Microsoft on Amiga
Jay Imerman
right when it compares to the others), and to cut costs closed the Amiga
development division. Plus, since they were so cozy with Apple and Apple
didn't want such direct competition, and accounted for a sizeable amount
of MS business, MS decided to please their (much) larger customer. Biz-
ness is bizness.
_____________________________________________________________________________
| Jay Imerman a...@tiamat.umd.umich.edu | /**\ /// Only the |
| 5458 Claridge Lane | // /// /// Amiga |
| West Bloomfield, MI 48322 | \\ \\\ \\\/// makes it |
| President, Detroit Area Amiga User Group | \**/ \XX/ possible |
| "The only sin is unnecessary harm to another. Unnecessary harm to your- |
| self isn't a sin - it's just stupid." |
+---------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Mr. Mike Passaretti
In article <1993Jul31.2...@microsoft.com>
ia...@microsoft.com (Ian Kennedy) writes:
# No. We were going to do basic 2.0. there was some sort of falling out between
# MS and C=.
Based on the code in BASIC 1.x, I'd guess that the problem was that
C= didn't trust u-soft not to do another hack job. No offense, but
it's pretty ugly. It doesn't even come _close_ to following CBM
guidelines (and they were given them).
- MM
--
"When he pulled the trigger When the chainsaw started
Was it hard to figure? Was he broken hearted?"
Manuel Lemos
: In article <1993Jul30.1...@csu.edu.au> dg...@pandora.mit.csu.edu.au (Me Big Dennisaurus) writes:
: >Out of curiosity, has Microsoft released anything other then AmigaBasic
: >on the Amiga????
: No. We were going to do basic 2.0. there was some sort of falling out between
: MS and C=.
Aren't there any plans to port Windows applications to Amiga?
We all know that Amiga market is smaller but it is not neglectable!
Amiga has 4 million machines installed Apple has 10 million and PC has 150
million.
Don't you believe it would be worthy to port at least Excel and Word?
Gregg Giles
>
>Aren't there any plans to port Windows applications to Amiga?
Oh boy. Think about this for a minute, at least from the performance side.
Many Windows apps run slowly on something like a 386SX/20. Then consider that
the average Amiga still runs at 7MHz. Think about that for a minute. Do you
really want applications that run *slower* than Windows?
Besides, I think you'd be wasting your time to think Microsoft is going to
ever bother with the Amiga again. They haven't written software for it since
AmigaBASIC. Given that track record (AmigaBASIC was awful), I hope they stay
away from the Amiga.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Giles Will design games for money
Dynamix, Inc. If you're paying, I'm looking
All opinions expressed are my own (Sega-CD, 3DO, MS-DOS CD-ROM)
--
Geff Hanoian
been suggested to me before by a friend of mine ... yeah it would be
intense .. but can you imagine, windoze applications running without the
*OVERHEAD* of windoze. So .. I don't see why something like MS Word
couldn't run on a amiga with a 7mhz chip .. . plus the amiga's
got co-processors dealin' with stuff too .. I'm sure it would be
comparable to a 386 (it = amiga 7mhz).
boing
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Everything | NeXT owners listen up, | AMIGA 3000! |
| IS | "AT LEAST COMMODORE IS STILL IN BUSINESS!" | 25 MHZ 6megs|
| DISCLAIMED | AMIGA, The Computer for the Creative Mind. | MULTITASK! |
ANTHONY FRANCIS PRESTON
in the C= Pet days, Bill Gates got screwed by C=. C= will not pay his
price.
Ian Kennedy
>Based on the code in BASIC 1.x, I'd guess that the problem was that
>C= didn't trust u-soft not to do another hack job. No offense, but
>it's pretty ugly. It doesn't even come _close_ to following CBM
>guidelines (and they were given them).
First, when AmigaBasic was worked on the "guidelines" from C= were
almost non-existant.
Second, at the time it was the best basic available.
And finally, I suppose you'd prefer that wonderful pice of
shit know as "ABasiC"?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|MAIL : IA...@MICROSOFT.COM| "Macross II", the "Highlander II" of Anime... |
|A1200/030-50/6/85 | -me |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LaMonte Koop
>In article <CB92t...@crdnns.crd.ge.com> <passa...@sol.med.ge.com> writes:
>>Based on the code in BASIC 1.x, I'd guess that the problem was that
>>C= didn't trust u-soft not to do another hack job. No offense, but
>>it's pretty ugly. It doesn't even come _close_ to following CBM
>>guidelines (and they were given them).
>
>First, when AmigaBasic was worked on the "guidelines" from C= were
>almost non-existant.
Perhaps. However, the guidelines for compatibility with future 680x0
microprocessor developments from Motorola were very much existant. AmigaBasic
broke those as well, which relegates it to being just plain bad software.
----------------------------------------
LaMonte Koop -- SCS Electrical/Computer Engineering
Internet: lk...@tigger.stcloud.msus.edu -OR- f00...@kanga.stcloud.msus.edu
"Performance is in the eye of the beholder"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Farren
>In article <CB92t...@crdnns.crd.ge.com> <passa...@sol.med.ge.com> writes:
>>Based on the code in BASIC 1.x, I'd guess that the problem was that
>>C= didn't trust u-soft not to do another hack job. No offense, but
>>it's pretty ugly. It doesn't even come _close_ to following CBM
>>guidelines (and they were given them).
>First, when AmigaBasic was worked on the "guidelines" from C= were
>almost non-existant.
Almost non-existant, but still, Microsoft did a pretty clunky job of
it.
>Second, at the time it was the best basic available.
It may have been the best BASIC available, but it was far from being
the best BASIC. The older versions of MSBASIC sucked big rocks, as
you'd agree if you ever looked at the source code. Horrible coding,
just horrible. At any event, better BASICs became available very
quickly - TrueBASIC was a fairly early addition to the Amiga repertoire.
>And finally, I suppose you'd prefer that wonderful pice of
>shit know as "ABasiC"?
Hey, ABasiC had its problems, but wasn't all *that* much worse than
MSBASIC. It needed some work, but had the distinct advantage of being
much tighter and simpler than MSBASIC.
--
Michael J. Farren far...@netcom.com
Michael van Elst
>And finally, I suppose you'd prefer that wonderful pice of
>shit know as "ABasiC"?
At least it still works (last time I checked).
Regards,
--
Michael van Elst
UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve
Internet: p55...@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de
"A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
Gerald G. Washington
><passa...@sol.med.ge.com> writes:
>>Based on the code in BASIC 1.x, I'd guess that the problem was that
>>C= didn't trust u-soft not to do another hack job. No offense, but
>>it's pretty ugly. It doesn't even come _close_ to following CBM
>>guidelines (and they were given them).
>
>First, when AmigaBasic was worked on the "guidelines" from C= were
>almost non-existant.
Yet Microsoft even ignored what rules there were.
>Second, at the time it was the best basic available.
Which says nothing.
>And finally, I suppose you'd prefer that wonderful pice of
>shit know as "ABasiC"?
Nah, the Amiga already has AREXX for free, and AMos Pro blows basic away.
-- Gerald
Bill Poitras
: In article <CBCv...@brigite.ci.ua.pt> etm...@ci.ua.pt (Manuel Lemos) writes:
: >Aren't there any plans to port Windows applications to Amiga?
: Oh boy. Think about this for a minute, at least from the performance side.
: Many Windows apps run slowly on something like a 386SX/20. Then consider that
: the average Amiga still runs at 7MHz. Think about that for a minute. Do you
: really want applications that run *slower* than Windows?
Windows applications are not always slow because they are MS Windows
applcations. It might be because they run on MS Windows and depend on
it for its graphics and GUI. If the application was properly written
for the Amiga it would probably be fast enough for you. I don't know
what APIs the Amiga gives, but if its complete enough, I guess it
wouldn't be too bad.
: Besides, I think you'd be wasting your time to think Microsoft is going to
: ever bother with the Amiga again. They haven't written software for it since
: AmigaBASIC. Given that track record (AmigaBASIC was awful), I hope they stay
: away from the Amiga.
I also think you'd be wasting your time to think many Intel software
vendors are ever going to bother with the Amiga ever. I don't think it
is a very good general user desktop system. That is partially technical,
and partially for business reasons.
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
| Bill Poitras | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Tel (617)229-9800 |
| bi...@msi.com | Burlington, MA 01803-5297 | FAX (617)229-9899 |
+-------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
|FTP Mail |mail ftp...@decwrl.dec.com | Offers:ftp via email |
| |Subject:<CR>help<CR>quit | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bill Poitras
: In article <1993Jul31.2...@microsoft.com>
: # No. We were going to do basic 2.0. there was some sort of falling out
: Based on the code in BASIC 1.x, I'd guess that the problem was that
: C= didn't trust u-soft not to do another hack job. No offense, but
: it's pretty ugly. It doesn't even come _close_ to following CBM
: guidelines (and they were given them).
Ah, but CBM did trust IBM to supply REXX. That's what it looks like.
Scott Ashdown
In a previous article, bi...@msi.com (Bill Poitras) says:
>Mr. Mike" Passaretti (pass...@copernicus.crd.ge.com) wrote:
>: In article <1993Jul31.2...@microsoft.com>
>: ia...@microsoft.com (Ian Kennedy) writes:
>: # No. We were going to do basic 2.0. there was some sort of falling out
>: # between MS and C=.
>
>: Based on the code in BASIC 1.x, I'd guess that the problem was that
>: C= didn't trust u-soft not to do another hack job. No offense, but
>: it's pretty ugly. It doesn't even come _close_ to following CBM
>: guidelines (and they were given them).
>
>Ah, but CBM did trust IBM to supply REXX. That's what it looks like.
More like C= trusted Bill Hawes. IBM did no actual implemetation here, just like
K&R weren't involved in writing SAS C. They "just" came up with a language.
--
Scott Ashdown | Carleton University Transputer Lab
Computer Systems | ash...@sce.carleton.ca
Engineering Year IV | ac...@freenet.carleton.ca
Gregory R Block
: Ah, but CBM did trust IBM to supply REXX. That's what it looks like.
Ehh? ARexx isn't a port of REXX, and it wasn't done by IBM. REXX is a
language specification, as well, you know... I suppose everyone who has
a C compiler is using the source done by Kerninghan & Ritchie, eh? :)
Greg
--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today? Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: "I woke up this morning with a bad hangover, and my penis was :)
(: missing again. This happens all the time, it's detachable." :)
(: -King Missile, Detachable Penis :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Wubba :)
Mike Farren
>Ah, but CBM did trust IBM to supply REXX. That's what it looks like.
Not at all. William Hawes did a remarkable job of porting REXX, which
was originally developed by an IBM employee, to the Amiga, and it's
his AREXX that's supplied to Commodore. You might as well say that
SAS trusted AT&T to supply C.
--
Michael J. Farren far...@netcom.com
Unconnected with Commodore for almost two years, now!
Tom R Krotchko
Actually, AREXX was written by Bill Hawes, also author of WShell. Bill
does darned good work.
Michael Storchmann
* INTERNET:ia...@microsoft.com (Ian Kennedy) writes :
> Second, at the time it was the best basic available.
But the Editor....
Michael
-- EPP 1.1
Manuel Lemos
: In article <CBCv...@brigite.ci.ua.pt> etm...@ci.ua.pt (Manuel Lemos) writes:
: >
: >Aren't there any plans to port Windows applications to Amiga?
: Oh boy. Think about this for a minute, at least from the performance side.
: Many Windows apps run slowly on something like a 386SX/20. Then consider that
: the average Amiga still runs at 7MHz. Think about that for a minute. Do you
: really want applications that run *slower* than Windows?
I don't want Windows but Excel and Word are simply brilliant! Windows is slow
as usually there is no decent hardware support for it like there is in Amiga.
: Besides, I think you'd be wasting your time to think Microsoft is going to
: ever bother with the Amiga again. They haven't written software for it since
: AmigaBASIC. Given that track record (AmigaBASIC was awful), I hope they stay
: away from the Amiga.
Come on, you can be more reasonable than that! It seems that MicroSoft stopped
developing software for Amiga because there was some kind of problem between
Commodore and MicroSoft that we don't know!
AmigaBASIC was slow because it was badly coded. But that doesn't mean that it
would be that way forever. In 1985 they hadn't a close what was multitasking
but now they do pretty well!
You hope they stay away from Amiga because you're gealous. We don't need them
but I would be glad to have at least Excel for Amiga as the best spread sheet
for Amiga is so crap that it even tries to be compatible with 1.3! Humpf!
Instead of trying to kick MicroSoft, why don't develop a decent spreadsheet for
Amiga that convinces me and the rest of Amiga world that could one, that we
really don't need MicroSoft?
Robert Huebner
>Come on, you can be more reasonable than that! It seems that MicroSoft stopped
>developing software for Amiga because there was some kind of problem between
>Commodore and MicroSoft that we don't know!
Yes, there was one very big problem. They wouldn't make any money at it.
And if there's one thing that drives Microsoft, its money! (I'm not saying
that's a bad thing, that's life). Of course CBM could have possibly done
something more at the early stages to encourage MS, but in the end it all
comes down to economics.
>AmigaBASIC was slow because it was badly coded. But that doesn't mean that it
>would be that way forever. In 1985 they hadn't a close what was multitasking
>but now they do pretty well!
Actually, most Microsoft product is 'badly coded' like AmigaBASIC. Those
Redmondites are not looking to milk every last cycle out of the machine
like Amiga developers because they can rely on faster hardware to cover-up
a degree of sloppiness. I have seen this phenomenon termed "software bloat".
If you have a baseline of 386 with 8 megs, pretty soon that's what your
application is going to require.
>Instead of trying to kick MicroSoft, why don't develop a decent spreadsheet for
>Amiga that convinces me and the rest of Amiga world that could one, that we
>really don't need MicroSoft?
If I wanted to develop a spreadsheet it would be to make money and not to
impress bozos on the internet. And if I did write it, I wouldn't see much
in the way of profits until the Windows port.
Rob Huebner hue...@convex.com
Scott - Maxwell
>almost non-existant.
>
>Second, at the time it was the best basic available.
>
>And finally, I suppose you'd prefer that wonderful pice of
>shit know as "ABasiC"?
>
drawbacks but it worked under 2.0. Can't say the same for MS Basic.
>|MAIL : IA...@MICROSOFT.COM| "Macross II", the "Highlander II" of Anime... |
/==============================================================\
|Scott Maxwell * RU 486, Intel 486, Coincidence? |
|sco...@cup.portal.com * --------------------------------------|
|Amiga 1000, 2000, * The eyes are the windows to the soul. |
|1200, Pet 2001, Vic, * His however, are painted shut! |
|64, 128, 800XL, //e * This space for rent - 555-RENT |
\==============================================================/
Mike Noreen
RH> From: hue...@convex.com (Robert Huebner)
RH> In <CBKCL...@brigite.ci.ua.pt> etm...@ci.ua.pt (Manuel Lemos) writes:
>> Come on, you can be more reasonable than that! It seems that MicroSoft
>> stopped
>> developing software for Amiga because there was some kind of problem
>> between
>> Commodore and MicroSoft that we don't know!
RH> Yes, there was one very big problem. They wouldn't make any money at
RH> it.
No, I don't believe that was the reason. In those days, the Amiga was a
runaway success. I think MS simply didn't want to help a competitor (the money
they could make on Amiga software would be less than they'd be able to make by
retaining their strangle hold on the MS-DOS side). Today the Amiga is no
serious threat to MS-DOS, but instead its market is too small... It would be
very costly for -say- Sierra or Microsoft to hire a bunch of good Amiga
programmers, find distributors etc... They don't think that kind of investment
motivated. I don't see why they don't farm out conversion rights to various
Amiga companies, tho.
RH> something more at the early stages to encourage MS, but in the end it
RH> all
RH> comes down to economics.
There is such things as business strategy also. MS has been very reticent in
porting their stuff to the Mac. Why? Because MS controls the MS-DOS market
totally, and did not want another platform to steal market shares.
RH> Actually, most Microsoft product is 'badly coded' like AmigaBASIC.
RH> Those
RH> Redmondites are not looking to milk every last cycle out of the machine
RH> like Amiga developers because they can rely on faster hardware to
RH> cover-up
RH> a degree of sloppiness. I have seen this phenomenon termed "software
RH> bloat".
RH> If you have a baseline of 386 with 8 megs, pretty soon that's what your
RH> application is going to require.
True. Being able to count on users having fast machines and large harddisks is
a two-edged sword.
>> Instead of trying to kick MicroSoft, why don't develop a decent
>> spreadsheet for
>> Amiga that convinces me and the rest of Amiga world that could one, that
>> we
>> really don't need MicroSoft?
RH> If I wanted to develop a spreadsheet it would be to make money and not
RH> to
RH> impress bozos on the internet. And if I did write it, I wouldn't see
RH> much
RH> in the way of profits until the Windows port.
I think we're past the 'lone programmer' era... No guy in a basement is going
to be able to write a wordprocessor/spreadsheet/whatever which outperforms
those which issue forth from the bowels of the big software companies. They've
got hordes of programmers working in parallel, and can finish the project in a
fraction of the time it'd take a single programmer working on his spare time.
What I'm trying to say is, noone is going to make a program which excels over
Excel, because when he's finished, Excel's has already moved on...
RH> Rob Huebner hue...@convex.com
MVH: Mike Noreen InterNet: rad...@p14.anet.bbs.bad.se
FidoNet: 2:201/411.14
--- Spot 1.1 Unreg.
Dr Peter Kittel Germany
This can't be. Reason: Loooong after the PET days, we got AmigaBasic from
Microsoft. So Bill had no principal antipathy for Commodore or the Amiga,
in fact, all the masses of PC clones we sold here in Europe over the
years all were shipped with MS-DOS and later also Windows, so MS made
real money with Commodore. Don't invent hostileness when there is none.
--
Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions...
Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ pet...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com
Me Big DenniSaurus
>In article <87...@cup.portal.com> Tony-P...@cup.portal.com (ANTHONY FRANCIS PRESTON) writes:
>>One of the reasons you will never see Microsoft ports to the Amiga is that
>>in the C= Pet days, Bill Gates got screwed by C=. C= will not pay his
>>price.
>
>This can't be. Reason: Loooong after the PET days, we got AmigaBasic from
>Microsoft. So Bill had no principal antipathy for Commodore or the Amiga,
>in fact, all the masses of PC clones we sold here in Europe over the
>years all were shipped with MS-DOS and later also Windows, so MS made
>real money with Commodore. Don't invent hostileness when there is none.
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING!!... Microsoft didn't make Amigabasic for Amigas...
they INFLICTED it upon them!
Den
Ben Hardy of Borg
>
>WHAT ARE YOU SAYING!!... Microsoft didn't make Amigabasic for Amigas...
>they INFLICTED it upon them!
>
Well, at least back then the machine came with a programming language.
Yeah, I know, now we have AREXX... but it doesn't really incite
a young person's imagination to dabble in a little experimental code
like BASIC... We all know BASIC ain't a great language, but it has
probably done more to get more people interested in coding than
anything else...
------------------------------------------------------------------------cut here
:-) SMILE (-: | "Can't keep my mind from the circling skies
Cheers from | Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I"
Ben Hardy | Do something different: refuse to be stereotyped!
Mike Farren
>We all know BASIC ain't a great language, but it has
>probably done more to get more people interested in coding than
>anything else...
True. Too bad, isn't it? I've seen a lot of code from people who never
have been able to adjust to the fact that BASIC isn't a very nice
language. Declaring all variables as global isn't even the start of
it :-(