around, and to get things to multitask nicely requires various software, a 386, etc. The development software seems solid and (in many cases) inexpensive. Mac: why does the software cost so much? Also, I'd have to start from scratch building up a library and learning things over again. Probably too expensive to do the kinds of things that I want to do. I realize that "street price" is a lot less. I think at one time I priced an SE/30, and it seemed pretty close to an Amiga 3000 price. But I NEED a color screen. I would like someone to try to convince me that there is a solution to everything I want in a computer; I tried to convince myself, but was not able to. :-/ Maybe with an Amiga 3000 and some inexpensive emulators I'd be happy? (I know, a 386 bridgeboard for $300 would be dandy. ;-) Cool Emulator Idea: How about the new Mac clone, from a company called Nutek? A new version of Amax coupled with this (color motif screen) would be a relatively inexpensive way to get the best of the Mac and Amiga worlds. Another Cool Idea: What if Commodore could buy the rights to the IBeM software? Can you see an IBM emulator being included free with each system? If it were cleaned up enough, it would be a nice selling point. (I know they tried it before, but that was with truly hideous software. :-) Seriously, a GOOD emulator (even at just under XT speed on a 3000) would be really nice. -- Gary Wolfe, SYSOP of the Temporal Vortex BBS // Amiga! ..uflorida!unf7!tlvx!sysop, unf7!tlvx!sysop@bikini.cis.ufl.edu \X/ Yeah!
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (03/21/91)
In article <971@cbmger.UUCP> peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: >In article <12014@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: >> >>Not that I am trying to say the Amiga is any better -- to cancel an Amiga >>requester, you can hit the <cancel> box (which is nice), or you can use >>Amiga-B (which is not intuitive either). > >This topic was discussed heavily among developers. The result is: >Those key combinations are INTENTIONALLY UNUSUAL! Again this comes Hmm, might have been. I was still in high school at the time for heaven sakes :). I would argue, however, that those requesters oughtn't to be grabbing the focus regardless -- and that would go a long way to solving the problem you describe. You are right -- they do grab a lot of my keypresses from other programs. I don't think they ought to do that either. Perhaps In a perfect world, the requesters would come up quietly, and only start to make "noise" if they aren't dealt with in some timely fashion. EG. after 30 seconds a system requester would pop up on your current screen requesting action on any outstanding requesters. I usually only need two or three seconds to deal with them, but they never appear at a convenient time *unless* I'm single-tasking. And even then they're annoying because they destroy my type-ahead line of thought :) On the other hand, the left-amiga key qualifier is rarely used, how about 'e' and 'r' (at least for the American version :)) which might stand for 'exit' and 'retry' -- except that's reversed from the on-screen representation. Oh well, you get what I mean -- there are unused, but intuitive answers to these problems. For now, I suppose, we live with history, just like the Mac :(... >BTW, had to cancel crossposting to comp.sys.mac.misc, our cbm newsfeed >doesn't know this (bogus?) newsgroup :-)). :) Artificial Intelligence of the best kind. David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu Signature erased, because it used to be something snide against the Mac. undergoing recnstrctn. [Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus]
mpoutane@niksula.hut.fi (Matti Samuli Poutanen) (03/22/91)
In article <1991Mar16.012516.13068@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: > Yes, this Lisa team included Larry Tesler (now head of Apple >Advanced Products). Larry had worked at Xerox for some years before >Apple - I recall his articles on Smalltalk which appeared in Byte >[remember when Byte used to devote each year's August issue to a new >computer language... Smalltalk was in one of those (Aug 1980 I think >off the top of my head). I remember it had another beautiful Robert >Tinney cover drawing. Yes, I remember the issue. Your mentioning Tinney's cover drawing makes me sorry I didn't order what in my opinion was his best cover drawing: "Number Crunching". The issue was an -86 one, if I recall correctly, and had a nutcracker with chips at its 'jaws' and two cracked numbers. I'm sure everyone who's seen it has'n forgotten it. BRILLIANT !! Matti Poutanen EMAIL: mpoutane@niksula.hut.fi Department of Physics Helsinki University of Technology Finland, Europe
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (03/22/91)
mpoutane@niksula.hut.fi (Matti Samuli Poutanen) writes: >In article <1991Mar16.012516.13068@neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >> I remember it had another beautiful Robert >>Tinney cover drawing. >Yes, I remember the issue. Your mentioning Tinney's cover drawing >makes me sorry I didn't order what in my opinion was his best >cover drawing: "Number Crunching". The issue was an -86 one, if I >recall correctly, and had a nutcracker with chips at its 'jaws' >and two cracked numbers. I'm sure everyone who's seen it has'n forgotten >it. BRILLIANT !! I always liked the one for the Software Piracy issue... with the pirate galleon, using a 5.25" floppy disk as its sail. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "Dear Fascist Bully Boy, Give me some money, or else. Neil. P.S. May the seed of your loins be fruitful in the womb of your woman..."
bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) (03/24/91)
In article <4342@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >I was in a local store today an pulled an issue of MacWorld off the shelves to >see exactly what these Mac Mail-order prices were. cheapes i found a mac 105 >quantum was 569. that was at Mac Wharehouse or somesuch. MacWorld's advertising lead times are too long. Warehouse 54 has been advertising Quantum 105 externals in MacWeek for $399 for two months. I noticed Club Mac has dropped the price of an internal Quantum 105 down to $339 in the latest MacWeek. -- bruce@zuhause.mn.org
judge@alchemy.tcnet.ithaca.ny.us (rory toma) (03/24/91)
> dropped the price of an internal Quantum 105 down to $339 in the latest MacWe > -- How much they selling they 170's for, and what's their #? (phone, that is) rory
jayward@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Jay Ward) (03/25/91)
bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) writes: >MacWorld's advertising lead times are too long. Warehouse 54 has been advertising >Quantum 105 externals in MacWeek for $399 for two months. I noticed Club Mac has >dropped the price of an internal Quantum 105 down to $339 in the latest MacWeek. >-- I may have missed the initial point of this thread, but I assume it was hooking Mac external drives to Amiga SCSI ports. What I would like to know is if the SCSI port on the back of my Supra 500XP can connect a MAC SCSI drive with a MAC SCSI cable? Has anyone tried this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Ward --> jayward@eecs.cs.pdx.edu | if (TrailBlazers > Opponents) " " - Marcel Marceau | TrailBlazerWins++; ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
kls30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L Shephard) (03/26/91)
In article <1232@usage.csd.unsw.oz.au> pwb@newt.phys.unsw.OZ.AU (Paul W. Brooks) writes: >And on that note, I found out today that even most of the major Unix's >for the PC (from Intel, AT&T, Interactive, SCO, etc) cannot use more >than 16 MB, as that is the most you can use on the standard AT bus. In You seem to be mistaken here. The ISA bus only supports 16MB but memory in PCs does not reside on the ISA bus. It resides on a dedicated memory bus. True you can only add 16MB in an ISA bus but who would want to, since the ISA bus runs at 8-12MHz and is much slower than the memory bus. >fact, as far as I know, only Interactive supports more than 16MB in an >EISA-bus machine, and that only as an optional (expensive) extra. >With the Amiga there are No Such Limitations. The limitation you talk about is not sofware (read - UNIX on a PC) but the bus. If you add 100MB of real memory on the dedicated memory bus in a 386/486 machine it will be used by UNIX. BTW - Did you know that there are more Intel bases machines running UNIX or a UNIX variant (Xenix) than any other machine. >Go Amiga :-) > >Paul Brooks |Internet: pwb@newt.phys.unsw.edu.au >Uni. of N.S.W. |If you have trouble sleeping, try lying on the end of >Kensington NSW 2033| your bed. With a little luck you'll drop off. >AUSTRALIA | - Mark Twain. -- /* -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 */
mike@maths.tcd.ie (MIKE ROGERS) (03/28/91)
In article <3bPk02wU06Og01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, kls30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Kent L. Shephard) wrote: >BTW - Did you know that there are more Intel bases machines running UNIX >or a UNIX variant (Xenix) than any other machine. Yes, but they tend to be serving cash registers. -- Mike Rogers,Box 6,Regent Hse,## Everyone should try to kill themselves once in a TCD,EIRE. <mike@maths.tcd.ie>## while, it gives you a whole new outlook on life. ###############################DON'T MISS TRINCON400 7th, 8th, 9th FEBRUARY 1992 And she wore Black Contact Lenses when you said you liked her eyes......Toasties