guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (02/03/91)
>>One fact is that, across the board, from super-computers to single- >>user workstations, UNIX System V Release 4 is simply the standard >>to adopt. > >Misleading statements (AT&T hasn't officially released SYS5R4 yet, as >far as I've heard). Well, the "across the board" stuff does come across a bit of marketingspeak, although there are a lot of vendors who are adopting S5R4 (including both workstation/PC vendors such as Sun, Commodore, and various PClone vendors, and possibly supercomputer vendors as well). However, if you haven't heard that AT&T's officially released S5R4, it's time to clean out your ears; a number of vendors are selling S5R4 *NOW* for various PClones, and ICL is, I think, selling their SPARC-based DRS6000 *NOW* running S5R4. I don't remember whether the Sun "developer's release" of SunOS/S5R4 is out yet.
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (02/03/91)
In article <8298@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) writes: > In article <581.27a97594@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: > >>Commodore Amiga 3000UX - BORN TO RUN UNIX SVR4 >>---------------------------------------------- > > Ulch. What marketroid dweeb spewed this? It's complete with > overstatements: Ah, in case you are not aware of it, very little of marketing is NOT filled with overstatements. > >>When it comes to computers for professionals today, two facts stand >>out indisputably. > > Overstatements. Thanks for the clarification there. > >>One fact is that, across the board, from super-computers to single- >>user workstations, UNIX System V Release 4 is simply the standard >>to adopt. > > Misleading statements (AT&T hasn't officially released SYS5R4 yet, as > far as I've heard). Actually they have. I suspect you need to read all the Amiga groups. > >>For system portability. For user friendliness. > > Unix? User friendly? Hah! Even the NeXT isn't really user friendly > when you have to do real system administration. Actually I find Open Look to be very friendly. > >>For >>networking. For compatibility of architecture. For future Growth. >> >>Affordably. Reliably. >>Ergonomically. With a completeness of design that already has the >>industry experts raving. > > Wow! Three then four sentence fragments in a row! Do marketing people > really think that poor grammar impresses computer professionals? > Obvisouly it caught your attention. I guess it worked. >> >>"The Amiga just far outperformed the others." >> > > Look! Blurbs! > >>compact.... The Amiga 3000UX greatly outperforms the equivalent >>NeXT and Macintosh with A/UX... it is an obvious choice as a low-end >>workstation." > > What do you mean by "outperforms?" The equivalent NeXT has a 68040 > and inarguably better sound and screen resolution (no color, though). > Good thing this is in a quote. Ya know, they did not say which NeXT... > > I'm sure the 3000UX is a wonderful machine, and I'm certainly going to > try to upgrade my 3000 to run Unix one of these days, but this > marketing tripe makes me sick. Hype like this really doesn't belong > verbatim on Usenet. At least I'm glad to see that the machine is > going to be agressively marketed. Just so I don't have to put up with > it.... Look here bucko.... I posted it because I thought others would be interested in what is I believe to be the first piece of anything written on Amiga UNIX by Commodore. I am sorry if you don't think it is worth posting, but instead of saying it should not be posted you should have hit the 'n' key and not read it. That way I would not have to respond to what I think is the most ridiculous response I have seen thus far in 1991. Sigh.. and >I< took the time to type the thing to get this ... -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ================================================== > > Followups to comp.sys.amiga.advocacy. > > Dan Zerkle zerkle@iris.eecs.ucdavis.edu (916) 754-0240 > Amiga... Because life is too short for boring computers.
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (02/05/91)
In article <593.27ab5841@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >In article <8298@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) writes: [...] >> What do you mean by "outperforms?" The equivalent NeXT has a 68040 >> and inarguably better sound and screen resolution (no color, though). >> Good thing this is in a quote. [...] Right, like any company is going to compare a 68040 competitor's machine with their own 68030 machine, when their competitor has a 68030 version of the same machine. That is a completely and totally absurd assertion, Dan. Did you drop your brain on the floor before you posted this crazy stuff? Commodore hasn't released their machine that will be the 68040 NeXT equivalent yet. That comparison will not be appropriate until an Amiga has a 68040 in it. Until then you can expect to continue to see the 3000 benchmarked against the 68030 NeXT. Commodore would be insane to do anything else. -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Feb04.161126.8475@convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: > Commodore hasn't released their machine that will be the 68040 NeXT equivalent > yet. That comparison will not be appropriate until an Amiga has a 68040 in > it. Until then you can expect to continue to see the 3000 benchmarked against > the 68030 NeXT. Silly me, I would have assumed that the "equivalent" machine would be the one released in the same time-frame for about the same price (actually, for less money). > Commodore would be insane to do anything else. Yes, truth in advertising is insane these days. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
hunter@bacchus.esa.oz.au (James Gardiner [hunter]) (02/07/91)
In <8298@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) writes: >>compact.... The Amiga 3000UX greatly outperforms the equivalent >>NeXT and Macintosh with A/UX... it is an obvious choice as a low-end >>workstation." >What do you mean by "outperforms?" The equivalent NeXT has a 68040 >and inarguably better sound and screen resolution (no color, though). >Good thing this is in a quote. Are you saying that the amiga 3000 (030) is equivalent to a 68040 NeXT... If you do not mean this, you must mean a 3000 (030) is NOT equivalent to a NeXT (030) What makes there machines equivalent? Some CPU stats or same performance stats? Finaly which performes better. 030 3000UX or 030 NeXT? James Gardiner [Hunter] -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- James Gardiner [Hunter][hunter@bacchus.esa.oz.au] Expert Solutions Australia UUCP: ...!uunet!munnari!hunter@bacchus.esa.oz.au ARPA: hunter%bacchus.esa.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (02/07/91)
In article <1991Feb04.161126.8475@convex.com>, swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: > In article <593.27ab5841@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >>In article <8298@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) writes: > [...] >>> What do you mean by "outperforms?" The equivalent NeXT has a 68040 >>> and inarguably better sound and screen resolution (no color, though). >>> Good thing this is in a quote. > [...] > Right, like any company is going to compare a 68040 competitor's machine with > their own 68030 machine, when their competitor has a 68030 version of the same > machine. That is a completely and totally absurd assertion, Dan. Did you > drop your brain on the floor before you posted this crazy stuff? Uhh?! Why compare a 68030 Amiga to a 68030 NeXT when NeXT doesn't even manufacture 68030 machines anymore? And the 68040 NeXTs are still in the same price range than the new 68030 Amigas. Get the point? > Commodore hasn't released their machine that will be the 68040 NeXT equivalent > yet. That comparison will not be appropriate until an Amiga has a 68040 in That's Commodore's fault. NeXT has 68040 machines up and running while Commodore is bringing out 68030 Unix boxes. And the prices are about the same. > it. Until then you can expect to continue to see the 3000 benchmarked against > the 68030 NeXT. Commodore would be insane to do anything else. Of course, since they would clearly lose. :-) BTW, when you only benchmark a 68030 Amiga with 68030 NeXT you must take in to consideration that what NeXT lacks in speed it wins in flexibility... (Display Postscript, the programming/user interface). The 68030 NeXT was too slow to handle all the niceties NeXT has. The 68040 is not - and the new version of the operation system (2.0) is said to speed up the system quite considerably, too. > > -- > _. > --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. > Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- > V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland
bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb7.151106.4795@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > >BTW, when you only benchmark a 68030 Amiga with 68030 NeXT you must take >in to consideration that what NeXT lacks in speed it wins in >flexibility... (Display Postscript, the programming/user interface). Flexibility? Did he say FLEXIBILITY? The Amiga INVENTED flexibility. >The 68030 NeXT was too slow to handle all the niceties NeXT has. The >68040 is not - and the new version of the operation system (2.0) is said >to speed up the system quite considerably, too. I've been using an '040 NeXT for about two months now. The thing's still as slow as a dog, even when switching/moving windows. What speed *is* provided by bogging down the '040 (as Display Postscript will do) is completely lost if it's networked to cubes (as the one I use is) and in page-flipping on a 100-Meg hard disk. The damn thing has taken a full *two minutes* to resize an .eps pic. Way to go, Jobs. Them's some brilliant engineering. (isn't ~.advocacy great?) > Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland Dave Hopper | /// The Amiga: | The great strength of the total- | __ /// | itarian state is that it forces bard@jessica. | \\\/// The Cybernetic | those who fear it to imitate it. Stanford.EDU | \XX/ Revolution is NOW! | --Adolph Hitler
rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) (02/08/91)
In article <1991Feb7.151106.4795@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >In article <1991Feb04.161126.8475@convex.com>, swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >>Right, like any company is going to compare a 68040 competitor's machine with >>their own 68030 machine, when their competitor has a 68030 version of the same >>machine. > >Uhh?! Why compare a 68030 Amiga to a 68030 NeXT when NeXT doesn't even >manufacture 68030 machines anymore? And the 68040 NeXTs are still in >the same price range than the new 68030 Amigas. Get the point? It's not surprizing that a 68040 NeXT outdoes a 68030 Amiga. The "point" is this: A 68040 NeXT outperforming a 68030 Amiga does NOT mean that the Amiga is a slower system. >>Commodore hasn't released their machine that will be the 68040 NeXT equivalent >>yet. That comparison will not be appropriate until an Amiga has a 68040 in >That's Commodore's fault. It's their "fault" for not bringing out a system until the CPU is fully debugged?!? You're right... SHAME ON THEM!!!!! :-) > NeXT has 68040 machines up and running while >Commodore is bringing out 68030 Unix boxes. And the prices are about the >same. > Looking at the price difference of the old 68030 and new 68040 NeXT systems, I wouldn't be surprised if Commodore comes out with 68040 systems that are competitively priced to the NeXT systems. So, your point has some validity FOR THE MOMENT, but it'll be interesting to compare system price & performance when the 68040 boards come out for the Amiga, and even more interesting when Commodore FINALLY ( :-) ) comes out with a 68040-based system. >> --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. >> Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- >> V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com > > Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland Rodney -- /// /// Rodney Ricks, Morehouse College \\\/// \\//
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (02/08/91)
In article <hunter.665900413@thomas>, hunter@bacchus.esa.oz.au (James Gardiner [hunter]) writes: > > > Finaly which performes better. 030 3000UX or 030 NeXT? There is no point in comparing these two machines since 030 NeXT's are out of production and the new NeXTs (040) are much cheaper than the old ones. Comparing Amiga 3000UX to old 030 NeXTs for "advertising" purposes is simply misleading. Jouni Alkio
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb8.134256.4811@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >In article <hunter.665900413@thomas>, hunter@bacchus.esa.oz.au (James Gardiner [hunter]) writes: >> Finaly which performes better. 030 3000UX or 030 NeXT? > >There is no point in comparing these two machines since 030 NeXT's are >out of production and the new NeXTs (040) are much cheaper than the old >ones. Wrong. The reason NeXT adherents are so knee-knocking scared of this comparison is because it reveals the inherent superiority of the Amiga implementation. The NeXT sucks so much of the CPU into the black-hole of its user interface that it requires a quantum leap in processor power to achieve the same level of responsiveness to the user. But, because this processor (the 68040) is a commodity processor, it is available for the Amiga as well. So all the NeXT people can say is that they were able to get their '040 implementation to the market first. This is an admirable boast, and not one that I would attempt to deny them. But soon all the 680x0 boxes will be at the '040 level, and the Amiga will be right there with the rest of them. What we are talking about is the efficient utilization of the CPU resource. The only honest way to appraise this performance parameter is to evaluate boxes with equal CPU resources, and try to find out which box yields the best performance within the context of a typical user environment.. The Amiga wins this test by a significant margin, and this fact will only become more self-evident after the '040 implementation of the 3000 becomes available. -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (The Ghost Who Walks) (02/09/91)
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >What we are talking about is the efficient utilization of the CPU resource. >The only honest way to appraise this performance parameter is to evaluate >boxes with equal CPU resources, and try to find out which box yields the >best performance within the context of a typical user environment.. The >Amiga wins this test by a significant margin, and this fact will only How do we know this though? I haven't seen anywhere, anytime, anything resembling benchmarks of the A3000UX vis a vis the NeXT or other Unix boxes. The only mention I've seen of A3000UX performance is from the infamous Byte article, which then failed to back that up with ANY solid numbers at all. The article was more along the lines of "In the writer's opinion, the Amiga is faster, but I'm not going to give you any evidence at all as to why I think that". Meanwhile, questions which seem to still be unanswered: How fast does the Amiga run X? (where are the XStones benchmarks?) Does the A3000UX version of X support colour? Is the A3000UX using the blitter chip in X? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Fame, fame, fame... What's it good for? Ab-so-lute-ly nothing
dtiberio@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb7.151106.4795@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >In article <1991Feb04.161126.8475@convex.com>, swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >> In article <593.27ab5841@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >>>In article <8298@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) writes: >> [...] >>>> What do you mean by "outperforms?" The equivalent NeXT has a 68040 >>>> and inarguably better sound and screen resolution (no color, though). >>>> Good thing this is in a quote. >> [...] >> Right, like any company is going to compare a 68040 competitor's machine with >> their own 68030 machine, when their competitor has a 68030 version of the same >> machine. That is a completely and totally absurd assertion, Dan. Did you >> drop your brain on the floor before you posted this crazy stuff? > >Uhh?! Why compare a 68030 Amiga to a 68030 NeXT when NeXT doesn't even >manufacture 68030 machines anymore? And the 68040 NeXTs are still in >the same price range than the new 68030 Amigas. Get the point? > > > Commodore hasn't released their machine that will be the 68040 NeXT equivalent >> yet. That comparison will not be appropriate until an Amiga has a 68040 in > >That's Commodore's fault. NeXT has 68040 machines up and running while >Commodore is bringing out 68030 Unix boxes. And the prices are about the >same. > >> it. Until then you can expect to continue to see the 3000 benchmarked against >> the 68030 NeXT. Commodore would be insane to do anything else. > >Of course, since they would clearly lose. :-) > >BTW, when you only benchmark a 68030 Amiga with 68030 NeXT you must take >in to consideration that what NeXT lacks in speed it wins in >flexibility... (Display Postscript, the programming/user interface). > >The 68030 NeXT was too slow to handle all the niceties NeXT has. The >68040 is not - and the new version of the operation system (2.0) is said >to speed up the system quite considerably, too. > Yeah, but you fail to realize that commodore will probably NEVER ship an Amiga 3000 with a 68040 anyway. In a few months, they will be the first to ship with the new 68050 and that will blow the NeXT back where it came from! Obviously, this is only a joke, since the 68050 is no where near completion. >> >> -- >> _. >> --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. >> Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- >> V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com > > Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland
n368bq@tamuts.tamu.edu (Raoul Rodriguez) (02/09/91)
O.K.... lesse,
1) The NextStation has a 68040, the A3000UX has a 68030, no comparison in the
CPU's persay... but, one must take into consideration the custom chips in
Ami... Anyone have specs between the A3000UX and the NeXTStation?
2) The NeXTStation would be more accuratlky compared to the A500 with a
200 Meg HD and 68030 than the A3000, why? Because the NeXTStation is
unexpandable like the A500 (mostly) is, although I think that the A500
does beat the NeXTStation in explandability because of the Slot on
the side...
3) The NeXT Machine to compare the A3000UX to would be the Cube, when
NeXT becomes expandable it also becomes expensive... I believe that
the Cube with the color board (the 4032 color board that is) is
~$7,900 (I lost my notecad with the prices on it, that is my best
guess (putting on asbestos undies)) educatoinal price.
4) There is a NeXTStation (a.k.a the "slab") with color, 4032 colors to
be precise, and I think it it about $5,000+ (educational price), but
then again, this would the almost (with the exceptin of the CPU)
be the comparisin to the afformentioned A500 with extra ram (9
megs, 200HD x/unix, network card.. ect.) Does anyone have any
ideas how much a A500 setup like that would be?
Oh well, here we go again... (sigh)
Raoul "My 500 Has a Detachable Keyboard" Rodriguez
n368bq@tamuts.tamu.edu
Standard Disclaimers Apply (Within)hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh) (02/09/91)
In article <32530@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: >Looking at the price difference of the old 68030 and new 68040 NeXT systems, >I wouldn't be surprised if Commodore comes out with 68040 systems that are >competitively priced to the NeXT systems. The last time I checked (when I wanted an Amiga and didn't know about the NeXTstation) the 25 Mhz '030 Amiga cost about the same as a NeXTstation. (This was ed. price for both of them, about $3200 each). What makes you think that an '040 Amiga will be competitive with a '040 NeXT when the Amiga with an inferior processor costs the same? >So, your point has some validity FOR THE MOMENT, but it'll be interesting >to compare system price & performance when the 68040 boards come out for >the Amiga, and even more interesting when Commodore FINALLY ( :-) ) comes >out with a 68040-based system. Maybe Commodore will lower the price of these systems so they'll be able to compete with NeXT. Aaron Harsh hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (02/09/91)
In article <1512@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >In article <32530@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: >>Looking at the price difference of the old 68030 and new 68040 NeXT systems, >>I wouldn't be surprised if Commodore comes out with 68040 systems that are >>competitively priced to the NeXT systems. > > The last time I checked (when I wanted an Amiga and didn't know about the >NeXTstation) the 25 Mhz '030 Amiga cost about the same as a NeXTstation. >(This was ed. price for both of them, about $3200 each). What makes you think >that an '040 Amiga will be competitive with a '040 NeXT when the Amiga with >an inferior processor costs the same? What makes you think an 040 NeXT will be competitive with an 040 Amiga when the inferior NeXT with inferior color and expansion capabilities cost the same? Reworded, it sounds the same. The slab is virtually useless. The $3200 model is almost unusable. An A3000 with an 040 running AmigaDOS wil burn rubber for speed. The NeXT is bogged down with UNIX's overhead and Display Postscript. Even the A3000UX with an 040 will probably beat the 040 NeXT because it doesn't waste so much CPU on the interface. Try doing Live video teleconferencing on the $3200 slab like CBM did on the A3000UX demonstration. Once you buy an A3000/3500, you don't ever need to buy another computer, but chances are, if you buy the cheapest Slab, you'll need to shell out another $2000-3000 down the road anyway, or BUY a whole new NeXT model. >>So, your point has some validity FOR THE MOMENT, but it'll be interesting >>to compare system price & performance when the 68040 boards come out for >>the Amiga, and even more interesting when Commodore FINALLY ( :-) ) comes >>out with a 68040-based system. > > Maybe Commodore will lower the price of these systems so they'll be able >to compete with NeXT. Maybe NeXT will lower the price of the 040 Cube so it can compete with the Amiga. > >Aaron Harsh >hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu
n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) (02/09/91)
In article <1512@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >In article <32530@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: > > The last time I checked (when I wanted an Amiga and didn't know about the >NeXTstation) the 25 Mhz '030 Amiga cost about the same as a NeXTstation. >(This was ed. price for both of them, about $3200 each). What makes you think >that an '040 Amiga will be competitive with a '040 NeXT when the Amiga with >an inferior processor costs the same? Since when does the processor alone determine the total capability of the machine? We had an 030 NeXT in the integration lab at my last co-op assignment. As long as you wanted to run ONE job at a time the machine's performance was excellent. But try feeding a score file to the DSP (yes, teh sound *is* wonderful) while doing one or two other tasks and watch the whole thing grind to a halt (INCLUDING the music). The NeXT's architecture must be such that the *CPU* is responsible for feeding data to the DSP (and, by analogy, to the other specialized chips). With that kind of architecture, the NeXT will absolutely have to have an 040 to get any kind of performance at *all*. I do not know all the details of the NeXT's innards, but after watching it react to my actions, I'd say that it has very little custom chips to handle DMA and I/O. The 3000UX *does*. I'd be willing to bet that the 3000UX is more than a match for the 040 NeXT after having seen a 3000 running AmigaDOS (Gee is that fast) versus the NeXT choking under its version of Mach. Putting the overhead of UNIX on the 3000 won't slow it down as much as that 030 NeXT did. > > Maybe Commodore will lower the price of these systems so they'll be able >to compete with NeXT. When will everyone here who keeps griping about the price point that companies have to make a profit to SURVIVE! Has it occurred to *anyone* that NeXT's low prices are a near-money-losing venture in order to get MARKET SHARE?! Market share is crucial if you want your product to get the third party support it needs to survive on the long haul. Why has it taken so long for the Amiga to get development tools that have existed in the PC (a technically inferior machine) for years? Market share. The PC had it; Amiga didn't. UNIX is not cheap to license. I expect that Commodore is paying a LOT for the rights to SVR4. Couple that with the cost of manufacturing the 3000 PLUS (here's where the costs really go up) decent support (you want UNIX without any backing?)? You figure that if you have even two UNIX masters on your staff, each earning $40,000 per year, that's $80,000/year that is going to have to come from somewhere...and that somewhere is PROFIT. And I'm not talking development personnel here; I'm talking tech support only. Do the math to see what it costs for a team of capable UNIX people to keep fixing bugs and improving the OS (congrats to the team at C= for seeing this thing through!). And who says NeXT's prices are going to stay low if their machine actually succeeds? I'll bet $10 they won't. > >Aaron Harsh >hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu --Daryl Biberdorf, n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu OR dlb5404@rigel.tamu.edu Texas A&M University
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/09/91)
In article <1512@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: > The last time I checked (when I wanted an Amiga and didn't know about the >NeXTstation) the 25 Mhz '030 Amiga cost about the same as a NeXTstation. >(This was ed. price for both of them, about $3200 each). What makes you think >that an '040 Amiga will be competitive with a '040 NeXT when the Amiga with >an inferior processor costs the same? Two reasons: 1) The 040 should cost about the same as the current price of an 030/882 combo. 2) The A3000 is basically an 040 motherboard adapted for the current release version running an 030/882. Rumor (mind you -- rumor) has it that some hardware will be _removed_ when the 040 goes onto the motherboard. Greg -- -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu------- "Confutatis maledictus "When the accursed have been counfounded Flammis acribus addictis, == And given over to the bitter flames, Voca me cum benedictis." -- Mozart Call me with the blessed."
hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb9.032953.14709@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > What makes you think an 040 NeXT will be competitive with an 040 Amiga >when the inferior NeXT with inferior color and expansion capabilities >cost the same? The NeXTstation has no color and no expansion [slots] available. But looking through Amiga World (yeah so what if I read it, Amigas still suck :-) all the expansion cards I see fall into three categories: 1) RAM/Hard drive cards Who cares about this? The Station is expandable to 32 Megs, and has a SCSI connector on the back. 2) Video things (genlocks, Toaster, etc.) The Amiga is a much better multimedia machine than a NeXT. If you're going to be using a lot of video, go with an Amiga. If you're going to want to use a really fast machine and an incredible programmeing setup you should go with a NeXT. 3) IBM/Mac emulators SOFT-PC on the NeXT runs an AT window faster than a 12Mhz AT. Uses all the NeXT serial ports, disk drives, etc.. too. You can also run more than one on the screen at a time. (Yeah, I know. Why would you want to run more than one PC window at a time? Well.. why would you even want to run one :-) > Reworded, it sounds the same. The slab is virtually useless. The $3200 >model is almost unusable. An A3000 with an 040 running AmigaDOS wil >burn rubber for speed. The NeXT is bogged down with UNIX's overhead and >Display Postscript. Even the A3000UX with an 040 will probably beat the >040 NeXT because it doesn't waste so much CPU on the interface. As CPU speed increases and display overhead stays the same, amount of time spent on display aproaches 0. Maybe an '040 3000UX will beat a NeXT, but I doubt it. It will do better at video, but not at number crunching. Someone posted some benchmarks comparing A3000 and NeXTCube (030 model) a while ago.(I think that was in the pre-advocacy days). The NeXT was a little faster than the Amiga. You probably haven't played with one of the new NeXTs. They're speeded up a lot. You can even format disks while you're downloading a file :-) I've had Mandelbrot, Digital Webster, and Writenow running at the same time without slowing down the Writenow window. > Try doing Live video teleconferencing on the $3200 slab like CBM did >on the A3000UX demonstration. Yep, the Amiga is better with video. Try doing raytracing in any reasonable amount of time on an Amiga. Try designing a functional graphical interface to one of your programs in a half hour on an Amiga. Aaron Harsh hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu
hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh) (02/09/91)
In article <11964@helios.TAMU.EDU> n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes: >Since when does the processor alone determine the total capability >of the machine? We had an 030 NeXT in the integration lab at my >last co-op assignment. As long as you wanted to run ONE job at a time >the machine's performance was excellent. But try feeding a score file >to the DSP (yes, teh sound *is* wonderful) while doing one or >two other tasks and watch the whole thing grind to a halt (INCLUDING >the music). Not on the new NeXT's. On my lowest-end system, I can run Scoreplayer while I'm switching between a word processor and a graphics-intensive game and everything works fine. >The NeXT's architecture must be such that the *CPU* is >responsible for feeding data to the DSP (and, by analogy, to the >other specialized chips). With that kind of architecture, the NeXT >will absolutely have to have an 040 to get any kind of performance >at *all*. I do not know all the details of the NeXT's innards, but >after watching it react to my actions, I'd say that it has very little >custom chips to handle DMA and I/O. The 3000UX *does*. Here's a quote from some NeXT propoganda: "[the NeXT uses] two chips. One contains 12 Input/Output processors. each with direct access to meory; the other contains the circuitry needed to manage the mass storage." >I'd be willing to bet that the 3000UX is more than a match for the >040 NeXT after having seen a 3000 running AmigaDOS (Gee is that fast) >versus the NeXT choking under its version of Mach. Putting the >overhead of UNIX on the 3000 won't slow it down as much as >that 030 NeXT did. I haven't seen a 3000UX (but you haven't seen a NeXTstation, so I guess we're even), but I'm sure it's slowed down an awful lot by UNIX. Mach is one of the fastest UNICES around, one of the reasons NeXT chose it, I'd imagine. The thing that really slowed down the '030 NeXT was Display Postscript. This has been pretty much fixed by the new machines. Windows move fast, text scrolls fast, GIF's load fast. Admittedly, the NeXT isn't as fast as an Amiga for graphics, but unless you're using virtual reality, or a flight simulator, screen I/O won't be the bottleneck. >When will everyone here who keeps griping about the price point that >companies have to make a profit to SURVIVE! Has it occurred to >*anyone* that NeXT's low prices are a near-money-losing venture >in order to get MARKET SHARE?! So what you're saying is that NeXT is offering low priced products hoping that people will buy them? >UNIX is not cheap to license. I expect that Commodore is paying >a LOT for the rights to SVR4. I don't think it's that much. I'd guess <$100/machine. AT&T shouldn't be getting too greedy now that the DARPA-funded Mach project has removed all the AT&T code from their OS. (Free UNIX clones!!) Aaron Harsh hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/09/91)
In article <11961@helios.TAMU.EDU> n368bq@tamuts.tamu.edu (Raoul Rodriguez) writes: >O.K.... lesse, > >[Raoul, I mangled your post a bit. Sorry. :-) ] > >2) The NeXTStation would be more accuratlky compared to the A500 with a > 200 Meg HD and 68030 than the A3000, why? Because the NeXTStation is > unexpandable like the A500 (mostly) is, although I think that the A500 > does beat the NeXTStation in explandability because of the Slot on > the side... >[...] >4) There is a NeXTStation (a.k.a the "slab") with color, 4032 colors to > be precise, and I think it it about $5,000+ (educational price), but > then again, this would the almost (with the exceptin of the CPU) > be the comparisin to the afformentioned A500 with extra ram (9 > megs, 200HD x/unix, network card.. ect.) Does anyone have any > ideas how much a A500 setup like that would be? You know, that's pretty accurate. Lessee... A500/1MB/Color, stereo monitor $699 (Educational -- ANY Amiga dealer) 25Mhz MegaMidgetRacer 030 $699 (Creative Computers, AW 2/91) MMR 32-bit RAM Daughterboard $319 (Creative Computers, AW 2/91) 8MB of 80ns DRAMS (at ~$50/MB) $400 Trumpcard/Quantum 210MB $1099 (Computability, AW 2/91) ----- $3216 I don't have any info the price of Unix. Here, though, is the least expandable Amiga, which still remains expandable to a good degree. Want to expand that Slab? No go. This is also a color system (4096). Also, the 030 board I listed is not the cheapest (the other costs $395 w/o CPU, but I didn't have a price for it with a 25Mhz 030). In addition, these boards can go higher than 25Mhz. >3) The NeXT Machine to compare the A3000UX to would be the Cube, when > NeXT becomes expandable it also becomes expensive... I believe that > the Cube with the color board (the 4032 color board that is) is > ~$7,900 (I lost my notecad with the prices on it, that is my best > guess (putting on asbestos undies)) educatoinal price. Definitely true. Comparing a non-expandable box to an extremely expandable one is quite misleading. >Raoul "My 500 Has a Detachable Keyboard" Rodriguez Mine too. :) >n368bq@tamuts.tamu.edu >Standard Disclaimers Apply (Within) Greg -- -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu------- "Confutatis maledictus "When the accursed have been counfounded Flammis acribus addictis, == And given over to the bitter flames, Voca me cum benedictis." -- Mozart Call me with the blessed."
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (02/09/91)
In article <1519@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >In article <1991Feb9.032953.14709@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> What makes you think an 040 NeXT will be competitive with an 040 Amiga >>when the inferior NeXT with inferior color and expansion capabilities >>cost the same? > > The NeXTstation has no color and no expansion [slots] available. But >looking through Amiga World (yeah so what if I read it, Amigas still suck :-) >all the expansion cards I see fall into three categories: [deleted] > 2) Video things (genlocks, Toaster, etc.) > The Amiga is a much better multimedia machine than a NeXT. If you're > going to be using a lot of video, go with an Amiga. If you're going to > want to use a really fast machine and an incredible programmeing setup > you should go with a NeXT. Ok... The $10,000 question is: Once the Amiga has an 040, what advantage has the NeXT got in speed? If the Amiga is running AmigaDos, none. If Unix, probably not much. [deleted] >> Reworded, it sounds the same. The slab is virtually useless. The $3200 >>model is almost unusable. An A3000 with an 040 running AmigaDOS wil >>burn rubber for speed. The NeXT is bogged down with UNIX's overhead and >>Display Postscript. Even the A3000UX with an 040 will probably beat the >>040 NeXT because it doesn't waste so much CPU on the interface. > > As CPU speed increases and display overhead stays the same, amount of >time spent on display aproaches 0. Yes, but the 040 is only 3 times as fast as the 030. Your example of CPU->infinity, time->0 only works for orders of magnitude speed improvements. The 040 ISN"T a quantum leap above the 030 like NeXT users believe. > Maybe an '040 3000UX will beat a NeXT, but I doubt it. It will do better >at video, but not at number crunching. Someone posted some benchmarks >comparing A3000 and NeXTCube (030 model) a while ago.(I think that was >in the pre-advocacy days). The NeXT was a little faster than the Amiga. Yea, by about 100 drystones, and I believe that was a 25mhz Amiga vs a 28mhz NeXT. Drystones aren't a very accurate benchmark anyway. > You probably haven't played with one of the new NeXTs. They're speeded >up a lot. You can even format disks while you're downloading a file :-) I can do this and more on my 7mhz A500. >> Try doing Live video teleconferencing on the $3200 slab like CBM did >>on the A3000UX demonstration. > > Yep, the Amiga is better with video. > Try doing raytracing in any reasonable amount of time on an Amiga. Try >designing a functional graphical interface to one of your programs in a >half hour on an Amiga. Hogwash, I'd put LightSpeed3d w/25mhz 040 Amiga up against ANY NeXT ray-tracer. What makes you believe an 040 NeXT will run faster than an 040 Amiga? If the Clock speeds and CPU's are the same, performance will be about the same. The 3000 has an extremely efficient bus design. You act as if the NeXT will be an order of magnitude faster than the Amiga. The difference between the two in a ray-tracing competition will be measured in seconds, not minutes. Besides that, AmigaDOS has FAR less CPU overhead than Unix does. So I have every reason to believe an A3000 w/040 will run faster than a NeXT. My A500 already proves that by updating the screen faster than a 386 or NeXT does. As far as designing an interface for a program. I can design an interface for an entire application in less than 10 minutes with PowerWindows. Gadtools under 2.0 will probably give the same advantages. And as for uses of the Amiga's expansion slots, besides the stuff you listed, how about: 1) Multiple serial port cards 2) Graphic card enhancements 3) Extra processors for multiprocessing 4) An I/O sampling board 5) Fax Card 6) Different network cards (besides Ethernet) 7) Adding different types of drives/devices besides SCSI 8) >32mb of ram (who knows, some people may need more in the future) 9) DSP's, like the newer faster DSP's, or i860's/88000's Having an 040 is nice, but a 50mhz 68030 doesn't make its advantage significant. And it's only a matter of time before OTHER computers like Macs and Amiga's start shipping 040 cards. Answer me this question, how does a slab owner upgrade his CPU for a faster version/bigger cache/68050? Does the Slab has a CPU card slot, or will he have to SELL the slab and buy another configuration? >Aaron Harsh >hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu
doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) (02/09/91)
In article <1519@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: > The NeXTstation has no color and no expansion [slots] available. But >looking through Amiga World (yeah so what if I read it, Amigas still suck :-) >all the expansion cards I see fall into three categories: That is pretty harsh. Stating that Amigas suck in an Amiga forum shows a lack of knowledge/intelligence and really damages your credibility. > 1) RAM/Hard drive cards > Who cares about this? The Station is expandable to 32 Megs, and has > a SCSI connector on the back. The Amiga will be able to adapt to any new type of hardware items that develop at a later date. Maybe a new type of SCSI? The big point here is that it is not LIMITED. The slots are there to allow FUTURE products to also be used. When the 040 merits a card, it will be available. Just plug it in and go. Same with the 050, 060, etc. I believe that Motorola already has the 070 in the works. Expandability is the key word here. That is the major reason that I chose the Amiga for development work. > 2) Video things (genlocks, Toaster, etc.) > The Amiga is a much better multimedia machine than a NeXT. If you're > going to be using a lot of video, go with an Amiga. If you're going to > want to use a really fast machine and an incredible programmeing setup > you should go with a NeXT. Have you programmed on the Amiga? This is a pretty touchy area too. I am able to create new programs to do what I want in a matter of minutes now. There are a LOT of great programming resources out there for the Amiga and I think your statements/opinions are insufficiently justified. > 3) IBM/Mac emulators > SOFT-PC on the NeXT runs an AT window faster than a 12Mhz AT. Uses > all the NeXT serial ports, disk drives, etc.. too. You can also run > more than one on the screen at a time. (Yeah, I know. Why would you > want to run more than one PC window at a time? Well.. why would you > even want to run one :-) Now I totally agree here. If you want to run IBM, RUN an IBM. There are available resources to cross-development FOR an IBM, but again WHY? > Maybe an '040 3000UX will beat a NeXT, but I doubt it. It will do better >at video, but not at number crunching. Someone posted some benchmarks >comparing A3000 and NeXTCube (030 model) a while ago.(I think that was >in the pre-advocacy days). The NeXT was a little faster than the Amiga. How do arrive at the conclusion that the NeXT will outperform the Amiga on number crunching. If they are running the SAME program on the SAME processor, how can the NeXT possibly be faster? I am sure that they are on (or will be on) equivalent levels here. I realize that system overhead may play a part here, but this is negligable in perspective. The ram setup has also been nicely done on the UX to support the various burstfetch modes available on the processor. > You probably haven't played with one of the new NeXTs. They're speeded >up a lot. You can even format disks while you're downloading a file :-) >I've had Mandelbrot, Digital Webster, and Writenow running at the same time >without slowing down the Writenow window. You obviously haven't 'speeded' to your English classes either! So what! The Amiga has always been able to format a disk while running a terminal program and downloading a file. That requires almost no processor time. And running a Mandelbrot, 5 wordprocessors (another process that takes almost no processor time to keep updated) and downloading MULTIPLE files on 4 serial ports doesn't slow down any of my windows! > Yep, the Amiga is better with video. > Try doing raytracing in any reasonable amount of time on an Amiga. Try >designing a functional graphical interface to one of your programs in a >half hour on an Amiga. No problem. Again, do you believe that the processor in the NeXT is doing MORE than the same processor in an Amiga? And designing a graphical interface is very easily done. In fact I use a program that writes them FOR me. How does a few MINUTES sound? > >Aaron Harsh >hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu Non informative comments should be re-directed to nil: *********************************************************** * Jeff Davis * Relax! And get into /// * * doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu * the STRESS!!! /// * * * \\\///030 * * * -Gigahertz!- Amiga\XX/ 882 * *********************************************************** -=[ In Stereo Where Available ]=-
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/09/91)
In article <1519@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: > The NeXTstation has no color and no expansion [slots] available. But >looking through Amiga World (yeah so what if I read it, Amigas still suck :-) >all the expansion cards I see fall into three categories: > 1) RAM/Hard drive cards > Who cares about this? The Station is expandable to 32 Megs, and has > a SCSI connector on the back. And? The A3000 has 18MB capability on the motherboard and has the SCSI port on the back. BTW, what if you want _more_ than 32MB? NEVER say never. I believe it was Commodore's Dave Haynie who designed a 64MB, 32-bit memory card for the 3000. Granted, he did it for fun, but it may actually see a need in the market one of these days. > 2) Video things (genlocks, Toaster, etc.) > The Amiga is a much better multimedia machine than a NeXT. If you're > going to be using a lot of video, go with an Amiga. If you're going to > want to use a really fast machine and an incredible programmeing setup > you should go with a NeXT. Well, the "really fast" quality of the NeXT will pale when the 040 cards ship for the Amiga. Given the system architectures and OSes of the two machines, the Amiga will be faster. That's a fact. As for programming environment, to each his own. I don't like the NeXT developing environment myself. > 3) IBM/Mac emulators > SOFT-PC on the NeXT runs an AT window faster than a 12Mhz AT. Uses > all the NeXT serial ports, disk drives, etc.. too. You can also run > more than one on the screen at a time. (Yeah, I know. Why would you > want to run more than one PC window at a time? Well.. why would you > even want to run one :-) So what do you plug a PeeCee-specific card into? A telnet port? :) There are inexpensive peripherals for the PeeCee and some that just don't exist for the Amiga or NeXT. Besides, the speed of SOFT-PC is just over that of a 12Mhz 286. 386 brideboards are currently under development for the Amiga. > As CPU speed increases and display overhead stays the same, amount of >time spent on display aproaches 0. Sure, as CPU speed approaches infinity. However, the 040 is merely fast, not a miracle. A miracle is what is needed for Display Postscript. :) > Maybe an '040 3000UX will beat a NeXT, but I doubt it. It will do better >at video, but not at number crunching. Someone posted some benchmarks >comparing A3000 and NeXTCube (030 model) a while ago.(I think that was >in the pre-advocacy days). The NeXT was a little faster than the Amiga. What do you base your assumption on? It's the same CPU, last time I checked. Does the NeXT use static column RAMs? Can it do it without any wait-states? Even the DSP has to be hand-serviced by the CPU. > You probably haven't played with one of the new NeXTs. They're speeded >up a lot. You can even format disks while you're downloading a file :-) >I've had Mandelbrot, Digital Webster, and Writenow running at the same time >without slowing down the Writenow window. So in other words you're saying that the 68040 is really fast. Gee, I'll be glad when I get one because I'm running 10 tasks on my 7.14Mhz 68000 with no noticeable slowdown. Because the OS is efficient, they sleep until they have work to do (but several are constantly activated). I could easily run a Mandelbrot program and set it at a priority 1 lower than the term I'm using and the Mandelbrot would be generated nearly as fast with only the time between my keypresses. >> Try doing Live video teleconferencing on the $3200 slab like CBM did >>on the A3000UX demonstration. > > Yep, the Amiga is better with video. > Try doing raytracing in any reasonable amount of time on an Amiga. Try >designing a functional graphical interface to one of your programs in a >half hour on an Amiga. Raytracing speed is a function of the FPU. An 040 Amiga would raytrace at the same speed. As for the graphical interface, such builders are available to those who want them. IB is not a new concept. With programs like AmigaVision (ships with all Amigas) and CanDo, a user can design an entire program in half an hour. There's no need to hand-code most utilities. I've seen some very useful, fast utilies written under these packages, including hypertext. For people who want or need to hand-code, programs like Power Windows will let the user design and interface and then it will write the C code to generate it. The best part is that none of this requires the programmer to use Objective-C. :) >Aaron Harsh >hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu Greg -- -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu------- "Confutatis maledictus "When the accursed have been counfounded Flammis acribus addictis, == And given over to the bitter flames, Voca me cum benedictis." -- Mozart Call me with the blessed."
easu052@orion.oac.uci.edu (Thu Ra Tin) (02/09/91)
In article <hunter.665900413@thomas> hunter@bacchus.esa.oz.au (James Gardiner [hunter]) writes: >In <8298@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) writes: > >>>compact.... The Amiga 3000UX greatly outperforms the equivalent >>>NeXT and Macintosh with A/UX... it is an obvious choice as a low-end >>>workstation." > >>What do you mean by "outperforms?" The equivalent NeXT has a 68040 >>and inarguably better sound and screen resolution (no color, though). >>Good thing this is in a quote. > >James Gardiner [Hunter][hunter@bacchus.esa.oz.au] Expert Solutions Australia > UUCP: ...!uunet!munnari!hunter@bacchus.esa.oz.au > ARPA: hunter%bacchus.esa.oz.AU@uu That was a statement in BYTE previewing Amiga3000 UX.
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (02/10/91)
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >Well, the "really fast" quality of the NeXT will pale when the 040 cards ship >for the Amiga. Given the system architectures and OSes of the two machines, >the Amiga will be faster. That's a fact. This is not a "fact". This is a vapourware opinion. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu Today's maxim: All socialists are failed capitalists
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/10/91)
In article <32530@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: > It's not surprizing that a 68040 NeXT outdoes a 68030 Amiga. The "point" is > this: A 68040 NeXT outperforming a 68030 Amiga does NOT mean that the Amiga > is a slower system. Sure it does. You compare systems based on price and capability. The NeXT is cheaper and probably faster than the A3000UX, and is damn sure better integrated. So why would someone go with the A3000UX? I can see two possible answers: 1) Commodore does not have all its eggs in one basket, and so is more likely to exist down the road a ways. 2) The A3000UX has slots, which the equivalent NeXT doesn't. Point one might be valid, but what would one put in the A3000UX that one doesn't get standard on the NeXT? Is there actually an application for the slots in the A3000 with UNIX (which wipes out things like the Video Toaster)? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/10/91)
In article <1991Feb10.003013.18133@Neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > >>Well, the "really fast" quality of the NeXT will pale when the 040 cards ship >>for the Amiga. Given the system architectures and OSes of the two machines, >>the Amiga will be faster. That's a fact. > > This is not a "fact". This is a vapourware opinion. OK, then I put it to you this way: Given that: A) Many hardware specialists have stated that the NeXTs system architecture cripples the 040. (FrEx, wait-states) B) The Amiga 3000 is designed to use high-speed SCRAMs, while the NeXT is still using page-mode memories. C) AmigaDOS has nowhere _near_ the overhead of Mach. D) Display Postscript still drags down the 040 NeXT, regardless of what the marketroids say. I've said before that in order or DPS to be fast, you need a miracle, not an 040. How can you doubt that the Amiga using the SAME processor would NOT be faster? Opinion doesn't enter into it. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I don't know what it is I like about you, but I like it a lot." -- Led Zeppelin, Communication Breakdown -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu-------
hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh) (02/10/91)
In article <1991Feb9.063711.17280@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > Ok... The $10,000 question is: Once the Amiga has an 040, what advantage >has the NeXT got in speed? If the Amiga is running AmigaDos, none. If Unix, >probably not much. How much will an A3000 + '040 cost? The price for a 3000 is already the same as a NeXTstation. Looking through my copy of AmigaWorld until I find an '030 expansion card.. the first one I find costs $1428. About an extra 40% over the cost of the computer. What makes you think an '040 board is going to cost substantially less than this? >> As CPU speed increases and display overhead stays the same, amount of >>time spent on display aproaches 0. > Yes, but the 040 is only 3 times as fast as the 030. Your example >of CPU->infinity, time->0 only works for orders of magnitude speed >improvements. The 040 ISN"T a quantum leap above the 030 like NeXT users >believe. On the old NeXTs, the Workspace Manager took up about 20% of the CPU's time. 20%/3 = ~7%. Getting a lot closer to 0. >>Someone posted some benchmarks >>comparing A3000 and NeXTCube (030 model) a while ago.(I think that was >>in the pre-advocacy days). The NeXT was a little faster than the Amiga. > Yea, by about 100 drystones, and I believe that was a 25mhz Amiga vs >a 28mhz NeXT. Drystones aren't a very accurate benchmark anyway. Dhrystones aren't accurate, but they're reproducible. Machines with the same processor should have the same Dhrystone counting ability. The point was, an '030 NeXT _wasn't_ slower than an '030 Amiga. (NeXT never made a 28mhz machine. Actually the only 28mhz chip I've ever heard of was on the Amiga board I mentioned above. Very odd.) >> You probably haven't played with one of the new NeXTs. They're speeded >>up a lot. You can even format disks while you're downloading a file :-) > I can do this and more on my 7mhz A500. I was referring to the stories about why Mac users should get an Amiga. >> Try doing raytracing in any reasonable amount of time on an Amiga. Try >>designing a functional graphical interface to one of your programs in a >>half hour on an Amiga. > Hogwash, I'd put LightSpeed3d w/25mhz 040 Amiga up against ANY NeXT >ray-tracer. What makes you believe an 040 NeXT will run faster than an >040 Amiga? If the Clock speeds and CPU's are the same, performance >will be about the same. The 3000 has an extremely efficient bus design. >You act as if the NeXT will be an order of magnitude faster than the >Amiga. The difference between the two in a ray-tracing competition >will be measured in seconds, not minutes. Besides that, AmigaDOS >has FAR less CPU overhead than Unix does. So I have every reason to believe >an A3000 w/040 will run faster than a NeXT. My A500 already proves that >by updating the screen faster than a 386 or NeXT does. > >As far as designing an interface for a program. I can design an >interface for an entire application in less than 10 minutes with >PowerWindows. Gadtools under 2.0 will probably give the same advantages. > >And as for uses of the Amiga's expansion slots, besides the stuff you >listed, how about: >1) Multiple serial port cards How about a device that hooks up over the SCSI port? NeXT's have one of them. >2) Graphic card enhancements Yep. Amigas have better graphics. If you're going to do video or play games, get an Amiga. >3) Extra processors for multiprocessing Does AmigaDOS really have support for multiprocessing? I'm impressed. >4) An I/O sampling board DSP input port. >5) Fax Card Plenty of fax modems for the NeXT. Fax support in the OS, too. >6) Different network cards (besides Ethernet) 3279Coax adapter box (to connect to IBM mainframes) hooks up over the SCSI port. GatorBox hooks NeXT's up to an AppleTalk network over the ethernet port. Novell support is being added by someone (wish I could remember who, yes I know Novell is ethernet) >7) Adding different types of drives/devices besides SCSI SCSI488/N interface hooks up to SCSI and adds IEEE 488 interface. I can't think of anything beside hard drives that hooks up to MFM/RLL/ESDI anyway. >8) >32mb of ram (who knows, some people may need more in the future) Well, if you really think you're going to need >32mb RAM in the near future (at least before your next computer purchase), you shouldn't buy a NeXT. Good point. >9) DSP's, like the newer faster DSP's, or i860's/88000's 1) I haven't seen any i860/m88000/m96002 boards for the Amiga. Have you? 2) No one will write software that uses them if they're non-standard. >Answer me this question, how does a slab owner upgrade his CPU for a faster >version/bigger cache/68050? Does the Slab has a CPU card slot, or >will he have to SELL the slab and buy another configuration? How does an Amiga owner plan to keep up with advances in processor technology if he commits himself to a 680x0 machine? NeXT was very embarrassed having an '030 machine while everyone else had SPARC's and MIPS computers. E-mail from NeXT states specifically that they will not fall behind in processor technology again. (They're already settling on non- Motorla designs). It will be a hell of a lot harder for a series like the Amiga with it's processor specific (at least compard to UNIX) OS to be switched over to a completely different processor. With the NeXT, it'll be much easier. Even if 680x0 processing ability did keep up with RISC and VLIW, how much would it cost to bring a A2000 up to an A3000? You have to add a '030 accelerator; a video board to stop the flicker; and a SCSI port (2000s don't have them, do they?). You've said it before: a processor alone doesn't make a system. Bringing an Amiga up to the functionality of the next model will be pretty expensive. As to what I plan to do: I don't think I'll be using my NeXT forever (or even 5 years). I'll probably use it as a file server for a faster machine, or for tasks I expect to take a long time. (It'll hook up over ethernet to the new machine I get). Aaron Harsh hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu
hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh) (02/10/91)
In article <1991Feb9.072054.24527@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: >In article <1519@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >> The NeXTstation has no color and no expansion [slots] available. But >>looking through Amiga World (yeah so what if I read it, Amigas still suck :-) >>all the expansion cards I see fall into three categories: >That is pretty harsh. Stating that Amigas suck in an Amiga forum shows >a lack of knowledge/intelligence and really damages your credibility. Christ. Didn't you see the :-)? Thinking that people who put smileys at the end of their statements are being serious show a lack of knowledge/intellegence and really damages you credibility. This is c.s.a.advocacy, anyway. As a matter of fact, I like Amigas a lot. Yesterday I recommended that someone buy one. >> You probably haven't played with one of the new NeXTs. They're speeded >>up a lot. You can even format disks while you're downloading a file :-) >>I've had Mandelbrot, Digital Webster, and Writenow running at the same time >>without slowing down the Writenow window. >You obviously haven't 'speeded' to your English classes either! Settle down. This is c.s.a.a, not alt.flame. >So what! The Amiga has always been able to format a disk while running a >terminal program and downloading a file. :-) :-) :-) >No problem. Again, do you believe that the processor in the NeXT is doing >MORE than the same processor in an Amiga? If the custom designed I/O processors on the NeXT do a better job than the processors on the Amiga, then yes. >And designing a graphical >interface is very easily done. In fact I use a program that writes them >FOR me. How does a few MINUTES sound? Have you seen Interface Builder for the NeXT? I have an advantage here: I've used Amiga 3000's and NeXTs. I also say the development environment on a NeXT is better. I don't think that anyone that has developed an application on both would disagree. Aaron Harsh hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu
doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) (02/10/91)
In article <1530@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >In article <1991Feb9.072054.24527@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: >>In article <1519@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >>> The NeXTstation has no color and no expansion [slots] available. But >>>looking through Amiga World (yeah so what if I read it, Amigas still suck :-) >>>all the expansion cards I see fall into three categories: >>That is pretty harsh. Stating that Amigas suck in an Amiga forum shows >>a lack of knowledge/intelligence and really damages your credibility. > > Christ. Didn't you see the :-)? Thinking that people who put >smileys at the end of their statements are being serious show a lack of >knowledge/intellegence and really damages you credibility. This is >c.s.a.advocacy, anyway. > As a matter of fact, I like Amigas a lot. Yesterday I recommended that >someone buy one. > I appologize for that. I never really noticed that the :-) was supposed to be a smiley face. I assumed that it was some weird way of closing an aside statement. I was in a fairly off mood when I posted that response. >>> You probably haven't played with one of the new NeXTs. They're speeded >>>up a lot. You can even format disks while you're downloading a file :-) >>>I've had Mandelbrot, Digital Webster, and Writenow running at the same time >>>without slowing down the Writenow window. >>You obviously haven't 'speeded' to your English classes either! > > Settle down. This is c.s.a.a, not alt.flame. > This statement is also whole hartedly retracted! >>So what! The Amiga has always been able to format a disk while running a >>terminal program and downloading a file. > > :-) :-) :-) > >>No problem. Again, do you believe that the processor in the NeXT is doing >>MORE than the same processor in an Amiga? > > If the custom designed I/O processors on the NeXT do a better job than >the processors on the Amiga, then yes. > I will agree with this point IF the I/O processors on the NeXT do a better job. >>And designing a graphical >>interface is very easily done. In fact I use a program that writes them >>FOR me. How does a few MINUTES sound? > > Have you seen Interface Builder for the NeXT? I have an advantage here: >I've used Amiga 3000's and NeXTs. I also say the development environment >on a NeXT is better. I don't think that anyone that has developed an >application on both would disagree. > >Aaron Harsh >hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu I haven't seen Interface Builder for the NeXT. As far as which machine is a better development environment, I really never said that EITHER machine was BETTER than the other. I am quite satisfied with the development environment that I have set up for myself on the Amiga. I can create the applications that I envision with little effort and what else is there? Maybe the NeXT development environment is better :-) but can it develop Amiga programs better? Now let's lock horns! :-) <-- There... point well taken! *********************************************************** * Jeff Davis * Relax! And get into /// * * doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu * the STRESS!!! /// * * * \\\///030 * * * -Gigahertz!- Amiga\XX/ 882 * *********************************************************** -=[ In Stereo Where Available ]=-
huebner@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert E. Huebner) (02/11/91)
In article <11996@helios.TAMU.EDU> n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes: >In article <1991Feb10.010110.11187@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>In article <32530@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: >>integrated. So why would someone go with the A3000UX? >> >>I can see two possible answers: >> >> 1) Commodore does not have all its eggs in one basket, and >> so is more likely to exist down the road a ways. >> >> 2) The A3000UX has slots, which the equivalent NeXT doesn't. >> >>Point one might be valid, but what would one put in the A3000UX that >>one doesn't get standard on the NeXT? Is there actually an application >>for the slots in the A3000 with UNIX (which wipes out things like the >>Video Toaster)? > >Things you might want in your 3000UX that aren't available for >the NeXTstation: > > 1) a *thick-wire* Ethernet card. This is very realistic for > large or spread-out nets. > 2) a Token-Ring card (when they're available). Yes, some people > really do use T-R! > 3) Graphics cards as they come available. (the Lowell board comes > to mind on this one) > 4) Memory cards. Is there any reason to explain why? :) > >--Daryl Biberdorf, n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu Add to that: 5) Multiple Serial Cards (particularly useful in UNIX applications) 6) DSP boards (Okay, the next has one already, but Zorro III slots should allow users to choose the sophistication level they need) 7) Arcnet compatibility 8) Transputer Boards (touched upon in previous posts) 9) Digitizing boards and others such as Live! or the Mandala System 10) Whatever hardware CBM used to do live videoconferencing with UNIX (?) 11) Perhaps most importantly, CPU upgrade path and multiprocessing potential Really this "Why do I need slots anyway" argument is starting to sound like the old "Who really needs multitasking" battle cry. -- | Robert E. Huebner | "Death is nature's way of telling | | huebner@en.ecn.purdue.edu | you to slow down" | | huebner@aerospace.aero.org | - Unknown Author |
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/11/91)
In article <1991Feb9.032953.14709@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > What makes you think an 040 NeXT will be competitive with an 040 Amiga > when the inferior NeXT with inferior color and expansion capabilities > cost the same? Color is not an unambiguous win. Monochrome gives superior resolution even on nominally equivalent displays. As for expansion capabilities, what is it that you find missing in the slab that you might want to install later? > Reworded, it sounds the same. The slab is virtually useless. The $3200 > model is almost unusable. An A3000 with an 040 running AmigaDOS wil > burn rubber for speed. We're talking about the A3000 running UNIX here. Both of them have heavy overhead: I wouldn't care to say which is a bigger CPU sucker: DP or X/NeWS. > Even the A3000UX with an 040 will probably beat the > 040 NeXT because it doesn't waste so much CPU on the interface. Sure does. UNIX+X/NeWS or Mach+Display Postscript. The slab is as fast as any UNIX workstation I've ever used. > but chances are, if you buy the cheapest Slab, you'll need to shell out > another $2000-3000 down the road anyway, For what? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/11/91)
In article <43948@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > Well, the "really fast" quality of the NeXT will pale when the 040 cards ship > for the Amiga. Given the system architectures and OSes of the two machines, > the Amiga will be faster. Perhaps (Mach is technically superior to UNIX in many ways, so don't be too sure. Especially when a microkernel version comes out) but it will certainly be a lot more expensive. If you're spending more than either the A3000UX or the NeXT slab and absolute CPU speed is that important you should probably get a RISC box anyway. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/11/91)
In article <1991Feb10.070030.9222@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > AmigaDOS =1%/3 alot closer to 0. But your only talking about the Workspace > manager, what about the Unix overhead and the filesystem, what about > Display Postscript? What does AmigaDOS have to do with UNIX on the Amiga? If you're running AmigaDOS then the Amiga is the clear price/performance leader across the board. The nearest competing machines are so far back they aren't even in SCUD range. > SCSI serial controllers? I smell a kludge. No, SCSI is plenty fast enough for an I/O bus. The only thing not fast enough for SCSI is RAM and Video. > Come on, this is a kludge! SCSI isn't that fast. What about using > the NeXT as a fileserver? 4-5 megabytes per second xfer rate isn't > going to cut it. Over a 10 megabit/second net (that comes out to ~ 1 MB/sec)? I think that's quite fast enough. > How about an FDDI network (fiber). SCSI would be useless, it couldn't > keep up. Sure. If you're looking at an FDDI network you're not going to waste it on a CISC processor. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/11/91)
In article <43979@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > Have you ever used CanDo? AmigaVision? Power Windows? Those envrionments > are (IMHO) much better than the NeXT's. This can not stand. I'm not going to talk about CanDo, but AmigaVision is suffering from a serious lack of vision, and Power Windows is a royal pain to use. And in any case, what good do any of these programs do for the A3000UX? Not one runs under UNIX. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/11/91)
In article <1521@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: > I don't think it's that much. I'd guess <$100/machine. AT&T shouldn't > be getting too greedy now that the DARPA-funded Mach project has removed > all the AT&T code from their OS. (Free UNIX clones!!) This is not true. The AT&T free Mach is purely the microkernel. It doesn't even have a standalone development environment. The UNIX emulation is still based on AT&T code. Imagine the Amiga without Tripos and with no OS to replace it. UNIX is to Mach what Tripos is to the Amiga Exec. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/11/91)
In article <11996@helios.TAMU.EDU> n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes: > 1) a *thick-wire* Ethernet card. This is very realistic for > large or spread-out nets. Since SCSI is 4 times as fast as Ether even if you believe in 100% saturated nets (I've found that 20% starts killing people's ethernet cards, particularly D(r)EC's), put it on the SCSI connector. > 2) a Token-Ring card (when they're available). Yes, some people > really do use T-R! Ditto. > 3) Graphics cards as they come available. (the Lowell board comes > to mind on this one) > 4) Memory cards. Is there any reason to explain why? :) These two make some sense, but wouldn't the CISC processor be a bummer once you started needing better graphics and more memory than the slab can deal with? The number of people who need a high end workstation and are willing to put up with a low-end CPU aren't exactly a huge market... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/11/91)
In article <1991Feb10.234705.14908@en.ecn.purdue.edu> huebner@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert E. Huebner) writes: > 5) Multiple Serial Cards (particularly useful in UNIX applications) Nobody in our office has managed to find a use for both the serial ports on the Suns, let alone more. We're talking about a workstation here, with competition from the Sparc and MIPS low end beasts. And even if you did need such a thing, SCSI is fast enough for this. > 6) DSP boards (Okay, the next has one already, but Zorro III slots > should allow users to choose the sophistication level they need) DSPs and the like are purely a performance increment. For a price. Once you start going off into stuff like this you're better off starting with a RISC box. > 7) Arcnet compatibility SCSI. > 8) Transputer Boards (touched upon in previous posts) Transputers are not the hot shit that everyone thinks they are. Unless you have a lot of them and your problem is well adapted to them they're more trouble than they're worth. Certainly 2-4 transputer cards are just useful for education. > 9) Digitizing boards and others such as Live! or the Mandala System Real-time under UNIX? Yeh, I heard about the "real-time teleconferencing" bit, but wouldn't a cheaper box running AmigaDOS have done as well? > 11) Perhaps most importantly, CPU upgrade path and multiprocessing > potential No path to RISC in either case, so why bother? > Really this "Why do I need slots anyway" argument is starting to > sound like the old "Who really needs multitasking" battle cry. No, it's more like the old "Why do I need slots anyway" argument that used to be heard from Amiga 1000 owners everywhere. Most of the stuff you listed is either equivalent to a faster workstation or pointless under UNIX. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (02/11/91)
In article <1991Feb8.030757.22974@portia.Stanford.EDU>, bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) writes: > In article <1991Feb7.151106.4795@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >> >>BTW, when you only benchmark a 68030 Amiga with 68030 NeXT you must take >>in to consideration that what NeXT lacks in speed it wins in >>flexibility... (Display Postscript, the programming/user interface). > > Flexibility? Did he say FLEXIBILITY? The Amiga INVENTED flexibility. Could you be a bit more specific, please? > >>The 68030 NeXT was too slow to handle all the niceties NeXT has. The >>68040 is not - and the new version of the operation system (2.0) is said >>to speed up the system quite considerably, too. > > I've been using an '040 NeXT for about two months now. The thing's still as > slow as a dog, even when switching/moving windows. What speed *is* provided > by bogging down the '040 (as Display Postscript will do) is completely lost if > it's networked to cubes (as the one I use is) and in page-flipping on a 100-Meg > hard disk. The damn thing has taken a full *two minutes* to resize an .eps > pic. Way to go, Jobs. Them's some brilliant engineering. Sounds pretty strange. How can it be that 040 NeXT wins Sparcstation 1+ on several benchmarks? Have you done any benchmarking on the 040 NeXT versus the fastest Amigas? BTW, if you only mean that the interface seems slow, the reason might be that you have used a machine with only 8MB memory - that causes considerable virtual memory swapping. 16MB or more would make an end to that problem. As a final statement: Are you trying to convince the people that "040 NeXTs are slow as dogs"? Sounds very funny. > > (isn't ~.advocacy great?) > >> Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland > > Dave Hopper | /// The Amiga: | The great strength of the total- > | __ /// | itarian state is that it forces > bard@jessica. | \\\/// The Cybernetic | those who fear it to imitate it. > Stanford.EDU | \XX/ Revolution is NOW! | --Adolph Hitler Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (02/11/91)
In article <11961@helios.TAMU.EDU>, n368bq@tamuts.tamu.edu (Raoul Rodriguez) writes: > > O.K.... lesse, > > 1) The NextStation has a 68040, the A3000UX has a 68030, no comparison in the > CPU's persay... but, one must take into consideration the custom chips in > Ami... Anyone have specs between the A3000UX and the NeXTStation? NeXT has Motorola DSP (which I believe is more expensive than any of the Amiga's custom chips). It has special (NeXT propiertary) VLSI chips supplying 8 (or in some versions 12, I don't remember) separate I/O channels - resulting in mainframe-like high system throughput. NeXTs without the NeXTdimension don't have any graphics processors, though. But IF you can afford it and NEED high quality graphics, then the dimension is very hard to beat for its price. (They had to buy _3_ different graphics cards for the MAC IIfx in a recent comparison between the Dimension equipped Cube and the IIfx in MacWorld magazine. Just to get the MAC graphics near the NeXT quality. And the inferior MAC system ended up costing more than 2 time as much.) > > 2) The NeXTStation would be more accuratlky compared to the A500 with a > 200 Meg HD and 68030 than the A3000, why? Because the NeXTStation is > unexpandable like the A500 (mostly) is, although I think that the A500 > does beat the NeXTStation in explandability because of the Slot on > the side... Well, for some people expansion slots might be the most important thing in a computer. Not so for me. And if I decide to want more power later, I can sell my old machine. What is so terrible in that? > > 3) The NeXT Machine to compare the A3000UX to would be the Cube, when > NeXT becomes expandable it also becomes expensive... I believe that > the Cube with the color board (the 4032 color board that is) is > ~$7,900 (I lost my notecad with the prices on it, that is my best > guess (putting on asbestos undies)) educatoinal price. > > 4) There is a NeXTStation (a.k.a the "slab") with color, 4032 colors to > be precise, and I think it it about $5,000+ (educational price), but > then again, this would the almost (with the exceptin of the CPU) > be the comparisin to the afformentioned A500 with extra ram (9 > megs, 200HD x/unix, network card.. ect.) Does anyone have any > ideas how much a A500 setup like that would be? The NeXTStation color has 16-bit graphics with about 1200x850 resolution. (12-bit color and 4-bit alpha). I guess A500 specs aren't quite that good? > Oh well, here we go again... (sigh) > > Raoul "My 500 Has a Detachable Keyboard" Rodriguez > n368bq@tamuts.tamu.edu > Standard Disclaimers Apply (Within) Jouni Alkio
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (02/11/91)
In article <1991Feb8.212329.25216@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, dtiberio@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes: > > Yeah, but you fail to realize that commodore will probably NEVER ship an > Amiga 3000 with a 68040 anyway. In a few months, they will be the first to > ship with the new 68050 and that will blow the NeXT back where it came from! > > Obviously, this is only a joke, since the 68050 is no where near completion. Forgot which company was the first to bring out 040' machines? (Or at least one of the first, and certainly before Commodore.) NeXT is a VERY adapting company and has the innovation most companies lack nowadays. Jouni Alkio, Finland > >>> >>> -- >>> _. >>> --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. >>> Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- >>> V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.com >> >> Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (02/11/91)
In article <1991Feb10.070030.9222@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > > The NeXT probably won't last 5 years. In 5 years your machine will be > absolete since you can't expand it. > Hmmph! NeXT currently has _3_ basic models: NeXTstation (4-grayscale, no expansion slots, but lot's of good interfaces) Color NeXTstation (as above, but with color) NeXT Cube (as NeXTstation, but with expansion slots) And how do you think that the SPARCstations can survive, then? They are much like the NeXTstation expandability-wise.
UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb10.010110.11187@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) says: > >I can see two possible answers: > > 1) Commodore does not have all its eggs in one basket, and > so is more likely to exist down the road a ways. > > 2) The A3000UX has slots, which the equivalent NeXT doesn't. > A good reason #3 might be 3) The organization making the decision already has a committment to other Amiga hardware and software. or how about 4) The organization requires ATT Unix, no substitutions allowed or 5) X and Open Look are already heavily used in the organizations environment. NOTICE that these are mostly environment and integration issues. Not more basic my-machine-is-better-than-yours arguments. In the abstract, the NeXT (today) is a better bang for the buck than the Amiga (today). It is all that non-abstract stuff that really makes the difference. My problem is that I need speech recognition, and cannot get it (today) from either N or A. >Point one might be valid, but what would one put in the A3000UX that >one doesn't get standard on the NeXT? Is there actually an application >for the slots in the A3000 with UNIX (which wipes out things like the >Video Toaster)? >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
n368bq@tamuts.tamu.edu (Raoul Rodriguez) (02/12/91)
The reason that the Next was the first (or one of the first) companies to come out with a '040 machine was because the machine does not use the chip it fullest potentials, it didn't have to wait for he more sophistocated functions to become bullet proof in order to run their machines. The Amiga on the other habd (along with the rest of the world), is willing to wait for the '040 to be totally ironed out before sticking one in their products, becuase they will use the '040 to it's fullest potential... As for the Slab, I thought Steve Jobs would ahve learned from his first real big mistake in making the original Mac unexpandable, but no, he comes out with the slab, and unexpandable well, slab... Even the A500 (and the A1000) are far more expandable than the Slab, sure NeXT has expandable machines, but, at what a price... yowzas... Thank you no, I would rather spend $8000 on a couple of A3000 (and a 500) instead of buying a NeXT cube (at educaional price) (my Amiga's are at the educational price as well, but it they weren't, it would be just the 2 3000's... (oh well)) Raoul "My 500 Has a Detachable Keyboard" Rodriguez n368bq@tamuts.tamu.edu Standard Disclaimers Apply (Within)
greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) (02/12/91)
n368bq@tamuts.tamu.edu (Raoul Rodriguez) writes:
-The reason that the Next was the first (or one of the first) companies to come
-out with a '040 machine was because the machine does not use the chip it
-fullest potentials, it didn't have to wait for he more sophistocated
-functions to become bullet proof in order to run their machines. The Amiga
-on the other habd (along with the rest of the world), is willing to wait
-for the '040 to be totally ironed out before sticking one in their
-products, becuase they will use the '040 to it's fullest potential...
Raoul, I'm sorry but this is pure nonsense. NeXT came out with an 040
machine first because of their, umm, "relationship" to Motorola. Can
you please elaborate on what the "more sophistocated" (sic) functions
are? As far as I know, there are no as-yet-unimplemented instructions
in the 68040 chips that are shipping.
The point about Amiga waiting for a fully-featured 040 doesn't wash either.
Most all Amiga software currently in production demands nothing more
of the CPU than what a generic 68000 with no FPU will give. After all,
that's the configuration in the vast majority of Amiga's out there.
I'm willing to say that the 68040 currently supports all the instructions
in the original 68000 repertoire.
-As for the Slab, I thought Steve Jobs would ahve learned from his first
-real big mistake in making the original Mac unexpandable, but no,
-he comes out with the slab, and unexpandable well, slab... Even the
I think Peter DaSilva already made this clear. The Slab has two
serial ports on it. It also has built-in ethernet (two kinds). A DSP port.
And it has SCSI. I would like to see a list of what you think might
not be "interfaceable" (sorry) to the Slab through one of those four
--
Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405
greg@cica.cica.indiana.edu Center for Innovative Computer Applications
Card-carrying member of the Usenet Civil Liberties Uniongblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (02/12/91)
From article <1991Feb11.115100.1771@sugar.hackercorp.com>, by peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva): > In article <1991Feb10.070030.9222@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> AmigaDOS =1%/3 alot closer to 0. But your only talking about the Workspace >> manager, what about the Unix overhead and the filesystem, what about >> Display Postscript? > > What does AmigaDOS have to do with UNIX on the Amiga? If you're running AmigaDOS > then the Amiga is the clear price/performance leader across the board. The > nearest competing machines are so far back they aren't even in SCUD range. > >> SCSI serial controllers? I smell a kludge. > > No, SCSI is plenty fast enough for an I/O bus. The only thing not fast enough > for SCSI is RAM and Video. > >> Come on, this is a kludge! SCSI isn't that fast. What about using >> the NeXT as a fileserver? 4-5 megabytes per second xfer rate isn't >> going to cut it. > > Over a 10 megabit/second net (that comes out to ~ 1 MB/sec)? I think that's > quite fast enough. You're kidding, right? Right now we have HARD DRIVES that can go faster than that. And that's now. That's only using the 16-bit version of the bus. The 3000 you compare it to is quite different. That's bus is a 32 bit. If WE on our amigas can get over that on a SCSI harddrive, what happens when the 32-bit scsi hard drives come out? If our HD's can already pose your scsi a joke, what happens? You can't upgrade then, can you? You're screwed, is what you'd be. You'd be stuck with a slower system. And okay, you could use it as a fileserver... I always thought that the idea behind a fileserver was to use the FASTEST computers as the distributor, and the SLOWER ones as the receiving nodes.... You're saying that your'e going to turn a $4000 computer, NeXT or otherwise, into a BIG HD????!!! That's all!!! What a waste. You'll be wasting all the processing power that's there just so you can have a remote hard drive!!!! I could almost laugh at that logic. Unless, of course, you plan on buying MANY NeXT's as the years go by... and all of THEM happen to be just as UNEXPANDABLE. You'd be upgrading every year and a half or so, just to keep up with technology... I should know... :) A big network of outdated, close-ended computers.... Linked over a slow network that can be beaten in speed by a decent harddrive... Eek.. Sounds sad, doesn't it... > >> How about an FDDI network (fiber). SCSI would be useless, it couldn't >> keep up. > > Sure. If you're looking at an FDDI network you're not going to waste it on a > CISC processor. > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. As CISC's get faster and faster, they require faster networks. Risc's are going up in speed too... So soon, the RISC's will need a faster network, and they will create a new, faster network. Meanwhile, the faster CISC's will just take the RISC progression up one... THey will go to FDDI, leaving behind the other networks to deadlocked macs, and of course, last but not least, YOUR NEXT MACHINE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ gblock@ccvax.iastate.edu | Amigas, amigas everywhere, but not a one can think. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb11.141219.4829@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >In article <1991Feb8.030757.22974@portia.Stanford.EDU>, bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) writes: >> In article <1991Feb7.151106.4795@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >>> >>>BTW, when you only benchmark a 68030 Amiga with 68030 NeXT you must take >>>in to consideration that what NeXT lacks in speed it wins in >>>flexibility... (Display Postscript, the programming/user interface). >> >> Flexibility? Did he say FLEXIBILITY? The Amiga INVENTED flexibility. > >Could you be a bit more specific, please? I wouldn't think I needed to be, here. But how about expansion capability? How expandible is a SPARC? How expandible is a NeXT? It's been hashed and re-hashed, but this is an absolutely valid point. Expandibility IS an issue. Always has been since the 1000. That was a gripe of mine back then, too. From processors to DSPs to graphics boards to sound boards-- it's a question about the future. Can you honestly say that the 040 Slab will *not* be obsolete in five years? With an open-ended architecture, I can say this about the 3000. >> I've been using an '040 NeXT for about two months now. The thing's still as >> slow as a dog, even when switching/moving windows. What speed *is* provided >> by bogging down the '040 (as Display Postscript will do) is completely lost if >> it's networked to cubes (as the one I use is) and in page-flipping on a 100-Meg >> hard disk. The damn thing has taken a full *two minutes* to resize an .eps >> pic. Way to go, Jobs. Them's some brilliant engineering. > >Sounds pretty strange. How can it be that 040 NeXT wins Sparcstation 1+ >on several benchmarks? I don't doubt that it does, if you take it off a network. >Have you done any benchmarking on the 040 NeXT versus the fastest >Amigas? I'm talking about the interface here. I can honestly say that Display Postscript on my 040 Slab is SLOWER in look and feel than Intuition on my vanilla 1000 with a blitter. Of course it's more sophisticated than Intuition in its pre-2.0 form, but for responsiveness, you can't beat Intuition. >BTW, if you only mean that the interface seems slow, the reason might be >that you have used a machine with only 8MB memory - that causes >considerable virtual memory swapping. 16MB or more would make an end to >that problem. > >As a final statement: Are you trying to convince the people that "040 >NeXTs are slow as dogs"? Sounds very funny. I don't think I'm trying to convince anyone. All anyone has to do is sit down and use it for any length of time to SEE that the 040 is severely crippled by Display Postscript. >>> Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland Dave Hopper | /// The Amiga: | The great strength of the total- | __ /// | itarian state is that it forces bard@jessica. | \\\/// The Cybernetic | those who fear it to imitate it. Stanford.EDU | \XX/ Revolution is NOW! | --Adolph Hitler
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (02/12/91)
In article <11996@helios.TAMU.EDU>, n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes: > > Things you might want in your 3000UX that aren't available for > the NeXTstation: > > 1) a *thick-wire* Ethernet card. This is very realistic for > large or spread-out nets. I think there IS a thin->thick converter for NeXT. I am not sure if it is a card - I recall it's not. > 2) a Token-Ring card (when they're available). Yes, some people > really do use T-R! > 3) Graphics cards as they come available. (the Lowell board comes > to mind on this one) Yup. The most difficult thing about the NeXTstation is that you have to decide about the color when you buy the machine (you could sell it later, though). NeXT Cube doesn't have this problem, though. > 4) Memory cards. Is there any reason to explain why? :) Yes, actually. 32 MB should be enough for 99.9% of customers. And if 16MB simms will be true someday... :-) > > --Daryl Biberdorf, n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu Jouni Alkio, Finland
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb10.234705.14908@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, huebner@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert E. Huebner) writes: > In article <11996@helios.TAMU.EDU> n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes: >> >>Things you might want in your 3000UX that aren't available for >>the NeXTstation: >> >> 1) a *thick-wire* Ethernet card. This is very realistic for >> large or spread-out nets. >> 2) a Token-Ring card (when they're available). Yes, some people >> really do use T-R! >> 3) Graphics cards as they come available. (the Lowell board comes >> to mind on this one) >> 4) Memory cards. Is there any reason to explain why? :) >> >>--Daryl Biberdorf, n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu > > > Add to that: > > 5) Multiple Serial Cards (particularly useful in UNIX applications) > 6) DSP boards (Okay, the next has one already, but Zorro III slots > should allow users to choose the sophistication level they need) > 7) Arcnet compatibility > 8) Transputer Boards (touched upon in previous posts) > 9) Digitizing boards and others such as Live! or the Mandala System > 10) Whatever hardware CBM used to do live videoconferencing with UNIX > (?) > 11) Perhaps most importantly, CPU upgrade path and multiprocessing > potential > Remember: NeXTstation is designed for people who can't afford to buy the Cube and who are happy with what they get in the first place. Even if the NeXTstation doesn't have slots, they sell very well now. It just shows that many people don't necessarily need the slots. They rather take a 68040, DSP and the other niceties of NeXT. I don't know what would I do with the slots, anyway. I can plug a 16-bit stereo CD-quality A/D-converter to the station's DSP-port, I can plug in a fax-modem, 32MB memory is quite enough for me, I can have as many SCSI devices I need, I can plug in MIDI, I have ethernet, the laser printer, etc... The only thing I can't have with my B/W station is the color. But I rather take 1200x850 greyscale than some 600x400 8-bit color. If I got color, would need about 24-bit quality, and I can't afford it. I can understand that some people absolutely NEED the slots but only have about $4000 to spend. Then NeXT is no go. But slots aren't important for everyone. Besides, if I happen to need the slots afterwards, I can always sell my station and get the cube. The Cube has slots and is aimed for people who NEED those slots and have the money. Jouni Alkio, Finland
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/13/91)
In article <9475@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: > >> Come on, this is a kludge! SCSI isn't that fast. What about using > >> the NeXT as a fileserver? 4-5 megabytes per second xfer rate isn't > >> going to cut it. > > Over a 10 megabit/second net (that comes out to ~ 1 MB/sec)? I think that's > > quite fast enough. > You're kidding, right? Right now we have HARD DRIVES that can go faster than > that. True, but *ethernet* won't. In fact you are lucky if you get 30% of the peak capacity of an ethernet before collissions kill you. Or are you planning on running your fileserver using telepathy? Neither the Amiga nor the NeXT is going to be a good choice for an FDDI fileserver, but either of them are fast enough for a little old Ethernet. These are *workstations*, remember. If you're building up a fast network like that then deal the files off a *real* computer like a Sequent. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/13/91)
In article <1991Feb11.004357.24009@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Feb9.032953.14709@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> What makes you think an 040 NeXT will be competitive with an 040 Amiga >> when the inferior NeXT with inferior color and expansion capabilities >> cost the same? > >Color is not an unambiguous win. Monochrome gives superior resolution even >on nominally equivalent displays. Agreed, assuming you don't want or _need_ color. >As for expansion capabilities, what is it that you find missing in the slab >that you might want to install later? I think we've been through this before, but the some things that come to mind are: 1) More serial ports. 2) More than one DSP or just a faster DSP. 3) Thick ethernet (What do thin -> thick transducers go for nowadays? $1K?) 1 and 2 are available for the Amiga and 3 comes with it. >> but chances are, if you buy the cheapest Slab, you'll need to shell out >> another $2000-3000 down the road anyway, > >For what? See above. A couple of people have mentioned this, and I am inclined to agree: There is a reason that the 3000UX shouldn't be compared to the NeXTStation, but it's not speed or price or even video. It's _purpose_ and _market_. The two machines are quite different when it comes down to what they are useful for and which is more cost-effective. If I was putting together a lab full of Unix boxes hooked to a server with a ga-zill-o-byte hard drive, I'd use the NeXTStation. If I was going to have my own system or require a bunch of students to buy them (e.g. Virginia Tech) I'd use the A3000UX. Now you may ask why I would do that. The reason is that the NeXTStation is a nice and damn-fast _workstation_. As standalone Unix boxes go, it's only so-so. As a personal machine, it's too expensive to keep up to date, and literally limits how far the user can go with it. On the other hand, a lab full of A3000UXes with the Ethernet card and the other slots empty would be kind of a waste, although I believe that the price with an 040 will be pretty competitive. The A3000UX is better suited to the single user, who may or may not even have a UUCP connection, much less a twisted pair going to his home. Why do I feel this way? I feel that most home users don't want to replace a machine every 5 years or less, which is what have to be done with the NeXTStation in order to keep up to date. However, in a lab or office situation where you have a whole lot of machines networked together (assuming you don't need some special hardware interfaced to each one) then a workstation is what you need. Now the reason I get so hacked at the NeXT marketing scheme is that Steve Jobs and his buddies see college students as open game for profiteering. They try to sell the NeXTStation as a student's standalone machine, which it simply isn't. They advertise a very low price for a version of the machine that isn't even operable. You see, once they get their "catch" then they can milk them for even more money in the future. That's not honest business, and I expect that NeXT will eventually get sued by someone. >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. Disclaimer: I'm an Amiga owner and developer. I like the NeXT line. I just hate Steve Jobs and his business practices. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I don't know what it is I like about you, but I like it a lot." -- Led Zeppelin, Communication Breakdown -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu-------
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/13/91)
In article <91042.123006UH2@psuvm.psu.edu> UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) writes: > 3) The organization making the decision already has a committment > to other Amiga hardware and software. That's a good reason, but that market isn't going to do enough for Commodore to be worth it. Better they'd spent the time improving AmigaOS (device independent graphics, anyone?). > 4) The organization requires ATT Unix, no substitutions allowed Possible, but this seems an even smaller market than #3. > 5) X and Open Look are already heavily used in the organizations > environment. Then they've probably got a lot of Suns and will be buying Sparcstations instead. I can see reasons for Amiga UNIX, and it looks like a good UNIX, but I'm just not sure it is ever going to do any good. And the NeXT is the *weakest* of the low-end workstation competition... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/13/91)
In article <1991Feb11.151101.4834@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >In article <1991Feb10.070030.9222@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> The NeXT probably won't last 5 years. In 5 years your machine will be >> absolete since you can't expand it. > >Hmmph! NeXT currently has _3_ basic models: > >NeXTstation (4-grayscale, no expansion slots, but lot's of good >interfaces) > >Color NeXTstation (as above, but with color) I don't know what you call good interfaces, but there's no way to put any add-on hardware on the 040 bus, so the only expandability it through costly SCSI kluges. Are you going to add that second DSP via SCSI? >NeXT Cube (as NeXTstation, but with expansion slots) This is the only NeXT that I feel will survive, other than in a networked office where they users don't need special hardware. I don't know how easy it would be to replace the 040 whenever more powerful chips are out, though. Anyway, if the 040 can't be replaced in any of the NeXT models, then they _will_ be obsolete in 5 years (or less). >And how do you think that the SPARCstations can survive, then? >They are much like the NeXTstation expandability-wise. Bite your tongue! Except for the bottom-of-the-line machine (which is pretty nice, in fact) they have S-Bus expandability and most (all except the SLC?) have a graphics accelerator expansion. The NeXTStation is only competitive with the SLC. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I don't know what it is I like about you, but I like it a lot." -- Led Zeppelin, Communication Breakdown -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu-------
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/13/91)
In article <1991Feb11.145513.4832@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >Forgot which company was the first to bring out 040' machines? (Or at >least one of the first, and certainly before Commodore.) NeXT is a VERY >adapting company and has the innovation most companies lack nowadays. If you honestly think the NeXT can convince their creditors to pull another move like they did with Motorola, then turn around and offer a their 050 machine at a proportionately low price, then you're in for a surprise. It's going to take NeXT a few years of _steady_ sales to survive their recent moves. I don't think they're in a position to do this. > Jouni Alkio, Finland Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I don't know what it is I like about you, but I like it a lot." -- Led Zeppelin, Communication Breakdown -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu-------
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (02/13/91)
In article <11964@helios.TAMU.EDU> n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes: >In article <1512@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >>In article <32530@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: >Since when does the processor alone determine the total capability >of the machine? Never did, never will. You have to not only consider the whole system, but the software that's running on it. Many things you do under AmigaOS on an '030 system will seem quite a bit faster than under NeXTSTeP on a slab. CPU and FPU bound crunching operations will always be faster on an '040 NeXT than an '030 Amiga, but a good deal of what you run is bound by hard disk and user interaction. You also have to consider where the machine is headed. As a UNIX-based network workstation, a slab type configuration makes some sense. Sun and many others figured this out before NeXT did. As a personal computer, it doesn't make lots of sense. >We had an 030 NeXT in the integration lab at my last co-op assignment. As >long as you wanted to run ONE job at a time the machine's performance was >excellent. But try feeding a score file to the DSP (yes, teh sound *is* >wonderful) while doing one or two other tasks and watch the whole thing grind >to a halt (INCLUDING the music). The NeXT's architecture must be such that >the *CPU* is responsible for feeding data to the DSP (and, by analogy, to the >other specialized chips). Reasonable conclusion, but wrong. The DSP itself is a slave-only device; the CPU must feed data into it, while it operates out of a small amount of very fast internal RAM and 24K of pretty fast external SRAM (expandable on the slabs, not on the cubes). Most of the remainder of the NeXT architecture, including disk I/O and video fetch, seems to be reasonably DMA and interrupt oriented. I have yet to find any real detailed descriptions of how they do it, and doubt it's anything quite as sophisticated (architecturally speaking) as the way the Amiga chips handle DMA. More along the lines of the shared, arbitrated bus and FIFO approach used on the A3000 for hard disk, rather than dedicated DMA slots. >--Daryl Biberdorf, n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu OR dlb5404@rigel.tamu.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) (02/13/91)
In article <43939@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >In article <1512@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >>What makes you think that an '040 Amiga will be competitive with a '040 >>NeXT when the Amiga with an inferior processor costs the same? >Two reasons: > 1) The 040 should cost about the same as the current price of an 030/882 > combo. Not really, though over the long haul, you would expect this to become true. The 68030 was originally much more expensive than the 68020/68851 combination, but about two years after it was introduced, the '030 cost less. If Moto gets good yields on the '040, it should follow a similar cost curve. > 2) The A3000 is basically an 040 motherboard adapted for the current > release version running an 030/882. Rumor (mind you -- rumor) has > it that some hardware will be _removed_ when the 040 goes onto the > motherboard. Not quite. The A3000 is an '030 motherboard designed to support an '040 coprocessor or replacement processor. There are some features on in the A3000 architecture that will only be used by an '040. But an '040 doesn't simply drop into the A3000 without glue, some interface logic is necessary. That won't substantially affect the price of '040 cards, however. -- 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) (02/13/91)
In article <1991Feb10.010110.11187@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <32530@auc.UUCP> rar@auc.UUCP (Rodney Ricks) writes: >> It's not surprizing that a 68040 NeXT outdoes a 68030 Amiga. The "point" is >> this: A 68040 NeXT outperforming a 68030 Amiga does NOT mean that the Amiga >> is a slower system. > 2) The A3000UX has slots, which the equivalent NeXT doesn't. >Point one might be valid, but what would one put in the A3000UX that >one doesn't get standard on the NeXT? Is there actually an application >for the slots in the A3000 with UNIX (which wipes out things like the >Video Toaster)? How about a video board? For those who want it, C= is planning to offer the A2410 board, which does up to 1024x1024 in 256 out of 2^24 colors. If that's not enough, there are a couple of 3rd party display boards out there which could be screaming for an X port once UNIX is real. Once from England does some 1600x1200 with 256 out of 2^24 colors. And there's always more memory, up and coming stuff like FDDI, etc. Or serial ports for more terminals. I/O for control or lab use. Etc. Certainly, the expansion bus isn't quite the immediate need item it was on the A2000. >Peter da Silva. `-_-' -- 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
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/13/91)
In article <44097@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > 1) More serial ports. For a workstation? > 2) More than one DSP or just a faster DSP. I discount the utility of the DSP completely. It's just not something I see as a real selling point. It's a mark to put on the chart for otherwise equivalent boxes, but it's just not that useful. Third-party DSPs are going to be even less useful. > 3) Thick ethernet (What do thin -> thick transducers go for nowadays? $1K?) The base Amiga doesn't come with *any* ether. > If I was putting together a lab full of Unix boxes hooked to a server with a > ga-zill-o-byte hard drive, I'd use the NeXTStation. If I was going to have > my own system or require a bunch of students to buy them (e.g. Virginia Tech) > I'd use the A3000UX. I'd be inclined to go the other way, actually. The Amiga would be more useful than the NeXT on a network because it's more standard. (aha! A reason for going with the Amiga! But in this case a SparcStation would be better still, and the lack of a disk would be relatively unimportant) > The A3000UX is better suited to the single user, who > may or may not even have a UUCP connection, much less a twisted pair going > to his home. Yeh, but a stock Amiga running AmigaOS is even better. Both machines *with UNIX* *are* workstations. They're not PCs. (to me a personal computer should cost no more than the down-payment on a family car: the largest single cash expenditure that most people are willing to make) I can see Amiga UNIX as something to sell to Amiga owners later. I will probably buy a copy later (after I get that cheap 040 card people keep talking about), but it's just not something I can believe in as a way to open lots of new markets. > Disclaimer: I'm an Amiga owner and developer. I like the NeXT line. I > just hate Steve Jobs and his business practices. What's Woz doing? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (02/13/91)
In article <1991Feb8.134256.4811@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >There is no point in comparing these two machines since 030 NeXT's are >out of production and the new NeXTs (040) are much cheaper than the old >ones. Hogwash. That's like saying "Comparing a Ford Escort to a Volkwagen Beetle is not fair because the Beetle is out of production" (being an American and overlooking that they are still available outside the US). What is being compared are two machines that it is possible to own, and for which there are known speeds and benchmarks. It is quite common to compare one computer to another known computer, even if that computer is no longer in production, if that computers speed is known and serves as a base for comparing the new machine. > >Comparing Amiga 3000UX to old 030 NeXTs for "advertising" purposes is >simply misleading. Not at all. The MAJORITY (and will be for some time) NeXT machine HAVE an '030. You really think ALL NeXT owners are going to shell out the cash to: a) Buy an entirely new, unexpandable machine b) Pay the redicoulus upgrade price for a CPU board alone There are still only a FRACTION of NeXT's wordlwide when compared with Amiga's, and I doubt this will change anytime soon. And from what I understand (I COULD be wrong, but I doubt it (I'm sure you will tell me if I am)), there are less than 20,000 NeXT machines OF ALL MODELS worldwide. IMHO the only reason the NeXT even gets any attention is that the company is run by Jobs, who, all slander aside, is one of the biggest a--- (you get the idea) in the industry. To anyone who knew anything about the REAL Apple company, seeing Jobs get the credit for Apple computer is sickening, when he had almost NOTHING to do with the technical aspects of the machine, which if they were lacking, all the marketing in the world wouldn't have helped back in the 70's. Dave
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/13/91)
In article <18896@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: > How about a video board? For those who want it, C= is planning to offer the > A2410 board, which does up to 1024x1024 in 256 out of 2^24 colors. Sounds nice. How much $$$, though? What sort of price does this put the Amiga in? More than the color NeXT, I'm sure. Probably as much as a cube. How hard would an A3000 slab be? (and, if you're willing to humor me in a digression, will I be able to use Intuition on this sucker?) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) (02/13/91)
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: [that the next might need] > 1) More serial ports. Agreed absolutely. However, I have the same dilemma right now with my A2500. That machine came with only ONE serial port and I can't find a satisfactory solution in terms of adding more. The ASDG board looks nice, but it's only 2 more serial ports - I need at least 4 more - and it costs $300. The Commodore board would be ideal, but it's $400 and people are unwilling (plus ca change at Commodore) to tell me if it'll drop DTR when the device is closed. I won't experiment on my own for $400 and I've already been burned by Commodore on the A2091. > 2) More than one DSP or just a faster DSP. Perhaps, but for what? > 3) Thick ethernet (What do thin -> thick transducers go for nowadays? $1K?) We needed this once for a NeXT that had to connect to a thinwire. I think it was about $600 and now that NeXT has an 040 board (with a thinwire connector) in it so we don't need it. >1 and 2 are available for the Amiga and 3 comes with it. Yeah, well. >Now the reason I get so hacked at the NeXT marketing scheme is that Steve >Jobs and his buddies see college students as open game for profiteering. >They try to sell the NeXTStation as a student's standalone machine, which >it simply isn't. They advertise a very low price for a version of the >machine that isn't even operable. You see, once they get their "catch" >then they can milk them for even more money in the future. That's not >honest business, and I expect that NeXT will eventually get sued by >someone. Whoa there Greg! I can assure you that Steve and his pirates are not "profiteering" off the average college student! Sure, they want to sell machines to them, but they're not engaged in some cynical conspiracy to defraud the average member of Alpha Epsilon or whatever. As to not being "even operable" I will agree with you on one point. The NeXTStation at around $3000 with the 105 meg disk is not usable as a standalone machine - one needs at least a 300meg disk. That's gonna raise the price to around four grand. At that price you get a very nice package that's ready to go out of the box. With an OK (at best) wordprocessor (WriteNow). And the stuff that's bundled with the system is the reason you need a 300meg disk - the full system is around 200 meg of "bundled" software. Let's look at the stuff I use on my Amiga at home: WP 4.1 (sigh): About $200 (I got it at a discount (yes, it's legal)) ProPage 2.0: $350 Manx C: $200 Dictionary: $ 50 TCP/IP $300 (inc. ethernet board) DeluxePaintIII$120 (I think that's what I paid) Sculpt4Djr $250 Hey, that's about $1400 right there. You can buy that extra disk with that and almost have enough left over for a NextLaser - try getting a PostScript printer for the Amiga for $1000, it's gonna cost you at least twice that. Now the approximate mapping for the NeXT machine for the same stuff (and I know GCC is available for the Amiga now, but it wasn't when I bought Manx). NeXT: Edit $included WriteNow $included GCC $included Dictionary $included TCP/IP+port $included Draw/Icon $included Radiance $Public Domain Even allowing for certain fudging on my part (I'm sure there is some) you can see that the NeXT makes up for a lot of initial cost with it's bundled software. I'm in a pretty nice situation. I use a NeXT all day at work (and I LOVE the machine (it's not even an 040 (yet)). And I go home and ignore my loved ones while I goof around on the Amiga. Ask me which one I couldn't live without and I don't think I could tell you. >Disclaimer: I'm an Amiga owner and developer. I like the NeXT line. I >just hate Steve Jobs and his business practices. Try getting ROM upgrades out of Commodore sometime... -- Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 greg@cica.indiana.edu Center for Innovative Computer Applications This signature intentionally left blank.
klopcic@amethyst.bucknell.edu (KLOPCIC JOEL THADDEUS) (02/13/91)
As long as Dave Haynie is on the line - what exactly is the upgrade path of the Amiga? Will we see a A4000 anytime with a 68040, or just a souped up A3000 with 040 processor/coprocessor? How would this compare to the 68040 machines out on the market now? JTK
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (02/13/91)
In article <1991Feb12.080356.22413@portia.Stanford.EDU>, bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) writes: > In article <1991Feb11.141219.4829@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >>In article <1991Feb8.030757.22974@portia.Stanford.EDU>, bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) writes: >>> In article <1991Feb7.151106.4795@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >>>> >>>>BTW, when you only benchmark a 68030 Amiga with 68030 NeXT you must take >>>>in to consideration that what NeXT lacks in speed it wins in >>>>flexibility... (Display Postscript, the programming/user interface). >>> >>> Flexibility? Did he say FLEXIBILITY? The Amiga INVENTED flexibility. >> >>Could you be a bit more specific, please? > > I wouldn't think I needed to be, here. Well, if you can't be more specific, that's okay for me. I just can't find the justification for your claim. > But how about expansion capability? > How expandible is a SPARC? How expandible is a NeXT? It's been hashed and > re-hashed, but this is an absolutely valid point. Expandibility IS an issue. Depends on what you do with your machine. Please read one of my latest posting about expandability. I, for one, rather take the NeXT goodies than some slots I wouldn't even need. > Always has been since the 1000. That was a gripe of mine back then, too. > From processors to DSPs to graphics boards to sound boards-- it's a question > about the future. Can you honestly say that the 040 Slab will *not* be > obsolete in five years? With an open-ended architecture, I can say this about Yup. I can honestly say that 040 Slab won't be obsolete. (Or perhaps NeXT will come with a motherboard upgrade, who knows. In that case 040 Slab will be obsolete.) > the 3000. > >>> I've been using an '040 NeXT for about two months now. The thing's still as >>> slow as a dog, even when switching/moving windows. What speed *is* provided >>> by bogging down the '040 (as Display Postscript will do) is completely lost if >>> it's networked to cubes (as the one I use is) and in page-flipping on a 100-Meg >>> hard disk. The damn thing has taken a full *two minutes* to resize an .eps >>> pic. Way to go, Jobs. Them's some brilliant engineering. >> >>Sounds pretty strange. How can it be that 040 NeXT wins Sparcstation 1+ >>on several benchmarks? > > I don't doubt that it does, if you take it off a network. Uh-huh. So it is '040 Slab's fault if the '030 Cube with not much memory is slow? Very logical, indeed. :-) Why not upgrade the Cube on the network to '040? > >>Have you done any benchmarking on the 040 NeXT versus the fastest >>Amigas? > > I'm talking about the interface here. I can honestly say that Display > Postscript on my 040 Slab is SLOWER in look and feel than Intuition on my > vanilla 1000 with a blitter. Of course it's more sophisticated than > Intuition in its pre-2.0 form, but for responsiveness, you can't beat > Intuition. So, it is the question of sophistication and speed. Would you rather use MS-DOS or some windowing system? And remember, NeXTStep is on top of Unix. Let's see what happens when you put X-Windows and Unix on '030 (or '040) Amiga... > >>BTW, if you only mean that the interface seems slow, the reason might be >>that you have used a machine with only 8MB memory - that causes >>considerable virtual memory swapping. 16MB or more would make an end to >>that problem. >> >>As a final statement: Are you trying to convince the people that "040 >>NeXTs are slow as dogs"? Sounds very funny. > > I don't think I'm trying to convince anyone. All anyone has to do is sit down > and use it for any length of time to SEE that the 040 is severely crippled by > Display Postscript. I've seen the '040 Slabs. I will actually have one in few weeks. The interface isn't noticably slow - and for what it does, it is fast. (I will upgrade the memory from 8MB to 16 or 20 MB, though - to avoid swapping.) > >>>> Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland > > Dave Hopper | /// The Amiga: | The great strength of the total- > | __ /// | itarian state is that it forces > bard@jessica. | \\\/// The Cybernetic | those who fear it to imitate it. > Stanford.EDU | \XX/ Revolution is NOW! | --Adolph Hitler Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland
n368bq@tamuts.tamu.edu (Raoul Rodriguez) (02/14/91)
From: davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) >IMHO the only reason the NeXT even gets any attention is that the company >is run by Jobs, who, all slander aside, is one of the biggest a--- (you get >the idea) in the industry. To anyone who knew anything about the REAL >Apple company, seeing Jobs get the credit for Apple computer is sickening, >when he had almost NOTHING to do with the technical aspects of the machine, >which if they were lacking, all the marketing in the world wouldn't have helped >back in the 70's. >Dave As I recall from a few years back, when the NeXT was introduced, it was all hype and no product, but then, they began shipping machines, and they were still all hype and little product, my favorite was that "Optical drives are the wave of the future, if you ain't got one you are long gone", now, the new NeXT's have no optical drive becuase they have proven that they aren't going to replace Hard Drives anytime soon... I also remeber reading about the big introductin that NeXT had, and how Steve Jobbs (the wonderkid) had made this company, and it was the best thing since sliced bread, I have a question, what is the market for a NeXT Cube? I can't find one (especailly at the price the Cube is asking...) All IMHO Raoul Rodriguez "Several errant electrons jumped when they shouldn't have at a place they shouldn't have, resulting in what shouldn't have. In short, a short." -Bloom County Standard disclaimers apply (within)
greg@travis.cica.indiana.edu (Gregory TRAVIS) (02/14/91)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >How about a video board? For those who want it, C= is planning to offer the >A2410 board, which does up to 1024x1024 in 256 out of 2^24 colors. If that's >not enough, there are a couple of 3rd party display boards out there which >could be screaming for an X port once UNIX is real. Once from England does >some 1600x1200 with 256 out of 2^24 colors. And there's always more memory, >up and coming stuff like FDDI, etc. Or serial ports for more terminals. I/O >for control or lab use. Etc. Yes, but as I understand it, there is very little chance the A2410 board will be supported by the standard AmigaDOS graphics libraries. Like Peter, I don't really ever see myself running anything but AmigaDOS/Exec on my A2500. Unix is OK, but I like the idea of AmigaDOS on my Amiga much better. And I absolutely loath X, even with Motif. And C='s UNIX is SYS V, of which I am also not fond. One of the great things about the Mac is the ability to add multiple displays and displays of very great resolution rather easily. Unfortunately, one of the things that made the Amiga so wonderful at first seems to be a major limiting factor at this time - the Copper/Blitter chips and the rigid color models. Am I wrong about this (I would love to be) - is there a chance that I will be able to see Workbench/VLT/ProPage/etc. running on an A2410 under AmigaDOS? I mean, without a bit re-write of all those programs. >Certainly, the expansion bus isn't quite the immediate need item it was on >the A2000. I don't understand what this means. -- Gregory R. Travis Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47405 greg@cica.indiana.edu Center for Innovative Computer Applications This signature intentionally left blank.
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (02/14/91)
In article <1991Feb12.210950.19547@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >True, but *ethernet* won't. In fact you are lucky if you get 30% of the peak >capacity of an ethernet before collissions kill you. Or are you planning on >running your fileserver using telepathy? Actually, you don't have to run your entire filesystem using telepathy. Instead, you can get nearly the performance just by running your collision detection and retransmission delays via telepathy. The actual data can continue to travel the ethernet. (I know you probably understood that already; its a subtle point that many NNTP (Network to Network Telepathic Protocols) implementers seem to miss in their initial release.) andy >Peter da Silva. `-_-' -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "God was able to create the world in only seven days because there was no installed base to consider." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/14/91)
In article <1991Feb13.155024.4860@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > So, it is the question of sophistication and speed. Would you rather use > MS-DOS or some windowing system? Are you at all familiar with AmigaOS? It's a lot more than MS-DOS... in some respects it's a damn sight better than UNIX: it's faster, supports real time better than Mach (remember, real-time and VM go together like a horse and porsche), and has a higher level windowing system than X or NextStep (not as fancy or complete, but the base API is higher level... it is to X as UNIX is to (say) OS/360). By the by, I'm done playing devil's advocate on this. The Amiga 3000UX clearly does have real advantages over the NeXT: a smaller UNIX, for one. The ones that most people have been pushing (color, slots) are nice, but the tighter design of V.4 (can you believe that?) seems to give it more of an edge. I do think it needs to come down some in price to really take off... it's a few hundred dollars too high to be the clear winner for the bean counters. Gotta differentiate it better from the 386 clones also running V.4 and Open Look, and the low-end workstations. (still hoping for AmigaOS under UNIX... or vice-versa) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
mitroo@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Varun Mitroo) (02/14/91)
In article <1991Feb13.043800.29815@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: >In article <1991Feb8.134256.4811@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >>There is no point in comparing these two machines since 030 NeXT's are >>out of production and the new NeXTs (040) are much cheaper than the old >>ones. > Hogwash. That's like saying "Comparing a Ford Escort to a >Volkwagen Beetle is not fair because the Beetle is out of production" >(being an American and overlooking that they are still available outside the >US). What is being compared are two machines that it is possible to own, >and for which there are known speeds and benchmarks. Wrong. The old models are discontinued. If you insist on comparing the two computers, then you must look again at the costs. Recently, Businessland has been selling out its inventory of old cubes. You can get an '030 cube for... $2395!! with 8 megs of RAM and 256 MB optical drive. There is a third party drive available for about $1400 that is 700 MB. So for about $3800 you can get a cube with 8 megs RAM, ethernet, DSP, 700 MB hard drive, megapixel display, 256 MB optical drive. This compares *quite* favorably with the "about $4000" for a low-end A3000UX. Note that this price is not educational. >>Comparing Amiga 3000UX to old 030 NeXTs for "advertising" purposes is >>simply misleading. > Not at all. The MAJORITY (and will be for some time) NeXT machine >HAVE an '030. You really think ALL NeXT owners are going to shell out the >cash to: > a) Buy an entirely new, unexpandable machine > b) Pay the redicoulus upgrade price for a CPU board alone Wrong again. The upgrade to the '040 is not for "a CPU board alone". It is an entire motherboard exchange. The serial ports are new, the DMA channels are updated, the SCSI interface is new. The only thing you keep from the old motherboard is the memory, which you swap into the new board. The cost of the upgrade is a very reasonable $930 (educational); list price is about $1500. Varun Mitroo mitroo@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (02/14/91)
In article <1991Feb11.115551.1844@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <43979@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >> Have you ever used CanDo? AmigaVision? Power Windows? Those envrionments >> are (IMHO) much better than the NeXT's. > > This can not stand. I'm not going to talk about CanDo, but AmigaVision is > suffering from a serious lack of vision, and Power Windows is a royal pain to > use. Why would you say AmigaVision suffers from lack of vision. What vision is it that you _think_ must be included in order for you to consider this a good product. In many ways AmigaVision does have vision. No, it is not the final solution, nor is it intended to be. We are waiting for your final solution. When can I expect to get this new wonder software? I sure hope it will stand up to my idea of "vision". Cut out the broad and general statements, thanks. > > And in any case, what good do any of these programs do for the A3000UX? Not > one runs under UNIX. There we agree. > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. So many egos, so little time.... -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ==================================================
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (02/14/91)
From article <1991Feb13.231511.5001@sugar.hackercorp.com>, by peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva): > In article <1991Feb13.155024.4860@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > By the by, I'm done playing devil's advocate on this. The Amiga 3000UX > clearly does have real advantages over the NeXT: a smaller UNIX, for one. > The ones that most people have been pushing (color, slots) are nice, but > the tighter design of V.4 (can you believe that?) seems to give it more of > an edge. I do think it needs to come down some in price to really take off... > it's a few hundred dollars too high to be the clear winner for the bean > counters. Gotta differentiate it better from the 386 clones also running > V.4 and Open Look, and the low-end workstations. > Whew... I thought that maybe there was a man on earth who would actually BELIEVE all of that stuff... I didn't think anyone's mind could be that polluted with JobItis... :) > (still hoping for AmigaOS under UNIX... or vice-versa) You mean like how A/UX runs Finder/MacOS programs under it? I don't know if you'd want that. Firstly, under A/UX, the ability to do the above is a recent addition, from what I understand, and second, Do you have ANY IDEA of how buggy that is???? It crashes at the drop of a hat, sometimes. Basically, MacOS under A/UX is like AmigaOS 1.0.... I don't think that would be a "prudent" example to put into something like this, esp. since it's oriented towards people who would not tolerate the problems..... Because of the differences between Unix and AmigaOS, it probably would pose a GREAT prob. And I wouldn't ever ask them to ship Unix with buggy code probs... Besides, if they truly don't use the custom chips, it might be a problem implementing. And MacOS under A/UX is one of the MANY reasons that A/UX is A/UX instead of Unix.... I don't understand how you would implement it w/o putting it into the Unix Kernel... And that might be a no-no if AT&T didn't approve.... > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/15/91)
In article <9552@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: > Whew... I thought that maybe there was a man on earth who would actually > BELIEVE all of that stuff... I didn't think anyone's mind could be that > polluted with JobItis... :) Hey, the NeXT is still a great evangelical machine for UNIX. I still wish HP had kept the Integral up to date, and AT&T hadn't dropped the 3B1 machines... On running AmigaOS under UNIX: > You mean like how A/UX runs Finder/MacOS programs under it? Or how VPix runs MS-DOS programs (including Windows). I think it'd be easier in some ways, harder in others. Amiga programs tend not to play silly-buggers with pointers or depend on busy-waiting, but they do demand more in the way of response from the O/S. > I don't understand how you would implement it w/o putting it into > the Unix Kernel... And that might be a no-no if AT&T didn't approve.... Run AmigaOS as a process. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/15/91)
In article <18944@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes: > Actually, you don't have to run your entire filesystem using telepathy. > Instead, you can get nearly the performance just by running your > collision detection and retransmission delays via telepathy. The > actual data can continue to travel the ethernet. That's pretty clever. What sort of crystals do you use for terminators? Do you need amethyst or jade, or will plain quartz do? Also, last time I tried this I used the pyramid configuration and the apex machine lost levitation during a power failure and we had a real system crash. I've heard that the pentagram configuration works, but has the side effect of turning all your files mode 0666. Sounds like a security hole to me. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.UUCP (Charlie Gibbs) (02/15/91)
In article <1991Feb14.172156.6910@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <18944@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) >writes: >> Actually, you don't have to run your entire filesystem using telepathy. >> Instead, you can get nearly the performance just by running your >> collision detection and retransmission delays via telepathy. The >> actual data can continue to travel the ethernet. > >That's pretty clever. What sort of crystals do you use for terminators? >Do you need amethyst or jade, or will plain quartz do? Also, last time I >tried this I used the pyramid configuration and the apex machine lost >levitation during a power failure and we had a real system crash. I've >heard that the pentagram configuration works, but has the side effect of >turning all your files mode 0666. Sounds like a security hole to me. I tried this once, but a daemon came up and asked me for the root password, and now I can't get out. What does control-D stand for, anyway? Help! Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.UUCP Elevator music brings me down.
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (02/15/91)
In article <596@hydra.bucknell.edu> klopcic@amethyst.bucknell.edu (KLOPCIC JOEL THADDEUS) writes: > As long as Dave Haynie is on the line - what exactly is the upgrade >path of the Amiga? Will we see a A4000 anytime with a 68040, or just a >souped up A3000 with 040 processor/coprocessor? How would this compare to >the 68040 machines out on the market now? While our marketing folks have the final say on it, it's my philosophy that you build a new Amiga platform only when there's a reason to do so. It doesn't make any sense to put the '040 on the motherboard at this time -- an A3000 with an '040 coprocessor should be comparable with other '040 machines; somewhere between NeXT and HP, depending on the design of the coprocessor board. Of course, if such systems effectively use the '030 as well, I would expect a bit more performance. There are several factors that would make an '040 motherboard reasonable. If Motorola reduced the price of the '040 to be close enough to the '030 + '882, then there's no need to deal with '030s at the A3000 level anymore. If every A3000 wound up with an '040 board stuffed in it, it would certainly make sense to build an '040 motherboard. If we wanted a machine at a higher price point than the A3000, it might make sense to build a new motherboard with an '040, faster system memory, and lots of secondary cache or something. But we did start out with the intention to support '040s in the A3000 as coprocessor cards. So they are supposed to go in there, they're not a kludge or anything even remotely suspect. -- 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
gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) (02/15/91)
From article <1991Feb14.171425.6800@sugar.hackercorp.com>, by peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva): > In article <9552@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes: > On running AmigaOS under UNIX: > >> You mean like how A/UX runs Finder/MacOS programs under it? > > Or how VPix runs MS-DOS programs (including Windows). > But isn't that pretty buggy too? From what I've heard, there isn't a whole hell of a lot you can run on that.. of course, this is just rhetoric. I've never really seen it run... But it is what the grapevine is juicing these days..... :) > I think it'd be easier in some ways, harder in others. Amiga programs > tend not to play silly-buggers with pointers or depend on busy-waiting, > but they do demand more in the way of response from the O/S. > Yeah... And I think a lot of people would be very disappointed in it if it didn't have that "instantaneous response" that so many amiga-users have grown to love (I being one of them)... But even so, I would understand why it would slow down.... But how would you create a real-time environment like AmigaOS INSIDE of unix, and still keep it multitasking? Can you put a real-time environment _INSIDE_ of a non-real-time (I cant think of the word for unix multitasking... it's something to do with tasks being different..) >> I don't understand how you would implement it w/o putting it into >> the Unix Kernel... And that might be a no-no if AT&T didn't approve.... > > Run AmigaOS as a process. Okay, but could you run processes UNDER AmigaOS inside of AmigaOS and not affect the outside world? And wouldn't this take gaping amounts of overhead? AmigaOS itself is a consortium of cooperating tasks... It would mean creating an environment within an (almost) opposed environment... > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu | Amigas, amigas everywhere, but not a one can think... | Where's an AI when you need one??? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan) (02/16/91)
In article <1991Feb14.172156.6910@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: |That's pretty clever. What sort of crystals do you use for terminators? |Do you need amethyst or jade, or will plain quartz do? Also, last time I |tried this I used the pyramid configuration and the apex machine lost |levitation during a power failure and we had a real system crash. I've |heard that the pentagram configuration works, but has the side effect of |turning all your files mode 0666. Sounds like a security hole to me. Your sysadmin is facing the wrong way. He has to sit facing the point of the pentagram, not the bottom. Besides, if you just route everything to the askantic (sp?) record, you won't even need hard drives... dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis GEnie: D.HEFFERNAN1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Using C will definitely cut your life expectancy by 10 years or more." --Carl Sassenrath, GURU'S GUIDE TO THE COMMODORE AMIGA #1
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (02/16/91)
In article <1991Feb13.015605.22666@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <44097@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > > The base Amiga doesn't come with *any* ether. If you are talking about the A3000UX it _does_ come with a ethernet card, and has connections for both thick wire and thin wire ethernet. > > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ==================================================
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (02/16/91)
In article <1991Feb14.172156.6910@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <18944@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes: >> Actually, you don't have to run your entire filesystem using telepathy. >> Instead, you can get nearly the performance just by running your >> collision detection and retransmission delays via telepathy. The >> actual data can continue to travel the ethernet. > >That's pretty clever. What sort of crystals do you use for terminators? >Do you need amethyst or jade, or will plain quartz do? Also, last time I >tried this I used the pyramid configuration and the apex machine lost >levitation during a power failure and we had a real system crash. I've >heard that the pentagram configuration works, but has the side effect of >turning all your files mode 0666. Sounds like a security hole to me. Almost any type of crystal will do for termination; but if you use a type that has healing properties the packets are less damaged during the collisions, and often recover soon after. Most security holes can be plugged by proper use of the precognition module. If you are using a pentagonal configuration, I'd suggest setting up proper security first. (Security is really the only use I'e found of the precog module; when I tried to use it for packet acknowledgement the replies kept comining in before the packet was actually sent, which really messed up my sequence numbering) >Peter da Silva. `-_-' andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "God was able to create the world in only seven days because there was no installed base to consider." Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/16/91)
In article <637.27b9ca43@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: > Why would you say AmigaVision suffers from lack of vision. The iconic programming language is cute, but it's as full of frustrating limitations as COBOL. How come you can't wait on an arbitrary condition, instead of just keyboard/mouse? I want to wait on the completion of a spoken phrase while doing screen-flipping in the background, for example. I couldn't *believe* there was no way to do that. The only saving grace is the ability to call REXX so you can drop out of the icons and use a real programming language. > What vision is > it that you _think_ must be included in order for you to consider this a > good product. How about a runtime-only module so it'll run in a stock 512K Amiga? So you can distribute "compiled" flows to people? > We are waiting for your final solution. When can I expect to get this > new wonder software? I sure hope it will stand up to my idea of "vision". I doubt it. I'm a UNIX freak. My idea of an ideal multimedia program is a bunch of separate modules hooked together with REXX and the MIDI library. The fancy front-end would be just that, a front-end. Hook the modules together with "pipes" that carry MIDI events, but it'd save it as a text script. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/16/91)
In article <644.27bbf736@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: > If you are talking about the A3000UX it _does_ come with a ethernet card, The 200 MB system does. The 100 MB system doesn't. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (02/17/91)
In article <1519@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >In article <1991Feb9.032953.14709@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> What makes you think an 040 NeXT will be competitive with an 040 Amiga >>when the inferior NeXT with inferior color and expansion capabilities >>cost the same? > > The NeXTstation has no color and no expansion [slots] available. But >looking through Amiga World (yeah so what if I read it, Amigas still suck :-) >all the expansion cards I see fall into three categories: > 1) RAM/Hard drive cards > Who cares about this? The Station is expandable to 32 Megs, and has > a SCSI connector on the back. The RAM & disk controllers make as much sense for an A3000 as for a NeXTstation. The A3000 can have ~18Megs of memory on motherboard, and has an SCSI-II interface on motherboard. 18 megs is smaller, yes, but is far more than sufficient for both AmigaDOS and Unix use. 32 Megs would be overkill, even (I expect) on a NeXT. What's the kind of SCSI on the NeXTstation? Hopefully it's a "II" ... they're a lot faster (5 megs/sec max rather than 1-1.5 megs/sec max, with the right drive). > 2) Video things (genlocks, Toaster, etc.) .. > 3) IBM/Mac emulators .. There's other things advertised there too ... ethernet, modems, FAX modems, CPU upgrades, CDROM drives, read-write optical disks, software, etc. Ergo.. there's more that you can do with the A3000 expansion capability than what you mentioned. >> Reworded, it sounds the same. The slab is virtually useless. The $3200 >>model is almost unusable. An A3000 with an 040 running AmigaDOS wil >>burn rubber for speed. The NeXT is bogged down with UNIX's overhead and >>Display Postscript. Even the A3000UX with an 040 will probably beat the >>040 NeXT because it doesn't waste so much CPU on the interface. > > As CPU speed increases and display overhead stays the same, amount of >time spent on display aproaches 0. Yes, but ... comparing OS architectures says that AmigaDOS will get more out of any CPU than any Unix-y system. That is .. in both Unix and Mach the user process scribbling on the screen is isolated in its own virtual address space away from the virtual address space where the screen hardware is location. Ergo, any data to be scribbled onto the screen has to be _copied_ between (at least) two address spaces. This, all by itself, is quite a CPU drain. I don't know for sure that using Display Postscript (DP) is, by itself, a humongous CPU drain as Ray suggests. There may well be a performance win by making the window "smart" .. that is, if the window is able to handle much of the job of interacting with the user without having to make round trips to the driving process that overhead of doing context switches to make a button change shape when its clicked upon kinda disappears. The worst part of using DP is that the programmers probably will have to program in Postscript. Yes it's possible to program in Postscript, but its "harder" because it's RPN and we're all taught to do our math in INFIX. > Maybe an '040 3000UX will beat a NeXT, but I doubt it. It will do better >at video, but not at number crunching. Someone posted some benchmarks >comparing A3000 and NeXTCube (030 model) a while ago.(I think that was >in the pre-advocacy days). The NeXT was a little faster than the Amiga. Small differences in speed are just that: small. Big deal if the NeXT is 10% faster at number crunching... And besides the lower overhead in making system calls & IPC (because on AmigaDOS all the processes are in the same address space) may well make up for any raw CPU disadvantage. My decision to get an A3000 with Unix (ASAP) is because -- I want to run & work with X. NeXT's dont' use X as their native windowing system so all those gee-whizzy interface building things are useless to me. -- As much as I'd like to get experience with Mach, it is much more important to get experience with SysVr4. After all, the project I'm working on here will be ported to SysVr4 sometime Real Soon Now. -- The system should be a whole lot faster than any PC-clone because of the faster bus & disk interface. > Try doing raytracing in any reasonable amount of time on an Amiga. Try >designing a functional graphical interface to one of your programs in a >half hour on an Amiga. Most of us are not programmers. There are many other interface building programs available besides the one on the NeXT. Writing the user interface is only a small part of getting the program running. There's all that code that sits behind the front end and reads/writes files or whatever.. -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <- <- MS-DOS ... The ultimate computer virus.
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (02/17/91)
In article <1991Feb10.003013.18133@Neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >>Well, the "really fast" quality of the NeXT will pale when the 040 cards ship >>for the Amiga. Given the system architectures and OSes of the two machines, >>the Amiga will be faster. That's a fact. > > This is not a "fact". This is a vapourware opinion. er.. no It's slightly more solid than vapor, but still not on the shelves. The 3rd party vendors have been talking about 040 coprocessor cards since at least last summer. There have been reports of demonstration models being shown late last fall. There's that CPU slot in the A3000 just sitting there waiting & ready for an 040 processor. The experiences with A2000 coprocessor cards was that they worked pretty well but the slowness of the ZORRO-II bus was a problem. So these cards had to be very expensive since they included 32-bit memory and disk controllers, it was almost like buying a whole new computer. The top-end card, the 50 MHz 030 card runs close to $5000 with a bunch of memory and an 80 meg drive. The ZORRO-III bus is close to 10 times faster and is 32-bit. This means that an 040 coprocessor for it won't _need_ expansion capability on _that_ card. Meaning that it will be little more than a card with a processor (or two; 68882) on it. This _is_ the main part which bothers me about getting an A3000. That I'll be buying the machine and then (assumably) shortly afterwards getting a CPU upgrade to an 040 .. -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <- <- MS-DOS ... The ultimate computer virus.
masaru@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Masaru Sugai) (02/17/91)
In article <8652@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >In article <1991Feb10.003013.18133@Neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >>greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >>>Well, the "really fast" quality of the NeXT will pale when the 040 cards ship >>>for the Amiga. Given the system architectures and OSes of the two machines, >>>the Amiga will be faster. That's a fact. >> This is not a "fact". This is a vapourware opinion. >er.. no [040 coprocessor cards & ZORO-II vs III ... deleted] >The ZORRO-III bus is close to 10 times faster and is 32-bit. This >means that an 040 coprocessor for it won't _need_ expansion capability >on _that_ card. Meaning that it will be little more than a card with >a processor (or two; 68882) on it. > I am so curious about kind of discussion, as I have both a NeXTstation and a A3000/16. Is it possible to have 040 and 68882 on the coprocessor board ? Recent discussion in comp.sys.next disappointed me because 30+ 68882 25MHz beats 040 25MHz in several benchmarks due to 040's emulatation of trigonomic, logarithm, and exponential functions through trap mechanism. This is a performance setback of 040 in 680x0 family, and I am wondering if this could be improved by simply doubling clock speed to 50MHz. (Some of them are reportedly 200% slower than those of FPU). I am happy if could beef up my A3000 with 040+FPU while NeXTstation serves it as a GUI box. >This _is_ the main part which bothers me about getting an A3000. >That I'll be buying the machine and then (assumably) shortly afterwards >getting a CPU upgrade to an 040 .. > On the other hand this is the very reason why I opted for A3000/16. I know the possibility of 040 and 030/25MHz working together, but I have no idea when such AmigaOS/MP ROM is available :) >-- ><- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> ><- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> ><- ><- MS-DOS ... The ultimate computer virus. -- Masaru Sugai NEC Corporation std. disclaimer + my boss ain't generous enough to pay weekend blabs.
dewolfe@ug.cs.dal.ca (Colin DeWolfe) (02/18/91)
In article <8651@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: > >Yes, but ... comparing OS architectures says that AmigaDOS will get more >out of any CPU than any Unix-y system. That is .. in both Unix and Mach >the user process scribbling on the screen is isolated in its own virtual >address space away from the virtual address space where the screen >hardware is location. Ergo, any data to be scribbled onto the screen >has to be _copied_ between (at least) two address spaces. This, >all by itself, is quite a CPU drain. > This is not necessarily true. Most of the graphics workstations I've seen implement it as a public area in memory with a fixed address. The IRIS does this, as I'm sure the NeXT and Amiga 3000UX do. > >-- ><- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> ><- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> ><- ><- MS-DOS ... The ultimate computer virus. -- Colin DeWolfe dewolfe@ug.cs.dal.ca
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (02/18/91)
In article <1991Feb13.231511.5001@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <1991Feb13.155024.4860@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >> So, it is the question of sophistication and speed. Would you rather use >> MS-DOS or some windowing system? > > Are you at all familiar with AmigaOS? It's a lot more than MS-DOS... in some > respects it's a damn sight better than UNIX: it's faster, supports real time > better than Mach (remember, real-time and VM go together like a horse and > porsche), and has a higher level windowing system than X or NextStep (not > as fancy or complete, but the base API is higher level... it is to X as > UNIX is to (say) OS/360). I must admit that I haven't programmed in AmigaOS. What do you mean by "higher level" windowing? Is there a higher level than objects? I believe that AmigaOS is faster and "tighter" than the Mach/NeXTStep combo, but Mach/NeXTStep has Unix and Object oriented graphics interface combined together. IF you are not a programmer, this doesn't mean much, but if you ARE then this means quite much. > > By the by, I'm done playing devil's advocate on this. The Amiga 3000UX > clearly does have real advantages over the NeXT: a smaller UNIX, for one. > The ones that most people have been pushing (color, slots) are nice, but > the tighter design of V.4 (can you believe that?) seems to give it more of > an edge. I do think it needs to come down some in price to really take off... > it's a few hundred dollars too high to be the clear winner for the bean > counters. Gotta differentiate it better from the 386 clones also running > V.4 and Open Look, and the low-end workstations. > > (still hoping for AmigaOS under UNIX... or vice-versa) > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (02/18/91)
In article <8651@gollum.twg.com>, david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: > In article <1519@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >>In article <1991Feb9.032953.14709@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >>> What makes you think an 040 NeXT will be competitive with an 040 Amiga >>>when the inferior NeXT with inferior color and expansion capabilities >>>cost the same? >> >> The NeXTstation has no color and no expansion [slots] available. But >>looking through Amiga World (yeah so what if I read it, Amigas still suck :-) >>all the expansion cards I see fall into three categories: > >> 1) RAM/Hard drive cards >> Who cares about this? The Station is expandable to 32 Megs, and has >> a SCSI connector on the back. > > The RAM & disk controllers make as much sense for an A3000 as for > a NeXTstation. The A3000 can have ~18Megs of memory on motherboard, > and has an SCSI-II interface on motherboard. 18 megs is smaller, > yes, but is far more than sufficient for both AmigaDOS and Unix > use. 32 Megs would be overkill, even (I expect) on a NeXT. > > What's the kind of SCSI on the NeXTstation? Hopefully it's a "II" ... > they're a lot faster (5 megs/sec max rather than 1-1.5 megs/sec max, > with the right drive). Yup. All new NeXTs have SCSI II. > >> 2) Video things (genlocks, Toaster, etc.) > ... >> 3) IBM/Mac emulators > ... > > There's other things advertised there too ... ethernet, modems, > FAX modems, CPU upgrades, CDROM drives, read-write optical disks, > software, etc. Ergo.. there's more that you can do with the A3000 > expansion capability than what you mentioned. Hmm. You don't even need slots for most of that stuff. You can already have ethernet (standard), modems, FAXmodems, CDROM drives, R/W opticals, (and of course software) on the basic NeXTstation. What comes for CPU upgrades, I guess NeXT will have multiprocessor system with the cube before Commodore. Just a guess though (based on Mach). > > > > >>> Reworded, it sounds the same. The slab is virtually useless. The $3200 >>>model is almost unusable. An A3000 with an 040 running AmigaDOS wil >>>burn rubber for speed. The NeXT is bogged down with UNIX's overhead and >>>Display Postscript. Even the A3000UX with an 040 will probably beat the >>>040 NeXT because it doesn't waste so much CPU on the interface. >> >> As CPU speed increases and display overhead stays the same, amount of >>time spent on display aproaches 0. > > Yes, but ... comparing OS architectures says that AmigaDOS will get more > out of any CPU than any Unix-y system. That is .. in both Unix and Mach > the user process scribbling on the screen is isolated in its own virtual > address space away from the virtual address space where the screen > hardware is location. Ergo, any data to be scribbled onto the screen > has to be _copied_ between (at least) two address spaces. This, > all by itself, is quite a CPU drain. > > I don't know for sure that using Display Postscript (DP) is, by > itself, a humongous CPU drain as Ray suggests. There may well be > a performance win by making the window "smart" .. that is, if the > window is able to handle much of the job of interacting with the > user without having to make round trips to the driving process that > overhead of doing context switches to make a button change shape > when its clicked upon kinda disappears. The worst part of using > DP is that the programmers probably will have to program in > Postscript. Yes it's possible to program in Postscript, but its > "harder" because it's RPN and we're all taught to do our math in > INFIX. > Hmm. MOST programs have to provide printed output. And if you don't originally program in postscript, you need to do it anyway if you want decent printed output (and want to use a STANTARD system). > >> Maybe an '040 3000UX will beat a NeXT, but I doubt it. It will do better >>at video, but not at number crunching. Someone posted some benchmarks >>comparing A3000 and NeXTCube (030 model) a while ago.(I think that was >>in the pre-advocacy days). The NeXT was a little faster than the Amiga. > > Small differences in speed are just that: small. Big deal if > the NeXT is 10% faster at number crunching... And besides the > lower overhead in making system calls & IPC (because on AmigaDOS > all the processes are in the same address space) may well make > up for any raw CPU disadvantage. '040 is much faster than '030, much more than only 10%. We might (and should) see a '040 Amiga soon, though. > > My decision to get an A3000 with Unix (ASAP) is because > > -- I want to run & work with X. NeXT's dont' use X as their native > windowing system so all those gee-whizzy interface building > things are useless to me. > -- As much as I'd like to get experience with Mach, it is much more > important to get experience with SysVr4. After all, the project > I'm working on here will be ported to SysVr4 sometime Real Soon Now. > -- The system should be a whole lot faster than any PC-clone because > of the faster bus & disk interface. > If you want those things and can get an Amiga at a reasonable price, it might be a good choice. > >> Try doing raytracing in any reasonable amount of time on an Amiga. Try >>designing a functional graphical interface to one of your programs in a >>half hour on an Amiga. > > Most of us are not programmers. > > There are many other interface building programs available besides > the one on the NeXT. > > Writing the user interface is only a small part of getting the > program running. There's all that code that sits behind the front > end and reads/writes files or whatever.. But writing the interface tends to be one of the most time consuming parts. > > -- > <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> > <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> > <- > <- MS-DOS ... The ultimate computer virus. Jouni Alkio, Finland
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (02/18/91)
In article <1991Feb16.033940.25415@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <637.27b9ca43@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >> Why would you say AmigaVision suffers from lack of vision. > > The iconic programming language is cute, but it's as full of frustrating > limitations as COBOL. How come you can't wait on an arbitrary condition, > instead of just keyboard/mouse? I want to wait on the completion of a > spoken phrase while doing screen-flipping in the background, for example. > I couldn't *believe* there was no way to do that. Have you asked Commodore for that ability? You probably want this to work at full tilt while still using a 68000. :-) :-) > > The only saving grace is the ability to call REXX so you can drop out of the > icons and use a real programming language. You call AmigaDOS / Workbench programs as well. > >> What vision is >> it that you _think_ must be included in order for you to consider this a >> good product. > > How about a runtime-only module so it'll run in a stock 512K Amiga? So you > can distribute "compiled" flows to people? I would find it hard to believe that there is not work being done on such a thing. > >> We are waiting for your final solution. When can I expect to get this >> new wonder software? I sure hope it will stand up to my idea of "vision". > > I doubt it. I'm a UNIX freak. My idea of an ideal multimedia program is a > bunch of separate modules hooked together with REXX and the MIDI library. > The fancy front-end would be just that, a front-end. Hook the modules > together with "pipes" that carry MIDI events, but it'd save it as a text > script. Well there you go. Certainly your idea of "vision" would be a nightmare to the artsy-craftsy folk who just want to take their artwork and sound and put it together, and glue it together with some programming. I guess different people have different visions eh? You should not damn AmigaVision because it is not your idea of the perfect "vision", instead you could provide positive support for what clearly is a innovative product. You might even consider writing down your ideas for product improvement and _why_ they would be an improvement and send it to Commodore. I find Cathy Godfrey at CATS to be a very responsive individual. I hope that you understand that I do understand your point. AmigaVision is far from the perfect solution, but golly it works better than any other product that is out there. Avoid sweeping generalizations, it will be your un-doing. :-) > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ==================================================
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (02/18/91)
In article <1991Feb16.133124.2252@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <644.27bbf736@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >> If you are talking about the A3000UX it _does_ come with a ethernet card, > > The 200 MB system does. The 100 MB system doesn't. Wrongo! Paul Van Reed from Commodore says both systems come with ethernet. Also, before Howard Diamond's departure from Commodore, he posted the pricing for both the 100 and 200 mb machines, and they both had ethernet. > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ==================================================
griffin@frith.uucp (Danny Griffin) (02/19/91)
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >Paul Van Reed from Commodore says both systems come with ethernet. Also, >before Howard Diamond's departure from Commodore, he posted the pricing >for both the 100 and 200 mb machines, and they both had ethernet. I was unaware that HDE had left Commodore. When did this happen, and why? -- Dan Griffin griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu
ptoper@obelix (Andy Nagy) (02/19/91)
In article <1991Feb16.133124.2252@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <644.27bbf736@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: > > If you are talking about the A3000UX it _does_ come with a ethernet card, > > The 200 MB system does. The 100 MB system doesn't. This was posted a little while back: {start quote} Article 682 of comp.sys.amiga.misc: Path: ria!watserv1!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod .mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!ux1.cso.uiuc .edu!cs326ag From: cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: New Policies at Commodore! Summary: Folks, this looks good! Date: 10 Feb 91 08:20:40 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 161 Look what I just found on a `local' [Well, in-state :-] BBS run by a dealer... Taken from the MicroTech BBS: Chicagoland's largest Amiga Dealer! New Commodore Programs Effective March 1, 1991 [stuff deleted] D. New Product Announcements Available March 1. 1991 - New UNIX Amiga models. Note that not all Amiga dealers will be certified to carry the UNIX systems. Only those dealers who can certify that they have UNIX experience will be allowed to sell the UNIX Amiga models. A3000UXB Amiga 3000UX with 5 megabytes of memory, 105 megabyte hard disk system, UNIX System V release 4 software, Ethernet interface, X-Window and Open Look software, and networking software. Suggested Retail - $5499 A3000UXD Amiga 3000UX with 9 megabytes of memory, 210 megabyte hard disk system, UNIX System V release 4 software, Ethernet adapter, X-Window and Open Look software, and networking software. Suggested retail - $6999 A3070 150 megabyte streaming tape drive. Uses industry standard 24 track QIC format (DC600). Housed in low- profile case to match the A3000 design. Suggested retail - $1099 [more stuff deleted] <End of included text> -- ``In short, this is the absolute coolest computer device ever invented!'' -Tom Denbo speaking about The VideoToaster by NewTek ``your pathetic architectures won't support it'' - Kent Paul Dolan ``Think about NewTek's VideoToaster! Now think about the Amiga!'' {end quote} What is the difference between "Ethernet interface" and "Eternet adapter" (is the former merely an OS link and the later the actual hardware)? > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Nagy (ptoper@asterix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca) The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada "Dee do do do, dee da da da, thats all I want to say to you" -- The Police
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (02/19/91)
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >In article <1991Feb10.003013.18133@Neon.Stanford.EDU> torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) writes: >>greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >>>Well, the "really fast" quality of the NeXT will pale when the 040 cards ship >>>for the Amiga. Given the system architectures and OSes of the two machines, >>>the Amiga will be faster. That's a fact. >> >> This is not a "fact". This is a vapourware opinion. > >er.. no > >It's slightly more solid than vapor, but still not on the shelves. > >The 3rd party vendors have been talking about 040 coprocessor cards >since at least last summer. There have been reports of demonstration >models being shown late last fall. > >There's that CPU slot in the A3000 just sitting there waiting & ready >for an 040 processor. The experiences with A2000 coprocessor cards >was that they worked pretty well but the slowness of the ZORRO-II bus >was a problem. So these cards had to be very expensive since they >included 32-bit memory and disk controllers, it was almost like buying >a whole new computer. The top-end card, the 50 MHz 030 card runs >close to $5000 with a bunch of memory and an 80 meg drive. > >The ZORRO-III bus is close to 10 times faster and is 32-bit. This Well, the 3000 cpu expansion slot is NOT a zorro III slot. it is a special 200 pin "cpu direct" (to quote Apple Propoganda). >means that an 040 coprocessor for it won't _need_ expansion capability >on _that_ card. Meaning that it will be little more than a card with >a processor (or two; 68882) on it. hehehehehehehe... one of the best features of the 040 is that it INCLUDES the FPU on the CPU. this means an 882 is not only not needed, but there isn't any support circuitry on the chip for one. the 040's FPU is also claimed to have been rewriten and be 10x as efficient. > >This _is_ the main part which bothers me about getting an A3000. >That I'll be buying the machine and then (assumably) shortly afterwards >getting a CPU upgrade to an 040 .. Well, there is really little that needs to be done to interface thee 040 into the system. since most of the support circuitry is already on the motherboard. it'll be little more than the CPU and some glue logic. interfacing an 040 into a 2000 system would be a major undertaking though, since the 040 is missing dynamic bus resizing like the 020 and 030 had. so circuitry would have to be created to resize the bus to 16 bits. > >-- ><- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> ><- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> ><- ><- MS-DOS ... The ultimate computer virus. UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/20/91)
In article <660.27beeecd@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: > In article <1991Feb16.033940.25415@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > I want to wait on the completion of a > > spoken phrase while doing screen-flipping in the background, for example. > > I couldn't *believe* there was no way to do that. > Have you asked Commodore for that ability? You probably want this to work > at full tilt while still using a 68000. :-) :-) The Amiga has this ability. I used it in the first Amiga program I ever wrote: Workbench Lander. Why can't I do it from AmigaVision? > Well there you go. Certainly your idea of "vision" would be a nightmare > to the artsy-craftsy folk who just want to take their artwork and sound > and put it together, and glue it together with some programming. I don't know... they seem to be able to handle Soundscape. Or hypercard. Both of which are far less "user friendly". How about making the separate modules available to folks who want balls-to-the wall capability, so you can use the best parts of AV (like the object editor) without having to have AV loaded? Vision? It's just another "integrated" mega-application. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/20/91)
In article <1991Feb17.230217.4906@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > I must admit that I haven't programmed in AmigaOS. What do you mean by > "higher level" windowing? Is there a higher level than objects? The objects (widgets) are not part of the X protocol. They're implemented in the X library in the application. You could do the same with any window system. The X protocol itself is very low level, due to the "tools, noti] rules" design philosophy. Where on the Amiga a program can go away and think for a while and the menus and so on still work, with mouse-ahead, an X program has to remain available to maintain the widgets that are doing the actual work. The Mac does the same thing as X, and the performance difference when the window system is so dependent on the real-time response of the application is quite clear... on top of the UNIX context switch overhead. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
bard@jessica.stanford.edu (David Hopper) (02/20/91)
In article <1991Feb20.012514.14936@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >The Amiga has this ability. I used it in the first Amiga program I ever wrote: >Workbench Lander. Why can't I do it from AmigaVision? Peter, that was YOU? Well, I'll be... Quite a game you wrote, there. >Peter da Silva. `-_-' Dave Hopper | /// The Amiga: | The great strength of the total- | __ /// | itarian state is that it forces bard@jessica. | \\\/// The Cybernetic | those who fear it to imitate it. Stanford.EDU | \XX/ Revolution is NOW! | --Adolph Hitler
jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi (02/23/91)
In article <1991Feb20.013044.15014@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <1991Feb17.230217.4906@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >> I must admit that I haven't programmed in AmigaOS. What do you mean by >> "higher level" windowing? Is there a higher level than objects? > > The objects (widgets) are not part of the X protocol. They're implemented > in the X library in the application. You could do the same with any window > system. The X protocol itself is very low level, due to the "tools, noti] > rules" design philosophy. Where on the Amiga a program can go away and think > for a while and the menus and so on still work, with mouse-ahead, an X program > has to remain available to maintain the widgets that are doing the actual work. > > The Mac does the same thing as X, and the performance difference when the > window system is so dependent on the real-time response of the application is > quite clear... on top of the UNIX context switch overhead. > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. Uhhuh? I was talking about _NeXTstep_, not X Windows! NeXTstep is nothing like X or MAC's system, it is QUITE object oriented in nature. For example, there is an "Application" object which automatically takes care of all mouse tracking, etc. Each window, button, etc. is an object. Even each musical note is an object. Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/28/91)
In article <1991Feb23.121100.4978@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > In article <1991Feb20.013044.15014@sugar.hackercorp.com>, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > In article <1991Feb17.230217.4906@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > >> I must admit that I haven't programmed in AmigaOS. What do you mean by > >> "higher level" windowing? Is there a higher level than objects? > > The objects (widgets) are not part of the X protocol. They're implemented > > in the X library in the application. [...] > Uhhuh? I was talking about _NeXTstep_, not X Windows! Oh, I was talking about X Windows, not NeXTstep. But, if you insist... > NeXTstep is > nothing like X or MAC's system, it is QUITE object oriented in nature. But the objects, written in Objective C, are still part of the application, right? How much does Display Postscript help here? I know it's not as clear a division between the server and the client as in NeWS. I'm talking about the protocol, not the library. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.