What efficient computer system to choose?
Jesse Shrieve
> > I could get a Power PC based computer and I'd be able to run both MAC
> > OS, which is easiest to use, or amiga dos (when it comes out). I think the
> > MACs cannot do energy saving stuff and they are not as fast as PC's. Also
> > they are more expensive. MACs don't even have boards that go faster than
> > 66Mhz, and certainly not as fast as 83 or 100Mhz.
> >
> I've heard of a 275 MHz Mac :-) and also one with two 180 MHz PowerPCs
> but i don't keep up with the mac scene very much...
> Shame that the X704 'Superchip' or whatever it was called fell through
> though because that sounded really good, 500MHz wasn't it?
The 275MHz G3 (750) chip is actually a lot faster than even the improved
604e @ 350Mhz (tres fast). However, no company has announced plans to ship
machines with it. BUT, NewerTech is currently testing (and maybe taking
preorders) on their G3@275 (or 250, I forget) upgrade cards which are
great. 20-30% faster than even the improved 604e@350Mhz.
>
> > Pentium with mmx, which would be nice as I know they don't use
> > as much power as Power PC and other processors.
This is wrong. Pentiums use MUCH more power than PowerPC processes.
Especailly when you take, say, the G3 (latest PowerPC chip) and the Pentium
II (last x86 chip). In fact, the G3@250Mhz uses *5* watts of power, whereas
the PII@266Mhz uses *38* watts of power. Guess which is cooler? Oh yeah,
not to mention that it costs approx $400 vs. $700 (buying the CPU direct).
Pentium chips (regular or II) are pushing their upper limits. The PowerPC
chips are just beginning to realize their potential.
PowerPC is clearly the faster, cooler (in both senses) CPU. It's too bad
that there's not more software support, or I'd have very little reason to
have a PC too. Rhapsody will take GUI to unix level stability (being based
on unix), I just hope the game manufacturers will support it, like id plans
to. But to be honest, if it weren't for games, I wouldn't need my PC. All
the work and internet applications I need are on the Mac, and so are a
decent handful of games.
> > Pentium II, these are easily the best processors as they are faster
> > than even the PowerPCs and because of the smaller transistors they
> > use the least power. But They are too expensive at the moment.
That's totally wrong. The Pentium II uses 7.6 TIMES the power of the
PowerPC, which is *much faster*. The CPU itself is also about 30% cheaper
than the Pentium II. If you take a cheap 7500, and put in an upgrade card
for the G3, you have a great machine with the fastest personal computer CPU
in the world, for less than the Pentium II... as I said before tho, the
only downside is the lack of tons and tons of games. There are many *good*
games for the Mac, but not TONS.
--
Jesse Shrieve
j...@NOMOREv-siteJUNK.net
Jesse Shrieve
> >BS. No CISC Intel chip holds a candle to PPCs. And with the new PPC 750s
> >the gap widens.... The fact is that x86 are simply the slowest chips
>
> The benchmarks I've seen of the 750s place it slightly below the
performance of
> the 604e 350Mhz, not above it.
Um, that's way off. MacWorld, testing prototype models (often slower than
the release), rated the Motorla G3/275 at 5.6 and the 604e@350Mhz at 4.3.
The old version of the 604, at 233MHz scored 3.3. The G3 chips are *MUCH*
faster, at *lower* clock rates.
--
Jesse Shrieve
j...@NOMOREv-siteJUNK.net
Jesse Shrieve
Jesse Shrieve
Tim Borgeaud
My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use to
me. I will be upgrading to a more powerful computer and operating system
soon but at the moment I am having a lot of trouble deciding what to buy.
I need some info and advice as this is going to be a major purchase for
me.
I would really like to get hold of a very fast computer, but of course I
am on a budget. Also as It will probably be left running for 24hrs a day
I'd like to get an energy saving system that is as efficient as possible.
I could get a Power PC based computer and I'd be able to run both MAC
OS, which is easiest to use, or amiga dos (when it comes out). I think the
MACs cannot do energy saving stuff and they are not as fast as PC's. Also
they are more expensive. MACs don't even have boards that go faster than
66Mhz, and certainly not as fast as 83 or 100Mhz.
So I could get an intel system. But there are lots of parts to get and I
don't know what is best. There are some different intel CPU's I could use
but what are they really like and what is best?
Pentium with mmx, which would be nice as I know they don't use
as much power as Power PC and other processors.
6x86 M2, but these are slower doing maths.
K6, which I thought would be great but a friend told me that these are
really buggy (crashing often) and use loads of power. These are also
slow at maths.
Pentium Pro, these are fast but still quite expensive. The mother
boards also cost a lot and you cannot have the faster bus speeds.
Pentium II, these are easily the best processors as they are faster
than even the PowerPCs and because of the smaller transistors they
use the least power. But They are too expensive at the moment.
What other stuff would be best? Ultra ATA is the best disk but I
would like a disk that spins down when not in use. I don't know what
graphics card to get or what monitor. I think I would get one of
new motherboards that runs at 100MHz when they come out soon. I might
have to stick with 83Mhz if the 100Mhz boards are too expensive.
It is a shame that intell PCs are more complex than the MACS or Amigas,
with a MAC or Amiga you have no problem with all the hardware working
with the software.
My friend can use linux on his computer which he says is the fastest OS.
I think I will have to choose NT if I get an Intell computer because
linux does not do energy saving. Also I have been told that the new
version of NT is going to be the best OS to use. I expect it will be much
easier to setup than linux (my friend told me linux is more difficult to
set up).
Will NT really be easier to use than MAC OS or Amigados? Will linus still
be the fastest OS? I would like amigados but I think this is a dead OS
now.
Finally, like I said before, I want the most green parts. My computer
must be efficient and use environmentally friendly parts. I know that
some manufacturers make a lot of pollution. I like to think that I can do
my bit for the environment, every watt counts. So even the CPU is
important. Perhaps there are some web pages concerning environmentally
firendly computers and OS?
Sorry this message is so long but I'd like to get as much info posted as
possible. Hopefully I'll get all the info I need from the experts on
usenet.
Thanks a lot
Tim.
Jonathan Hall
Why are you posting to csam?
No mention of our RISC OS.
--
jgh...@argonet.co.uk
http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/jghall/
SA/RPC,ZFCZr,Hereford United F.C.fan.
IRC'Jon_'.'Acorn @ heart'.C.I.
Mic Chaudoir
> I could get a Power PC based computer and I'd be able to run both MAC
> OS, which is easiest to use, or amiga dos (when it comes out). I think the
> MACs cannot do energy saving stuff and they are not as fast as PC's.
Yikes! That's totally incorrect! Macs all make full use of enery saving
features, and the energy saver control panel even allows exact cvontrol
over when and what. This is assuming ES compliant equipment, which you
don't HAVE to buy (although it sounds like you want to). Also, the PPC is
much faster, clock for clock, than intel chips. Moreover, PPCs are
faster. I am sure that many others will shower you with URLs, but if you
want specifics e-mail me. For example: The 266MHz PII has been
outperformed by relatively dated macs running with 200MHz 604e chips. The
fastest mac now shipping uses a 350MHz 604e, with an improved cache
scheme, making it over twice as fast as previous 200MHz macs.. while tests
have not been done yet, it would hadily trounce even non-existent 400MHz
PII machines.
> they are more expensive. MACs don't even have boards that go faster than
> 66Mhz, and certainly not as fast as 83 or 100Mhz
True.
>
[snip about x86] use the least power. But They are too expensive at the
moment.
BS. No CISC Intel chip holds a candle to PPCs. And with the new PPC 750s
the gap widens.... The fact is that x86 are simply the slowest chips
available, bar none. PPC chips are faster. MIPS,Sparc, Alpha ... all
other chip makers outperform the sluggish x86 chips.
[snip]
> Will NT really be easier to use than MAC OS or Amigados? Will linus still
> be the fastest OS? I would like amigados but I think this is a dead OS
> now.
That's insane. NT is a pain in the ass. I should know, I use it. I
would recommend that you run 95', unless you really need NT.
>
>
> Finally, like I said before, I want the most green parts. My computer
> must be efficient and use environmentally friendly parts. I know that
> some manufacturers make a lot of pollution. I like to think that I can do
> my bit for the environment, every watt counts. So even the CPU is
> important. Perhaps there are some web pages concerning environmentally
> firendly computers and OS?
Hmmm. I am sure there are, but I don't know about them. You might also be
interested in the fact that apple has a big recycling program... they are
a pretty green company.
> Sorry this message is so long but I'd like to get as much info posted as
> possible. Hopefully I'll get all the info I need from the experts on
> usenet.
There are probably not any exprets on usenet :-) Let me know if I can be
of further assistance. I think that your biggest problem may be
stability. The only OS that I have seen convincingly stay up for weeks,
would be a UNIX variant. However, no sane person wants linux on their
home computer. Current MacOS is nice, and can be stable, but probably not
as stable as you wish. NT is very unstabl, and is 95' but are arguably
more stable than OS8. Maybe not. In any event, I would recomend getting
an OS8 mac now, and upgrading to Rhapsody in 6-12 months. Rhapsody should
offer the ease of use that you want, but have the stability and strength
of UNIX. You would also have the chance to play with the mac UNIX
versions (Linux is in process, and I believe more or less done for some
macs, and A/UX and MachTen are around) and the BeOS right away. Just make
sure that you get multiple hard drives with lots of space to install all
of your Oses :-). You will probably need many partitions...
--
Name:Mic Chaudoir
E-mail:m...@nwu.edu
WWW:http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~chaudoir/micpage.html
-----------------------------------------
" You don't have to swim faster than the shark, just faster than the guy next to you"- anonymous
Philip Kaulfuss
Following his latest murder, Tim Borgeaud smeared on the wall in blood...
: My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use to
: me. I will be upgrading to a more powerful computer and operating system
: soon but at the moment I am having a lot of trouble deciding what to buy.
: I need some info and advice as this is going to be a major purchase for
: me.
If you want a powerful operating system, then you want unix, linux or one of
the other similair ones. Almost any computer can run unix.
: I would really like to get hold of a very fast computer, but of course I
: am on a budget. Also as It will probably be left running for 24hrs a day
: I'd like to get an energy saving system that is as efficient as possible.
Amigas are efficient. So are PCs, if you configure them properly. But, since
you say you're on a tight budget, don't expect to get a powerful PC cheaply.
: I could get a Power PC based computer and I'd be able to run both MAC
: OS, which is easiest to use, or amiga dos (when it comes out).
What do you mean, "when it comes out"? For the Mac?
: I think the MACs cannot do energy saving stuff and they are not as fast as
: PC's. Also they are more expensive.
Depends what you mean by energy saving. If you mean things like switching the
monitor off automatically, or spinning down the hard disk, then any computer
can do it. Macs are more expensive, yes, but Apple need to charge more in order
to make a profit. And Macs are actually faster.
: MACs don't even have boards that go faster than 66Mhz, and certainly not as
: fast as 83 or 100Mhz.
Wrong. Try a 300MHz 604e. Several times faster than any Pentium.
: So I could get an intel system. But there are lots of parts to get and I
: don't know what is best. There are some different intel CPU's I could use
: but what are they really like and what is best?
They are also CISC, and so need a lot more clock cycles to do anything quickly.
[snip]
: My friend can use linux on his computer which he says is the fastest OS.
: I think I will have to choose NT if I get an Intell computer because
: linux does not do energy saving.
It doesn't matter what OS you use. You just need the necessary software to
actually control the hardware.
: Will NT really be easier to use than MAC OS or Amigados?
Depends how much RAM you give it.
: Will linus still be the fastest OS?
I don't even know if it's the fastest.
: I would like amigados but I think this is a dead OS now.
Hardly. Who's been telling you all this rubbish?
--
,---------------.-----------------------.-------------------------------------.
|Philip Kaulfuss|ph...@boehme.demon.co.uk|Graphics artist, currently working on|
;---------------^------------.----------: Adam Lusted's Urban Massacre and |
|PhilK in UnderNet #AmigaCafe|"Creltorp"|Cut and Paste Productions' "The Game"|
;----------------------------^----------^-------------------------------------:
|Visit http://www.boehme.demon.co.uk/ for Amiga stuff, Reeves & Mortimer stuff|
|and lots of other stuff that can't really fit into this already oversized sig|
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Holloway
In article <EGrEE...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, "ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Tim
Borgeaud)" <ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> I could get a Power PC based computer and I'd be able to run both MAC
> MACs cannot do energy saving stuff and they are not as fast as PC's. Also
>
but i don't keep up with the mac scene very much...
Shame that the X704 'Superchip' or whatever it was called fell through
though because that sounded really good, 500MHz wasn't it?
> don't know what is best. There are some different intel CPU's I could use
> but what are they really like and what is best?
>
> as much power as Power PC and other processors.
Yeah really. ;-)
>
> 6x86 M2, but these are slower doing maths.
It is fast for maths, i think. In speed tests 6x86 has consistently
performed better than similarly specified Pentiums.
>
> K6, which I thought would be great but a friend told me that these are
> really buggy (crashing often) and use loads of power. These are also
> slow at maths.
K6 goes like the clappers, i've heard! and shouldn't use that much power.
I believe the K6 is actually a RISC processor and converts CISC instructions
into a series of RISC equivalents.
>
> Pentium Pro, these are fast but still quite expensive. The mother
> boards also cost a lot and you cannot have the faster bus speeds.
Forget PPro. The prices will never come down, due to expensive manufacturing
techniques or something like that... Intel have given up on it i think.
>
> Pentium II, these are easily the best processors as they are faster
> than even the PowerPCs and because of the smaller transistors they
> use the least power. But They are too expensive at the moment.
Haven't you seen the size of the heatsink ?! ROTFL !!! :-)
Pentium II uses the *most* power i'd expect - it's four times bigger than
any of the others!
Pentium II also has a bug in it...
> What other stuff would be best? Ultra ATA is the best disk but I
> would like a disk that spins down when not in use. I don't know what
> graphics card to get or what monitor. I think I would get one of
> new motherboards that runs at 100MHz when they come out soon. I might
> have to stick with 83Mhz if the 100Mhz boards are too expensive.
> It is a shame that intell PCs are more complex than the MACS or Amigas,
> with a MAC or Amiga you have no problem with all the hardware working
> with the software.
You really do need a bit of know-how to buy an Intel PC without getting
ripped off, i'm afraid. Keep away from PC World !!
>
> My friend can use linux on his computer which he says is the fastest OS.
> I think I will have to choose NT if I get an Intell computer because
> linux does not do energy saving. Also I have been told that the new
> version of NT is going to be the best OS to use. I expect it will be much
> easier to setup than linux (my friend told me linux is more difficult to
> set up).
>
> Will NT really be easier to use than MAC OS or Amigados? Will linus still
> be the fastest OS? I would like amigados but I think this is a dead OS
> now.
Windows is absolute rubbish i'm afraid. ;-) No idea why so many people use
the thing.
Never tried linux, but the fastest os is of course risc os 3.7 !! :-)
Can i recommend:
SA RiscPC 233MHz (should equal a PPro in terms of basic processing power,
obviously not for floating point though!)
1.2Gb hard disc, 16Mb Dram + 2Mb Vram
15-inch monitor (or a 17" if your budget stretches to an extra £300 or so)
and a pair of external speakers, because the internal ones aren't that good.
You might find that lot for less than 2 grand, i'm not sure about prices...
For a PC card i'd recommend a 5x86 100MHz as a *minimum* along with at least
24Mb Dram instead of 16 (40Mb if you want to use Windows 95 or NT
seriously). This would of course push the price up a lot.
A similarly specified PC would of course be cheaper, but it wouldn't be as
good would it? :-) you did post to an acorn newsgroup after all...
Of course if you want to use a PC seriously you'll need at least 32Mb of Ram
nowadays.
--
| | | |
__ | __ _ _ |__ __ | | __ __
__| | |__| | | | | | | | | | | | __| | |
|__| | |__ _|_ | | |__| | | |__| |_|_| |__| |__|
e-mail: ale...@argonet.co.uk __|
Ian Lynch
ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Tim Borgeaud) wrote:
> I'd like to get an energy saving system that is as efficient as
> possible.
The Digital StrongArm is one of the lowest power consumption chips
available. Its primarily designed for portable applications. In a Risc
PC it will allow you to do things like DTP and graphics manipulation
at comparable speeds to the fastest PCs and Macs and I like the user
interface better than either Win 95 or the Mac. In practice I am not
sure why power consumption is so important to you in in a desktop
machine but a RPC is probably the lowest electricity user because
applications are designed to fit into smaller memory and disc
accessing is a lot less frequent than on a PC.
--
Ian
Anil Thomas Maliyekkel
Ian Lynch (i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Tim Borgeaud) wrote:
: --
: Ian
The only problem is that the SA doesn't have a floating point unit.
Wasn't ACORN porting RISCOS to the PowerPC ?
Dosidos
Get yourself a PC with NT unless you want to chose another future
loser like the Amiga you have now.
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:18:10 GMT, ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Tim Borgeaud)
wrote:
>
>
> My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use to
>me. I will be upgrading to a more powerful computer and operating system
>soon but at the moment I am having a lot of trouble deciding what to buy.
>I need some info and advice as this is going to be a major purchase for
>me.
>
> I would really like to get hold of a very fast computer, but of course I
>am on a budget. Also as It will probably be left running for 24hrs a day
>I'd like to get an energy saving system that is as efficient as possible.
>
>
> I could get a Power PC based computer and I'd be able to run both MAC
>OS, which is easiest to use, or amiga dos (when it comes out). I think the
>MACs cannot do energy saving stuff and they are not as fast as PC's. Also
>they are more expensive. MACs don't even have boards that go faster than
>66Mhz, and certainly not as fast as 83 or 100Mhz.
>
>
> So I could get an intel system. But there are lots of parts to get and I
>don't know what is best. There are some different intel CPU's I could use
>but what are they really like and what is best?
>
> Pentium with mmx, which would be nice as I know they don't use
> as much power as Power PC and other processors.
>
> 6x86 M2, but these are slower doing maths.
>
> K6, which I thought would be great but a friend told me that these are
> really buggy (crashing often) and use loads of power. These are also
> slow at maths.
>
> Pentium Pro, these are fast but still quite expensive. The mother
> boards also cost a lot and you cannot have the faster bus speeds.
>
> Pentium II, these are easily the best processors as they are faster
> than even the PowerPCs and because of the smaller transistors they
> use the least power. But They are too expensive at the moment.
>
>
> What other stuff would be best? Ultra ATA is the best disk but I
>would like a disk that spins down when not in use. I don't know what
>graphics card to get or what monitor. I think I would get one of
>new motherboards that runs at 100MHz when they come out soon. I might
>have to stick with 83Mhz if the 100Mhz boards are too expensive.
>It is a shame that intell PCs are more complex than the MACS or Amigas,
>with a MAC or Amiga you have no problem with all the hardware working
>with the software.
>
>
> My friend can use linux on his computer which he says is the fastest OS.
>I think I will have to choose NT if I get an Intell computer because
>linux does not do energy saving. Also I have been told that the new
>version of NT is going to be the best OS to use. I expect it will be much
>easier to setup than linux (my friend told me linux is more difficult to
>set up).
>
>Will NT really be easier to use than MAC OS or Amigados? Will linus still
>be the fastest OS? I would like amigados but I think this is a dead OS
>now.
>
>
>Finally, like I said before, I want the most green parts. My computer
>must be efficient and use environmentally friendly parts. I know that
>some manufacturers make a lot of pollution. I like to think that I can do
>my bit for the environment, every watt counts. So even the CPU is
>important. Perhaps there are some web pages concerning environmentally
>firendly computers and OS?
>
>
>Sorry this message is so long but I'd like to get as much info posted as
>possible. Hopefully I'll get all the info I need from the experts on
>usenet.
>
>Thanks a lot
>
>Tim.
- Dosidos
Websites that serve cookies without milk suck!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| Remove the x from mail address to respond |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Peter Hill
>Finally, like I said before, I want the most green parts. My computer
>must be efficient and use environmentally friendly parts. I know that
>some manufacturers make a lot of pollution. I like to think that I can do
>my bit for the environment, every watt counts. So even the CPU is
>important. Perhaps there are some web pages concerning environmentally
>firendly computers and OS?
If you do choose a PC, you are going to have problems with energy saving.
You obviously want to get NT over 95, but NT doesn't currently support power
management features. I think support will be included in NT5, but that is a
while to wait.
Aaron Bilger
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:18:10 GMT, ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Tim Borgeaud) wrote:
>
> My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use to
I'm impressed you hung on this long.
> I would really like to get hold of a very fast computer, but of course I
>am on a budget. Also as It will probably be left running for 24hrs a day
>I'd like to get an energy saving system that is as efficient as possible.
Is saving 5-15 watts that important to you? Even the most power consuming
desktop CPUs aren't that significant from a power cost standpoint (it would be a
concern for laptops for battery life).
>I could get a Power PC based computer and I'd be able to run both MAC
>OS, which is easiest to use, or amiga dos (when it comes out). I think the
I wouldn't hold my breath for AmigaDOS. MacOS is an acquired taste (one I
haven't acquired), PPC CPUs are respectable, though Apple is just now starting
to build them into boards which can support them (only recently moved to L2
cache the norm, and just now going above 50Mhz bus). Depends on your tastes and
app load whether a Mac would fit you.
>MACs cannot do energy saving stuff and they are not as fast as PC's. Also
Though I generally will not defend Macs as I prefer PCs for the fact that I can
build from myriad available cheap components and the Mac world isn't like that,
I state that Macs are *not* necessarily slower than PCs. On the highest end of
the PPC scale, the 604e 350Mhz offers SpecInt95 14.6 and SpecFP95 9.0, while the
fastest x86, the Pentium II 300Mhz, offers SpecInt95 11.6 and SpecFP95 7.2
(source: http://infopad.eecs.berkeley.edu/CIC/summary/local/). The PPC CPUs top
out higher than x86 ones.
> Pentium with mmx, which would be nice as I know they don't use
> as much power as Power PC and other processors.
>
> 6x86 M2, but these are slower doing maths.
Slow doing floating point math, anyway. All x86 based chips are slow doing
floating point math. Intel has been tied to backwards compatibility with a poor
stack based FP unit architecture, and it's amazing they've worked around it to
offer as high performance in FP as they have. It's peanuts compared to real
workstation CPUs like Alphas in FP though. Cyrix and AMD offer slightly worse
FP than Intel.
> K6, which I thought would be great but a friend told me that these are
> really buggy (crashing often) and use loads of power. These are also
> slow at maths.
Haven't owned one, but I haven't seen reports of it crashing on this group
except a) people overclocking or b) that Linux/GCC/>32M bug.
> Pentium Pro, these are fast but still quite expensive. The mother
> boards also cost a lot and you cannot have the faster bus speeds.
PPro motherboards which can go up to 75 or 83Mhz exist. I'd say PPro isn't
worth it, though, since the boards are expensive, the chips seems to go out of
production when cost would go <$200, boards don't use SDRAM, etc., and it's
Intel's forgotten child.
> Pentium II, these are easily the best processors as they are faster
> than even the PowerPCs
Nope. They aren't, as I listed above.
> and because of the smaller transistors they
> use the least power. But They are too expensive at the moment.
They still use .35 micron process and (relative to the other x86 CPUs you list)
are power hungry beasts.
> What other stuff would be best? Ultra ATA is the best disk but I
>would like a disk that spins down when not in use.
I wouldn't. The hardest part of a drive's life is spin up, and most likely to
cause failure. If you're leaving the computer on all the time, I'd let the disk
spin.
>I don't know what
>graphics card to get or what monitor. I think I would get one of
>new motherboards that runs at 100MHz when they come out soon. I might
>have to stick with 83Mhz if the 100Mhz boards are too expensive.
>It is a shame that intell PCs are more complex than the MACS or Amigas,
>with a MAC or Amiga you have no problem with all the hardware working
>with the software.
That's because there's (relatively) far fewer hardware components or software
items. With diversity comes potential for incompatibility, it is true.
>My friend can use linux on his computer which he says is the fastest OS.
That I'll agree with.
>I think I will have to choose NT if I get an Intell computer because
>linux does not do energy saving. Also I have been told that the new
NT does? I run NT 4.0 and don't know of power saving features in it.
>version of NT is going to be the best OS to use. I expect it will be much
>easier to setup than linux (my friend told me linux is more difficult to
>set up).
Linux was difficult to setup a couple years ago, it isn't anymore if you get a
nice RedHat installation or something. Setting up SCSI or network can always
get complex, but it certainly does under NT as well.
>Will NT really be easier to use than MAC OS or Amigados? Will linus still
If you're used to AmigaDOS, that would be easiest for you. Don't expect to find
much that you can use if you try to stick with that though.
>be the fastest OS? I would like amigados but I think this is a dead OS
>now.
Agreed. Linux could be the fastest, but that's irrelevant if it can't run what
applications you want to use. Decide what you want to run and use before
looking for an ideal OS.
Aaron
Aaron Bilger
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:38:44 BST, Alex Holloway <ale...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Pentium II uses the *most* power i'd expect - it's four times bigger than
>any of the others!
>Pentium II also has a bug in it...
Every modern CPU, be it the PPC, K6, 6x86, Pentium II, etc. have numerous bugs,
they are published as errata.
>Of course if you want to use a PC seriously you'll need at least 32Mb of Ram
>nowadays.
Go with at least 64.
Aaron
Aaron Bilger
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:54:28 -0500, m...@nwu.edu (Mic Chaudoir) wrote:
>
>BS. No CISC Intel chip holds a candle to PPCs. And with the new PPC 750s
>the gap widens.... The fact is that x86 are simply the slowest chips
The benchmarks I've seen of the 750s place it slightly below the performance of
the 604e 350Mhz, not above it.
>available, bar none. PPC chips are faster. MIPS,Sparc, Alpha ... all
>other chip makers outperform the sluggish x86 chips.
Though in integer MIPS and Sparc have only trivial leads (all trounce Intel in
FP, of course :-) ).
>> Will NT really be easier to use than MAC OS or Amigados? Will linus still
>> be the fastest OS? I would like amigados but I think this is a dead OS
>> now.
>
>That's insane. NT is a pain in the ass. I should know, I use it. I
>would recommend that you run 95', unless you really need NT.
?! NT has some semblance of stability, 95 does not. 95 regularly crashed once
every couple days for me, only doing things such as news, web, trivial stuff.
With NT4.0 SP3, I have only had to reboot a couple times in 3 months (that was
because one driver locked up and I needed to reboot to restart it, not because
the OS itself locked up), even doing much more strenuous things like compilation
and testing of DLLs and device drivers.
>There are probably not any exprets on usenet :-) Let me know if I can be
>of further assistance. I think that your biggest problem may be
>stability. The only OS that I have seen convincingly stay up for weeks,
>would be a UNIX variant. However, no sane person wants linux on their
OS/2 Warp 3.0 is the first OS I used that stayed up for weeks, next was FreeBSD
2.1, then Linux (don't know the kernel version), then WinNT 4.0 SP3 (the service
pack 3 part is *extremely* important! ).
>home computer. Current MacOS is nice, and can be stable, but probably not
>as stable as you wish. NT is very unstabl, and is 95' but are arguably
NT 4.0 with no service packs was unstable, with service pack 2 was very
unstable, but with SP3, is rock solid.
Aaron
Aaron Bilger
On Fri, 19 Sep 97 19:26:50 GMT, Philip Kaulfuss <ph...@boehme.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: So I could get an intel system. But there are lots of parts to get and I
>: don't know what is best. There are some different intel CPU's I could use
>: but what are they really like and what is best?
>
The CISC methodology is to do more work per clock cycle, the RISC methodology is
to do smaller tasks accomplishing less per cycle, but with the simplicity
hopefully allowing a higher clock speed to compensate. CISC generally means
doing more per clock cycle.
Aaron
Engstrom
Tim Borgeaud wrote:
>
> Sorry this message is so long but I'd like to get as much info posted as
> possible. Hopefully I'll get all the info I need from the experts on
> usenet.
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Tim.
You might find this site useful
Mac and Mac Clone Performance Comparison Page
http://ng.netgate.net/~engstrom/cc.html
David
Engstrom
Tim Borgeaud wrote:
>
> My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use to
> soon but at the moment I am having a lot of trouble deciding what to buy.
> I need some info and advice as this is going to be a major purchase for
> me.
You might find this site helpful
gen...@rockisland.com
Tim Borgeaud wrote:
> My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use
> to
> me. I will be upgrading to a more powerful computer and operating
> system
> soon but at the moment I am having a lot of trouble deciding what to
> buy.
> I need some info and advice as this is going to be a major purchase
> for
> me.
I really wantto suggest this guy
try cross posting to
sci.chem
for a really interesting
answer to his
question....
Nah, on second thought
I'll just suggest he buy a Cray.
Dan Gottlieb
http://www.rockisland.com/~genian/bannedbooks.html
Marc Warne
In message <EGrEE...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>
ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Tim Borgeaud) wrote:
> My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use to
> me. I will be upgrading to a more powerful computer and operating system
> soon but at the moment I am having a lot of trouble deciding what to buy.
> I need some info and advice as this is going to be a major purchase for
> me.
>
[snip]
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Tim.
Note no mentioning of Acorn...
Why is that in the Newsgroups: header then?
All the best,
Marc Warne
--
___________________________________________________
/ /\/\ \ e-mail: ma...@alphapro.demon.co.uk \-------------.
/ / /arc Warne \ http://www.alphapro.demon.co.uk/ \ RISC PC 700 \
/__________________\________________ Alpha Programming _\_____________\
Jesse Shrieve
In article <34296a42...@news.micro-net.com>, syse...@micro-net.com
(Aaron Bilger) wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:56:21 -0700, j...@NOMOREv-siteJUNK.net (Jesse Shrieve)
> wrote:
> >
> >> The benchmarks I've seen of the 750s place it slightly below the
> >performance of
> >> the 604e 350Mhz, not above it.
> >
> >Um, that's way off. MacWorld, testing prototype models (often slower than
> >the release), rated the Motorla G3/275 at 5.6 and the 604e@350Mhz at 4.3.
> >The old version of the 604, at 233MHz scored 3.3. The G3 chips are *MUCH*
> >faster, at *lower* clock rates.
>
> Well, here are the benchmarks, from Motorola and IBM. They state the
performance
> of the 750/266 to be 12.4 SPECint95 and 8.4 SPECfp95, while the 604e/350
is 14.6
> SPECint95 and 9.0 SPECfp95. Perhaps MacWorld was comparing radically
imbalanced
> systems (board difference below is 71 vs 66, but that's hardly enough to
account
> for the extreme disparity you would claim in the opposite direction) or
using an
> odd benchmark.
Hrm, sounds like odd specs you have there.. I can tell you *for sure* tho
that the G3 is faster -- my friend has used a proto upgrade card, and also
used the 604e@350Mhz machine. The G3 was very noticably faster than the
604e.
--
Jesse Shrieve
j...@NOMOREv-siteJUNK.net
Aaron Bilger
Engstrom
Tim Borgeaud wrote:
>
> Sorry this message is so long but I'd like to get as much info posted as
> possible. Hopefully I'll get all the info I need from the experts on
> usenet.
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Tim.
You might find this site useful
gen...@rockisland.com
Tim Borgeaud wrote:
> My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use
> to
> me. I will be upgrading to a more powerful computer and operating
> system
> soon but at the moment I am having a lot of trouble deciding what to
> buy.
> I need some info and advice as this is going to be a major purchase
> for
> me.
I really wantto suggest this guy
Aaron Bilger
Peter Hill
Engstrom
Tim Borgeaud wrote:
>
> My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use to
> me. I will be upgrading to a more powerful computer and operating system
> soon but at the moment I am having a lot of trouble deciding what to buy.
> I need some info and advice as this is going to be a major purchase for
> me.
You might find this site helpful
Aaron Bilger
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:54:28 -0500, m...@nwu.edu (Mic Chaudoir) wrote:
>
>BS. No CISC Intel chip holds a candle to PPCs. And with the new PPC 750s
>the gap widens.... The fact is that x86 are simply the slowest chips
The benchmarks I've seen of the 750s place it slightly below the performance of
the 604e 350Mhz, not above it.
>available, bar none. PPC chips are faster. MIPS,Sparc, Alpha ... all
Aaron Bilger
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:18:10 GMT, ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Tim Borgeaud) wrote:
>
> My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use to
I'm impressed you hung on this long.
>I don't know what
>graphics card to get or what monitor. I think I would get one of
>new motherboards that runs at 100MHz when they come out soon. I might
>have to stick with 83Mhz if the 100Mhz boards are too expensive.
>It is a shame that intell PCs are more complex than the MACS or Amigas,
>with a MAC or Amiga you have no problem with all the hardware working
>with the software.
That's because there's (relatively) far fewer hardware components or software
items. With diversity comes potential for incompatibility, it is true.
>My friend can use linux on his computer which he says is the fastest OS.
That I'll agree with.
>I think I will have to choose NT if I get an Intell computer because
>linux does not do energy saving. Also I have been told that the new
NT does? I run NT 4.0 and don't know of power saving features in it.
>version of NT is going to be the best OS to use. I expect it will be much
>easier to setup than linux (my friend told me linux is more difficult to
>set up).
Linux was difficult to setup a couple years ago, it isn't anymore if you get a
nice RedHat installation or something. Setting up SCSI or network can always
get complex, but it certainly does under NT as well.
>Will NT really be easier to use than MAC OS or Amigados? Will linus still
If you're used to AmigaDOS, that would be easiest for you. Don't expect to find
much that you can use if you try to stick with that though.
>be the fastest OS? I would like amigados but I think this is a dead OS
>now.
Agreed. Linux could be the fastest, but that's irrelevant if it can't run what
Nevets
>
> My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use to
>me. I will be upgrading to a more powerful computer and operating system
>soon but at the moment I am having a lot of trouble deciding what to buy.
>I need some info and advice as this is going to be a major purchase for
>me.
I think it's truly amazing that you've held onto an A500 for so long.
I sold my A500 back in 1991 and bought a 386sx16 because I had
outgrown the Amiga.
I'd suggest just getting a ready made computer, say a Intel P166MMX,
32 Megs of RAM, and a 2-3 Gig harddrive, 15" monitor and go with it.
Steve
Mechanoid
In article <5vujnc$mrf$1...@joe.rice.edu>, mali...@rice.edu (Anil Thomas
Maliyekkel) wrote:
> Ian Lynch (i...@ianlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Tim Borgeaud) wrote:
> : > I'd like to get an energy saving system that is as efficient as
> : > possible.
> : The Digital StrongArm is one of the lowest power consumption chips
> : available. Its primarily designed for portable applications. In a Risc
> : PC it will allow you to do things like DTP and graphics manipulation
> : at comparable speeds to the fastest PCs and Macs and I like the user
> : interface better than either Win 95 or the Mac. In practice I am not
> : sure why power consumption is so important to you in in a desktop
> : machine but a RPC is probably the lowest electricity user because
> : applications are designed to fit into smaller memory and disc
> : accessing is a lot less frequent than on a PC.
> The only problem is that the SA doesn't have a floating point unit.
That's not really much of a problem. Floating point isn't very important
for most users. Hence the ommission.
The problem is the FP emulator that RiscOS programmers rely on. A decent
FP library brings performance back to acceptable levels. Quake at 20fps on
a 200MHz StrongARM RiscPC, for instance.
The thing that really strangles StrongARM is the 32MHz memory bus that
doesn't even support EDO RAM. :-(((((
My advice to potential Acorn customers is: If speed really is of the
essence, wait until the end of the year for the RiscPC II. Personally, I'm
quite happy with my current RiscPC. I don't think I need a faster machine
for the forseeable future, although I'll probably get a RiscPC II when I do.
> Wasn't ACORN porting RISCOS to the PowerPC ?
No. That was a silly rumour started by Mac people who didn't know the
difference between CHRP and a Mac. Acorn officially denied it at the time.
It may yet happen though.
Acorn *were* thinking of building a CHRP machine for the RiscPC II, but
with a ROMmable OS and StrongARM(s). CHRP didn't preclude other processors
or ROMmable OSes, so Acorn could retain most of RiscOS and use a CHRP
motherboard. This was mostly in order to save money because Acorn was in a
state of decline and couldn't afford to design their own support logic any
more.
However, things change... Acorn spun off its UK education legacy in a
50/50 joint venture with Apple: Xemplar. Acorn's management was
restructured a couple of times, and then there was the Acorn/Oracle NC deal,
which created a lot of business for Acorn in the form of technology
licencing to large multi-nationals. Samsung, RCA, etc...
Plus the story goes that a rich American billionare saw a RiscPC and liked
it so much he wrote them a cheque for an obscene amount of money on the spot
for them to design a portable machine for him. However, he let them keep
the intellectual rights to any technologies they developed for the project,
thus basically paying for its development.
Anyway, all this meant that Acorn was then in a position to base the
RiscPC II on their own technology and scrap the CHRP idea. The product of
their labours will be previewed at the end of October at the Acorn World '97
show in Wembley. Information on the spec is very thin on the ground 'cos
everyone in the know has signed NDA's. Acorn originally said it would be a
multiple 300MHz StrongARM machine, but speculation/rumour has cast doubt on
this. It will have PCI though.
However, this may all come full-circle, because Acorn are also now
developing a next-generation cross-platform OS to supercede RiscOS: Galileo.
It seems likely that Galileo could be ported to the PPC, if needed. A case
of rumour predicting reality I s'pose.
Anyway, PowerPC sux, StrongARM rulez! etc., etc... ;-)
Cheers,
Mech.
(followups trimmed)
--
__ _______ ______ __
/ |/ / __/ ___/ /_/ / # Mechanoid the Haemorroidal Android
/ /|_/ / _// /__/ __ / # Disclaimer: I may have been wrong deliberately
/_/ /_/___/\___/_/ /_/ # mailto:mech...@usa.net
Jim Lesurf
In article <34263719...@news.micro-net.com>, Aaron Bilger
That is only part of the story. The detailed architechture and OS also
matter.
For that reason the ARM/StrongARM family (RISC chips) has a much
better 'code density' than common CISC chips like the Intel offerings.
i.e. The ARM code required to do something useful is generally far
smaller than on other systems. This is why typical RiscOS apps are
around twenty times *smaller* (in megabytes) than similar
WhineDoze/Mac apps - and why they often are so much quicker so far as
the user is concerned. The compact code means that even more time (and
energy) is saved avoiding all the disc-swapping required by
'bloated' CISC code...
Cheers,
Jim Lesurf
--
***NEW!**** MMWaves on;
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/MMWave/Index.html
Electronics pages on /Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
TechWriter tips http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/TechWrite/Tips1.html
Barbirolli Society on http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
Aaron Bilger
On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:56:21 -0700, j...@NOMOREv-siteJUNK.net (Jesse Shrieve)
wrote:
>
>performance of
>> the 604e 350Mhz, not above it.
>
>the release), rated the Motorla G3/275 at 5.6 and the 604e@350Mhz at 4.3.
>The old version of the 604, at 233MHz scored 3.3. The G3 chips are *MUCH*
>faster, at *lower* clock rates.
Well, here are the benchmarks, from Motorola and IBM. They state the performance
of the 750/266 to be 12.4 SPECint95 and 8.4 SPECfp95, while the 604e/350 is 14.6
SPECint95 and 9.0 SPECfp95. Perhaps MacWorld was comparing radically imbalanced
systems (board difference below is 71 vs 66, but that's hardly enough to account
for the extreme disparity you would claim in the opposite direction) or using an
odd benchmark.
Aaron
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PowerPC Microprocessor Technical Fact Sheet
Addendum to IBM and Motorola Press Release
August 4, 1997
PowerPC 750/740 Microprocessors
Design Highlights
The design of the PowerPC 750/740 microprocessors is innovative in several key
areas - particularly in its level two cache implementation - and boosts
performance for Mac OS applications while retaining the low power features
pioneered in previous PowerPC designs. The design innovations include:
•an integrated L2 cache controller and Tag RAMs on the die, providing ultra
fast-access to memory, •32-KB data and 32-KB instruction level one caches
on-chip which increase performance by allowing the processor to keep more data
stored on the die, •built-in power-saving modes, which extend battery life for
mobile systems, •an on-chip thermal sensor, which helps regulate processor
temperature, •a choice of packaging configurations, which provides greater
flexibility for desktop products as well as embedded applications.
Key Specifications
•Processor Size: 67 sq. mm •Power Consumption: 5.7 watts @ 266 MHz
•Manufacturing Technology : .25-micron hybrid (IBM CMOS 6S2, Motorola PPC3)
•Performance at 266 MHz
•PowerPC 750 (est.) 12.4 SPECint95 and 8.4 SPECfp95 (1) •PowerPC 740 (est.) 11.5
SPECint95 and 6.9 SPECfp95 (1)
PowerPC 604e/350 MHz Microprocessor
Manufacturing Technology Highlights The leap in clock speed on the PowerPC 604e,
from a previous high of 250 MHz to 350 MHz, demonstrates the performance
capability that can be delivered by advanced manufacturing process technology.
The technology, first introduced by the two companies last month, is an industry
leading quarter-micron technology. Quarter-micron refers to the width of the
circuit lines on a processor¹s silicon.
Key Specifications
•Processor Size: 47 sq. mm •Power Consumption: less than 8.0 watts @ 350 MHz
•Manufacturing Technology: .25-micron (IBM CMOS 6X, Motorola PPC4) •Performance
at 350 MHz (est.): 14.6 SPECint95 and 9.0 SPECfp95 (2)
Performance depends upon processor clock, bus speed ratio and L2 subsystem size.
System configurations to achieve the SPEC benchmark results above are: (1) 266
MHz PowerPC 750/740 processor, 66 MHz system bus and 1 megabyte of L2 cache; (2)
350 MHz PowerPC 604e processor, 71 MHz system bus and 1 megabyte of L2 cache.
Copyright © 1996 by Motorola, Inc.
Aaron Bilger
On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 09:46:46 +0100 (BST), Jim Lesurf <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>For that reason the ARM/StrongARM family (RISC chips) has a much
>better 'code density' than common CISC chips like the Intel offerings.
>i.e. The ARM code required to do something useful is generally far
I can see how the point of not having FP instructions, which others have brought
up in this forum, could alone reduce code size. The ARM would be much more 'RI'
than most RISC chips. I'm not familiar with the whole instruction set, but if
you have few instructions and addressing modes and were byte alignment capable,
I could see fewer instructions reducing the instruction and operands size by a
byte or two.
>smaller than on other systems. This is why typical RiscOS apps are
>around twenty times *smaller* (in megabytes) than similar
However, reduced instruction coding size cannot anyway near account for a twenty
fold change. I'm sure you are counting a lot of the crap that comes with PC/Mac
apps, like oodles of bitmaps and fonts you'll never use, etc. I severely doubt
your code size will be anymore than 1/2 the size, if that.
Aaron
Rebecca and Rowland
Aaron Bilger <syse...@micro-net.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 97 19:26:50 GMT, Philip Kaulfuss <ph...@boehme.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> >
> >: So I could get an intel system. But there are lots of parts to get and I
> >: don't know what is best. There are some different intel CPU's I could use
> >: but what are they really like and what is best?
> >
> >They are also CISC, and so need a lot more clock cycles to do anything
quickly.
>
> The CISC methodology is to do more work per clock cycle, the RISC
> methodology is to do smaller tasks accomplishing less per cycle, but with
> the simplicity hopefully allowing a higher clock speed to compensate.
> CISC generally means doing more per clock cycle.
Hmm - `classic' CISC designs are non-pipelined; pretty much all RISC
designs use pipelining. In short, RISC processors (in general, all
other things being equal) do more per clock cycle than CISC processors.
CISC means doing more per *instruction*.
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for my email address: reb...@astrid.dog.u-net.com
Sorry - the spam got to me. PGP public key A680B89D available
Key fingerprint = F5 60 5E AE F5 6F 2C 0B 81 8F 33 19 52 27 76 7F
Help crack rc5 with your idle CPU time-see http://rc5.distributed.net/
H.R. Laser
Okay, let's see.. you want a fast computer that is environment-friendly,
does all kinds of stuff, without wasting a lot of resources.
Okay, how about one that will run for weeks on a set of four AA batteries,
has a 163mhz CPU, built in TCP/IP stack and web browser, and email client,
handwriting (and soon voice) recognition, requires no bootup delay (it's
ready to use within a second of flicking the on switch), has dozens of
developers writing apps for it, has thousands of free and shareware apps,
has good newsgroup, web sites, print and online magazine support, and as
an added bonus you can carry it in one hand and use it while walking. :)
Newton 2000.
Harv | "Do you recognize the
ha...@amigazone.com | Bell of Truth when you
http://www.amigazone.com | hear it ring?"
A1200/030, A2500/060, CDTV :) | - Leon Russell
Aaron Bilger
Nevets
Mechanoid
Jim Lesurf
> On Fri, 19 Sep 97 19:26:50 GMT, Philip Kaulfuss <ph...@boehme.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >: So I could get an intel system. But there are lots of parts to get and I
> >: don't know what is best. There are some different intel CPU's I could use
> >: but what are they really like and what is best?
> >
> >They are also CISC, and so need a lot more clock cycles to do anything quickly.
>
> The CISC methodology is to do more work per clock cycle, the RISC methodology is
> to do smaller tasks accomplishing less per cycle, but with the simplicity
> hopefully allowing a higher clock speed to compensate. CISC generally means
> doing more per clock cycle.
>
That is only part of the story. The detailed architechture and OS also
matter.
For that reason the ARM/StrongARM family (RISC chips) has a much
better 'code density' than common CISC chips like the Intel offerings.
i.e. The ARM code required to do something useful is generally far
smaller than on other systems. This is why typical RiscOS apps are
around twenty times *smaller* (in megabytes) than similar
Anbjoern Myren
ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Tim Borgeaud) wrote:
>
> My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use to
>me. I will be upgrading to a more powerful computer and operating system
>soon but at the moment I am having a lot of trouble deciding what to buy.
>I need some info and advice as this is going to be a major purchase for
>me.
>
Seemes like you almost have made up your mind while writing your message :)
But too turn the coin around and have a look, I'd like to ask you a question;
What are you going to use your new computer for ?
The reason I ask this is that you have been using an A500 until now, and it
seemes that you must have been pretty pleased with it too, not replacing it
before now.
You also say that you're on a budget (ain't we all..), so you don't want to spend your
life savings on this.
This is ofcource depending on your needs, but my advice for you is to get an A1200.
Either a new one (with HD) or a used one with some extra stuff, like HD and maybe an
accelerator (68030/50Mhz or better) and some extra RAM.
Since you are used to the speed of an A500, the A1200 would feel like a fast machine,
in comparisation. A standard A1200 is about 4 times faster than the A500, with an
accelerator-card/and extra RAM from 10 to 80 times faster.
The good thing is that you could buy a rather cheap system, and expand it when you
need to and can afford it. ¨
( before you know it, you'll be sitting in front of an A1200 tower, equipped with a
Gfx-card and a PPC-accelerator running Fusion (emulating PowerMac), pressing L-Amiga + M
just to watch what PCx-PPC is up to (have W95 managed to crash yet?), then returning to
finish next level in NemacIV while the other tasks continue in the background... )
But in case you don't want to expand the Amiga, lets say you just use it for six months
and then decide to get an intel / intel-clone or even a PowerMac after all, then you could
do that, and you haven't lost any money.
Because the money you payed for that A1200 would equal the price-drop on the intel-system
you could have baught 6 months ago.
The Amiga has good software for internet, wordprocessesing, image-processing,
paint- and drawing, networking, faxing, gaming, music, and whatever....
What the Amiga doesn't have at the moment, is the raw prosessing power of intel-pentiums
or PowerMac's. But for most task you dont need it, and the efficiency of the AmigaOS
makes it feel like your machine is more powered than it actually is.
(well, actually the first Amiga-PPC-accelerator boards are out now, delivered
this week I've heard, though there are not a load of software out for them yet)
as a sidenote.....
If you had baught any other computer than the A500, it would probably had become
useless a long time ago.
If you buy a modern intel-system today, how long do you expect it to last ?`
(Not very long I guess, a couple of years maybe)
I've got both an Amiga and a PC (i166 MMX), and I still find the Amiga the most usable for
many tasks.
--
Anbjorn Myren, Norway, A4000/040, IRC: Anmy
Alex Holloway
In article <342336FB...@rockisland.com>, "gen...@rockisland.com"Very large upgrade from an Amiga 500 don't you think :-)
--
| | | |
__ | __ _ _ |__ __ | | __ __
__| | |__| | | | | | | | | | | | __| | |
|__| | |__ _|_ | | |__| | | |__| |_|_| |__| |__|
e-mail: ale...@argonet.co.uk __|
Ted Lepley
In article <34263719...@news.micro-net.com>, syse...@micro-net.com
(Aaron Bilger) wrote:
> >They are also CISC, and so need a lot more clock cycles to do anything
> quickly.
>
> The CISC methodology is to do more work per clock cycle, the RISC
> methodology is to do smaller tasks accomplishing less per cycle, but
> with the simplicity hopefully allowing a higher clock speed to
> compensate. CISC generally means doing more per clock cycle.
I know this is in a posting which should not be in an Acorn newsgroup
but I hope someone (who knows more than I do about these things) is not
going to let that one pass unchallenged.
Ted.
--
ZFC S+ ted...@argonet.co.uk
Clan member East London. UK
Using Fleece Server and V.1.14
Sat,20 Sep 1997.23:39:32
David H Wild
In article <3424fcf4....@news.micro-net.com>,
Aaron Bilger <syse...@micro-net.com> wrote:
> However, reduced instruction coding size cannot anyway near account for a
twenty
> fold change. I'm sure you are counting a lot of the crap that comes with
PC/Mac
> apps, like oodles of bitmaps and fonts you'll never use, etc. I severely
doubt
> your code size will be anymore than 1/2 the size, if that.
A large part of the difference comes from the different method of creating
windows when the program is run. RISC_OS itself creates windows from a
specification, rather than them needing to be stored with the program.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ dhw...@argonet.co.uk
Uploaded to newnews.dial.pipex.com on Sat,20 Sep 1997.22:04:59
Alex Hayward
In article <EGrEE...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>,
ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Tim Borgeaud) writes:
> My friend can use linux on his computer which he says is the fastest OS.
> linux does not do energy saving. Also I have been told that the new
> easier to setup than linux (my friend told me linux is more difficult to
> set up).
You don't really say what you are intending to use it for.
For server type stuff I'd certainly say that a Unix variant would be a good
idea. Linux is probably the easiest to set up, though I've never tried, but
there are others out there.
However, if you intend it for general home use then you should maybe look
elsewhere.
Since you posted to cs.acorn.misc (which should really be csa.advocacy...):
The relevant currenlty available Acorn would be a StrongARM based Risc PC.
This runs at 200MHz and has no FPU. The lack of FPU may or may not be a
problem, very little Acorn RISC OS software uses floating point and I doubt
there would be an advantage in compared to other platforms except for
very maths intensive stuff (ray tracing?) or for, say, running X under Unix
(it takes quite a while to start up, font handling is relatively slow and
programs like xpdf run much more slowly, but in general its adequately usable).
The RISC OS GUI is very user friendly (certainly compared to Win 95...) and
is fast and responsive. The underlying aspect of RISC OS leave a certain
amount to be desired, though...
If you want to play lots of up-to-the-minute games, forget it.
If you want to run Unix solely then I'd be inclined to look elsewhere too.
I'd say that the RISC OS GUI and RISC OS's general efficiency and compactness
are its main attractions. If anything, this is where any productivity gains
are going to come from.
--
alex @ hayward.u-net.com; alexander.hayward @ lmh.ox.ac.uk
xelah @ ferret.lmh.ox.ac.uk
Alex Hayward
In article <ant20084...@st-and.demon.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk> writes:
[RISC vs CISC]
> For that reason the ARM/StrongARM family (RISC chips) has a much
> better 'code density' than common CISC chips like the Intel offerings.
Erm, well, from what I remember it does have a slightly greater code density,
but RISC code *ought* to be less dense than CISC code if you think about it...
Personally I wouldn't bother about the RISC vs CISC argument in choosing a
system.
> i.e. The ARM code required to do something useful is generally far
> smaller than on other systems. This is why typical RiscOS apps are
> around twenty times *smaller* (in megabytes) than similar
> WhineDoze/Mac apps - and why they often are so much quicker so far as
> the user is concerned. The compact code means that even more time (and
> energy) is saved avoiding all the disc-swapping required by
> 'bloated' CISC code...
20 times might be pushing it a bit, but not by much. I wouldn't think it
could be attributed to code density (which makes maybe a few tens of %
smaller... I'd guess...). You will also find that the same doesn't apply to
RiscBSD programs.
Arthur McDowell
In article <34292e7b...@news.visi.com>, Nevets
<URL:mailto:she...@yuck.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:18:10 GMT, ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Tim Borgeaud)
> wrote:
>
> >
> > My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use to
> >me. I will be upgrading to a more powerful computer and operating system
> >soon but at the moment I am having a lot of trouble deciding what to buy.
> >I need some info and advice as this is going to be a major purchase for
> >me.
>
>
> I sold my A500 back in 1991 and bought a 386sx16 because I had
> outgrown the Amiga.
>
> I'd suggest just getting a ready made computer, say a Intel P166MMX,
> 32 Megs of RAM, and a 2-3 Gig harddrive, 15" monitor and go with it.
>
> Steve
>
>
and iv`e never looked back as the OS is in rom rather than disk
a lot better.
Regards Arthur
--
Arthur McDowell: Tel 01435 830302
An owner of Acorn Risc Pc With StrongArm
Previously an Amiga 500 with 4 megs Memory
Dallington. Heathfield. Sussex. United Kingdom
Mechanoid
In article <hrlaserE...@netcom.com>, hrl...@netcom.com (H.R. Laser)
wrote:
> Okay, how about one that will run for weeks on a set of four AA batteries,
Has to have an ARM...
> has a 163mhz CPU,
StrongARM then. Not an Acorn though, wrong clock speed.
> built in TCP/IP stack and web browser, and email client,
> handwriting (and soon voice) recognition,
Definately not an Acorn. :-)
> requires no bootup delay (it's ready to use within a second of flicking
> the on switch),
Some sort of ARM-based NC?
> has dozens of developers writing apps for it, has thousands of free and
> shareware apps, has good newsgroup, web sites, print and online magazine
> support,
That describes almost anything.
> and as an added bonus you can carry it in one hand and use it while
> walking. :)
Hmm. Could it be an Acorn Newspad? No, they aren't on public sale...
Sounds like some sort of Psion, only they haven't used StrongARM yet...
It's definately StrongARM based...
> Newton 2000.
Doh!!! I can't *believe* I didn't guess it!
I just *knew* it had to have StrongARM, from the "AA batteries" bit. :-)
Cheers,
Mech.
Jim Lesurf
In article <47ccbe39...@argonet.co.uk>, David H Wild
<URL:mailto:dhw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3424fcf4....@news.micro-net.com>,
> Aaron Bilger <syse...@micro-net.com> wrote:
> > However, reduced instruction coding size cannot anyway near account for a
> twenty
> > fold change. I'm sure you are counting a lot of the crap that comes with
> PC/Mac
> > apps, like oodles of bitmaps and fonts you'll never use, etc. I severely
> doubt
> > your code size will be anymore than 1/2 the size, if that.
>
> A large part of the difference comes from the different method of creating
> windows when the program is run. RISC_OS itself creates windows from a
> specification, rather than them needing to be stored with the program.
>
True. I did include both the chip architecture and the OS in the reasons
for what I said. RiscOS means each app doesn't have to 're-invent' all
the wheels. RiscOS + StrongARM work together excellently to deliver slim
code that gets the job done.
Jim Lesurf
> On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 09:46:46 +0100 (BST), Jim Lesurf <jc...@st-and.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
>
> >smaller than on other systems. This is why typical RiscOS apps are
> >around twenty times *smaller* (in megabytes) than similar
>
> However, reduced instruction coding size cannot anyway near account for a twenty
> fold change. I'm sure you are counting a lot of the crap that comes with PC/Mac
> apps, like oodles of bitmaps and fonts you'll never use, etc. I severely doubt
> your code size will be anymore than 1/2 the size, if that.
>
>
I agree with you that many PC/Mac apps come with lot of 'overhead' stuff
as you describe, but that isn't quite what I'm talking about.
Take a look at some ARM-code progs that run under RiscOS. I think
you'll be pleasantly surprised. The twenty-fold comment is based on
code I see and use. There are various reasons for this, but it boils
down to a mix of an efficient RISC chip architecture. (good
pipelining, etc) and an OS that helps the app rather than makes its
life more difficult.
BTW The reason I brought this up in the first place wasn't to try and
argue that "A is better than B", (although I'm obviously a fan of
StrongARM/RISC :-) ). It was to remind people that simply assuming
that "CISC gets more done" is as misleading as assuming that you can
compare *different* platforms solely on the basis of CPU clock
frequency.
Charles Cunningham
On 20 Sep 1997 09:46:46 Jim Lesurf wrote about "Re: What efficient computer
system to choose?":
>
> In article <34263719...@news.micro-net.com>, Aaron Bilger
> <URL:mailto:syse...@micro-net.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Sep 97 19:26:50 GMT, Philip Kaulfuss <ph...@boehme.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> > >
> > >: So I could get an intel system. But there are lots of parts to get and
I
> > >: don't know what is best. There are some different intel CPU's I could
use
> > >: but what are they really like and what is best?
> > >
> > >They are also CISC, and so need a lot more clock cycles to do anything
quickly.
> >
> > The CISC methodology is to do more work per clock cycle, the RISC
methodology is
> > to do smaller tasks accomplishing less per cycle, but with the simplicity
> > hopefully allowing a higher clock speed to compensate. CISC generally
means
> > doing more per clock cycle.
> >
>
> That is only part of the story. The detailed architechture and OS also
> matter.
>
> For that reason the ARM/StrongARM family (RISC chips) has a much
> better 'code density' than common CISC chips like the Intel offerings.
> i.e. The ARM code required to do something useful is generally far
> smaller than on other systems. This is why typical RiscOS apps are
> around twenty times *smaller* (in megabytes) than similar
> WhineDoze/Mac apps - and why they often are so much quicker so far as
> the user is concerned. The compact code means that even more time (and
> energy) is saved avoiding all the disc-swapping required by
> 'bloated' CISC code...
Kinda sounds like Amiga apps....so much smaller :)
Wayne Bagguley
In message <34263719...@news.micro-net.com>
syse...@micro-net.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
> The CISC methodology is to do more work per clock cycle, the RISC methodology is
> to do smaller tasks accomplishing less per cycle, but with the simplicity
> hopefully allowing a higher clock speed to compensate. CISC generally means
> doing more per clock cycle.
Wrong!
CISC methodology is to take an instruction and execute lots more micro
instructions over many clock cycles.
--
_ ,_ _ http://www.majic12.demon.co.uk
(_/\_) (_) (_| | | (/_ snow...@majic12.demon.co.uk
` _|
Uses for Bill Gates #5 - Door stop
Stuart Bell
In article <na.a4cdb547cc...@argonet.co.uk>, Ted Lepley
<ted...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <34263719...@news.micro-net.com>, syse...@micro-net.com
> (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
> > quickly.
> >
> > methodology is to do smaller tasks accomplishing less per cycle, but
> > with the simplicity hopefully allowing a higher clock speed to
> > compensate. CISC generally means doing more per clock cycle.
>
> but I hope someone (who knows more than I do about these things) is not
> going to let that one pass unchallenged.
> Ted.
>
fast 'advertised clock speeds', many CISC designs do very little in one
clock cycle, taking many clock cycles for many instructions. OTOH, RISC
designs do far more instructions in one (or a few) cycles. Hence the benfits
of RISC, and hence the 80x86 / Pentium / MMX / PII bandwagon running out of
steam as the only way to make a CISC design better is to make it _more_
complex and hence less efficient. ;-)
--
Ś Stuart Bell
Ś Running an Acorn Risc PC and an Apple PowerBook in a Wintel-free Zone.
Ś Acorn user? Visit http://www.poppyfields.net/sasaug/
Ś PB100 user? Visit http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/sabell/pb100.html
Stuart Halliday
mali...@rice.edu (Anil Thomas Maliyekkel) wrote:
> The only problem is that the SA doesn't have a floating point unit.
No. But there was talk for a time of a PCI card holding a ARM chip and the
OS in ROM though for the CHRP platform.
BTW, with my RiscPC taking only 15secs to boot up and Win95/NT taking
typically 1min does this mean that I've saved at least 9 hours a year in
productivity by using RISC OS? ;-)
--
Stuart Halliday - Web Manager of the
___ ___ _ _ _ _
/ _ \ __ ___ _ _ _ _ / __| _| |__ ___ _ ___ _(_) | |__ _ __ _ ___
| _ / _/ _ \ '_| ' \ | (_| || | '_ \/ -_) '_\ V / | | / _` / _` / -_)
|_| |_\__\___/_| |_||_| \___\_, |_.__/\___|_| \_/|_|_|_\__,_\__, \___|
|__/ |___/
ZFC HM
http://www.cybervillage.co.uk/acorn/
Stuart Halliday
syse...@micro-net.com (Aaron Bilger) wrote:
> >smaller than on other systems. This is why typical RiscOS apps are
> >around twenty times *smaller* (in megabytes) than similar
>
> However, reduced instruction coding size cannot anyway near account for a
>twenty fold change. I'm sure you are counting a lot of the crap that
>comes with PC/Mac apps, like oodles of bitmaps and fonts you'll never use,
>etc. I severely doubt your code size will be anymore than 1/2 the size, if
> that.
As a Microsoft Certified Engineer I can say that most PC/Mac applications
are written in C/C++ and as they tend to make use of library files which of
course have to be loaded in order for the program to run. This makes them
much bigger than they should really be.
Acorn apps on the other hand are mostly written in pure ARM code or at
least C with a reasonable percentage written in BBC BASIC V (the bestest,
fastest BASIC in the World).
(Imagine if every PC/Mac had in them a free copy of a *very* fast, well
structured BASIC in ROM with which anyone could write their own programs if
they felt the need, without having to spend more than a few quid on the
Programming Reference Manuals).
But I digress a little.
The main reasons why Acorn apps take up less RAM than their PC counterparts
is that:
1:
They only provide features that their customers ask for.
Microsoft software tends to include with every new release extra features
that the user doesn't really want or have asked for.
Don't forget that Microsoft dominate their market to such an extent that
they now tell their own 3rd party developers what not/to write into their
code (seriously this is true!). Microsoft now leads its own development
rather than being user lead. After all Microsoft have to justify each
increase in size and features of its programs to get its user base to buy
the next the version.
But what happens in the PC world when the code is now too slow? Does the
programmer rewrite the slow bits in assembler to run faster? No, they pass
the buck onto the user by telling the person that their machine is too slow
and they now should upgrade and buy the latest megaHz monster.
PC owners are caught in a vicious marketing circle and don't even know it!
If they want the latest bug fixes they've got to buy the next version of
bloatware, to run this at a decent speed they've got to buy the latest
hardware, which means that software companies can now add even more
features to the next turn in the circle...
2:
Acorn use 4MB of ROM to hold most of its OS and its common library
routines, Clib, Toolbox, etc. so these don't take up any RAM. This helps
enormously to keep the size of applications down to a reasonable level. ie
a typical app is less than 500Kbytes with a full featured DTP QuarkXpress
beater taking up less than 2MB of RAM.
Less code, so much easier to bug fix and therefore virtually all Acorn
developers offer their customers free upgrades/bug fixes.
Can't be bad..?
Rev Scott
On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:38:44 BST, Alex Holloway
<ale...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>>MACs don't even have boards that go faster than
>> 66Mhz, and certainly not as fast as 83 or 100Mhz.
>>
>I've heard of a 275 MHz Mac :-) and also one with two 180 MHz PowerPCs
>but i don't keep up with the mac scene very much...
>Shame that the X704 'Superchip' or whatever it was called fell through
>though because that sounded really good, 500MHz wasn't it?
Um, i think he was referring to bus speed..
>> K6, which I thought would be great but a friend told me that these are
>> really buggy (crashing often) and use loads of power. These are also
>> slow at maths.
>
>K6 goes like the clappers, i've heard! and shouldn't use that much power.
>I believe the K6 is actually a RISC processor and converts CISC instructions
>into a series of RISC equivalents.
Yup, i swear intel must pay people to walk around and subliminally
whisper in passerby ears "amd chips run very hot and innefficiently!"
because ive heard it a million times but no one seems to be able to
recreate this K6 "bugginess". I can't believe how much controversy a
silly video game (starting with the letter Q) has stirred up, and how
many sales AMD has probably lost by virtue of said video game.
>>
>
If I'm not mistaken, this person never really told us what the machine
would be used for...only that they were worried about power
consumption - but this whole "green pc" thing seems bogus to me, home
computers just don't really use that much power. if you're worried
about harming mother earth, there are far more pressing matters than
desktop 'puters.
if hard disk access, monitor shut-down, and sleep modes are what you
need, these can all be utilized through tiny software progs that I'm
sure are available in some form for any computer format you happen to
choose.
.02
scott
Sam McClintock
Rev Scott <revs...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> only that they were worried about power
> consumption - but this whole "green pc" thing seems bogus
> to me, home computers just don't really use that much power.
> if you're worried about harming mother earth, there are far
> more pressing matters than desktop 'puters.
Well, office computers don't eat up that much energy either, but taken
as a whole, along with all the other computers, it chips away at the
whole. The "green pc" is one step on the ladder to getting smarter
about how we use energy and all of it makes a difference. The "green
pc" program has a remarkable impact on energy usage when VIEWED AS A
WHOLE.
For those preferring the PC platforms, the problem has been taken care
of as almost ALL new motherboards are integrated with power saving
features, which the user can set up as they see fit. Most of the newer
monitors and other components are set up to take advantage of the
settings.
Too bad the OS designers of Mac, Amiga, and OS/2 didn't get together to
come up with a better PC OS. As is, we have to suffer through more
Microsoft baggage - Bill's crying all the way to the bank.
--
Sam McClintock - *scmccl...@ipass.net*
Director, En-Vision Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina
To respond by email, remove asterisks from email address
. . . In order to CRITIQUE the research, you must READ the research
Timothy Rue
>Can't be bad..?
Stuart, on a percentage ratio totalling 100%, what percent of the overall
consumer expense would you say Microsofts practice results in
non-productivity for the end-user/consumer?
In other words, how much of a consumer dollar goes to genuine productive
expense when going thru Microsoft. How much towards supporting illusional
non-productive fabrication?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Search on email address at http://www.dejanews.com for other posts/pieces.
Timothy Rue Email: tim...@mindspring.com
Virtual Interaction Configuration: http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hess
In article <34257489...@news.earthlink.net>,
revs...@earthlink.net (Rev Scott) writes:
If I'm not mistaken, this person never really told us what the
consumption - but this whole "green pc" thing seems bogus to me,
home computers just don't really use that much power. if you're
worried about harming mother earth, there are far more pressing
matters than desktop 'puters.
Most importantly, _far_ more resources are used up in creating the
components of the computer itself than you're ever likely to use up in
running the machine 24x7x365. C't had an article that estimated that
building a computer requires about the same amount of resources as
building a car.
Besides which, you're likely to cause more pollution driving your car
to work for a week than using your computer fulltime for a year. Like
the man said, computers just don't draw that much current. Your
monitor likely accounts for more than half of your draw, which is
handily solved using DPMS.
Later,
--
scott hess <sc...@doubleu.com> (606) 578-0412 http://www.doubleu.com/
<Favorite unused computer book title: The Demystified Idiots Guide
to the Zen of Dummies in a Nutshell in Seven Days, Unleashed>
Even Sandvik Underlid
>>I'd suggest just getting a ready made computer, say a Intel P166MMX,
>>32 Megs of RAM, and a 2-3 Gig harddrive, 15" monitor and go with it.
>and iv`e never looked back as the OS is in rom rather than disk
>a lot better.
An A500? You cannot compare the Amiga 500 to anything any more. It is a
dead thing. Unless you have a 040, 16MB of RAM and a graphics board
for it, it's considered outdated.
And I prefer most of the OS to be on my hard drive, except for the most
vital functions, rather than to have it all in ROM. If the Risc PC has
got the whole OS in ROM, I cannot see how that can be an advantage.
After all, when you boot up, the most important parts of the OS gets
copies to RAM (on an Amiga), and RAM speed is generally a lot faster
than ROM speed.
Oh, and what is that Risc PC thingy compatible with? Nothing? Can you
run a decent web browser, a powerful tracker and some 3D-applications
on it - which aren't out of date? Something comparable to IBrowse, Octamed
Soundstudio and Lightwave or Cinema 4D? I don't know much about it,
but I seriously doubt it can match the Amiga for software support.
<SB> rUSTYBRAIn
<SB>A4ooo/o4o-4oMHz/18MB/2.7GB/4xCD/CV3D/17"/OS3.o
<SB>Amiga - for people who want more than just a PC!
John McCartney
big snip
>
> If I'm not mistaken, this person never really told us what the machine
> would be used for...only that they were worried about power
> consumption - but this whole "green pc" thing seems bogus to me, home
> computers just don't really use that much power. if you're worried
> about harming mother earth, there are far more pressing matters than
> desktop 'puters.
It isn't the direct cost to the individual, or the amount of energy consumed
by a single machine which is the issue. If you have a rough stab at
estimating the number of computers in the world (desktop types) and then
multiplying this by the "average" power consumption and take into account
the proportion of the time for which each one is switched on, I think you
might be surprised at how many large power stations this needs.
For a fascinating insight into many similar problems I refer you to "Factor
Four (Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use), by E von Weizsaecker and A B
and L H Lovins, published this year by Earthscan. The ISBN is 1 85383 407 6.
Cheers
John
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /..Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | / *Living life on the cutting edge of history*
__________________________/ John McCartney ZFC B joh...@argonet.co.uk
David L Pearce
John McCartney wrote:
> It isn't the direct cost to the individual, or the amount of energy
> consumed
> by a single machine which is the issue. If you have a rough stab at
> estimating the number of computers in the world (desktop types) and
> then
> multiplying this by the "average" power consumption and take into
> account
> the proportion of the time for which each one is switched on, I think
> you
> might be surprised at how many large power stations this needs.
>
> For a fascinating insight into many similar problems I refer you to
> "Factor
> Four (Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use), by E von Weizsaecker and
> A B
> and L H Lovins, published this year by Earthscan. The ISBN is 1 85383
> 407 6.
On the flip side, consider all of the materials that are wasted when one
has to chunk a fried machine or components, or even worse the amount of
power and materials it would take to power a factory to build the
replacement parts, and the waste generated by that factory. And its no
secret that power cycling takes the worse toll on electronics. I vote
let it run, the planet will do better by it . . .
Later.
--
David L Pearce - KF4MOK
dlpe...@eos.ncsu.edu
"Have to remove the limiter, and take it to the edge." Guld, MP
Dan Wu
In article <EGrEE...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Tim
Borgeaud) wrote:
> My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use to
> me. I will be upgrading to a more powerful computer and operating system
> soon but at the moment I am having a lot of trouble deciding what to buy.
> I need some info and advice as this is going to be a major purchase for
> me.
>
> I would really like to get hold of a very fast computer, but of course I
> am on a budget. Also as It will probably be left running for 24hrs a day
> I'd like to get an energy saving system that is as efficient as possible.
>
>
> I could get a Power PC based computer and I'd be able to run both MAC
> OS, which is easiest to use, or amiga dos (when it comes out). I think the
> MACs cannot do energy saving stuff and they are not as fast as PC's. Also
> they are more expensive. MACs don't even have boards that go faster than
> 66Mhz, and certainly not as fast as 83 or 100Mhz.
>
>
> So I could get an intel system. But there are lots of parts to get and I
> don't know what is best. There are some different intel CPU's I could use
> but what are they really like and what is best?
>
> Pentium with mmx, which would be nice as I know they don't use
> as much power as Power PC and other processors.
>
> 6x86 M2, but these are slower doing maths.
>
> K6, which I thought would be great but a friend told me that these are
> really buggy (crashing often) and use loads of power. These are also
> slow at maths.
>
> Pentium Pro, these are fast but still quite expensive. The mother
> boards also cost a lot and you cannot have the faster bus speeds.
>
> Pentium II, these are easily the best processors as they are faster
> than even the PowerPCs and because of the smaller transistors they
> use the least power. But They are too expensive at the moment.
>
>
> What other stuff would be best? Ultra ATA is the best disk but I
> would like a disk that spins down when not in use. I don't know what
> graphics card to get or what monitor. I think I would get one of
> new motherboards that runs at 100MHz when they come out soon. I might
> have to stick with 83Mhz if the 100Mhz boards are too expensive.
> It is a shame that intell PCs are more complex than the MACS or Amigas,
> with a MAC or Amiga you have no problem with all the hardware working
> with the software.
>
>
> My friend can use linux on his computer which he says is the fastest OS.
> I think I will have to choose NT if I get an Intell computer because
> linux does not do energy saving. Also I have been told that the new
> version of NT is going to be the best OS to use. I expect it will be much
> easier to setup than linux (my friend told me linux is more difficult to
> set up).
>
> Will NT really be easier to use than MAC OS or Amigados? Will linus still
> be the fastest OS? I would like amigados but I think this is a dead OS
> now.
>
>
> Finally, like I said before, I want the most green parts. My computer
> must be efficient and use environmentally friendly parts. I know that
> some manufacturers make a lot of pollution. I like to think that I can do
> my bit for the environment, every watt counts. So even the CPU is
> important. Perhaps there are some web pages concerning environmentally
> firendly computers and OS?
>
>
> Sorry this message is so long but I'd like to get as much info posted as
> possible. Hopefully I'll get all the info I need from the experts on
> usenet.
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Tim.
Damn, this is the longest flame bait I've ever seen.
Richard Foy
In article <3426DE83...@unity.ncsu.edu>,
David L Pearce <dlpe...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>John McCartney wrote:
>
>On the flip side, consider all of the materials that are wasted when one
>has to chunk a fried machine or components, or even worse the amount of
>power and materials it would take to power a factory to build the
>replacement parts, and the waste generated by that factory. And its no
>secret that power cycling takes the worse toll on electronics. I vote
>let it run, the planet will do better by it . . .
I suspect that most people replace their computer long before there
are failures from switching transients or wear out where one leaves
it on or not.
--
On this date in:
1776: Captain Nathan Hale was captured while spying on the British.
1862: President Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation.
1949: The first Soviet atomic bomb explodes.
"If you make people think they're thinking,
they'll love you; but if you really make
them think, they'll hate you."-Don Marquis
Jesse Shrieve
Thanks for the info about the spec marks.
> Of course, the PPC750 isn't shipping at 350MHz yet, either. I think
> it's clear enough by now that this chip is significantly better than
> Motorola promised in their original discussions. If they do release
> the PPC770, and it's similarly fast, that'll go well up into the Alpha
> ranges. Of course, DEC has a new chip coming too...
I can say for sure though, from second hand experience (my friend has a G3
upgrade card), that the G3 is at least 10-20% faster, if not more, in daily
usage than the 604e@350Mhz he compared it to.
--
Jesse Shrieve
j...@NOMOREv-siteJUNK.net
Dave Haynie
On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 02:21:45 -0400, syse...@micro-net.com (Aaron
Bilger) wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:56:21 -0700, j...@NOMOREv-siteJUNK.net (Jesse Shrieve)
>wrote:
>>> The benchmarks I've seen of the 750s place it slightly below the
>>performance of the 604e 350Mhz, not above it.
>>Um, that's way off. MacWorld, testing prototype models (often slower than
>>the release), rated the Motorla G3/275 at 5.6 and the 604e@350Mhz at 4.3.
>>The old version of the 604, at 233MHz scored 3.3. The G3 chips are *MUCH*
>>faster, at *lower* clock rates.
>Well, here are the benchmarks, from Motorola and IBM. They state the performance
>of the 750/266 to be 12.4 SPECint95 and 8.4 SPECfp95, while the 604e/350 is 14.6
>SPECint95 and 9.0 SPECfp95. Perhaps MacWorld was comparing radically imbalanced
>systems (board difference below is 71 vs 66, but that's hardly enough to account
>for the extreme disparity you would claim in the opposite direction) or using an
>odd benchmark.
MacWorld's tests are skewed, naturally, because they're using Macs.
And because they're running benchmarks.
Most older artificial benchmarks (Dhrystone, that kind of thing) fit
in on-chip caches. So no one uses them anymore. The more popular
artificial benchmarks try to run more like typical applications, but,
like typical applications, large chunks still fit in the L2 cache, and
there's the problem. Or the explanation, if you will.
For the PPC750, the L2 cache is on a private bus, which typically runs
at 1/2 or full CPU speed. For the PPC604e, Mach or otherwise, the L2
cache runs at the system bus speed, which on a PowerMac is in the
40-50MHz range (60MHz if you get some the right Power Computing
system). This has a big effect on performance, easily enough to
explain the difference between Mot's published SPECmarks and
MacWorld's observed performance.
However, those numbers aren't necessarily invalid, either. SPECmarks,
and in truth any reasonable benchmark, is a SYSTEM benchmark, not a
processor benchmark. The system includes the CPU, the L2 or L3 cache,
the memory type, and sometimes the hard disc subsystem (some
benchmarks test that, others avoid it). If you see demonstrably better
performance on a PPC750 in a Mac, changes are applications, at least
those that mimic the benchmark's characteristics, will actually be
faster. But that speed is achieved by delivering an overall better
system, not a faster CPU.
Of course, the PPC750 isn't shipping at 350MHz yet, either. I think
it's clear enough by now that this chip is significantly better than
Motorola promised in their original discussions. If they do release
the PPC770, and it's similarly fast, that'll go well up into the Alpha
ranges. Of course, DEC has a new chip coming too...
Dave Haynie Vice President, Technology PIOS Computer
hay...@pios.de "...no RISC, no fun"
Mechanoid
In article <1299.7204...@online.no>, Even Sandvik Underlid
<evu...@online.no> wrote:
> And I prefer most of the OS to be on my hard drive, except for the most
> vital functions, rather than to have it all in ROM. If the Risc PC has
> got the whole OS in ROM, I cannot see how that can be an advantage.
Ho-ho! This old chestnut again! :-)
What advantage is it having the OS on disc?
Disc based OSes:
1) Are prone to corruption either by malicious software or otherwise.
2) Are slow on start up.
3) Are a waste of disc space.
4) Are a waste of RAM when they're loaded from disc.
5) Make discless workstations impossible.
A ROM based OS has none of these disadvantages, so it is better.
> After all, when you boot up, the most important parts of the OS gets
> copies to RAM (on an Amiga), and RAM speed is generally a lot faster
> than ROM speed.
It's no different on here. Mind you, the memory bus is nearly 4 years
old, so that's not surprising.
> Oh, and what is that Risc PC thingy compatible with?
Acorn software, doh!
What else does it need to be compatible with? I have file-compatiblity
with everything I need, binary compatibilty with Acorn NC's, I can read Mac,
DOS and Atari discs natively (shame the Amiga used non-standard hardware), I
use a standard monitor/keyboard/mouse I have EIDE and SCSI2 interfaces, so
drives aren't a problem, and if I'm feeling really massochistic, I can run
Windows'95 on the PC card.
The only important ommission is PCI, but that will be fixed ealy next year
in the RiscPC 2.
> Nothing? Can you run a decent web browser, a powerful tracker and some
> 3D-applications on it - which aren't out of date? Something comparable to
> IBrowse, Octamed Soundstudio and Lightwave or Cinema 4D?
Web browser: Fresco, or wait until Acorn World '97 for Acorn's new
browser. ArcWeb and Webster aren't bad and they're free, but they are short
on features and don't take plugins, so can't use Java or Shockwave etc.
There's also Webite, but I don't think that even does frames!
Tracker: Digital Symphony. I think that's as good as they come on the
Acorn. I'm not a tracker fan, so I'm not sure. The version I've got is out
of date, I didn't bother to upgrade.
3D applications: Topmodel 2, which is very nice, but is complicated to
use. New version out soon, or so I hear. There's also Da Vinci which I
haven't used, but looks similarly nice. Da Vinci is still in development,
contrary to what was said in a certain Acorn magazine a while back. Grrrr!
What the Acorn really shines at is DTP though. An anti-aliasing font
manager as standard, proper drag and drop etc. Ovation Pro makes Quark
Xpress look utterly pathetic.
> I don't know much about it,
Ah, that explains it. :-)
> but I seriously doubt it can match the Amiga for software support.
You're joking right? The Amiga's dead! ;-)
(If you are going to write flame bait, so am I)
Richard Wilson
> >>I'd suggest just getting a ready made computer, say a Intel P166MMX,
> >>32 Megs of RAM, and a 2-3 Gig harddrive, 15" monitor and go with it.
> >Hi there I have still got my A500 but i went over to Risc Pc
> >and iv`e never looked back as the OS is in rom rather than disk
> >a lot better.
>
> An A500? You cannot compare the Amiga 500 to anything any more. It is a
> dead thing. Unless you have a 040, 16MB of RAM and a graphics board
> for it, it's considered outdated.
>
> vital functions, rather than to have it all in ROM. If the Risc PC has
> got the whole OS in ROM, I cannot see how that can be an advantage.
Well, it's far faster to boot up, and means you can't accidentally (or get
a virus to) delete vital files so you have to reinstall the whole OS -
something which certainly isn't trivial with Windows 95. Also, because of
the modular way RiscOS has been written it can easily have patches loaded
off the hard-drive when the machine is booted up.
> After all, when you boot up, the most important parts of the OS gets
> copies to RAM (on an Amiga), and RAM speed is generally a lot faster
> than ROM speed.
There are several commands to change where different operating system
modules are, so you can have your cake and eat it.
>
> Oh, and what is that Risc PC thingy compatible with? Nothing? Can you
> run a decent web browser, a powerful tracker and some 3D-applications
> on it - which aren't out of date? Something comparable to IBrowse, Octamed
> Soundstudio and Lightwave or Cinema 4D? I don't know much about it,
> but I seriously doubt it can match the Amiga for software support.
>
As far as the compatibility argument goes, it is almost null and void, as
there are so many conversion programs commonly available (and many
applications support this facility natively) that it is hardly a problem;
also the RiscPC can happily read/save/format PC and Atari disks.
Next to your lack of software proposal, well there is an excellent (though
currently no Java support) web browser in the shape of Fresco, a brilliant
3D-app by the way of TopModel (and also DaVinci), a new audio program
by the way of MidiWorks (not forgetting the Tracker app, Digital Symphony),
then there's Impression Publisher and OvationPro (which some say rivals Quark)
for your DTP needs. There's also PhotoDesk (comparible to PhotoShop) for
your graphics, and Merlin for raytracing. Oh and there's the highly
acclaimed Sibelius 7 program, but you probably won't have heard about that
either. And before I forget, all the programs I've mentioned (with the
possible exception of Digital Symphony) are still being updated.
Cheers, Richard.
--
Richard Wilson. ric...@wilsontigger.demon.co.uk
The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and
breeds reptiles of the mind. - William Blake
Ian Gledhill
Even Sandvik Underlid wrote:
> >Hi there I have still got my A500 but i went over to Risc Pc
> >and iv`e never looked back as the OS is in rom rather than disk
> >a lot better.
>
> An A500? You cannot compare the Amiga 500 to anything any more. It is a
> dead thing. Unless you have a 040, 16MB of RAM and a graphics board
> for it, it's considered outdated.
:-)
I still find it positively amazing that people can compare their £300
A500
to £1500 of RiscPC/Wintel/Mac.
Somebody once was moaning about how rubbish the Amiga was compared to
his
PC until I gleaned he was comparing a 486 to an unexpanded A600. People
can
be *so* dim sometimes.
>
> And I prefer most of the OS to be on my hard drive, except for the most
> vital functions, rather than to have it all in ROM. If the Risc PC has
> got the whole OS in ROM, I cannot see how that can be an advantage.
Theoretically fast loading times, but I haven't seen much difference
between
a fully laden RiscPC and a fully laden Amiga.
>
> Oh, and what is that Risc PC thingy compatible with? Nothing? Can you
> run a decent web browser, a powerful tracker and some 3D-applications
> on it - which aren't out of date? Something comparable to IBrowse, Octamed
> Soundstudio and Lightwave or Cinema 4D? I don't know much about it,
> but I seriously doubt it can match the Amiga for software support.
Web browsers? Last I heard they'd just got frames (about 1/2 year ago
now). Most
browsers AFAIK are distinctly lacking compared to the Java-enabled Amiga
browsers now nearly finished. I say most browsers but I'm not sure how
many
there are.... (1? 2? :-) )
Trackers? They do have a fair amount of good MIDI/ music packages, but
trackers,
I don't think so.
As for 3D applications! Hah! Amiga rules. No question! I don't remember
NewTek using Acorns! :-)
People wail about the Amiga being ill, but the truth is it has better
and cheaper s/w support than the RiscPC. True, the RiscPC can do most
things
an Amiga/PC can do, but it costs more and there's less variety, from
what I've
seen. Heck, you want to do something on the Amiga, it's only an
AmiNet's call
away, in 99% of cases that I've had.
Anyway, Amigas have a bright future with a growing market, massive
financial
muscle, a good reputable giant behind it. New people coming in, new
developers.
New processors, even.
And yes, I have used one, one of my best mates swears by them. Thank
goodness
he doesn't read this newsgroup! :-)
(oh heck, this is cross-posted to comp.sys.acorn.misc... <gulp> Hi, Ian!
:-) )
--
Ian Gledhill Q Development Group - "Project FUBAR"
im...@aber.ac.uk http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~oondy
Ian Gledhill
Dan Wu wrote:
>
> In article <EGrEE...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>, ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Tim
> Borgeaud) wrote:
>
>
> Damn, this is the longest flame bait I've ever seen.
No the longest flame bait is your message, because you quoted the
entire message and said that as one sentence afterwards! ARGH!
Thank goodness I didn't download this newsgroup to my Psion!
NEVER quote the entire message without adding to the content.
Anyway, in answer to the original poster,
you needn't worry about power saving. Amigas can't shut off the monitor
automatically (what a great loss.. you have to press the button on the
front! :-) ) but HD power off is no problem. PC's BIOS do power saving
automatically. Macs can AFAIK.
If you get an Intel don't use Win 95 unless your a masochist.
If you want an efficient OS, that's NT out the window ("hey it only
needs
32Mb RAM and PPro to run properly! What do you mean inefficent?" :-) )
MacOS looks decidedly shakey at the moment with Apple's Shenanigans.
Amiga PowerPC is a good option in that you can indeed run Mac stuff
(both 680x0 and PPC) though the Amiga looks increasingly as though it'll
be Alpha based, in which case you won't get much support.
You don't say what you need this computer for, and that has a massive
bearing on what you need.
What I would do, personally, is get a 68060 Amiga. You can always run
Linux on it as well as any PC. Or even a 68040 one, depending on what
you need. 68060 is very fast, though.
At the end of the day, though, it's largely personal taste.
BTW, avoid Pentium-IIs, if only on principle. It's just a way of conning
people into buying proprietary motherboards, and shouldn't be supported
in any way as it's utterly counter-beneficial to the consumer.
And the K6s are almost as good (and a lot cheaper) anyway.
Peter Smith
In message <1299.7204...@online.no>
Even Sandvik Underlid <evu...@online.no> wrote:
[snip]
> And I prefer most of the OS to be on my hard drive, except for the most
> vital functions, rather than to have it all in ROM. If the Risc PC has got
> the whole OS in ROM, I cannot see how that can be an advantage.
>
> After all, when you boot up, the most important parts of the OS gets
> copies to RAM (on an Amiga), and RAM speed is generally a lot faster
> than ROM speed.
But they don't in Acorn machines - they stay in ROM. That's the idea of
having them in ROM, so they don't take up any space.
If you need to update the OS slightly, you get ROM patches. All these do is
using the clever features of the RiscPC memory controller, create a small
page of RAM with the changes in, and then make them appear to go over a part
of the ROM. As far as the OS is concerned, it'll read a chunk from ROM, swap
over to RAM, read the update and then go back to the ROM.
The main advantages of OS in ROM is that it's incorruptible, so you don't
have to do a Windows - a reinstall every month because your OS is screwed up.
it also helps in low memory machines. RiscOS is perfectly useable with 4Mb of
RAM and no hard disc.
It's also handy having OS in ROM if you have a hard disc crash and no boot
disc - your machine will still work. The commonly used applications : Vector
drawing package, bitmap drawing package, text editor, calculator, file
compressor, interactive help app, printer appliation are all in ROM, so your
machine is still functional.
>
> Oh, and what is that Risc PC thingy compatible with? Nothing?
It's compatible with the past Acorn machines for the previous 10 years.
It'll run most of the software and hardware within reason, ie some of the
old hardware expansions were in "double width" cards that won't physically
fit into the new case, and some of the older software used self modifying
code, so it won't run happily on the new Harvard Architecuture StrongARM.
Through software emulation, it's compatible with the still older range of
Acorn machines from approx 1980 - the BBC Range, B, Master 128, Master
Compact & Electron, along with Amiga (using UAE), Gameboy, Spectrum, C64,
CPC, PC (Acorn !PCEm application), Sega GameGear
With a plug in 486/586 card in the co-processor socket it'll run PC
applications inc Win 3.1/3.11 & 95 quite happily - only yesterday I was
running QuakeME under Win95, to create a Bill Gates grunt for Quake, to kill
Bill in Quake running natively under RiscOS.
Compatability isn't _really_ a problem.
> Can you run a decent web browser, a powerful tracker and some
> 3D-applications on it - which aren't out of date? Something comparable to
> IBrowse, Octamed Soundstudio and Lightwave or Cinema 4D?
I also don't know much about the Amiga software, but I'll make a guess anyway
:-) that's what the net's about!
Web broswser : I'm not sure what the amiga situation is with Java &
Realaudio, but the "top of the range" browser Fresco from ANT will do frames
& tables. When a Java port is released (soon I hope), it should integrate
with the plugin capability of Fresco. The same goes for realaudio and
shockwave.
Combined with antialiased fonts (and possibly font blending, whereby a font
is blended into the background image - does Fresco support this?), the
display is IMHO superior to the display on a PC browser.
An alternative is Arcweb, which does most of what Fresco does, but free. Some
would say it's not quite as good a Fresco tho'
The latest machines, RiscOS 3.6 and 3.7 with StrongARM all have a built in
DCI 4 stack, not requiring the stack to be soft loaded. Because this is based
on the BSD stack, porting TCP/IP apps from BSD variants isn't difficult.
As to trackers : There's Digital Symphony - a tracker type generator and
player. If you just want to play they, then there's the Freeware
"PDTracker" that will play (amongs others).... ProTracker, SoundTracker,
Desktoptracker, Coconiser, Digital Symphony, Xenaxis, Matrix Tracker,
ScreamTracker and MIDI files, and also plays CDs.
There's also the Killer Application, Sibileus, which has done for music
production and typesetting what the computer did for word processing.
Modelling software : The best we have is Top Model AFAIK, but I can't say
much about it because I've never used it to create files, just display them
If you want to Wordprocess, there are many wordprocessors. Textease (IIRC?)
will also allow loading and saving of MS Word files. The more complex of them
are comparable to QuarkXpress
Photo-manipulation? Photodesk 2 has virtually all the features of Photoshop
(bar layers IIRC)
Also, if you want to, you can do all of this and more at the same time,
although your screen may get a little cramped on a 14" monitor!
> I don't know much about it, but I seriously doubt it can match the Amiga
> for software support.
How do you mean software support? Support for software already produced and
available, or supporting new types of software, as yet unreleased?
ATB
Peter
--
51 things to do in a lift....
25. Holler "Chutes away!" whenever the lift descends.
Allan Eagle
> <SB> rUSTYBRAIn
> <SB>A4ooo/o4o-4oMHz/18MB/2.7GB/4xCD/CV3D/17"/OS3.o
> <SB>Amiga - for people who want more than just a PC!
Amiga. They still make them then?
--
Allan Eagle
aje...@lineone.net
"If you drop a piece of bread, it will always fall buttered side down.
If a cat falls from a high place it will always land on it's feet.
What happens if you attach the bread, buttered side up to the back
of the cat and drop the composite?"
Ian Gledhill
Allan Eagle <Lin...@ajeagle.lineone.net> wrote in article
<e3ae2cce47%Lin...@ajeagle.lineone.net>...
> Amiga. They still make them then?
It's a *long* story, but yes, Amigas are being made. Gateway 2000 are the
parent
company of Amiga Inc. and Amiga international.
At last count there were 3 Amiga clone manufacturers (Direct, Index and
Micronik)
plus Amiga International themselves. AFAIK.
Some Amigas now have PPC chips in, up to 200MHz 604e, twinned with 50Mhz
68060s, so we're not underpowered. Amiga Inc are currently deciding on the
CPU
to be used for next generation Amigas, though it looks like it may be
Alpha.
Basically, the Wintel world had better watch out because we're back and
this
time we have real financial muscle and EVEN advertising! Wohoo!
Simply put, the Amiga is looking to have a rather bright future right
now...
(of course being owned by the fourth biggest PC manufacturer helps.... :-)
)
BTW: New Amigas (RISC ones) due end of 1998....
Ian Gledhill
Right! I got a rather rude reply from someone earlier to my post so I'm
going
to reply to *all* these posts! ;-)
Nah, don't worry. I do have a life really... :-)
If you don't like 'my computer vs. your computer' don't read on! :-)
Mechanoid <dmal...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in article
<na.ea05ce47ce....@argonet.co.uk>...
>
> In article <1299.7204...@online.no>, Even Sandvik Underlid
> <evu...@online.no> wrote:
>
> > And I prefer most of the OS to be on my hard drive, except for the most
> > vital functions, rather than to have it all in ROM. If the Risc PC has
> > got the whole OS in ROM, I cannot see how that can be an advantage.
>
> Ho-ho! This old chestnut again! :-)
>
Arguments are like fashion. they come and go and come and go.
In fact, they're rather like Star Trek episodes: all variations on about 4
themes! :-)
For the record: I've had Amigas since 1989. Haven't had an Arc, but know
a man who has... :-) Anyway, it makes a change from arguing with PC
zombies! :-) And for goodness sakes don't take it personally, anybody!
> What advantage is it having the OS on disc?
>
> Disc based OSes:
>
> 1) Are prone to corruption either by malicious software or otherwise.
I've never re-installed my Workbench.... I don't think prone is quite the
right word. Anyway viruses don't corrupt system files like that, they
corrupt
other files. If they corrupted system files, they wouldn't spread so well.
Generally speaking.
> 2) Are slow on start up.
Not that I've seen. Slow is all relative. Don't take Win 95 as an example,
it's pathetic. Boot up times are no slower on systems like Amigas than
Acorns.
> 3) Are a waste of disc space.
The Amiga OS kernel is about 1/2 meg, I reckon (note the kernel), which
I'd say is similar to the ROM size on an Acorn. Hardly a big issue when
nobody has less than 100Mb Hard disks any more....
> 4) Are a waste of RAM when they're loaded from disc.
About 100K of RAM is used by workbench. Oh dear. What a loss.
(N.B. I'm talking kernel again here! (equivalent to Acorn ROM)
> 5) Make discless workstations impossible.
Bzzt! Wrong!
My Ethernet card has socket for boot ROMs. :-) Nice try!
> A ROM based OS has none of these disadvantages, so it is better.
> > After all, when you boot up, the most important parts of the OS gets
> > copies to RAM (on an Amiga), and RAM speed is generally a lot faster
> > than ROM speed.
>
> It's no different on here. Mind you, the memory bus is nearly 4 years
> old, so that's not surprising.
So you copy the ROM to RAM too? Bang goes half your arguments! :-)
>
> > Oh, and what is that Risc PC thingy compatible with?
>
> Acorn software, doh!
>
> What else does it need to be compatible with? I have file-compatiblity
> with everything I need, binary compatibilty with Acorn NC's, I can read
Mac,
> DOS and Atari discs natively (shame the Amiga used non-standard
hardware), I
> use a standard monitor/keyboard/mouse I have EIDE and SCSI2 interfaces,
so
> drives aren't a problem, and if I'm feeling really massochistic, I can
run
> Windows'95 on the PC card.
Exactly like the Amiga then... :-)
> The only important ommission is PCI, but that will be fixed ealy next
year
> in the RiscPC 2.
Amigas have these now, but only for bridgeboards. It's coming, though...
:-)
If anyone does a GoldenGate III especially..
BTW, Amigas take Zorro, Zorro II, Zorro III, ISA 8-bit and ISA 16-bit cards
too! :-)
> > Nothing? Can you run a decent web browser, a powerful tracker and some
> > 3D-applications on it - which aren't out of date? Something comparable
to
> > IBrowse, Octamed Soundstudio and Lightwave or Cinema 4D?
>
> Web browser: Fresco, or wait until Acorn World '97 for Acorn's new
> browser. ArcWeb and Webster aren't bad and they're free, but they are
short
> on features and don't take plugins, so can't use Java or Shockwave etc.
Fair enough. More advanced than I thought, I concede.. but still not as
advanced
as ours! :-) (so there! :-) )
>
> Tracker: Digital Symphony. I think that's as good as they come on the
> Acorn. I'm not a tracker fan, so I'm not sure. The version I've got is
out
> of date, I didn't bother to upgrade.
Sounds like a music program more than a tracker.. Could be wrong though...
Trackers have quite different facilities and purposes.
> 3D applications: Topmodel 2, which is very nice, but is complicated to
> use. New version out soon, or so I hear. There's also Da Vinci which I
> haven't used, but looks similarly nice. Da Vinci is still in
development,
> contrary to what was said in a certain Acorn magazine a while back.
Grrrr!
Still Has a way to go to reach the Toaster, I'll bet (as used in ST: TNG,
Babylon 5
etc.etc)..
> What the Acorn really shines at is DTP though. An anti-aliasing font
> manager as standard, proper drag and drop etc. Ovation Pro makes Quark
> Xpress look utterly pathetic.
Not hard... :-)
Yeah, the Amiga doesn't have as good s/w as the Acorn for DTP. But what we
do have is pretty good and a *load* cheaper.
> > I don't know much about it,
>
> Ah, that explains it. :-)
>
Since when has knowledge come into a good old-fashioned .advocacy debate?!?
:-)
> > but I seriously doubt it can match the Amiga for software support.
>
> You're joking right? The Amiga's dead! ;-)
>
Fact: The AmiNet is the biggest shareware/PD archive site on *any*
platform.
full stop.
Also Fact: you'd be amazed at how many people would take that comment
seriously, despite the ;-) ! :-)
> (If you are going to write flame bait, so am I)
>
Always good for a laugh! :-) (I must be *bored*! :-) )
Problem is, arguing with PC owners is no contest, because everybody KNOWS
they don't hold a candle to Amigas OR Acorns (or ZX81s for that matter).
Think of this as a friendly... :-)
Richard Walker
In message <5250ece47%pol...@ursaminr.demon.co.uk>
Peter Smith <pol...@ursaminr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1299.7204...@online.no>
> Even Sandvik Underlid <evu...@online.no> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Can you run a decent web browser, a powerful tracker and some
> > 3D-applications on it - which aren't out of date? Something comparable to
> > IBrowse, Octamed Soundstudio and Lightwave or Cinema 4D?
>
> I also don't know much about the Amiga software, but I'll make a guess anyway
> :-) that's what the net's about!
>
> Web broswser : I'm not sure what the amiga situation is with Java &
> Realaudio, but the "top of the range" browser Fresco from ANT will do frames
> & tables. When a Java port is released (soon I hope), it should integrate
> with the plugin capability of Fresco. The same goes for realaudio and
> shockwave.
>
> Combined with antialiased fonts (and possibly font blending, whereby a font
> is blended into the background image - does Fresco support this?), the
> display is IMHO superior to the display on a PC browser.
If anyone needs to see shots of the above, have a look at
http://www.breckonhill.demon.co.uk/java.html (it's RISC OS)
--
Richard.
_____________________________________________________________________________
my software: http://www.manorsch.demon.co.uk/rw (LanManFS front-end)
Robert W Current
Philip Kaulfuss (ph...@boehme.demon.co.uk) Said something like:
: : MACs don't even have boards that go faster than 66Mhz, and certainly not as
: : fast as 83 or 100Mhz.
: Wrong. Try a 300MHz 604e. Several times faster than any Pentium.
Tell me this is a total complete mistake. PLEASE. You mean Mac
MotherBoard Bus Speeds runt at 300MHz when the fastest Socket 7 Mother
Board I can afford only runs at 83MHz? Holy shit, excuse me, but WOW,
Why does anyone still buy anything from intel if this is true? I have to
believe this a total error unless someone can point me to some technical
litrature supporting it. I believe some one is mixing up CPU speed with
Mother Board Bus Speed here.....
Rod Hanson
In article <19970921....@quantumsoft.co.uk>, stu...@quantumsoft.co.uk
(Stuart Halliday) wrote:
> BTW, with my RiscPC taking only 15secs to boot up and Win95/NT taking
> typically 1min does this mean that I've saved at least 9 hours a year in
> productivity by using RISC OS? ;-)
too, non of that "please wait ..." stuff. you could probably just pull ythe
plug out if you wanted to.
actually though the advice someone gave to get an a1200 sounded very sound
to me, he'd get one for peanuts and PC prices are dropping all the time
while the features are improving dramatically, so the longer he holds off
buying one the more he'll get for the least money
I like acorn.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ rod.h...@argonet.co.uk
o r c e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s
In article <EGrEE...@fsa.bris.ac.uk>,
Tim Borgeaud <ph...@zeus.bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> My old Amiga 500 computer has finally become too dated to be much use to
>me. I will be upgrading to a more powerful computer and operating system
>soon but at the moment I am having a lot of trouble deciding what to buy.
>I need some info and advice as this is going to be a major purchase for
>me.
>
> I would really like to get hold of a very fast computer, but of course I
>am on a budget. Also as It will probably be left running for 24hrs a day
>I'd like to get an energy saving system that is as efficient as possible.
>
>
> I could get a Power PC based computer and I'd be able to run both MAC
>OS, which is easiest to use, or amiga dos (when it comes out).
If you're willing to go it alone, and you only get upgrade fever once
a decade, a Mac-based PPC is a good choice, if somewhat expensive.
But if you're worried at all about support and availability of parts,
avoid it like the plague; Steve Jobs has rammed Apple full onto the
iceberg, and it's starting to take that long cold plunge to the
bottom of the sea.
At least with PCs you can get all the system parts from multiple
vendors, so a Jobsian mass suicide won't take down the entire
industry. A moderately fast PC will be cheaper than a Mac, will
be easier to upgrade, and is almost guaranteed to be upgradable.
____
david parsons \bi/ Think of the bright side; at least the ex-Mac-cloners
\/ will go on to success in the PC market.
Eric van Bezooijen
In article <SCOTT.97S...@slave.doubleu.com>,
> If I'm not mistaken, this person never really told us what the
> machine would be used for...only that they were worried about power
> consumption - but this whole "green pc" thing seems bogus to me,
> home computers just don't really use that much power. if you're
> worried about harming mother earth, there are far more pressing
> matters than desktop 'puters.
>
>components of the computer itself than you're ever likely to use up in
>running the machine 24x7x365. C't had an article that estimated that
>building a computer requires about the same amount of resources as
>building a car.
[ lossy compression ]
I agree with all this, although I think I read somewhere that 10 % of
the energy used in office buildings is now being consumed by computer systems.
I also think that the "paperless office" is a myth. Unless I'm mistaken,
computers have done more to increase the consumption of paper products
than anything in recent history.
Of course, if you want to *really* help the planet, don't have any
children! More people == more consumption of resources == more pollution,
deforestation, etc. This holds true unless we all turn into hermit cave
dwellers.
-Eric
--
Eric van Bezooijen er...@activesw.com http://www.activesw.com/~eric
"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that
cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong
goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."-D Adams
brett hunter
In article <609rfp$d...@camel12.mindspring.com>, ro...@news.mindspring.com
(root) wrote:
>The L2 cache is clocked at twice the MB speed, which probably means
>that it has a 100 MHz cache (could be off a bit here!) Which kicks
>the shit out of your Pentium's L2 cache. Oh, BTW, your Pentium (sticking
>to the original subject) is a two-way superscalar, cannot-go-out-of-
>order, piece of crap with 16k L1 caches. The 604e is 4-way superscalar
>and _can_ go out-of-order, and features 32k L1 caches, and, in the Apple
>models these days, has a full megabyte of L2 cache. I would imagine
>that it it several times faster than any Pentium (P5) if they are
>running the same routines.
Ok, not to get into a PC vs. Mac debate, but the corresponding bus speeds
on Macs are typically 40-50Mhz. Note the word "typical", as it applies
mainly to Apple made Macs. PowerComputing goes up to a 60Mhz bus in one of
their lines (called the PowerCenter I believe). Note that out of the box,
not taking into account what people may clock their own machines to, the
max bus speed on any Mac is 60Mhz while the PC has been at 66Mhz for some
time.
brett
Jesse Shrieve
Actually, the backside cache is as much as 200MHz in the G3s.
--
Jesse Shrieve
j...@NOMOREv-siteJUNK.net
Thomas Boroske
In message <ant2310471cb&3...@wilsontigger.demon.co.uk> Richard Wilson wrote:
> In article <1299.7204...@online.no>, Even Sandvik Underlid
> <URL:mailto:evu...@online.no> wrote:
>> > And I prefer most of the OS to be on my hard drive, except for the most
> > vital functions, rather than to have it all in ROM. If the Risc PC has
> > got the whole OS in ROM, I cannot see how that can be an advantage.
>
> Well, it's far faster to boot up, and means you can't accidentally (or get
> a virus to) delete vital files so you have to reinstall the whole OS -
Damn.
Have you actually checked how much of RiscOS 3.7 is on the disc
already ? I'm quite sure it's more than is in ROM.
So there's ENOUGH vital files that can be deleted. Also, I think
re-writing a 200 page long thesis because you accidentially deleted
it is FAR more hassle than an OS reinstall.
I think a decent file system is asked for, not a big ROM.
> something which certainly isn't trivial with Windows 95. Also, because of
> the modular way RiscOS has been written it can easily have patches loaded
> off the hard-drive when the machine is booted up.
If the areas that need patching up aren't needed at boot time :-(
Kind regards,
--
Thomas Boroske
Thomas Boroske
In message <na.ea05ce47ce....@argonet.co.uk> Mechanoid wrote:
>
> In article <1299.7204...@online.no>, Even Sandvik Underlid
> <evu...@online.no> wrote:
>
> > And I prefer most of the OS to be on my hard drive, except for the most
> > vital functions, rather than to have it all in ROM. If the Risc PC has
> > got the whole OS in ROM, I cannot see how that can be an advantage.
>
> Ho-ho! This old chestnut again! :-)
>
> What advantage is it having the OS on disc?
>
> Disc based OSes:
>
> 1) Are prone to corruption either by malicious software or otherwise.
Sure. If your file system is crap ...
Also, ROM based OSs like RiscOS only have a small part actually in
ROM, you'll find there's lots of things needed apart from the ROM-based
parts.
What's this distinction about the "OS" and other files and apps about
anyway ? I mean, there's a lot of difference, but not as regards
corruption and reinstallation.
And I really prefer reinstalling the OS from CD than having to download
all those files and apps I got from the net again.
Will you suggest putting the internet and every commercial software
ever produced in ROM or what ? What about the files I created myself ?
If I've got a filing system prone to destroying the disc I've got to
do backups.
> 2) Are slow on start up.
Except those config files, desktop backgrounds, all the apps you want
to load (SparkFS and other tools for example) are coming from disc anyway.
You could just slap those 4MB ROM into a single file, of you want.
Takes a second to load from an SCSI disc.
> 3) Are a waste of disc space.
ROM-based OSs are a waste of ROM space.
> 4) Are a waste of RAM when they're loaded from disc.
How can a program you need for your work be a waste of RAM ?
Anyway, those 4MB of ROM are static, if I don't need module X
or resource Y ever, it's totally wasted. It wouldn't be with
RAM.
Come on, the A3000 is history now. It's not unheard of that people
have got 32MB of RAM (eight times the ROM size) or more, and
harddiscs too.
> 5) Make discless workstations impossible.
Bullshit. There's a ROM on the ethernet card (you DO realize that a
discless workstation is bollocks unless you've got a 'remote disc'
over a network, do you ?) that can initiate the boot process.
Or could have (how's it done with RPCs ?).
> A ROM based OS has none of these disadvantages, so it is better.
There's no way to correct bugs in the routines that are needed at
boot time (that includes ide and floppy drivers) without an
expensive ROM replacement.
Flash ROM would be nice, but I can't see 4MB or sizes like this as
necessary when there's a perfectly good HD or a net connection
available.
Thomas Boroske
In message <5250ece47%pol...@ursaminr.demon.co.uk> Peter Smith wrote:
> The main advantages of OS in ROM is that it's incorruptible, so you don't
> have to do a Windows - a reinstall every month because your OS is screwed up.
Oh come on. I can't hear that anymore.
Seriously: WHAT can you do with only the software in ROM ?
I don't do vector graphics, so draw could as well not be there.
Forget Paint anyway.
You mention that inbuilt internet stack later on. What use is putting this
in ROM, for example ? Without proper internet apps, dialer etc. you
can't do anything at all.
Have you actually tried using a recent Acorn computer (RiscPC) without
a system harddisk ? You can't even change screen modes without
a monitor description file, you won't be able to access your archives
without SparkFS, the only thing you can do is copying files from
CD or floppy onto the disc until you've got all the apps you need
again.
A boot floppy or even a CD with live file system serves the same purpose,
exactly.
> it also helps in low memory machines. RiscOS is perfectly useable with 4Mb of
> RAM and no hard disc.
Problem is: You probably don't save anything. ROM is the cheapest type
of memory, I guess. However, economies of scale come into the play too.
And please remember that the 4MB of RiscOS ROM are only produced
a few thousand or a few ten-thousand times.
(Or do they already use PROMs ?).
Compare that with millions of RAM chips that are used by the whole PC
market and elsewhere.
I think what's needed is an approach like it is in the PC world, ie a
small _FLASH_ ROM that basically only contains a few routines for
basic input/output and the necessary drivers to drive the boot device
(floppy and ide, normally).
Obviously, expansion cards that can be used to boot (SCSI or network, for
example) need their own flash ROM (as they do today).
You also mention later that, if a bug is found, it can be easily cured
by loading a new module version from disc or by using ROM-patches.
However, this is not possible for routines that are used in the
initial booting process.
One example is the new filecore.
And maybe those incompatibilities with Western Digital drives aren't
hardware problems at all but could have been avoided or cured
altogether in software - only Acorn didn't release a new set of
ROMs, which would have been expensive.
I think SCSI cards have a flash ROM for a reason.
Finally, virus (don't know the plural) don't matter - Especially not
on the Acorn platform.
Large ROMs were a good idea on floppy only computers, but with current
systems it's silly.
I believe a small flash ROM would be cheaper and, most importantly,
BETTER.
root
Mechanoid
In article <5250ece47%pol...@ursaminr.demon.co.uk>, Peter Smith
<pol...@ursaminr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Photo-manipulation? Photodesk 2 has virtually all the features of
> Photoshop (bar layers IIRC)
No, there is a layers version of Photodesk 2 now IIRC.
Kristofer D. Dale
: "If you drop a piece of bread, it will always fall buttered side down.
: If a cat falls from a high place it will always land on it's feet.
: What happens if you attach the bread, buttered side up to the back
: of the cat and drop the composite?"
composites detract... ;^]
--
barefoot
Pasi Juppo
Ian Gledhill wrote:
>
> Even Sandvik Underlid wrote:
>
> > >Hi there I have still got my A500 but i went over to Risc Pc
> > >and iv`e never looked back as the OS is in rom rather than disk
> > >a lot better.
> >
> > An A500? You cannot compare the Amiga 500 to anything any more. It is a
> > dead thing. Unless you have a 040, 16MB of RAM and a graphics board
> > for it, it's considered outdated.
>
> :-)
> I still find it positively amazing that people can compare their £300
> A500
> to £1500 of RiscPC/Wintel/Mac.
From what I've seen Amiga 500 and A3000 series are more comparable.
People tend to make many mistakes ;)
> Somebody once was moaning about how rubbish the Amiga was compared to
> his
> PC until I gleaned he was comparing a 486 to an unexpanded A600. People
> can
> be *so* dim sometimes.
Sounds familiar. People have often written that PC users are amazed
about
the speed of Risc PC without StrongARM. How would they feel then when
they
actually see and use one with SA..
> > And I prefer most of the OS to be on my hard drive, except for the most
> > vital functions, rather than to have it all in ROM. If the Risc PC has
> > got the whole OS in ROM, I cannot see how that can be an advantage.
>
> Theoretically fast loading times, but I haven't seen much difference
> between
> a fully laden RiscPC and a fully laden Amiga.
There propably isn't great difference because usually there are many
bits and pieces which are loaded at the boot sequence. However,
if you have problems with the HD for example you can boot up within
3-5 secs and fix it. Then go back to slow 20 sec boot.. This I find
very good feature.
> > Oh, and what is that Risc PC thingy compatible with? Nothing? Can you
> > run a decent web browser, a powerful tracker and some 3D-applications
> > on it - which aren't out of date? Something comparable to IBrowse, Octamed
> > Soundstudio and Lightwave or Cinema 4D? I don't know much about it,
> > but I seriously doubt it can match the Amiga for software support.
:-) How compatible Amiga is with any other systems? Hope you see the
point as I'm not going to explain it..
> Web browsers? Last I heard they'd just got frames (about 1/2 year ago
> now). Most
> browsers AFAIK are distinctly lacking compared to the Java-enabled Amiga
> browsers now nearly finished. I say most browsers but I'm not sure how
> many
> there are.... (1? 2? :-) )
Web browsers aren't yet up to date IMO but Fresco (so I've heard) is
good
and the Acorn's browser should be very good. But that remains to be seen
until the Acorn World show takes a place. The browser situation is
otherwise
rather good. Several browsers not just one..
Java-enabled Amiga browser now NEARLY ready :-) As good as our NC
(netword computer) browser which handles tables, frames, java, etc.
> Trackers? They do have a fair amount of good MIDI/ music packages, but
> trackers,
> I don't think so.
Not really my area but there are some trackers. Symphony, desktop
tracker,
PD Tracker (or something). I'm not very interested in these so I'll
pass.
The sound of the tracker isn't very good in my opinion. Xenacis have
16 bit samples which produces better quality but I still prefer MPEG
Audio Layer 2/3 and MPEG 2 Audio layer 2.
From what I've heard the midi area is growing rapidly and there are very
good tools for it. Maybe you should take a look at Oregan's web site to
find out. Don't know the url but I guess www.oregan.uk.co will be close.
If you haven't seen or heard of sibelius then you should take a look at
it as well. It have not been said to be the best composing software for
any computer.
Btw, have you ever checked what software there are for Acorn?
> As for 3D applications! Hah! Amiga rules. No question! I don't remember
> NewTek using Acorns! :-)
Amiga sucks - SGI rules :-) There are some nice 3D apps but it's true
that 3D isn't RiscPCs strongest point. With RPC II I will expect this
to improve a lot (due to the PCI bus I mean).
> People wail about the Amiga being ill, but the truth is it has better
> and cheaper s/w support than the RiscPC. True, the RiscPC can do most
> things
> an Amiga/PC can do, but it costs more and there's less variety, from
> what I've
> seen. Heck, you want to do something on the Amiga, it's only an
> AmiNet's call
> away, in 99% of cases that I've had.
I don't agree with you entirely. There propably isn't as good variety
of programs like there is for Amiga but the overall cost is very good
IMO. Bare in mind that Amiga's basic concept doesn't envolve anymore.
The expansion card section propably does and will for quite some time
but it's not a real solution - well, at least not for me. What I've
heard about Amiga and it's future it doesn't sound good, IMHO.
> Anyway, Amigas have a bright future with a growing market, massive
> financial
> muscle, a good reputable giant behind it. New people coming in, new
> developers.
> New processors, even.
Why do you think Amiga have bright future? PCs will get over 90% of
the computer industri within next years and that is a fact. Acorn will
get tiny 0,01% but it is enough for me and for many other enthusiast.
Amiga will gain few new users but will loose many. Only place where
I can see Amiga fits is home video editing systems but there are many
softwares already for PCs but also hardware.. Risc PC fits there also
quite nicely (Oregan's video editting system)..
> And yes, I have used one, one of my best mates swears by them. Thank
> goodness
> he doesn't read this newsgroup! :-)
I've used one too but it's been a long long long time. Are they still
around ;-) But seriously, where do you think this conversation will
take us? Nowhere.. maybe it is better to stop right here.
--
Pasi Juppo
Liam Gretton
In article <19970924....@y0001006.tu-bs.de>, Thomas Boroske
<URL:mailto:y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> What's this distinction about the "OS" and other files and apps about
> anyway ? I mean, there's a lot of difference, but not as regards
> corruption and reinstallation.
Without the OS, none of your apps can run in the first place. And it's
obvious that corrupting the OS is likely to be far more catastrophic than
corrupting an application.
> And I really prefer reinstalling the OS from CD than having to download
> all those files and apps I got from the net again.
Download from the net again? Why not just restore them from your last backup?
Many times with a particular disc-based OS (mentioning no names, though I
could say 'Windows' to give you a clue) a problem that forces me to reinstall
the OS (which I don't consider to be a trivial exercise) often means that
many of the overlying apps also need reinstalling. At least with RISC OS the
vast majority of the OS can be relied on at all times, and even most of the
'essential' apps (SparkFS, etc) can be run from a floppy in an emergency.
> Will you suggest putting the internet and every commercial software
> ever produced in ROM or what ? What about the files I created myself ?
Of course that's not being suggested.
> How can a program you need for your work be a waste of RAM ?
> Anyway, those 4MB of ROM are static, if I don't need module X
> or resource Y ever, it's totally wasted. It wouldn't be with
> RAM.
Same applies if it's on disc. Whether your OS is disc-based, ROM-based or
punch-tape based, there are bound to be components that are unused by a given
user (and hence 'wasting' space), so the storage space argument leads us
nowhere. The point is the OS is much safer in ROM.
[discless machines on networks]
> Bullshit. There's a ROM on the ethernet card (you DO realize that a
> discless workstation is bollocks unless you've got a 'remote disc'
> over a network, do you ?) that can initiate the boot process.
When you're running (say) 1000 machines on a network, you're going to want to
know if there's a possibility of running them discless, just for the sake of
saving money. And how does this machine boot from a remote host... there's a
ROM on the ethernet card, do I hear you say? Weren't you arguing against
ROM-based OSes?
I'm not sure how discless DOS machines boot over a network, but it can be
done. I guess they have code in their BIOS (which is in ROM...) to start the
process off.
> There's no way to correct bugs in the routines that are needed at
> boot time (that includes ide and floppy drivers) without an
> expensive ROM replacement.
If the OS is so bugged that it can't boot successfully, no-one's going to be
able to use the machine in the first place.
In my experience, the main evidence in favour of a ROM-based OS over a
disc-based one is this: I've *never* had to reinstall RISC OS off a bunch of
floppies (or any other medium for that matter). I've had to do this with
Windows and DOS many many times.
--
Liam Gretton
li...@binliner.demon.co.uk (preferred address) Home (0116) 2701642
l...@star.le.ac.uk
Wayne Bagguley
In message <3427BE...@aber.ac.uk>
Ian Gledhill <im...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
> People wail about the Amiga being ill, but the truth is it has better
> and cheaper s/w support than the RiscPC. True, the RiscPC can do most
> things
> an Amiga/PC can do, but it costs more and there's less variety, from
> what I've
> seen. Heck, you want to do something on the Amiga, it's only an
> AmiNet's call
> away, in 99% of cases that I've had.
>
> Anyway, Amigas have a bright future with a growing market, massive
> financial
> muscle, a good reputable giant behind it. New people coming in, new
> developers.
> New processors, even.
ROTFL.
Nice joke!
--
_ ,_ _ http://www.majic12.demon.co.uk
(_/\_) (_) (_| | | (/_ snow...@majic12.demon.co.uk
` _|
Uses for Bill Gates #6 - Pin cushion
Wayne Bagguley
In message <19970924....@y0001006.tu-bs.de>
y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de (Thomas Boroske) wrote:
> > something which certainly isn't trivial with Windows 95. Also, because of
> > the modular way RiscOS has been written it can easily have patches loaded
> > off the hard-drive when the machine is booted up.
>
> If the areas that need patching up aren't needed at boot time :-(
And how often do you need to patch something that's needed at bootup time?
The only thing I can see is the file system. And since the RiscOS file
system is very stable, I don't see a problem.
Regards.
--
_ ,_ _ http://www.majic12.demon.co.uk
(_/\_) (_) (_| | | (/_ snow...@majic12.demon.co.uk
` _|
Uses for Bill Gates #7 - Lavatory brush
Wayne Bagguley
In message <01bcc84f$ce354360$d1ec7c90@chewonthis>
"Ian Gledhill" <im...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
> Bzzt! Wrong!
> My Ethernet card has socket for boot ROMs. :-) Nice try!
Err aren't you trying to argue against ROMs???
> So you copy the ROM to RAM too? Bang goes half your arguments! :-)
ROMs don't have to spin up though...
> Sounds like a music program more than a tracker.. Could be wrong though...
> Trackers have quite different facilities and purposes.
He forgot to mention Sibelius - the most powerful music program thingy on
ANY platform. People buy RiscPCs just to run this software!
> Still Has a way to go to reach the Toaster, I'll bet (as used in ST: TNG,
> Babylon 5
> etc.etc)..
Hah, but we don't need a toaster.
> > What the Acorn really shines at is DTP though. An anti-aliasing font
> > manager as standard, proper drag and drop etc. Ovation Pro makes Quark
> > Xpress look utterly pathetic.
>
> Not hard... :-)
> Yeah, the Amiga doesn't have as good s/w as the Acorn for DTP. But what we
> do have is pretty good and a *load* cheaper.
Only 'cos people won't pay.
> > You're joking right? The Amiga's dead! ;-)
> >
> Fact: The AmiNet is the biggest shareware/PD archive site on *any*
> platform.
Only because no-one can actually sell Amiga software to anyone. Does
anyone actually make a living out of writing Amiga software anymore?
> Also Fact: you'd be amazed at how many people would take that comment
> seriously, despite the ;-) ! :-)
Well it is dead innit?? What's the latest model?? When was it produced???
> Problem is, arguing with PC owners is no contest, because everybody KNOWS
> they don't hold a candle to Amigas OR Acorns (or ZX81s for that matter).
>
> Think of this as a friendly... :-)
Incidentally, what's the top speed of an Amiga?? Do they still use those
68k thingies????
Regards.
--
_ ,_ _ http://www.majic12.demon.co.uk
(_/\_) (_) (_| | | (/_ snow...@majic12.demon.co.uk
` _|
Computer madness terms #4 - One sector short of a hard disc
Richard Wilson
In article <19970924....@y0001006.tu-bs.de>, Thomas Boroske
<URL:mailto:y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de> wrote:
>
> > In article <1299.7204...@online.no>, Even Sandvik Underlid
> >> > And I prefer most of the OS to be on my hard drive, except for the most
> > > vital functions, rather than to have it all in ROM. If the Risc PC has
> > > got the whole OS in ROM, I cannot see how that can be an advantage.
> >
> > a virus to) delete vital files so you have to reinstall the whole OS -
>
> Damn.
>
> Have you actually checked how much of RiscOS 3.7 is on the disc
> already ? I'm quite sure it's more than is in ROM.
Hey! who's using OS3.7? I'm still on 3.11 as I've still got an A5000. I
really would be lost though if my machine didn't boot up in less than 5
seconds though (clean boot) as due to the amount of assembler I'm writing
I often hang the machine. For most of my time I only have Zap and Paint (ROM)
loaded, so yes, I love my ROMs.
> So there's ENOUGH vital files that can be deleted. Also, I think
> re-writing a 200 page long thesis because you accidentially deleted
> it is FAR more hassle than an OS reinstall.
But you've got to look back at Acorn's history - schools. If you're
running a computer department the last thing you want to do it have to
re-install a dozen copies of Windows 95 every day because a few malicious
children went playing with File Manager.
> I think a decent file system is asked for, not a big ROM.
No, it's needed *aswell*. :-)
>
> > something which certainly isn't trivial with Windows 95. Also, because of
> > the modular way RiscOS has been written it can easily have patches loaded
> > off the hard-drive when the machine is booted up.
>
> If the areas that need patching up aren't needed at boot time :-(
Which amounts to the FileCore and possibly a few other modules...
Cheers, Richard.
Wayne Bagguley
In message <01bcc851$9787d920$d1ec7c90@chewonthis>
"Ian Gledhill" <im...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
> BTW: New Amigas (RISC ones) due end of 1998....
At last!! They've finally caught up with Acorn, who were the first to move
to a RISC architecture. (Ten years ago IIRC)
:-)
Regards.
--
_ ,_ _ http://www.majic12.demon.co.uk
(_/\_) (_) (_| | | (/_ snow...@majic12.demon.co.uk
` _|
Computer madness terms #5 - One key short of a keyboard
Wayne Bagguley
In message <1299.7204...@online.no>
Even Sandvik Underlid <evu...@online.no> wrote:
> And I prefer most of the OS to be on my hard drive, except for the most
> vital functions, rather than to have it all in ROM. If the Risc PC has
> got the whole OS in ROM, I cannot see how that can be an advantage.
Hmm lemme see.
ROM can't be corrupted.
ROM is faster to load into memory (if you need to)
ROM doesn't have to load into memory (if you don't want to)
ROM doesn't waste valuable hard disc space...
> After all, when you boot up, the most important parts of the OS gets
> copies to RAM (on an Amiga), and RAM speed is generally a lot faster
> than ROM speed.
Yeah, but the bits that need the speed can be copied from ROM to RAM
far quicker than from disc to RAM.
> Oh, and what is that Risc PC thingy compatible with? Nothing?
Everything.
> Can you run a decent web browser
Yes.
> a powerful tracker and some 3D-applications
Yes, yes.
> on it - which aren't out of date? Something comparable to IBrowse, Octamed
> Soundstudio and Lightwave or Cinema 4D? I don't know much about it,
Yes, yes and umm yes.
> but I seriously doubt it can match the Amiga for software support.
You've got a LOT to learn.
--
_ ,_ _ http://www.majic12.demon.co.uk
(_/\_) (_) (_| | | (/_ snow...@majic12.demon.co.uk
` _|
Uses for Bill Gates #4 - Rubbish bin
Wayne Bagguley
> > Disc based OSes:
> >
> > 1) Are prone to corruption either by malicious software or otherwise.
>
> Sure. If your file system is crap ...
The hard disc is one of the first things to fail on a computer system.
> Also, ROM based OSs like RiscOS only have a small part actually in
> ROM, you'll find there's lots of things needed apart from the ROM-based
> parts.
Name them then!?!?! The only things not in ROM are the 3rd party apps,
the fonts and other stuff you nick, err I mean buy. ;-)
> What's this distinction about the "OS" and other files and apps about
> anyway ? I mean, there's a lot of difference, but not as regards
> corruption and reinstallation.
At least you can start you machine up in a nice enviroment if your HD
dies, rather than having to use the command line.
> And I really prefer reinstalling the OS from CD than having to download
> all those files and apps I got from the net again.
What are you getting at?
> Will you suggest putting the internet and every commercial software
> ever produced in ROM or what ? What about the files I created myself ?
That's not part of the OS though. The OS is the software that manages
the computer system. It's best if it's hard for it to be corrupted.
Without the OS you cannot use any of the programs you buy or download,
and the OS changes less frequently than applications, and applications
are generally much larger.
> If I've got a filing system prone to destroying the disc I've got to
> do backups.
It's not just the filing system, it's the physical device that's prone to
wear and tear. You should do backups as a matter of course anyway.
> Except those config files, desktop backgrounds, all the apps you want
> to load (SparkFS and other tools for example) are coming from disc anyway.
> You could just slap those 4MB ROM into a single file, of you want.
> Takes a second to load from an SCSI disc.
Yeah, my desktop takes about 10 seconds, and that's with loading all the
apps I need, including backdrops etc.
> ROM-based OSs are a waste of ROM space.
Why?
>
> > 4) Are a waste of RAM when they're loaded from disc.
>
> How can a program you need for your work be a waste of RAM ?
When they're too bloated to run from ROM, like Windows95.
> Anyway, those 4MB of ROM are static, if I don't need module X
> or resource Y ever, it's totally wasted. It wouldn't be with
> RAM.
But there's no point installing resources you don't need on your
harddisc either, which is why Windows95 is so damn big.
The resources in ROM are the essentials.
> Come on, the A3000 is history now. It's not unheard of that people
> have got 32MB of RAM (eight times the ROM size) or more, and
> harddiscs too.
I don't see what the A3000's got to do with this. ROM based OSs are still
better than those that need to load of disc.
> > 5) Make discless workstations impossible.
>
> Bullshit. There's a ROM on the ethernet card (you DO realize that a
> discless workstation is bollocks unless you've got a 'remote disc'
> over a network, do you ?) that can initiate the boot process.
> Or could have (how's it done with RPCs ?).
Exactly the point. You've got a ROM on the card!!!! You're arguing with
yourself!! ROTFL
It's also obvious that a discless workstation needs to use a remote
disc, but that is the reason for having discless stations, you don't
need to go to the expense of buying a local disc and fill it with crap
when you can keep just one copy of everything for everyone to use.
> > A ROM based OS has none of these disadvantages, so it is better.
>
> There's no way to correct bugs in the routines that are needed at
> boot time (that includes ide and floppy drivers) without an
> expensive ROM replacement.
Which is why ROM OSs are tested better than Windows95 (eg), and is the main
reason for them being more stable, more efficient etc......
Besides, ROMs are not that expensive.
> Flash ROM would be nice, but I can't see 4MB or sizes like this as
> necessary when there's a perfectly good HD or a net connection
> available.
You're missing the point. 'Just because it's there' is not a good reason
for doing things.
ROM can't be corrupted during run-time either, which is another advantage.
Regards.
--
_ ,_ _ http://www.majic12.demon.co.uk
(_/\_) (_) (_| | | (/_ snow...@majic12.demon.co.uk
` _|
Uses for Bill Gates #5 - Door stop
Wayne Bagguley
> Oh come on. I can't hear that anymore.
> Seriously: WHAT can you do with only the software in ROM ?
Quite a lot really.
> I don't do vector graphics, so draw could as well not be there.
> Forget Paint anyway.
Just because _you_ don't use them doesn't make them useless. Do you consider
yourself some kind of dictator telling people what to use?
> You mention that inbuilt internet stack later on. What use is putting this
> in ROM, for example ? Without proper internet apps, dialer etc. you
> can't do anything at all.
The point _is_ that you don't have to load it later on, and it is STANDARD
to every machine. I.e. you don't have millions of people making slightly
differnt versions that cause all sorts of conflicts like you get on PC
systems.
> Have you actually tried using a recent Acorn computer (RiscPC) without
> a system harddisk ? You can't even change screen modes without
> a monitor description file, you won't be able to access your archives
> without SparkFS, the only thing you can do is copying files from
> CD or floppy onto the disc until you've got all the apps you need
> again.
Whether you can run a RiscPC without a HD or not is not the issue.
> A boot floppy or even a CD with live file system serves the same purpose,
> exactly.
Except they are slow, hence the idea of ROM.
> > it also helps in low memory machines. RiscOS is perfectly useable with 4Mb of
> > RAM and no hard disc.
>
> Problem is: You probably don't save anything. ROM is the cheapest type
> of memory, I guess.
DRAM is the cheapes form of memory.
> However, economies of scale come into the play too.
> And please remember that the 4MB of RiscOS ROM are only produced
> a few thousand or a few ten-thousand times.
> (Or do they already use PROMs ?).
> Compare that with millions of RAM chips that are used by the whole PC
> market and elsewhere.
But what's that got to do with anything? I'm sure that there's not that
many Concordes flying about, but it doesn't mean no-on should use them
does it? After all, they _are_ faster.
> I think what's needed is an approach like it is in the PC world, ie a
> small _FLASH_ ROM that basically only contains a few routines for
> basic input/output and the necessary drivers to drive the boot device
> (floppy and ide, normally).
Yeuch!!! Hideous, hideous, hideous.
Why not have _all_ the well tested, reliable necessary stuff in ROM, and
leave the HD for user applications.
> You also mention later that, if a bug is found, it can be easily cured
> by loading a new module version from disc or by using ROM-patches.
> However, this is not possible for routines that are used in the
> initial booting process.
Which is why ROMs OSs are tested very well indeed.
> One example is the new filecore.
That was not replacing a bug, but increasing the number of features.
The fact that is was possible to install a new filecore at boot up
defeats your argument entirely.
> And maybe those incompatibilities with Western Digital drives aren't
> hardware problems at all but could have been avoided or cured
> altogether in software - only Acorn didn't release a new set of
> ROMs, which would have been expensive.
Pure speculation. ROMs are not that expensive anyway. I'd like to see
a comparison between a new set of ROMs and the pressing of a new CD.
If it was solvable in software, we would have had a patch by now.
> I think SCSI cards have a flash ROM for a reason.
Because the firmware isn't tested well enough??? Because the 'standards'
are changing very quickly, and no-one sticks to them perhaps???
> Finally, virus (don't know the plural) don't matter - Especially not
> on the Acorn platform.
The plural is viri. And the OS is protected from viri because it's in
ROM. Whether we have many viri or not is irrelevant, we still have the
protection for when one does come along.
> Large ROMs were a good idea on floppy only computers, but with current
> systems it's silly.
Why is it silly?
If you can fit the OS into ROM, then you get some advantages over
disc based OSs.
> I believe a small flash ROM would be cheaper and, most importantly,
> BETTER.
Better in the sense that it can become corrupt? Better because it's more
expensive (1:1), or better in the sense that you'd have to load more
of the OS of a (SLOW) disc, which is also prone to corruption, and which
doesn't lend itself to other applications like embedded systems?
Regards.
--
_ ,_ _ http://www.majic12.demon.co.uk
(_/\_) (_) (_| | | (/_ snow...@majic12.demon.co.uk
` _|
Computer madness terms #5 - One key short of a keyboard
David McCormack
>
> > > Hi there I have still got my A500 but i went over to Risc Pc
> > > and iv`e never looked back as the OS is in rom rather than disk
> > > a lot better.
> >
> > An A500? You cannot compare the Amiga 500 to anything any more. It
> > is a dead thing. Unless you have a 040, 16MB of RAM and a graphics
> > board for it, it's considered outdated.
>
> :-)
>
> I still find it positively amazing that people can compare their £300
> A500 to £1500 of RiscPC/Wintel/Mac.
sub £300 UKP. The only difference is the market attitude...
If Amigas where any good - why did Commodore go under?
> Somebody once was moaning about how rubbish the Amiga was compared
> to his PC until I gleaned he was comparing a 486 to an unexpanded
> A600. People can be *so* dim sometimes.
the art ;-)
After all the next generation RiscPC is going to be capable of
using upto 5 ~300 Mhz StrongARM processors (release date currently
first half 1998).
> > And I prefer most of the OS to be on my hard drive, except for the
> > most vital functions, rather than to have it all in ROM. If the
> > Risc PC has got the whole OS in ROM, I cannot see how that can be
> > an advantage.
>
> between a fully laden RiscPC and a fully laden Amiga.
switch. Oh yeah, its also about 3 years old and only using a very sad
30Mhz Arm610. The current machines have a SA running @ 200Mhz!!!!
> > Oh, and what is that Risc PC thingy compatible with? Nothing? Can you
> > run a decent web browser, a powerful tracker and some 3D-applications
> > on it - which aren't out of date? Something comparable to IBrowse,
> > Octamed Soundstudio and Lightwave or Cinema 4D? I don't know much
> > software support.
>
> now). Most browsers AFAIK are distinctly lacking compared to the
> Java-enabled Amiga browsers now nearly finished.
will be available after the Acorn World show in late October.
Fresco, the one used in the net computer, is already Java and plugin
enabled. They just can't release it for RiscOS due to the fact that it
requires an OS upgrade which, I believe, is currently under going beta
testing now and there are other legal (licencing) problems.
Just checkout - http://www.breckonhill.demon.co.uk/java.html to see
Java for RiscOS if you don't believe the above! Can't promise the page
will remain available though! Its not my stuff or on my server.
> I say most browsers but I'm not sure how many there are.... (1? 2? :-) )
Oh but theres also....
The offical Acorn browser (still to be named and released @ AW97),
NCFresco Taken from the Netcomputer
- highly illegal copies are floating around, I believe.
ArcWeb (Frames and tables),
Webster (Has tables, Frames are in development last I heard)
Webite (HTML 2 compatable - but no longer being developed)
> Trackers? They do have a fair amount of good MIDI/ music packages, but
Silabus7 is the best music score authoring package available on
ANY system. There are also quite a few developments from Oregon
that I think come under this.
> As for 3D applications! Hah! Amiga rules. No question! I don't
> remember NewTek using Acorns! :-)
> People wail about the Amiga being ill, but the truth is it has better
> and cheaper s/w support than the RiscPC. True, the RiscPC can do most
> things an Amiga/PC can do, but it costs more and there's less variety,
> from what I've seen. Heck, you want to do something on the Amiga,
> it's only an AmiNet's call away, in 99% of cases that I've had.
Hensa or one of its mirrors and get the software you want.
I'll admit you can't get all the software there - all the major
stuff is produced commercially so that they can get the finance to
keep developing it.
> financial muscle, a good reputable giant behind it. New people
> coming in, new developers. New processors, even.
Oracle - worlds 2nd biggest computer company have got Acorn developing the
reference platform for the NC.
Digital - producers of the Alpha processor, which are now rivalling Intel,
are producing the StrongARM. The first version which operated at
202 Mhz as standard but could be *easily* up-clocked to 287Mhz,
straight away by using altering a few dip switches and a couple
of tracks on the processor card.
So, RiscOS technology is being used in the fourth generation of computer
systems, the net computer. Oh and theres also the point that the Net
computer operating system is compatable with RiscOS so any software
released for it can be used on RiscOS. Seeing as the NC is being
marketted at the coroporate intranets there should be some interest by
the big boys ;) - theres also the new games console venture with one
of those Japanese electronic giants... All the licencing going on....
Acorn are actually now a technology developer rather than a desktop
computer manufacture - why go directly against WinTel. The last company
to try almost went under!
But wheres the Amiga in all this - not in WebTV - not in a NC - sorry
but I don't think Amiga are going anywhere! No body thinks much to
a none standard OS - RiscOS has been going for 10< years and people
trust it because of that.
Anyway 'my computers better than yours.....' threads should really be in
..advocacy rather than Misc anyway, right?
Dave Mac
--
Email : mailto:dav...@atlantic.oaktreeNOSPAM.co.uk
Web : http://www.atlantic.oaktree.co.uk
.
Allan Eagle
>
>
> Allan Eagle <Lin...@ajeagle.lineone.net> wrote in article
> <e3ae2cce47%Lin...@ajeagle.lineone.net>...
>
> > Amiga. They still make them then?
>
> It's a *long* story, but yes, Amigas are being made.
[SNIP loads of stuff about Amigas]
Actually I was being sarcastic to the previous posting.
--
Allan Eagle
aje...@lineone.net
"If you drop a piece of bread, it will always fall buttered side down.
If a cat falls from a high place it will always land on it's feet.
What happens if you attach the bread, buttered side up to the back
of the cat and drop the composite?"