aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sriram Ramkrishna) (01/15/91)
Okay, I got a question here. Now, we all heard how great and wonderful the Amiga is. Now, I want to know, what are its bad points? Especially, the new Amiga 3000. Are people finding things wrong with it? I heard that there are some hardware bugs, and before I sing 4000 dollars into an Amiga system, I want to know if I should wait till they fix these bugs or if they will fix them for me or what? Is there a 1 year warrantee? Help me, guys! :) Sri
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (01/16/91)
In article <3783@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sriram Ramkrishna) writes: >Okay, I got a question here. Now, we all heard how great and wonderful >the Amiga is. Now, I want to know, what are its bad points? Especially, >the new Amiga 3000. Are people finding things wrong with it? I heard that >there are some hardware bugs, and before I sing 4000 dollars into an Amiga >system, I want to know if I should wait till they fix these bugs or if they >will fix them for me or what? Is there a 1 year warrantee? Help me, guys! :) Hardware bugs! Not on the Amiga 3000! You sure they weren't saying "Apollo 3000" or "Archemedes 3000". Actually, there is a bug in the memory controller that we know about. That only affects one mode in that device, and so we don't turn that mode on. The memory controller has two modes that work with static column RAM. The one we do use is a direct support for 68030 burst reads (also does 68040 or Zorro III burst writes), and that works like a champ. The mode that doesn't work quite right is the page-detect mode. In this mode, the chip latches the memory page on any read or write, and keeps the memory page open (RAS* and CS* held low) until the next cycle. If the page on the next cycle is the same as that latched, the cycle runs in 3 clocks instead of 5. If not, the page is closed (taking 2 clocks), then another standard random cycle ensues, taking the standard 5 clocks. The bug in the chip shows up when DMA happens at just the wrong time. So, as I mentioned, we don't use this mode. Newer versions of the memory controller will ultimately fix the problem, which is well understood at this point. So far, our software folks haven't found this mode to help any under AmigaOS anyway, but it could help under UNIX, and will help with strictly block-oriented transfers like DMA and Zorro III burst. Aside from that, I don't know of any hardware-related bugs on the A3000, and of course, this one known one doesn't affect anything. I have been using A3000s longer than just about anyone, and haven't had any problems with them. Since so much of the A3000 design was done in custom chips, we had the actual motherboard design pretty well down way in advance of the system's release. There are some know software problems. Aside from any 2.0 compatibility issues, they all fall into the class of "programmer error" on the part of the offending software. Some are innocent errors, some are blatent disregard of proper Amiga programming rules. Some of the error categories: - 68030 Problems. Some programs ignored the Amiga rules about full 680x0 compatibility. Things like "don't write self modifying code", "use the GetCC() function", etc. Most of these rules were in the pre-1.0 ROM Kernel Manuals that A1000 developers got. I did an expanded talk on this at the Washington D.C. DevCon in 1988. - Speed Dependency. It has always been illegal to use software timing loops, or much else that depends on machine architecture for timing information. Some do it anyway. The A3000 is a tad faster than the A2630 to fast RAM, bit its also twice as fast to Chip RAM for 32 bit operations. So a few speed dependencies that didn't show up on other Amigas are seen now on the A3000. - 32 Bit Addressing Failures. Some programs, accidently or purposely, work only on 24 bit machines. The bad ones are often ports from the Mac, which stuff tags up in the high-order 8 bits of address pointers. This has been strictly forbidden since before the A1000 was released. A few are simply accidental, like string copies that go one byte too far, trashing the high order byte of a pointer following that string in memory. This still works on a 24 bit machine if you're using c-strings, since you're replacing a zero with a zero, but for non-24 bit pointers, that's a problem. In general, there are always programming rules. Each and every one of them is there for a reason, many times a specific reason, something we know about way in advance. It's unfortunate that there's no hard and fast way we can force 3rd party software houses into following those rules, any more than Apple or MicroSoft/IBM can. Our software folks have, over the course of the 2.0 and A3000 development, come up with a number of MMU based tools than can help catch a wide range of hidden programming errors. These tend to make applications more solid on all Amiga platforms, and should minimize the number of program bugs that can sneak past the A3000 but fail on whatever comes after it. With all that said, I can honestly say I have yet to find a program I use that fails on the A3000. I'm not much for playing games, but all my useful software runs fine. Even the stuff I wrote myself.... > sri -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing, gonna be alright" -Bob Marley
yorkw@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Willis F York) (01/16/91)
aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sriram Ramkrishna) writes: >Okay, I got a question here. Now, we all heard how great and wonderful >the Amiga is. Now, I want to know, what are its bad points? Especially, >the new Amiga 3000. Are people finding things wrong with it? I heard that >there are some hardware bugs, and before I sing 4000 dollars into an Amiga >system, I want to know if I should wait till they fix these bugs or if they >will fix them for me or what? Is there a 1 year warrantee? Help me, guys! :) Well the Biggest problems the 3000 owner i know has been having is. SOME 1.3 programs WON'T WORK ON A 3000... Including MOST games by EA, and some GAMES are TOOOOOO FAST.... (The action is sooooo fast the game is impossible) I've seen a FEW utilities that don't like the 3000. Most noticiably CANDO (Version 2.0 is soon out and is to fix this...but) last night we decided to install Cando(1.2) on the 3000, we started the install script and WHAM a BIG crash, the red "guru" wasen't even flashing!! and we (kinda) screwed up his hard drive...(We had to reformat/restore) it. So the major prob with a 3000 is Program Incompatiabilities... I belive these will get fewer and fewer as Companies get 3000's and start programming RIGHT!.(EA, take heed!) C-ya . -- yorkw@ecn.purdue.edu Willis F York ---------------------------------------------- Macintosh... Proof that a Person can use a Computer all day and still not know ANYTHING about computers.
pashdown@javelin.es.com (Pete Ashdown) (01/16/91)
aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sriram Ramkrishna) writes: >Okay, I got a question here. Now, we all heard how great and wonderful >the Amiga is. Now, I want to know, what are its bad points? Two complaints: 1. The design (the case) is CHEESE. The 1000 had a gnifty keyboard garage, but the case itself was made out of plastic the consistency of velveeta. I've got a 2000 now, and the front drive plate is broken off and there are tons of scratches (with the paint flaking off) on the case. The 3000 is a step in the right direction, I'm glad its not bigger than the 2000 (read: HUGE). But it is nowhere near as nice as the Frog designs for Apple and the NeXT black magnesium. I really hate "computer beige". I'm debating over whether or not I should try and paint my 2000. 2. Major software companies ignore the Amiga. Look at the incredible Pixar stuff coming out for the Mac. This argument could go on forever, but I blame the software companies themselves rather than the Amiga. -- "No, no, no! It is an empirical law of physics that the heat flux at any point is proportional to the temperature gradient at that point." - Claudia Schiffer, over breakfast. Pete Ashdown pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com ...uunet!javelin.sim.es.com!pashdown
rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan15.183939.6293@javelin.es.com> pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com writes: >aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sriram Ramkrishna) writes: > >>Okay, I got a question here. Now, we all heard how great and wonderful >>the Amiga is. Now, I want to know, what are its bad points? > >Two complaints: > 1. The design (the case) is CHEESE. The 1000 had a gnifty keyboard garage, >but the case itself was made out of plastic the consistency of velveeta. I've >got a 2000 now, and the front drive plate is broken off and there are tons of >scratches (with the paint flaking off) on the case. The 3000 is a step in the >right direction, I'm glad its not bigger than the 2000 (read: HUGE). But it >is nowhere near as nice as the Frog designs for Apple and the NeXT black >magnesium. I really hate "computer beige". I'm debating over whether or not >I should try and paint my 2000. Personally I think Black is a great color for computers. Just look at Commodore's CDTV, it looks slick! I guess Beige/White is used as a sort of color coding for the public. White/Beige=computer, Black=stereo/consumer equipment. This is for the people who don't know how to program their VCR's. > 2. Major software companies ignore the Amiga. Look at the incredible Pixar >stuff coming out for the Mac. This argument could go on forever, but I blame >the software companies themselves rather than the Amiga. I think the Amiga is a much better platform for video/graphics than the Mac. Pixar's decision is probably fueled by a few things. 1) Marketing 2) QuickDraw 3) # of Macs sold. Maybe NewTek should send Pixar a few toasters and let them develope software to use the Toaster's frame buffers. >-- >"No, no, no! It is an empirical law of physics that the heat flux at any >point is proportional to the temperature gradient at that point." > - Claudia Schiffer, over breakfast. >Pete Ashdown pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com ...uunet!javelin.sim.es.com!pashdown
huebner@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert E. Huebner) (01/16/91)
In article <1991Jan15.195612.3795@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> rjc@geech.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >> 2. Major software companies ignore the Amiga. Look at the incredible Pixar >>stuff coming out for the Mac. This argument could go on forever, but I blame >>the software companies themselves rather than the Amiga. > > I think the Amiga is a much better platform for video/graphics than the >Mac. Pixar's decision is probably fueled by a few things. 1) Marketing >2) QuickDraw 3) # of Macs sold. All this talk of Pixar ignoring Amiga leads me to ask- Did Pixar ever say they weren't planning Renderman for the Amiga? Granted, the Mac is a much higher priority in terms of profit potential, but at a recent demonstration given to the Purdue Graphics Society here, the Pixar rep. said he was "not permitted to comment" on the possibility of an Amiga port. Or have they stated a more emphatic "no" since that time? >>Pete Ashdown pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com ...uunet!javelin.sim.es.com!pashdown -- | 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 |
rwm@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca (Russell McOrmond) (01/17/91)
In a message posted on 15 Jan 91 15:18:46 GMT,
aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sriram Ramkrishna) wrote:
SR>Okay, I got a question here. Now, we all heard how great and wonderful
SR>the Amiga is. Now, I want to know, what are its bad points? Especially,
SR>the new Amiga 3000. Are people finding things wrong with it? I heard that
Well, I'm not sure if you got my original posting to this group (It was about
the 4'th message). In general, I am extremely happy with the Amiga system (I
bought it for it's OS, and it's I/O capabilities, so all this 'Graphics/Sound'
comparisons mean nothing to me at all), everyone has their gripes.
I deal a lot with telecomunications, so serial drivers is something I deal
with . Commodore refuses to Acknowledge the fact that the current serial.device
does NOT have a proper way to control the DTR line. The 'documented' way to do
this is the CLOSE the device, wait, and then re-open. They provide a method
to SHARE the serial device (With only one task, obviously, with read-requests
pending ;-) which NEGATES the possibility of their 'documented' DTR control to work.
Also, several pieces of hardware make use of out-of-band data where the device
can be written to WHILE the DTR is low - obviously impossible with Commodore's
software.
Commodore Marketing has always got me going. Engeneering produces some of
the best Hardware and software in the industry, and Marketing always find new and
wonderful ways to oppose the possibility of these being sold. An example would
be the A590 drive - A VERY good controller, but they ONLY market it with the
worse piece of Junk Hard drive you can think of - If Commodore marketing sold the
A590 WITHOUT the drive inside (Allowing dealers/users to put their own (BETTER)
drives into it) they would sell MANY units. Commodore marketing has always
tried to hide the A500 as a 'Game machine': An example of this can be seen with
their policy as far as 1M Agnus A500's. If I, as a technician at an Authorized
Commodore service center modify an A500 to make USE of the 1M agnus already
shipped with the machine (IE: Change the jumpers in a Rev6 motherboard) the WARRANTY
is VOID! On an A2000, though, I can change the ChipSet, cut jumpers, Add resistors
(Required for upgrades from 4.x to 4.5 and from 6.1 to 6.2) and the machine
keeps it's FULL WARRANTY. Does this make any sence to you?
Anyways, I could go on. I do not, however, want to give a false impression of
my beliefs towards the Amiga. I have chosen this machine over all the other
Systems available, and have been working as a Technician, and as a registered
software developer for the machine for quite some time.
---
Opinions expressed in this message are my Own. My Employer does not even
know what these networks ARE.
Russell McOrmond rwm@Atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca {tigris,alzabo,...}!atronx!rwm
FidoNet 1:163/109 Net Support: (613) 230-2282
Amiga-Fidonet Support 1:1/109rwm@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca (Russell McOrmond) (01/17/91)
In a message posted on 15 Jan 91 18:31:46 GMT,
yorkw@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Willis F York) wrote:
WFY>Well the Biggest problems the 3000 owner i know has been having is.
WFY>
WFY>SOME 1.3 programs WON'T WORK ON A 3000...
Hmmm - I guess not being a game player has it's advantages. I'll have to admit
that I've not yet found any non-game software that does not run on my A3000. I,
however, have a lot of software that runs GREAT on my A3000, but does not run
properly under most other machines (And these are NOT 2.0 specific programs : Quite
often a BUGGY program will run BETTER under 2.0 than it did under 1.3 - I say
HATS OFF to the 2.0 development TEAM!
WFY>Macintosh... Proof that a Person can use a Computer all day and still
WFY>not know ANYTHING about computers.
I like ;-)
---
Opinions expressed in this message are my Own. My Employer does not even
know what these networks ARE.
Russell McOrmond rwm@Atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca {tigris,alzabo,...}!atronx!rwm
FidoNet 1:163/109 Net Support: (613) 230-2282
Amiga-Fidonet Support 1:1/109skank@iastate.edu (Skank George L) (01/19/91)
In article <3783@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sriram Ramkrishna) writes: >Okay, I got a question here. Now, we all heard how great and wonderful >the Amiga is. Now, I want to know, what are its bad points? Especially, >the new Amiga 3000. Are people finding things wrong with it? I heard that >there are some hardware bugs, and before I sing 4000 dollars into an Amiga >system, I want to know if I should wait till they fix these bugs or if they >will fix them for me or what? Is there a 1 year warrantee? Help me, guys! :) > > Sri Things I don't like about my A3000? Hmmmm... NOTHING!!! I would have to say that I've owned my A3000 since August and there is nothing I dislike about it! :) There continues to be the nagging problem with games (particularly Psygnosis games) that were written for the A500 and A2000 that do not run properly (or at all) on the A3000, but that is not a problem with the 3000. My 1950 monitor gave me a bit of trouble but my dealer fixed it. There is no way I would have bought a new system like the 3000 without a 1 year warrenty. -- George L. Skank | skank@iastate.edu |Fast cars, fast women, fast computers... Senior, Electrical Engineering |(not necessarily in that order)
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (01/20/91)
Programs I have that won't run on my Amiga 3000 (games excluded): Photon Paint. Not bad. I'm not sure that there isn't an update that fixes that, but since MicroIllusions pulled their silly buggers accounting games on the royalties from Tracers I'm damned if I'll deal with them. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
skank@iastate.edu (Skank George L) (01/23/91)
In article <7554@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Programs I have that won't run on my Amiga 3000 (games excluded): > > Photon Paint. > >Not bad. I'm not sure that there isn't an update that fixes that, but since >MicroIllusions pulled their silly buggers accounting games on the royalties >from Tracers I'm damned if I'll deal with them. Amiga World had an article a month or two (or three) ago that compared several different programs. There was a sidebar about a new HAM paint program, Spectracolor, by Oxxy-Ageis that is built on top of the origional Photon Paint program. That's all the more I know... --George -- George L. Skank | skank@iastate.edu |Fast cars, fast women, fast computers... Senior, Electrical Engineering |(not necessarily in that order)
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (02/01/91)
My current biggest gripe with my Amiga is I have to load up A-Max II
to run a decent DeskTop Publishing program. NOTHING on the Amiga even
comes close to the quality of either QuarkXPress or PageMaker on the
Mac. Yes, that is Mac's forte, but why are ProPage and PageStream so
slow and less-featured??
Kurt
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|| Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || With. Without. And who'll ||
|| 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. || deny it's what the fighting's ||
|| Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || all about? - Pink Floyd ||
|| jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------||
|| jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu (Bill Warner) (02/01/91)
In article <91031.190832JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu>, JKT <JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> says: > >My current biggest gripe with my Amiga is I have to load up A-Max II >to run a decent DeskTop Publishing program. NOTHING on the Amiga even >comes close to the quality of either QuarkXPress or PageMaker on the >Mac. Yes, that is Mac's forte, but why are ProPage and PageStream so >slow and less-featured?? > > Kurt >-- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >|| Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || With. Without. And who'll || >|| 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. || deny it's what the fighting's || >|| Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || all about? - Pink Floyd || >|| jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------|| >|| jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Yea, and the ONLY reason I have an AT bridgecard with a dedicated hard drive and a VGA card is so I can run Turbo C, Pascal, Debugger, etc. Nothing on the Amiga even comes close. These programs make writing and debugging a breeze. I write and debug a program on the IBM side then send it over to the Amiga. As soon as Turbo stuff comes out on the Amiga I can sell the bridgeboard and buy a 3500! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan J Torrie) (02/01/91)
WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu (Bill Warner) writes: >Yea, and the ONLY reason I have an AT bridgecard with a dedicated hard drive >and a VGA card is so I can run Turbo C, Pascal, Debugger, etc. Nothing on the >Amiga even comes close. These programs make writing and debugging a breeze. I >write and debug a program on the IBM side then send it over to the Amiga. As >soon as Turbo stuff comes out on the Amiga I can sell the bridgeboard and buy a >3500! Well, didn't Borland advertise Turbo Pascal for the Amiga back in 86? It must be due RSN, mustn't it? :-))) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "She's got a tongue like an electric eel, and she likes the taste of a man's tonsils!" - Rik Flashheart
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (02/02/91)
In article <91031.190832JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >My current biggest gripe with my Amiga is I have to load up A-Max II >to run a decent DeskTop Publishing program. NOTHING on the Amiga even >comes close to the quality of either QuarkXPress or PageMaker on the >Mac. Yes, that is Mac's forte, but why are ProPage and PageStream so >slow and less-featured?? > For those of us who aren't regular professional DTP users, what ARE the things that the other do that ours don't, or that they do better. Also, what is the LATEST version of ProPage and PageStream you are comparing with? Also2, have you seen Saxon Publisher? > Kurt -- Ethan "It seemed like he appeared on every television show except Wheel of Fortune. You see, he was afraid that Vanna might turn over the 'L' word." -- George Bush attacking Michael Dukakis for going on TV
hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Moriland) (02/02/91)
In article <91031.215406WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu> WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu (Bill Warner) writes: :In article <91031.190832JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu>, JKT <JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> says: :> :>My current biggest gripe with my Amiga is I have to load up A-Max II :>to run a decent DeskTop Publishing program. NOTHING on the Amiga even :>comes close to the quality of either QuarkXPress or PageMaker on the :>Mac. Yes, that is Mac's forte, but why are ProPage and PageStream so :>slow and less-featured?? :> :> Kurt :>-- :> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- :>|| Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || With. Without. And who'll || :>|| 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. || deny it's what the fighting's || :>|| Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || all about? - Pink Floyd || :>|| jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------|| :>|| jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || :> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- : : :Yea, and the ONLY reason I have an AT bridgecard with a dedicated hard drive :and a VGA card is so I can run Turbo C, Pascal, Debugger, etc. Nothing on the :Amiga even comes close. These programs make writing and debugging a breeze. I :write and debug a program on the IBM side then send it over to the Amiga. As :soon as Turbo stuff comes out on the Amiga I can sell the bridgeboard and buy a :3500! Chris, you should send a truck load of flames to Borland about Turbo Pascal. Being one of the original Amiga 1000 owners waaaay back in 86 and still having the Premiere issue of Amiga World, I can honestly say that at one time they had promised an Amiga version of Turbo Pascal. Here's a quote of the original ad from 1985: HOW BORLAND'S TURBO PASCAL FOUND A PARTNER THAT MATCHES IT'S AMAZING SPEED. Turbo Pascal Meets The Amiga. Turbo Pascal hates to wait. With Turbo, it's 'go fast' or 'go away'. So before we committed to becoming the exclusive Pascal programming language for Commodore's new Amiga, we had to be sure it was up to speed. It had to be fast -- and it is. 68000 based, with custom chips and graphics, Amiga doesn't dawdle. (In fact, Amiga's speed is going to be a headache, a heartache and a headwind to the Competition.) Thats just a sample of the Ad. I like to photocopy it every now and then and send it off to the kind folks at Borland who keep sending me letters asking me to stop sending them reminders of things they'd rather not remember. --Moriland -- | hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu | __ | | | __/// Viva Amiga! | | Founder Of: Evil Young | \XX/ | | Mutants For A Better Tomorrow | "Single Tasking: JUST SAY NO!" |
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (02/03/91)
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan J Torrie) writes: > WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu (Bill Warner) writes: >> Yea, and the ONLY reason I have an AT bridgecard with a dedicated >> hard drive and a VGA card is so I can run Turbo C, Pascal, Debugger, >> etc. Nothing on the Amiga even comes close. These programs make >> writing and debugging a breeze. I write and debug a program on the >> IBM side then send it over to the Amiga. As soon as Turbo stuff comes >> out on the Amiga I can sell the bridgeboard and buy a 3500! > Well, didn't Borland advertise Turbo Pascal for the Amiga back in 86? > It must be due RSN, mustn't it? :-))) It may not be quite fair to take Borland to task on this one. I'm not sure the real story on this will ever come out, but the rumor at the time was that Borland had created a beta Turbo Pascal, and Commodore violated a non-disclosure agreement by handing the fully functional beta around to dealers, earning Borland's eternal distrust and prompt cancellation of the product development effort. Anybody care to tell the real story? Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/03/91)
In article <91031.215406WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu> WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu (Bill Warner) writes: > Yea, and the ONLY reason I have an AT bridgecard with a dedicated hard drive > and a VGA card is so I can run Turbo C, Pascal, Debugger, etc. Nothing on the > Amiga even comes close. Yeh, I've run into people who try to write and debug multitasking programs for UNIX this way. We had one of them at Ferranti... the code ends up in a mess of #ifdefs for DOS, and we have a horrible time working with it on UNIX. Plus once he's "ported" this UNIX program to UNIX he can't usefully debug it on DOS so he has to use the UNIX tools anyway. And, of course, he doesn't know them as well as he should... I haven't seen anything for DOS or UNIX that comes close to Aztec C with SDB, and I'm sure the same is true of Lattice's symbolic debugger. It's not due to any special virtue in SDB or CPR, just how the Amiga environment helps debuggers. > As soon as Turbo stuff comes out on the Amiga I can sell the bridgeboard > and buy a 3500! Quit holding your breath... get the A3000 now. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Feb3.004152.1848@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >It may not be quite fair to take Borland to task on this one. I'm not >sure the real story on this will ever come out, but the rumor at the >time was that Borland had created a beta Turbo Pascal, and Commodore >violated a non-disclosure agreement by handing the fully functional beta >around to dealers, earning Borland's eternal distrust and prompt >cancellation of the product development effort. Anybody care to tell the >real story? I'm positive that the above story is not true. You can be sure, too, by this simple test: 1) Have you, or anyone you know actually SEEN one of those fully functional beta TP disks ? If it did exist, and was spread around, why isn't it everywhere by now ? Did all the pirates somehow miss this one ? Even in the face of strong demand ? Using the famous razor, we can conclude that such a disk never existed. If I were in a speculating mood, I'd guess that Borland looked at the effort involved, its many other products under development at that time, and how much money there was in the IBM arena, and made a business decision. >Kent, the man from xanth. 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.
kdarling@hobbes.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (02/05/91)
andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes: >If I were in a speculating mood, I'd guess that Borland looked >at the effort involved, its many other products under development >at that time, and how much money there was in the IBM arena, and >made a business decision. I believe that you're right. Borland also didn't want to get into the Unix market, so there is at least one company which converts Borland programs to Unix under a license. Many PClone companies won't port their stuff to other systems, but are willing to let someone else do it. - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (02/06/91)
In article <91031.215406WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu> WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu (Bill Warner) writes: >Yea, and the ONLY reason I have an AT bridgecard with a dedicated hard drive >and a VGA card is so I can run Turbo C, Pascal, Debugger, etc. Nothing on the >Amiga even comes close. These programs make writing and debugging a breeze. I >write and debug a program on the IBM side then send it over to the Amiga. As >soon as Turbo stuff comes out on the Amiga I can sell the bridgeboard and buy a >3500! Personally, I think Turbo C bites. If you want an integrated system, SAS now provides almost all of this (compile from within the editor, get highlighted errors, hop to next error, recompile inside editor, etc.), But that environment sucks for any multi-module application (and if you aren't using more than one module, you probobly aren't doing it right), and it chews up excess memory to hold the editor and a copy of the source file at the same time it is compiling it. Also, the C compiler itself seems to be not as good as the SAS compiler, it seems to be less ANSI compatible, doesn't do as good of checking of the code for non-compatible functions, etc. And out of several debuggers I have used (Turbo C, CodeView (Unix), etc.) the SAS CodeProbe is easily the best, with full mouse support, command line recall, ARexx macros, resizeable source and command windows, etc. I have not found anything that the Turbo debugger does that CPR doesn't do, or couldn't easily be made to do by writing a simple macro (And writing macros is NOT something you should think you shouldn't have to do. That is MS-DOS thinking that you need to have everything inside the program, taking up space whether most users want/need a feature. SAS provides at least 20 or so macros, and writing your own is trivial. And by adding features via macros you don't take up memory for a function you may not use all the time, and you can extend/change the function yourself, without having to recompile the debugger itself.) Dave
WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu (Bill Warner) (02/07/91)
In article <1991Feb6.051955.14232@NCoast.ORG>, davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) says: > Personally, I think Turbo C bites. If you want an integrated system, >SAS now provides almost all of this (compile from within the editor, get >highlighted errors, hop to next error, recompile inside editor, etc.), >But that environment sucks for any multi-module application (and if you >aren't using more than one module, you probobly aren't doing it right), >and it chews up excess memory to hold the editor and a copy of the source >file at the same time it is compiling it. > Also, the C compiler itself seems to be not as good as the SAS >compiler, it seems to be less ANSI compatible, doesn't do as good of >checking of the code for non-compatible functions, etc. > And out of several debuggers I have used (Turbo C, CodeView (Unix), >etc.) the SAS CodeProbe is easily the best, with full mouse support, >command line recall, ARexx macros, resizeable source and command windows, >etc. I have not found anything that the Turbo debugger does that CPR doesn't >do, or couldn't easily be made to do by writing a simple macro (And writing >macros is NOT something you should think you shouldn't have to do. That is >MS-DOS thinking that you need to have everything inside the program, taking >up space whether most users want/need a feature. SAS provides at least 20 or >so macros, and writing your own is trivial. And by adding features via macros >you don't take up memory for a function you may not use all the time, >and you can extend/change the function yourself, without having to >recompile the debugger itself.) > > > Dave > > First off, you are probably refering to old versions of Turbo Pascal and Turbo C. Take a look at TP 6.0 and the latest version of Turbo C++. You have to realize that I use the compilers for algorithm design, not for the design of some Amiga or IBM specific application. That's where SAS or Manx fall short. Can Manx or SAS compile a 1000+ line program in seconds (not 10's of seconds). Can it do it that fast on an 8mhz 68000 (eqiv to a 8mhz 286)? This is very important to me. Second, the T debuggers are very nice (yes, even a moron could use them, but features are not lacking). The Manx SDB is nice but it just doesn't flow as well as the Turbo Debuggers. I can't comment about CodeProbe since I don't have it. Super-advanced features are not needed in Algorithm design. The integrated environment is nice, but thats is not as important to me. Many of your above points are well taken. But I'm not going to argue as to which compiler is better, but I will say that for whatever reason Turbo C and Pascal are simply more productive for me than their Amiga counterparts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris
djh@neuromancer.metaphor.com (Dallas J. Hodgson) (02/08/91)
In article <7692@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >I haven't seen anything for DOS or UNIX that comes close to Aztec C with SDB, ---------------- >and I'm sure the same is true of Lattice's symbolic debugger. It's not due to >any special virtue in SDB or CPR, just how the Amiga environment helps >debuggers. > Gee, I'd really -=like=- to believe that! In fact, there was a stream of messages on rec.games.programmer about how poor Amiga development tools are. I've used Aztec since it came out, Microsoft C up to 6.0, and Borland's Turbo C and C++. Nothing on the Amiga comes close. Borland's and Microsoft's integrated programming environments are a quantum leap in programmer efficiency. SDB is OK, but it's not really that far removed from Sun's dbxtool, now is it? On the code-generation level, neither Aztec nor SAS compilers provided the aggressive levels of optimization that Microsoft, Metaware and GreenHills do. Especially the latter - there's a REAL MEN's compiler. I spoke with Jim Goodnow (formerly of Manx) several years ago just before 5.0 came out. "Where's the Amiga answer to Turbo-C?" His reply was more along the lines of "(yawn) Whassamatter, don't you like our environment?" -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dallas J. Hodgson | "This here's the wattle, | | Metaphor Computer Systems | It's the emblem of our land. | | Mountain View, Ca. | You can put it in a bottle, | | USENET : djh@metaphor.com | You can hold it in your hand." | +============================================================================+ | "The views I express are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer" | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/09/91)
In article <481@cronos.metaphor.com> djh@neuromancer.metaphor.com (Dallas J. Hodgson) writes: > In article <7692@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >I haven't seen anything for DOS or UNIX that comes close to Aztec C with SDB, > Gee, I'd really -=like=- to believe that! In fact, there was a stream of > messages on rec.games.programmer about how poor Amiga development tools are. I don't read rec.games.programmer, so I missed them. Why did they say? > I've used Aztec since it came out, Microsoft C up to 6.0, and Borland's > Turbo C and C++. Nothing on the Amiga comes close. Borland's and Microsoft's > integrated programming environments are a quantum leap in programmer > efficiency. I find "integrated programming environments" uniformly frustrating. They are purely a kludge to cover up the lack of an decent operating system. Compared to a normal tool in a single-tasking environment they're a quantum leap. If you use the Amiga tools as if you were using a single-tasking computer like a DOS PC you'll be disappointed... but that's your fault. Not the tools'. > On the code-generation level, neither Aztec nor SAS compilers provided the > aggressive levels of optimization that Microsoft, Metaware and GreenHills > do. Especially the latter - there's a REAL MEN's compiler. Given the tremendous overhead of the O/S (if you care to dignify them with such a term) that the resulting programs are running under, it's a bit of a waste to superoptimise them. > I spoke with Jim Goodnow (formerly of Manx) several years ago just before > 5.0 came out. "Where's the Amiga answer to Turbo-C?" His reply was more > along the lines of "(yawn) Whassamatter, don't you like our environment?" Sounds like a sensible fellow. I hope he never succumbs to the folks who want to emulate DOS on their Amigas. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (02/11/91)
In article <481@cronos.metaphor.com> djh@neuromancer.metaphor.com (Dallas J. Hodgson) writes: >I've used Aztec since it came out, Microsoft C up to 6.0, and Borland's >Turbo C and C++. Nothing on the Amiga comes close. Borland's and Microsoft's ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >integrated programming environments are a quantum leap in programmer >efficiency. SDB is OK, but it's not really that far removed from Sun's >dbxtool, now is it? Have you used CPR at all (the SAS debugger). I have used Turbo C, and used MS-C extensively, and I can say from knowledgeable personal experience with both the MS-C and Lattice/SAS debuggers, that the MS-C has nothing on SAS CPR, and CPR has many advantages over the MS-C debugger, like the ability to write macros that can do just about anything, and are especially good for writing macros that take the tedium out of singlestepping through the code, when a simple breakpoint or watch variable/location won't cut it. And the ability to support any size screen you want, with resizeable command/listing windows, with more than 80 cols if you choose, the ability to "pop" the application screen to the front (or run with one screen partially revealed, what you can't do on a PC at ANY price) are also nice. Maybe you should look past the Aztec product, which, from all reviews and testamonials I have heard from past owners, has not been updated much compared to SAS, has no lead in compile time any longer, and offers nothing that SAS does, except a less functional ANSI compiler than SAS. >On the code-generation level, neither Aztec nor SAS compilers provided the >aggressive levels of optimization that Microsoft, Metaware and GreenHills >do. Especially the latter - there's a REAL MEN's compiler. Did you ever stop to think that this may have more to do with the processor they are designed for? On the PC you HAVE to do lots of optimization, due to all the screwy modes of the 80x86 CPU line. In real-world cases the SAS compiler has always seemed to produce: 1) Smaller code than MS-C 2) Faster code than MS-C What other optimizations are there other than size and time? >I spoke with Jim Goodnow (formerly of Manx) several years ago just before >5.0 came out. "Where's the Amiga answer to Turbo-C?" His reply was more >along the lines of "(yawn) Whassamatter, don't you like our environment?" Have you used SAS/C? It doesn't sound like it. Besides, that's someone from Manx, who it never seemed were very interested in producing a state-of-the-art compiler for the Amiga (after all, they did the ST version first (and even a version for the Apple II), and it seemed like they wanted to keep their compilers compatible on all platforms. Dave
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (02/11/91)
In article <91037.162624WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu> WTW101@psuvm.psu.edu (Bill Warner) writes: >fall short. Can Manx or SAS compile a 1000+ line program in seconds (not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >10's of seconds). Can it do it that fast on an 8mhz 68000 (eqiv to a 8mhz Yes. I am presently working on a new game for the Amiga that will be a space version of Empire, and some of the modules are over 1400 lines already. I don't know about Aztec, but SAS compiles them in about 5-6 secs, and I include a ton of header files (and I don't use precompiled headers). And the link phase for the library, which right now consists of 5 or six modules, all over 900 lines each, and searching a maximum of 280k (as reported by the linker) links in less than 4 secs, so althogather you are talking about at the most 10 secs when one 1400 line module is changed and has to be recompiled. >10's of seconds). Can it do it that fast on an 8mhz 68000 (eqiv to a 8mhz ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >286)? This is very important to me. I doubt it, can't help you there. But then I don't do anything to speed it up (like using precompiled headers, which I hear can knock off 3 or 4 secs minimum on a compile with lots of include files. SAS is so fast that the client programs link in under .01 secs (reported as .00 by the linker), which is generating about 50k of code. >Second, the T debuggers are very nice (yes, even a moron could use them, but >features are not lacking). The Manx SDB is nice but it just doesn't flow >as well as the Turbo Debuggers. I can't comment about CodeProbe since I >don't have it. Super-advanced features are not needed in Algorithm design. The Manx debugger is primitive compared to CPR. It doesn't look like they have upgraded it (or at least it's user interface) since the first version of it I saw. CPR has always been quite nice, but now the latest SAS version under AmigaDOS 2.0 looks even better, and was smart enough to recognize my enlarged screen, and use it fully. > >The integrated environment is nice, but thats is not as important to me. And neither is it to me. In fact, I don't use it at all. But it is there, if you choose to use it. The one thing I DO use is the fantastic configuration program. You can click on gadgets to select compile options, and see real human-readable text, instead of having to remember what -M0 means. >Many of your above points are well taken. But I'm not >going to argue as to which compiler is better, but I will say that >for whatever reason Turbo C and Pascal are simply more productive for me >than their Amiga counterparts. Might this not be true because you are more familiar with them? Which have you worked the most with. I have found that there is usually a certain amount of time that must pass when working with something new before you begin to take it's features for granted, let alone use them to the fullest. But I can truthfully say that I sorely miss the SAS environment when I have to work on Unix & DOS at work. Dave
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (02/12/91)
In article <39174@cup.portal.com> Classic_-_Concepts@cup.portal.com writes: >I understand PageStream has a more intuitive interface. I understand >Saxon is superior, but how much so? Can it compete with PageMaker (which, >by the way, isn't the best the Mac has to offer, but is in a similar >price range and market)? I haven't tried either PageStream or Saxon >because my DTP budget is sunk into Pro. Page. but I will switch if some- >thing genuinely top-rate comes along. > PageStream 2.1 has a price of somewhere around $175 and every upgrade in the past has been free with the exception of adding Compugraphic and Adobe font support, which was $75. You might consider spending the money, as it isn't soooo expensive and could make your life easier. A lot of people seem to prefer it but they also warn that it takes time to learn workarounds for all the quirks. > Julie (ducking very low) Petersen > >(Gawd, I hate being a blue-meanie. Will anyone ever talk to me again?) If you are a meanie, I hate to think what name that leaves most of the other people here with! -- Ethan Q: What's the definition of a Quayle? A: Two right wings and no backbone.
cseaman@sequent.UUCP (Chris "The Bartman" Seaman) (02/15/91)
Classic_-_Concepts@cup.portal.com writes:
< A previous poster declared PageMaker to be far superior to PageStream and
< Professional Page. I agree completely about Pro. Page.
<
< A subsequent poster asked for specifics on what makes PageMaker better.
<
< I have used PageMaker since it came out (on both IBM and Mac).
<
< I have used Professional Page since it came out and have sunk a lot of
< money into the original software plus several upgrades.
It seems to me that the bulk of the problems stated in your article
can be divided into three categories:
1. Ease of use
2. Performance (speed, not necessarily features)
3. Cost to upgrade
First, with regard to the cost of upgrades, you mention that you have
used Pagemaker since it came out. That being the case, you must surely
be aware that it too has gone through several major and minor
revisions, and none of them have been what I would consider cheap. I
used Pagemaker for several years, and, had it not been for the fact
that the company I worked for paid for the upgrades, I never would have
seen them. I agree that that upgrades are expensive, but this is not
unique to Professional Page, or even to Amiga software in general.
Ease of use is a very valid issue, but, in the final analysis, what
concerns me most in a DTP package is the output. I gather from your
article (having never used Professional Page myself), that you were
eventually satisfied with the results from Professioanl Page, and
considered them comparable to Pagemaker. It was the steps required
which earned your frustration and disapproval. Is this the case?
Finally, I would be interested to know the types of machines on which
you run your software. You mention that the screen refresh, for
example, is acceptible on a Mac or MS-DOS machine running Pagemaker,
yet unacceptible on an Amiga running Professionanl Page. Which Mac and
MS-DOS machine were you using? I have used Pagemaker on 12MHz AT
"clones", and found the performance atrocious. The same software, run
on a 20MHz 80386 system, performed admirably. I would suspect that you
would find the performance of Professional Page to be substantially
improved on any flavor of accelerated Amiga. I know that Professional
Draw performs fairly well on my 2500/20, but becomes a hair-pulling
experience on my old 1000.
< Sorry for the long post. I've had SIGNIFICANT frustration stored up over
< this issue. I bought a Mac specifically for desktop publishing 1.5 years
< ago because I could not provide reliable desktop publishing services for
< a competitive price on the Amiga at that time. I don't like the Mac. I'd
< sell it in an instant if I could provide the same services with the Amiga,
< but I can't. At least, not yet. My fanatic love for my Amiga is not
< sufficient, on this issue, to rose-tint my viewpoint.
<
< Julie (ducking very low) Petersen
<
< (Gawd, I hate being a blue-meanie. Will anyone ever talk to me again?)
Please don't take this as a flame. I saw some important concerns
in your article, and am trying to clarify them for myself.
Regards,
Chris
--
Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | ___-/^\-___
cseaman@gateway.sequent.com <or> | //__--\O/--__\\ nI' yIyIn 'ej yIchep.
...!uunet!sequent!cseaman | // \\
The Home of the Killer Smiley | `\ /'