hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Aaron Harsh) (02/10/91)
In article <1991Feb9.083920.27791@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: >The Unix port running on the NeXT machine is not actually Unix. Sure it is. BSD is also a standard. (Actually, NeXT uses Mach which is BSD + some extras) >Another thing I have seen too much of is the comparison between a >68040 based NeXT and a 68030 based A3000/A3000UX. This is simply >rediculous. Unless the machines cost the same. When you're about to buy a machine, do you think: "It has to be less than $4000" or do you think "It has to have a 68030"? >Imagine an >Amiga running Unix on multiple T800 processors!? If you want number >crunching... you got it! Do you think that Commodore has developed a UNIX to run on multiple T800 processors? Do you think Commodore will ever develop one? >We are Amiga users here. So why all the NeXT info? Because this is the advocacy group where we're _supposed_ to beat each other over the heads with NeXTstations and A3000UX's. >These are my OPINIONS and no hard feelings! Okay? >*********************************************************** >* Jeff Davis * Relax! And get into /// * >* doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu * the STRESS!!! /// * >* * \\\///030 * >* * -Gigahertz!- Amiga\XX/ 882 * >*********************************************************** > -=[ Mine's bigger than yours... ]=- Mine's flatter than yours. Aaron Harsh hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu
doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) (02/10/91)
In article <1531@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >In article <1991Feb9.083920.27791@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: >>The Unix port running on the NeXT machine is not actually Unix. > > Sure it is. BSD is also a standard. (Actually, NeXT uses Mach which >is BSD + some extras) This statement was made a little hastily. My major point was the AT&T support factor. Consider the rest retracted. >>Another thing I have seen too much of is the comparison between a >>68040 based NeXT and a 68030 based A3000/A3000UX. This is simply >>rediculous. > > Unless the machines cost the same. When you're about to buy a machine, >do you think: "It has to be less than $4000" or do you think "It has to >have a 68030"? I believe that the machine must have the capability of accepting new processors when they become available. The A3000 was designed with future CPU expandability in mind. Provisions were made to accept the 68040 when it becomes/became readily available. Note the more capable CPU slot provided. I can understand why they came out with the 68030 machine instead of just scrapping it for the still buggy 68040. A 68040 card will soon (If not already) be available for the A3000. There is no need for a version of the machine with a 68040 on the motherboard. As far as the cost goes, I am still not sure about this. I have seen a lot of unfair comparisons made between the NeXT and 3000UX. The cost comparisons must be done by comparing the 3000UX against the NeXT machine with the expansion slots and COLOR! Try and keep the features matched as closely as possible, no matter how un-important you believe they are. Leave a little leeway for the cost of the 68040 on the UX. >>Imagine an >>Amiga running Unix on multiple T800 processors!? If you want number >>crunching... you got it! > > Do you think that Commodore has developed a UNIX to run on multiple >T800 processors? Do you think Commodore will ever develop one? Note the IMAGINE preceding this fantasy. Just a passing thought floating by in my mind. It would be quite nice. How about this then... UNIX running on a 68040 with the 68030 handling the system overhead.... > >>We are Amiga users here. So why all the NeXT info? > > Because this is the advocacy group where we're _supposed_ to beat each >other over the heads with NeXTstations and A3000UX's. Agree'd! I am ready to start the beatings! I have retracted previous statements posted while in an irate state of mind (car trouble!). Appologies for erroneous statements made previously. :-) Let the games begin! *********************************************************** * 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) (02/10/91)
In article <1531@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >In article <1991Feb9.083920.27791@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: >>Imagine an >>Amiga running Unix on multiple T800 processors!? If you want number >>crunching... you got it! > > Do you think that Commodore has developed a UNIX to run on multiple >T800 processors? Do you think Commodore will ever develop one? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is from a man who just a post or two ago said that NeXT wasn't going to limit themselves to the 680x0 architecture. BTW, the multiple T800 board isn't vaporware, either. It's called the SANG board. >Aaron Harsh >hal@eecs.cs.pdx.edu 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-------
n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) (02/11/91)
In article <1531@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >In article <1991Feb9.083920.27791@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: >>The Unix port running on the NeXT machine is not actually Unix. > > Sure it is. BSD is also a standard. (Actually, NeXT uses Mach which >is BSD + some extras) > The NeXT's OS is *not* pure enough to be called BSD. There seem to be a lot of reports indicating that porting existing software (designed for BSD boxes) is less than easy due to the differences. Mach != BSD --Daryl Biberdorf, n177ac@tamuts.tamu.edu
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/11/91)
In article <1991Feb9.083920.27791@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: > Why is everyone so worried about competing with the NeXT machine. Because the NeXT, Amiga, and machines like the Sparcstation are the only machines at this price-point in the UNIX workstation market. And the RISC machines are diskless servers. It's the competition, and technically it is a superior product. Just as the Amiga 1000 was a superior product to the competing machines when it came out. Funny how that old "expandability" shoe is on the other foot now, and it's suddenly a major factor? > Being an avid Amiga programmer, I know its potential. Irrelevent for the UNIX product. > The Amiga is now supported by AT&T! The world champions at shooting themselves in the foot. > The Unix port running on the NeXT machine is not actually Unix. Yes, it is. It is 4BSD UNIX running on top of Mach. Mach is a message-passing small-kernel operating system similar in many respects to AmigaOS. Think of "UNIX under AmigaOS". > Another thing I have seen too much of is the comparison between a > 68040 based NeXT and a 68030 based A3000/A3000UX. These are the machines being offered. WHat do you expect? > An example of expandibility on the Amiga is that Transputer boards are > readily available. You really want to program in Occam? If you want more CPU power get a RISC machine and have all your software speed up, instead of just the stuff that's highly parallelisable. > So why all the NeXT info? Because I want to know why Commodore has spent all this money on UNIX, and what it's going to buy them. I want to know who is going to be buying the Amiga, and I want better answers than "Real UNIX" (sure, now consider it substandard), or "AmigaOS" (why is that a selling point for UNIX machines?), or slots (what are you going to put in them?), or color (I'd happily give up color for higher resolution... think how many monochrome STs were sold on that basis?)? What is the market for this product? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/11/91)
In article <1991Feb10.073446.20683@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: > Try and keep the features > matched as closely as possible, no matter how un-important you believe > they are. Why? People buy the features they need. I don't care if your Mustang has dual overhead cam chrome-plated foxtails, my little Mazda does everything I want, and it cost less. I don't think that color is that big a deal: you have to trade off speed and resolution to get it. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb11.025210.24933@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Feb9.083920.27791@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: >> Being an avid Amiga programmer, I know its potential. > >Irrelevent for the UNIX product. I said POTENTIAL here. (I have also programmed Unix) An understanding of the underlying machine gives me this insight to the machine's potential. The changeover to Unix will only be a different realm of system control. Not an entirely new system hardware architecture. I will simply need to apply what I already know to meet the Unix resource structure. > >> Another thing I have seen too much of is the comparison between a >> 68040 based NeXT and a 68030 based A3000/A3000UX. > >These are the machines being offered. WHat do you expect? Irrelevant comparisons are repeatedly being made. Of course the 68040 will run faster than a 68030. Of course a monochrome, slotless system will cost less than a color, slotted system. And the cost of adding a 68040 card will most likely be close to the cost of the 68040 chip. I expect the comparisons to be a little more closely matched to even justify reading them. I am sure that a monochrome A3000UX with no expansion slots would be equvalently priced (or less) than the NeXT slab. But this will probably never exist because the Amiga is designed with color custom chips. Why would Amiga want to back up to monochrome? If you are really hooked on monochrome, that is readily available. Use a large monochrome monitor with one of the currently available monochrome display boards! >Because I want to know why Commodore has spent all this money on UNIX, and what >it's going to buy them. I want to know who is going to be buying the Amiga, and >I want better answers than "Real UNIX" (sure, now consider it substandard), or >"AmigaOS" (why is that a selling point for UNIX machines?), or slots (what are >you going to put in them?), or color (I'd happily give up color for higher >resolution... think how many monochrome STs were sold on that basis?)? AmigaOS is there to maintain the current Amiga users and keep A3000UX users from having to ALSO buy an A3000 to be software compatible with the rest of the Amiga world running under the SAME hardware. The hardware is virtually identical, so WHY NOT use AmigaOS as a selling point. As far as the color goes, I mentioned that above. The slots are to provide access to new capabilities. I realize that for some buying a new machine and selling the old one is not a big deal. Occasionaly eating the depreciation on the machine, which is sometimes substantial. And then buying the new MORE EXPENSIVE model. This sounds like a good deal for the company selling the computers, but expensive for the consumer. The Amiga line is eliminating this need for the completely NEW machine when something else comes out that you may want to add to its capabilites. Hence, the slots for video, CPU, IBM, Zorro I, II, III. They have covered the bases here pretty well. A better question is what CAN'T you put into an Amiga? >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. *********************************************************** * Jeff Davis * Relax! And get into /// * * doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu * the STRESS!!! /// * * * \\\///030 * * * -Gigahertz!- Amiga\XX/ 882 * *********************************************************** -=[ In Stereo Where Available ]=-
doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb11.123119.2383@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Feb10.073446.20683@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: >> Try and keep the features >> matched as closely as possible, no matter how un-important you believe >> they are. > >Why? People buy the features they need. I don't care if your Mustang has dual >overhead cam chrome-plated foxtails, my little Mazda does everything I want, >and it cost less. I don't think that color is that big a deal: you have to >trade off speed and resolution to get it. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. I have apparently chosen my words hastily, but it's the thought that counts right? What I meant to say was that comparing apples and oranges is futile. Comparing a color system with a monochrome system all the way down to price is unrealistic. Comparing the cheapest monochrome, slotless NeXT to the most expensive Amiga (color, slotted) and wondering why the color, slotted 3000UX costs more is rediculous. Why don't you compare the NeXT slab against a color NeXT Cube and see what the price difference is! What extra features does it have to merit the price difference? Let's be a little more realistic on the comparisons. If the Amiga doesn't have it now, it will soon! *********************************************************** * Jeff Davis * Relax! And get into /// * * doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu * the STRESS!!! /// * * * \\\///030 * * * -Gigahertz!- Amiga\XX/ 882 * *********************************************************** -=[ In Stereo Where Available ]=-
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (02/13/91)
In article <1531@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >In article <1991Feb9.083920.27791@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: >>The Unix port running on the NeXT machine is not actually Unix. >>Imagine an >>Amiga running Unix on multiple T800 processors!? If you want number >>crunching... you got it! > Do you think that Commodore has developed a UNIX to run on multiple >T800 processors? Do you think Commodore will ever develop one? I don't think anyone will. However, INMOS has already announced this distributed UNIX-ish thing for H1 Transputers. In general, the Transputer systems out there tend to have a relatively simple interface to the specifics of the host system, and run their OS native. So its only a little work, for example, to hook a T800 network running Helios into an Amiga, or a Sun, or whatever. If you really want it, that is. I'm not sold on the Transputer idea just yet, though is the H1 is as good as they claim, I might reevaluate that opinion. -- 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 <1991Feb11.214121.210@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: > Comparing a color system with a monochrome system all the way down > to price is unrealistic. Comparing the cheapest monochrome, slotless NeXT > to the most expensive Amiga (color, slotted) and wondering why the > color, slotted 3000UX costs more is rediculous. Who's wondering? I know why the Amiga costs more, and it's not the video. It's the slots. The Amiga video is significantly lower resolution than the NeXT. If color isn't your buying point (and it isn't for the low-end workstation market) then the Amiga is definitely a poorer deal. > What extra features does [the NeXT color system] have to merit the > price difference? Higher resolution display, more colors (both in palette and in range), better UNIX/display integration, real live applications that run under UNIX instead of a single-tasking O/S, more RAM on the motherboard, two serial ports, ether, bigger monitor...? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/13/91)
In article <1991Feb11.212305.27010@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: > Not an entirely new system hardware architecture. I will simply need to > apply what I already know to meet the Unix resource structure. No, programming under X is a completely new world from AmigaOS. It's a huge step back: programming X is like programming the Mac, only more complex. UNIX is supposed to make programming easier, not harder. X doesn't even support Smart Refresh windows... *all* programs have to be written as if they're Simple Refresh. > Irrelevant comparisons are repeatedly being made. Of course the 68040 will > run faster than a 68030. That's a relevant comparison. Those are the machines for sale. > Of course a monochrome, slotless system will cost > less than a color, slotted system. A monochrome, high resolution system versus a color, lower resolution system. > And the cost of adding a 68040 card > will most likely be close to the cost of the 68040 chip. I find this hard to believe. I'd like that, but I find it hard to believe. > I expect the comparisons to be a little more closely matched to even > justify reading them. Why? The machines aren't. > really hooked on monochrome, that is readily available. Use a large > monochrome monitor with one of the currently available monochrome display > boards! Have you seen how *slow* those boards update? And then add the cost of these boards and the special monitors to the Amiga's price. You're getting into diskful RISC range. > Amiga world running under the SAME hardware. The hardware is virtually > identical, so WHY NOT use AmigaOS as a selling point. I take it you've never run a small UNIX system with a second O/S available. In practice you just never run that other O/S unless you can run it under UNIX. > The Amiga line is eliminating this need for the completely NEW machine when > something else comes out that you may want to add to its capabilites. Really? You're talking to a man who bought a 3000 because Commodore abandoned the 1000. I know I can expand the 1000 to equal capabilities, but it's just not cost effective. > A better question is what CAN'T you put into an Amiga? Well, I'm still waiting for a good send/receive FAX card. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (02/13/91)
In article <1991Feb13.011915.21730@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Feb11.214121.210@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: >> Comparing a color system with a monochrome system all the way down >> to price is unrealistic. Comparing the cheapest monochrome, slotless NeXT >> to the most expensive Amiga (color, slotted) and wondering why the >> color, slotted 3000UX costs more is rediculous. > >Who's wondering? I know why the Amiga costs more, and it's not the video. It's >the slots. The Amiga video is significantly lower resolution than the NeXT. >If color isn't your buying point (and it isn't for the low-end workstation >market) then the Amiga is definitely a poorer deal. How about we wait 1 or 2 years when the Amiga gets a faster 040 or 050 than the NeXT, then browse the newly created group comp.sys.next.slabs.forsale. I bet your see a few hundred slabs being sold because their creator was too short sighted to add a CPU slot. Like I said, no way the slab is going to succeed for an extended period of time as a 'Personal Unix Workstation.' Let's imagine our stereotypical student. Student: "My college requires me to own a personal Unix computer. Hmm, the NeXT looks good at only $3200." [next day] Student: "Gosh, I only have 10-20 mb free! , why do I need this ethernet port, I can't get an ethernet connection from my residence, and I have to purchase Mathematica seperate now." [1 year later] Student: "Hmm, my NeXT is ok, but I need more speed and a bigger HD. There are faster processors availible and the prices of the other workstations have fell drastically. I can't expand. Why oh why did I ever waste $3200 on the NeXT! Now I have to sell it and purchase a faster computer." >> What extra features does [the NeXT color system] have to merit the >> price difference? > >Higher resolution display, more colors (both in palette and in range), better >UNIX/display integration, real live applications that run under UNIX instead >of a single-tasking O/S, more RAM on the motherboard, two serial ports, ether, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Since when has the Amiga, or any other workstation been single-tasking? This isn't an extra feature, its a requirement! And the 'better UNIX/display integration' makes it harder to port software developed on a NeXt to be ported to STANDARD UNIX and the STANDARD interfaces availible. >bigger monitor...? The NeXT monitor is only 17" or so I'm told. You can easily purchase an A2024, or a NEC5d. Sun workstations have had big monitors for a long time. As for the colors, I thought the NeXT (cheap color system, if you can call it cheap) only had 4,032 colors (slightly short of 4096). On the Amiga, you can CHOOSE what display you want, that means a Video Toaster, the A2410, ColorBurst, VideoMaster 32, etc. With the Slab(color) you're locked in to your system. It you buy a color slab. I assume you can't upgrade that color anymore than you could upgrade the monochrome slab. (haha, yea you could kludge up a video board on the SCSI bus, but that is lame.) The Color slab with a >100mb HD costs more than an A3000UX+Toaster. >-- >Peter da Silva. `-_-' ><peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/14/91)
In article <1991Feb13.051539.11902@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >Higher resolution display, more colors (both in palette and in range), better > >UNIX/display integration, real live applications that run under UNIX instead > >of a single-tasking O/S, more RAM on the motherboard, two serial ports, ether, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Since when has the Amiga, or any other workstation been single-tasking? Open mouth, insert foot. I meant "single-user". Mea cupa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Apologies to all. In any case, the existing applications that run on Amiga UNIX can be counted on the fingers of one foot (the one in my mouth?). It's tough enough finding them for 386 UNIX. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Craig Hubley) (02/18/91)
In article <18897@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <1531@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >>In article <1991Feb9.083920.27791@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: >>>Amiga running Unix on multiple T800 processors!? If you want number >>>crunching... you got it! > >> Do you think that Commodore has developed a UNIX to run on multiple >>T800 processors? Do you think Commodore will ever develop one? > >I don't think anyone will. However, INMOS has already announced this Sorry, Cogent Research, Beaverton OR, already did it. Not only that, they built their bottom-level interface in C++ and Kernel Linda, which makes for a very friendly distributed processing interface. They avoided Occam, wisely, and wrote their compiler straight to Transputer assembler, I'm told. Their box, the XTM, has been written up in Byte but they will gladly send you papers and tell you how they did it all. They also did a clone of NeWS... >distributed UNIX-ish thing for H1 Transputers. In general, the Transputer This may be based on the Cogent work. Then again, it may be junk they built themselves. I have little respect for Inmos' software work, having seen Occam. What garbage. -- Craig Hubley "...get rid of a man as soon as he thinks himself an expert." Craig Hubley & Associates------------------------------------Henry Ford Sr. craig@gpu.utcs.Utoronto.CA UUNET!utai!utgpu!craig craig@utorgpu.BITNET craig@gpu.utcs.toronto.EDU {allegra,bnr-vpa,decvax}!utcsri!utgpu!craig
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (02/19/91)
In article <1991Feb17.200210.16197@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Craig Hubley) writes: >In article <18897@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >>In article <1531@pdxgate.UUCP> hal@eecs.UUCP (Aaron Harsh) writes: >>>In article <1991Feb9.083920.27791@en.ecn.purdue.edu> doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) writes: >>>>Amiga running Unix on multiple T800 processors!? If you want number >>>>crunching... you got it! >>> Do you think that Commodore has developed a UNIX to run on multiple >>>T800 processors? Do you think Commodore will ever develop one? >>I don't think anyone will. However, INMOS has already announced this >Sorry, Cogent Research, Beaverton OR, already did it. UNIX-ish, or UNIX? You would kind of need an MMU and all for real UNIX, would you not? Helios, for example, looks like UNIX, but since the T800 has no memory protection, its not real UNIX. You can protect tasks from one another by locating them on separate Transputers, but that's a bit of overkill. I don't think my number of tasks should ever be limited by the number of processors in my system. You make a very large leap in what you can and cannot do and what the OS really does when you trade "UNIX" for "kinda like UNIX". -- 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