Amiga OS *IS* state of the art
Peter Kittel GERMANY
Just having scanned through the latest BYTE issue (March issue,
they seem to use rowing boats to ship here to Europe), I gathered
more confirmation for the fact that our Amiga OS really is state
of the art in OSes: There is an article describing a new operating
system named TAOS that will run on many platforms. When I read
about some of the details - object-oriented, message passing,
windowing GUI, etc. - all sounded very familiar to me. And when
reading that the creator of this OS is known as an expert Amiga
game programmer (well, also ST, etc.), then I can't avoid the
impression that this at least got some vital inspirations from
Amiga OS. But why not? Computer science is evolving, and no one
is to blame when he profits from ideas that have turned out as
efficient.
(BTW: Anyone still to blame those nasty game programmers? :-)
The way that the TAOS system achieves multi-platform compatibility
is very interesting: It uses the old concept of a virtual machine
(now of course a virtual *RISC* machine :-). But you need not fear
the slowness of old-days P-code systems, in contrast to them,
TAOS translates every code at *load* time into native processor
code, not at *run* time. I think this won't slow down a loader
more than today's scatter loader or any packer loader. Perhaps
it will be even faster because of compact code size.
And talking about such similar operating systems, another parallel
comes to my mind: Geoworks Ensemble for PCs. You know, this stems
from the people who made GEOS for the C64 which already in those
times provided tremendous performance when considering the
underlying platform. Now the same has obviously happened to the
PCs: Ensemble is *much* faster than Windows (it's even said to
run conveniently on a simple XT!), and does this with magically
compact code, again making it possible to run also on old PCs.
Now compare that to memory hogs like Windows or PM.
But what has this all to do with Amiga OS? Well, once I scanned
through the programming manual of C64 GEOS (back in 86 or so),
and I was immediately caught by the impression that they used
similar principles as the Amiga OS, mainly the object-oriented
data structures and system calls. As GEOS is of nearly the same
age as Amiga OS, you cannot say they took ideas from Amiga OS,
but they followed the same ideas as our guys.
Now, if Geoworks wouldn't already have done this, how about
someone porting the Amiga OS to the PC hardware platform???
Ok, it wouldn't be SO useful, because you couldn't provide
compatibility to run old MS-DOS programs and thus would have
to compete directly with UNIX on PCs. But as long as Microsoft
officially talks about porting their Windows (or was it OS/2?)
system to quite different platforms, I think also this idea
appears legal :-).
This all leads me to the conclusion that examples of this kind
demonstrate that Amiga OS is well up with the current state of
the art in OS design. Ok, there also exist newer developments,
like the mentioned TAOS being aimed from scratch also towards
multiprocessor platforms (a thought which was well beyond spec
in the first Amiga OS days), but I'm confident that the open
design will leave enough room for further development and
keeping track with new ideas.
--
Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions...
Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
Dan Barrett
>Just having scanned through the latest BYTE issue (March issue,
>they seem to use rowing boats to ship here to Europe), I gathered
>more confirmation for the fact that our Amiga OS really is state
>of the art in OSes:
Now now... let's not get carried away. The Amiga OS is very, very
nice, that is true. I like it a lot. But no way is it "state of the art"
in the 1990's!
For example, it doesn't have:
- Virtual memory
- Memory protection
- Resource tracking
- Multi-user capabilities
Even if it did, these ideas are *old*, and not "state of the art".
If you want to see a "state of the art" operating system, take a
look at current research at places like University of Illinois (CHOICES) and
AT&T (various successors to UNIX; I forget the names).
>...BYTE Magazine....
I don't think BYTE knows shit about "state of the art". As a PC
magazine, it's OK, but don't judge the future by it. :-)
Dan
//////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
| Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University |
| INTERNET: bar...@cs.jhu.edu | |
| COMPUSERVE: >internet:bar...@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: bar...@jhunix.UUCP |
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
Mike Schwartz
>
>they seem to use rowing boats to ship here to Europe), I gathered
>more confirmation for the fact that our Amiga OS really is state
>of the art in OSes: There is an article describing a new operating
>system named TAOS that will run on many platforms. When I read
>about some of the details - object-oriented, message passing,
>windowing GUI, etc. - all sounded very familiar to me. And when
>reading that the creator of this OS is known as an expert Amiga
>game programmer (well, also ST, etc.), then I can't avoid the
>impression that this at least got some vital inspirations from
>Amiga OS. But why not? Computer science is evolving, and no one
>is to blame when he profits from ideas that have turned out as
>efficient.
>(BTW: Anyone still to blame those nasty game programmers? :-)
RJ Mical is a game programmer, too! He wrote the coin-op game
Sinistar and also did Defender of the Crown.
>--
>Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions...
>Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
--
*******************************************************
* Assembler Language separates the men from the boys. *
*******************************************************
Dan Barrett
>> For example, [the Amiga OS] doesn't have:
>> - Multi-user capabilities
In article <1991Mar27....@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> l-tara...@adfa.oz.au (Luke Tarantello) writes:
>I agree except for the last point. I don't think that the Amiga needs to
>be multi-user. As an example, a SPARC 2 is nice and fast - until 6 or so
>people are logged in (ie the perceived performance per user is degraded)!
That's a different issue: SIMULTANEOUS multiple users. I would
still argue that, for an OS to be "state of the art" (as was claimed by the
original poster), it has to have some concept of file ownership; a multiple
user model in which a user "owns" a file.
If my friend sits down at my Amiga and works for a while, I want
reassurance that he cannot accidently delete my files, NO MATTER WHAT.
This is what I mean by "multi-user capabilities" -- that several people can
use the same Amiga (not necessarily at the same time) and nobody has to
worry about corrupting another person's data.
I claim that an OS without this feature is not "state of the art".
That's all I'm claiming -- no more, no less.
Robert J. Kudla
I claim that an OS without this feature is not "state of the art".
That's all I'm claiming -- no more, no less.
Okay - but I claim that a personal computer OS doesn't need
file/process ownership, security, or any of the junk Unix, VMS, etc
have to allow multiple users. A friend and I were trying to kludge
out a little bit of multiuser functionality once just for fun since we
were sharing a computer, but realized it was really pretty unnecessary
when people can't be simultaneously using it.
Once you put one in an educational or corporate environment you need
multiuser capability, but I daresay in such an environment it's no
longer a personal computer.....
Checkpoint Technologies
>still argue that, for an OS to be "state of the art" (as was claimed by the
>original poster), it has to have some concept of file ownership; a multiple
>user model in which a user "owns" a file.
I think that the reality of file ownership on a Personal Computer is
determined by who can put their finger on it. Try this: put your
finger on a floppy disk, or on your hard disk drive. You own all
that data. If you can touch it, it's yours. Never mind what the OS may
try to prevent you from doing with it.
This goes with my other philosophy, about granting user account
privileges on any computer system. The user that can reach the power
switch has all the privileges, and you'd better get used to that.
> If my friend sits down at my Amiga and works for a while, I want
>reassurance that he cannot accidently delete my files, NO MATTER WHAT.
>This is what I mean by "multi-user capabilities" -- that several people can
>use the same Amiga (not necessarily at the same time) and nobody has to
>worry about corrupting another person's data.
No "personal computer" can guarantee this. When your friend sits down to
your Amiga, he can reach the power switch; see what I said about "user
account privileges" above. :-)
Now, I can imagine that this Amiga might be part of a network
(imagining, of course, that the current state of Amiga networking
improves) where there are multiple users on a network, and the network
allows file sharing between network peers. In this case, it
is vital that your Amiga only grant access to those files you
specifically want to export. They are your files, after all. And you
may even want to decide which other user is granted access. So now
"file access rights" begins to have meaning, but ownership is *not* in
question. They're your files if they're on your disk.
--
First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / /
c...@grebyn.com \\ / /
Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o
Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
Victor Solanoy
> In article <10...@cbmger.UUCP> pet...@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) write
> >Just having scanned through the latest BYTE issue (March issue,
> >they seem to use rowing boats to ship here to Europe), I gathered
> >more confirmation for the fact that our Amiga OS really is state
> >of the art in OSes:
>
> Now now... let's not get carried away. The Amiga OS is very, very
> nice, that is true. I like it a lot. But no way is it "state of the art"
> in the 1990's!
>
> For example, it doesn't have:
>
> - Virtual memory
> - Memory protection
> - Resource tracking
> - Multi-user capabilities
>
> Even if it did, these ideas are *old*, and not "state of the art".
>
> If you want to see a "state of the art" operating system, take a
> look at current research at places like University of Illinois (CHOICES) and
> AT&T (various successors to UNIX; I forget the names).
>
> >...BYTE Magazine....
>
Some of the weaknesses you mention are probably a result of the limited
abilities of the 68000 processor used in 'stock' Amigas... and not the
operating itself.
Victor
Peter da Silva
> I agree except for the last point. I don't think that the Amiga needs to
> be multi-user.
You don't need to have multiple users on a box to be in a multi-user
environment. ANY NETWORK is a multi-user environment, and the kludges
that PC network people do to deal with this (Novell actually installs a
large part of a whole new O/S!) are absolutely ghastly.
--
Peter da Silva. `-_-'
<pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
Peter da Silva
> This goes with my other philosophy, about granting user account
> privileges on any computer system. The user that can reach the power
> switch has all the privileges, and you'd better get used to that.
You can reboot the IBM-PC clone in my bedroom all you want, and unless
you bring your own O/S in with you you will not be able to defeat the
multiuser protection. I do not own a copy of MS-DOS. I do not have an
MS-DOS disk in my entire apartment. To get that data you have to walk
out with it.
John Bickers
> You can reboot the IBM-PC clone in my bedroom all you want, and unless
> you bring your own O/S in with you you will not be able to defeat the
Hm. I take a DOS disk out with me when visiting people whose machines
need fiddling with at work. And a disk editor, and a binary file
editor, and a couple of other things.
So you should expect people to be carrying these things. You want a
gadget to zap their disks as they walk in the door... or climb in
the window... :)
> MS-DOS disk in my entire apartment. To get that data you have to walk
> out with it.
The practical approach to taking data, analagous to the practical
approach to cryptography, stealing people's keys (to paraphrase
Mr Gwyn).
> Peter da Silva. `-_-'
--
*** John Bickers, TAP, NZAmigaUG. jbic...@templar.actrix.gen.nz ***
*** "Patterns multiplying, re-direct our view" - Devo. ***
David S. Herron
>>Just having scanned through the latest BYTE issue (March issue,
>>they seem to use rowing boats to ship here to Europe), I gathered
>>more confirmation for the fact that our Amiga OS really is state
>>of the art in OSes:
>
> Now now... let's not get carried away. The Amiga OS is very, very
>nice, that is true. I like it a lot. But no way is it "state of the art"
>in the 1990's!
>
> For example, it doesn't have:
>
> - Virtual memory
> - Memory protection
> - Resource tracking
> - Multi-user capabilities
Yes, BUT -- these features are not NECESSARY. Further in order
to have them you pay a performance penalty which, apparently,
Commodore is unwilling to pay. Yes each would be very nice to have.
To have virtual memory: Obviously most Amiga's don't have MMU's, a
required piece of hardware there. Regardless I've never
heard of an OS with virtual memory in which all processes
shared the same address space. Currently AmigaDOS processes
share the same address space & who knows what will break
when that is changed.
Yes I know about MEMF_PUBLIC & etc. I remember reading
here, however, that a lot of programmers are lazy about
setting that flag "right" ...
Obviously a program which needs real time response for
some reason cannot be swapped out. Adding a call to
lock a process in memory would be necessary.
Once the kernel is in a seperate address space than the
other processes then system calls and interrupts become
more expensive. That is .. context (CPU registers and
such) need to be saved away. If pointers passed in
system calls are not in public memory (that is, accessible
by every process) then the kernel has to do funny tricks
with the MMU to copy bytes in & out of user memory. etc.
To add memory protection: Again this requires an MMU. Same comments
apply as above.
Both these would be nice though.. especially memory protection
for all instead of just for developers. (Aside, there's
a developer tool I've heard about which adds memory
protection as an aid for finding things like wild/NULL
pointers).
Resource tracking: Well.. obviously the kernel needs to be keeping
track of what it doles out & that means more code, eh?
I really do NOT understand why this isn't there and don't
see that doing it in a user program versus the kernel
is going to be any faster.
I remember one of the cbmvax.cbm.com crowd (Randall Jessup
maybe?) claiming that he thought the right way for a
process to exit is to commit suicide. **SIGH**!
Opion-Time: One of the jobs of an OS (or as I see it)
is to "beautify" the users/programmers environment.
That is.. make it simpler than "raw hardware". Resource
tracking is one of those boring jobs which programmers
do not do well. Especially in C where there are no
built in facilities to help out!
(For more OS principles, I refer you to [Raphael Finkel]
_An Operating Systems Vadae Maecum_ (Hope I spelled
that right... been a few years since I looked at the book)).
Multi-User capabilities: ***WHY***??? This is a single user
machine, why do you want others to use it?!? 'sides,
there's some PD-ware about which will do that.. UUCP
for instance.
Again from what I understand/hear-from-the-inside/etc it is
a very conscious decision to not have those capabilities.
>Even if it did, these ideas are *old*, and not "state of the art".
Yes.. but still AmigaDOS is a very up-to-date OS having many
features which are at if not close to state of the art.
> If you want to see a "state of the art" operating system, take a
>look at current research at places like University of Illinois (CHOICES) and
>AT&T (various successors to UNIX; I forget the names).
Jeez.. he left out Mach, Sprite and a few others.
David
--
<- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <da...@twg.com>
<- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <da...@ms.uky.edu>
<-
<- "MS-DOS? Where we're going we don't need MS-DOS." --Back To The Future
Checkpoint Technologies
If I were truly interested in your data I might just carry it off. Then I
can extract your hard drive, and plug it in as drive 2 of my own set up.
If there are further difficulties, I get out the sector editor.
(This is really speculation; I'd never actually come and raid your
apartment! That would be really unfriendly and uncivilized...)
You could still keep me from use of your data by encrypting it; and this
assumes that you're willing to suffer the overhead of encrypting and
decrypting as you use it yourself. And I still might crack it, not that
I'm personally very good at that, though I have cracked a few.
But best of all is to keep your data where I can't touch it. Then not
only do I *not* get it, but also you get to keep it.
Lou Cavallo
> In comp.sys.amiga.advocacy David S. Herron (da...@twg.com ) writes:
>> In comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Dan Barrett (bar...@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU ) writes:
[...]
>> For example, it doesn't have:
>> - Virtual memory
>> - Memory protection
>> - Resource tracking
>> - Multi-user capabilities
> Yes, BUT -- these features are not NECESSARY. Further in order
> to have them you pay a performance penalty which, apparently,
> Commodore is unwilling to pay. Yes each would be very nice to have.
>
> To have virtual memory: Obviously most Amiga's don't have MMU's, a
> [...]
> To add memory protection: Again this requires an MMU. Same comments
> [...]
> Resource tracking: Well.. obviously the kernel needs to be keeping
> [...]
Thanks for the technical tips on the difficulties here. My only comment
is that I _think_ many do expect CBM to add these features in when there
is a perceived market demand ... i.e. this is a question of when rather
than if.
> Multi-User capabilities: ***WHY***??? This is a single user
> machine, why do you want others to use it?!? 'sides,
> there's some PD-ware about which will do that.. UUCP
> for instance.
I think the justification should be "for network use in educational and
business environments" *with* the caveat that the home user shouldn't be
stuck with having to pay the price of code and resource bloat in the OS.
I feel that PD-ware is not enough for business/educational environments.
> Again from what I understand/hear-from-the-inside/etc it is
> a very conscious decision to not have those capabilities.
I'm persuaded by that point of view also... but I wonder and wish to ask
whether features like multi-user abilities and virtual memory can be de-
signed to be turned on optionally by the user willing to and equipped to
take advantage of them?
Any comments here?
yours truly,
Lou Cavallo.
PS: I have a pet theory that multi-user and distributed computing features
could play a key role in multi-media groupware e.g. a creative arts or
video production group setup where artists and technicians could work
together "live" on Amiga multimedia production.
Should (or even can) CBM innovate in OS support for this sort of thing
or should other companies get the lime-light for this type of innovat-
ion? { Truly an advocacy type of question, no? :-) }
Steve Koren
> That's a different issue: SIMULTANEOUS multiple users. I would
You can do this with Amigas. Just buy two of them.
Oh yeah: :-)
- steve
Richard Blewitt
The last I saw of CHOICES, about a year ago, it had finally reached
a point where if you did nothing, it would not crash, doing anything
would cause it to crash. Also, the point of CHOICES was to create a
clean object-orientated operating system, much of which, the Amiga
already has. Given that it works, I'd say the Amiga is more state
of the art, although I agree that it needs resource tracking and
memory protection.
Rick
Mike Schwartz
Agreed. Most applications implement the resource tracking logic
over and over and over again. A couple of points though...
The aims of the ROM Kernel were to provide programmers with
routines which we can wrap our own stuff around. Any higher
level approach would paint us into a corner and force us to
do things a specific way. Remember, the initial pitch to developers
was anti-evangelism (i.e. the Mac way). Secondly, resource tracking
would have to be done in such a way that doesn't preclude some of the
power that the OS currently has. For example, one task can create
a message port for another task and can then exit without the resource
going away. The same is true for messages themselves. ARexx is built
around this capability.
One developer I've seen has implemented a loadable library that does
his resource tracking for him. Instead of calling AllocMem, he calls
the AllocMem in his library and when his task exits, the memory is
deallocated automatically. He does the same thing for Windows, Menus,
Gadgets, and the other various resource that you normally have to
keep track of in software. In addition to the resource tracking
facility, the library also reimplements many of the ROM Kernel routines
(friendly with the OS) so they perform better.
--
********************************************************
* Appendix A of the Amiga Hardware Manual tells you *
* everything you need to know to take full advantage *
* of the power of the Amiga. And it is only 10 pages! *
********************************************************
Kristian Koehntopp
> required piece of hardware there. Regardless I've never
> heard of an OS with virtual memory in which all processes
> share the same space & who knows what will break
> when that is changed.
Obviously virtual memory has nothing to do at all with seperated address
spaces of processes The code needed to install VM on an A3000 or A2500 is
below 10 KB, as was demonstrated with the Evolution HDD controller. Also the
long exspected System 7 for the Apple Macintosh computer is said to provide
VM without seperated address spaces.
Since a true PMMU is required for VM, most vendors also chose to integrate
address space protection in their systems. If you already have the PMMU on
your board, design and performance penalties due to memory protection are
not too high considering the gain in system stability. Mac and Amiga are
systems which came originally without a PMMU. Thus their OS makes it
difficult to take advantages of the ability to separate process address
spaces, but VM alone can be implemented below OS level. The OS itself sees
only an enlarged RAM and need not to have knowledge of the special nature of
this memory.
Amiga processes do not change from user to kernel mode, when making calls to
libraries, because they call them by simple JSRs. There is simply no concept
of operating system private data and code in the current release of Amigas
OS. Also there is no defined interface for reading operating system data.
This lead to the bad practice of reading operating system structures from
user code (eg reading the list of screen structures to find a certain screen
or reading dos libraries lock structures etc ). I know that direct reads are
faster, but this code will break, if the layout of the read structure
changes due to OS upgrades (as in the first releases of KS/WS 2.0). In a
properly designed operating system there are calls which return the desired
information to you in a well known format. This format can, but need not be
identical with the operating systems internal representation of this data.
I feel that adding the concept of operating system private data and the
distinction of user and kernel mode will break the concept of Amigas OS.
Thus we will probably never see memory protection with this system.
> Yes I know about MEMF_PUBLIC & etc I remember reading
> here, however, that a lot of programmers are lazy about
> setting that flag "right"
> Obviously a program which needs real time response for
> some reason cannot be swapped out. Adding a call to
> lock a process in memory would be necessary
As you implied in the paragraph above, there is already a mechanism to
identify memory with different properties. This mechanism (In OS/9 it is
called "colored memory". I find it funny to think about a request for green
ram :-) is also supported by the loader. If you had a bit MEMF_VIRTUAL added
and your memory had the properties MEMF_VIRTUAL or MEMF_FAST (but not
MEMF_PUBLIC), you could easily request true memory (by requesting
MEMF_PUBLIC), VM (by requesting MEMF_VIRTUAL) or any type of memory (just
request MEMF_FAST or even MEMF_ANY ( == 0)). Since this is also supported by
the loader, you can even create a file that is loaded into real mem.
Thus such call is not needed.
> such) need to be saved away If pointers passed in
> system calls are not in public memory (that is, accessible
> by every process) then the kernel has to do funny tricks
> with the MMU to copy bytes in & out of user memory etc
Can you explain?
Think of a user process supplying a pointer to a given location. Think of
this location as paged out. The OS (or the user process, since it makes no
difference) references this location and produces a page fault, that is, an
exception. The exception handler pages some other page out (prefereably not
the one referenced next!) and the requested page in. The exception handler
terminates and operation resumes with the reexecution of the interrupted
statement.
Of course the exception handler for VM itself better remains in memory, but
other exception handlers and interrupt handlers *can* easily be paged out, if
memory and not performance is the problem. For interrupts and exceptions
which are exspected to be handled in real-time (and better overall system
performance) you better allocate real memory.
I can see no need for funny tricks here and I believe you were still stuck
with the memory protection concept, but of course I may be wrong.
>To add memory protection: Again this requires an MMU. Same comments
> apply as above.
> Both these would be nice though, especially memory protection
> for all instead of just for developers. (Aside, there's
> a developer tool I've heard about which adds memory
> protection as an aid for finding things like wild/NULL
> pointers)
Well, I guess, you are talking about the enforcer. This program protects the
lowest KB of memory against anything but a longword read at loc 4. It also
catches writes into ROM-areas and any references to areas without installed
memory. All these references are reported and the offending task is
identified, but not killed (Killing tasks is difficult with the Amiga
Reason see below). Still no memory protection <sigh>.
>Resource tracking: Well, obviously the kernel needs to be keeping
> track of what it doles out & that means more code, eh?
> I really do NOT understand why this isn't there and don't
> see that doing it in a user program versus the kernel
> is going to be any faster.
Agreed.
Ressource tracking or better the lack of it is the second _BIG_ flaw of
AmigaOS (With the lack of user vs kernel mode being the first). Of course
you can provide code which is called upon termination (also abnormal
termination) of a process, but keeping track of any ressource ever used in a
programm is a job an application programmer is not supposed to do.
Think of an application opening a printer, printing something, the closing
the printer. No cleanupnclose()-function will ever bother to check if the
printer is still open and close it (the pointer to the printer file could
also easily be local and long be gone). But your process can be killed
between the open and the close of the printer, leaving the device open and
locking all other processes away from the printer. Time for reboot again
(For some this has also been the time to junk their Amiga and get a real
computer! Pun intended!).
With ressource tracking the OS knows about the owner of the open printer and
can close it, if necessary, freeing the ressource for other processes.
Since AmigaOS already does half-hearted ressource tracking (Well, it knows
about free ressources, but not about those alloctated), when will we see the
other half? This can be done without breakin the concept of the OS.
>Multi-User capabilities: ***WHY*** This is a single user
> machine, why do you want others to use it 'sides,
> there's some PD-ware about which will do that UUCP
> for instance
Multi-User capabilities, especially a concept with user identification and
file ownership will significantly ease the implementation of any networking
environment with AmigaOS. Of course it will be somewhat ridiculous for an
A500 owner to log into his 512 KB, single drive system, so one might have
this optional. Also there can be no real protection of your data as long as
anyone can read the address space of your processes, but file ownership will
protect you against accidential deletion or modification of your files.
I would like to see the file system extended in a way, that allows the
attachment of an arbitrary long list of (attribute, list of values) sets to
any file. This is similar to, but not as limited as, the filenotes. On top
of this you can implement file ownership (and even be more specific with
that than Unix).
As you can see, AmigaOS has some big deficiencies. All of them but one can
be repaired without forcing it. And this makes AmigaOS a good and
state-of-the-art OS: It is able to grow to fit grown needs.
><- "MS-DOS Where we're going we don't need MS-DOS " --Back To The Future
Kristian
PS: Excuse my bad english. I find it difficult to talk about these things in
this strange language, but I hope I was clear enough to bring the
essence of it to you.
PPS: Please keep any reply to me short, because I have to pay for incoming
mail.
Kristian Koehntopp, Harmsstrasse 98, 2300 Kiel, +49 431 676689
"Im uebrigen ist 'Z-NETZ-Sysops quaelen' auf Dauer weder lustig noch
befriedigend." - sy...@infinet.zer.sub.org
Peter da Silva
> If I were truly interested in your data I might just carry it off. Then I
> can extract your hard drive, and plug it in as drive 2 of my own set up.
> If there are further difficulties, I get out the sector editor.
This is all true... if you can defeat the physical security all else is
irrelevant. But there's more to physical security than access to the
power switch. You need to get my data together with your software. If I
can keep them apart then multiuser security is quite effective.
Michael D Mellinger
In article <86aJZ...@ozonebbs.UUCP> vsol...@ozonebbs.UUCP (Victor Solanoy) writes:
Some of the weaknesses you mention are probably a result of the limited
abilities of the 68000 processor used in 'stock' Amigas... and not the
operating itself.
Victor
True, this is why it's nice to use a machine that uses a 15 mip 68040
in its base model. During the NeXT several years, developers can
assume this where the NeXT is concerned, but they will have to develop
for the A500 when they program on the Amiga. Of course, most
developers probably aren't going to bother with the Amiga at all.
-Mike
Kristian Koehntopp
Well, now I even following up to my own articles.
I had a talk with a friend (He is an A3000 owner) on Amiga and its future.
Being more the suit type than me, he said "What is going to hurt future Amiga
sales more than a lack of 1280 * 1024 in true color is the lack of 320 * 200
in 256 colors." The availability of this video graphics mode makes it easy
to port VGA games to the amiga without having the entire graphics repainted
by an artist.
In his opinion we are going to see less ports of games from IBM to Amiga, if
Amiga graphics does not improve in this area. Has anyone got an idea, what
the average commodore customer looks like? Is it the 15-25 year old "grown
up quality-games player", if such species does indeed exist?
I consider his argument quite striking, since 320 * 200 in 256 colors can be
done relatively easy with only minor redesigns of the current custom chips,
as far as I know. My experience in VLSI design is very limited and only
theoretical, but I suggest the following (I have already tried to express
this in another article "Why no 320 * 200 * 8 ?"):
This is what I know:
The three big Amiga custom chips are in fact one single big VLSI IC, that
had to be split up due to size limitations of silicium chips. These three
chips communicate via the register bus, an 8 addressbits and 16 databits wide
specialized bus. This bus is the reason, why the copper can only write to
custom chip locations and not into normal memory: The copper can only
generate addresses on that register bus. Addresses of 8 bits, each 16 bits
wide, give you 512 bytes of custom chips area.
From the RKM, Hardware reference manual, I know that in low resolution mode
there are 2 unused time slots per pixel. If they were used, one had 8
bitplanes available per pixel, loading the bus as if it were in hi-res/4
bitplane mode. I guess, hardware for this additional dma channels is missing.
To make 320 * 200 * 8 usable one had to do at least the following:
- add 2 additional dma channels (same functionality as the current 6 video
dma channels)
- add 2 more address lines to the internal register bus
- add 256 32 bit wide color registers covering the address range from
register $200 to register $400 (the back 512 register adresses)
- redirect the current 32 16 bit wide color registers to the appropiate bits
in the new color register bank for compatibility
- fiddle with the copper instruction format and the sprite and dual
playfield hardware to make it consistent.
- replace the current 12 bit video d/a converters with 24 bit converters
Well, rereading the list, I come to the conclusion that might not be as easy
as I considered it at first thought. Perhaps one of you techies can shade
some light on the particular problems one should exspect doing such an
chipset upgrade. I really want to know, if it could be done!
Kristian
Kristian Koehntopp, Harmsstrasse 98, 2300 Kiel, +49 431 676689
Jeder Mann kann eine Frau dorthin bringen, wo sie ihn haben moechte.
-- kru...@citymail.zer.sub.org
David Wright
>still argue that, for an OS to be "state of the art" (as was claimed by the
>original poster), it has to have some concept of file ownership; a multiple
>user model in which a user "owns" a file.
> I claim that an OS without this feature is not "state of the art".
>That's all I'm claiming -- no more, no less.
OS like Novell, but a real, optimized for one user at a time but still
multitaksing OS that runs on PC class machines.
Until there is one that does these things, *AND* does everything else
the Amiga OS does just as well as the Amiga (shared libraries, unlimited
RAM, dynamic device drivers, etc.), you can't compare it. That's like me saying
that "if a car doesn't hover 500 feet off the ground, cruise at mach 2
at 4 kilometers, and come with sidewinder missiles it isn't state of the
art". For something to be better than something it has to EXIST, not just be
what someone comprehends COULD exist.
In fact, OS/9 had almost as much as the Amiga did, for it's day,
and it DID have real multi-user abilities. As did MP/M. Does that make it
state of the art? Is Unix state of the art? Hardly. I have yet to see ANY
Unix system that makes as much use of dynamic shared libraries as the Amiga,
or provides dynamic shared libraries as SOP for things such as shells,
so that even common things like regular expression matching could be done in
one place instead of in each program that wan't to do it.
Don't mistake something that is more "powerfull" with something that is
"state of the art". The two aren't the same.
Dave
David Wright
>
>Okay - but I claim that a personal computer OS doesn't need
>file/process ownership, security, or any of the junk Unix, VMS, etc
>have to allow multiple users. A friend and I were trying to kludge
optimization for single user use, and a constant search for making things
smaller and more reuseable is what makes the Amiga's GUI as fast and as
useable as it is on a 7Mhz 512k machine. Just try running Win3 on a 8Mhz
512k '286 or '386.
>out a little bit of multiuser functionality once just for fun since we
>were sharing a computer, but realized it was really pretty unnecessary
>when people can't be simultaneously using it.
example a BBS. The Amiga is the best possible machine to run a BBS on, for the
money. The native OS is multitasking, as has a lot of shared resources.
It is very easy to write code to go into a shared library, so chances are
that if you know how to program (and aparently the people at C-Net and Paragon
don't), you can easily write a BBS that will only require ONE copy in memory
no matter how many users are online at a single time. Take a look at Amiga
Empire. I have personally run 4 users at a time on a 1 meg Amiga 500
(using a custom multiplexer interface and driver software I wrote),
and was only limited by the number of modems I had at the time. I have
also run 3 users on a 512k Amiga 500. None of the users were able to tell
that anyone else was using the system.
I tend to think that a properly written BBS program could do more
and be more powerfull than Unix for managing files, since Unix has to be
generalized for doing more than just handling the ownership of files
and sending/receiving messages.
The OS doesn't have to be multi-user to allow multiple users. You
can put that into another layer on top of the OS, and you will be more free
to optimize it to your needs, rather than a system-wide level of security
that may not be enough in some cases, but too much in other cases.
As a maximum test I have tried running one C= 7 port card, one
ASDG 2 port card, and the built-in serial port on my 3000 (some people
brought the c= board and some terminals) and running an Empire session on
each of them, plus 10 on the local console, and I still didn't notice any
real delays in throughput (with the obvious exception of when the server
was busy with an action like flushing the buffers to disk). There is
no reason that a BBS, written properly, shouldn't be able to support 3
remote users on a 2000 (with an ASDG serial port card) and 1 meg of RAM,
have all the people doing something (reading messages, downloading files,
uploading, etc.) without any real noticeable delays. These kinds of things
just aren't CPU intensive, and even less disk intensive.
Dave
Peter Kittel GERMANY
> (Aside, there's
> a developer tool I've heard about which adds memory
> protection as an aid for finding things like wild/NULL
> pointers).
No, not quite. It's only a tool to INDICATE memory violations, it
doesn't prevent them. But it's for developers, and thus they can
look through their own code and eliminate those parts that had run
wild, or better correct them.
88-rx359
>>
>>I do not own a copy of MS-DOS. I do not have an
>>MS-DOS disk in my entire apartment.
I would like to know if this guy has an OS and what it is? Could he possibly
be one of those copyright violators?
Dave Haynie
>
>In article <86aJZ...@ozonebbs.UUCP> vsol...@ozonebbs.UUCP (Victor Solanoy) writes:
> Some of the weaknesses you mention are probably a result of the limited
> abilities of the 68000 processor used in 'stock' Amigas... and not the
> operating itself.
>True, this is why it's nice to use a machine that uses a 15 mip 68040
>in its base model.
That's also why it's not nice to use a machine that uses a 15 MIPS 68040
as its base model (though in truth, the discontinued 68030 NeXT is the base
NeXT model). Software can set higher goals with a higher base processor,
but it also requires that base processor just to squeak by. The first
generation 64K/4.77MHz 8088 IBM PC, 128K/7.8MHz 68000 Mac, the 256K/7.16MHz
68000 Amiga 1000, and the 4MB/25MHz 68030 NeXT were each in this category
for what they were trying to achieve, though they were not all in the same
computer class (I see three different ones there myself).
The basic performance of the 68040 generation NeXT, to the average GUI user
at least, is on the order of what 2nd generation Amiga users have been
enjoying for a long time. While it won't number crunch faster, an A3000 does
nearly everything else faster than a 68040 based NeXT. And you haven't seen
a 68040 based Amiga yet.
>Of course, most developers probably aren't going to bother with the Amiga at
>all.
Or the NeXT. MOST developers develop for MS-DOS. A visable percentage are
developing for MS-Windows as well, and for the Mac. Standard UNIX, or perhaps
one of the standard UNIXs, is another growing target. Amiga has lots of
development in a few specific areas. NeXT has the kind of fringe the Amiga
did in its early days, and some hired guns, which are of course nice, and
something I wish C= had had the startup money to afford. That is an effective,
if expensive, way to get acceptance for a new system, as long as you can afford
to pay the big companies and scare away the little guys.
>-Mike
--
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
{uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy
"That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
Kevin Darling
> Okay - but I claim that a personal computer OS doesn't need
> file/process ownership, security, or any of the junk Unix, VMS, etc
> have to allow multiple users.
True, an OS doesn't _need_ it, but then a personal computer doesn't "need"
multitasking either ;-). Obviously tho, such features can be very handy.
* For example, when a friend of mine loans out his multiuser system to a
club for a demo, he doesn't worry about his source code and other private
information still being on disk; the login and security protects him.
* Other friends use the security to let their children play computer games,
but not to have access to most directories... preventing accidental erasure
or access of important files. Like x-rated GIFs, for one thing <grin>.
* Plus the multiuser part allows use in small business; gives remote user
login as standard; makes running a BBS in the background a piece of cake;
lets you decode a GIF _while_ downloading instead of after it's all down.
> Once you put one in an educational or corporate environment you need
> multiuser capability, but I daresay in such an environment it's no
> longer a personal computer.....
All my above examples describe any home computer running OS-9. So... does
that make say, a Tandy CoCo, "no longer a personal computer"? Maybe.
But the owners still think it is :-). I suspect that people often claim
something is "unnecessary" because their own system is missing it, eh?
But yes, if you define "a personal computer" as a machine that no one else
EVER uses or has physical/electronic access to AT ALL, then I agree with you.
I wonder how common that is, tho? best - kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Kevin Darling
>PS: I have a pet theory that multi-user and distributed computing features
> could play a key role in multi-media groupware e.g. a creative arts or
> video production group setup where artists and technicians could work
> together "live" on Amiga multimedia production.
Bingo! The CD-I studios I've seen were highly networked, multiuser,
multihardware setups where artists and A/V-data-gatherers and programmers
and technicians all worked together, with gigabyte drives serving to
emulate a CDROM disc during creation of a title.
best - kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
Kevin Darling
> Until there is one that does these things, *AND* does everything else
> the Amiga OS does just as well as the Amiga (shared libraries, unlimited
> RAM, dynamic device drivers, etc.), you can't compare it.
> In fact, OS/9 had almost as much as the Amiga did, for it's day,
> and it DID have real multi-user abilities. As did MP/M.
... and as did CROMIX (1980-ish), Oasys (1982-ish), and several others.
Come to think of it, it very well could be that the Amiga OS was the
first multitasking personal computer OS _without_ multiuser features.
However, that's not what I'm here to say. I just wanted to note that
rumors of OS-9's demise ("..OS/9 had..") are greatly exaggerated ;-).
There are close to 100,000 owners of OS9/6809 on the CoCo3, and of course
we'll be seeing lots more OS-9/68000 users fairly soon now, as the new
68K machines are about to hit the streets. Not to mention that it's
also the OS used in the coming onslaught of CD-I machines.
Shared libraries? Every OSK (slang for "OS-9/68K") system comes with Math
and CIO (does just what it sounds like) trap libraries. Loadable drivers
and file managers have been around since OS-9 was written (1980).
As for all the tired arguments I've seen here about resource-tracking and
parameter-checking "slowing" down a machine, well.... A) OSK's kernel is
tiny, fast, totally asm code, and B) THERE IS NOTHING SLOWER THAN STOPPED,
which is what you often get with slack OS's letting bogus params through ;-).
OS-9 still has enormous advantages to the serious user and programmer:
You can move OS-9 programs to a computer with MMU protection, and they'll
work just fine. ALL OS-9 programs are "pure" code, in Amiga parlance.
And you also have a heckuva lot more choice of machines to buy.
Anyway, I'm not trying to flame. I believe you probably knew some of this,
and that your intentions were good in mentioning OS-9. But please, write
that "OS9 has" and "OS9 does" (present tense :-). Thanks! Give us a few more
months of OS9 GUI development, and _then_ we'll be back to torch AmigaOS <g>.
regards - kevin <kdar...@catt.ncsu.edu>
David C. Navas
>comes to my mind: Geoworks Ensemble for PCs. You know, this stems
>from the people who made GEOS for the C64 which already in those
>times provided tremendous performance when considering the
>underlying platform. Now the same has obviously happened to the
Well, I helped write that package and no longer work for them, so perhaps I can
give you a good but impartial opinion. Fat chance, but...
Ensemble is faster because it is smaller. IE -- the thing doesn't page to disk
every half a second. Also because it doesn't have to cozy up to DOS for *any*
of it's internal programs, except for disk access...
Ensemble is smaller because it has an extremely well thought out kernel that has
everything from DOS interfaces (which the Amiga has) to general fast WYSIWYG-
capable string "gadgets" (which the Amiga doesn't have). As an example, open
up those HELP boxes -- the multiple style'ed text inside a scrolling region
is *one* text object. The system takes care of the scrolling, text display,
etc. It is sad, but true, that the interface is better defined than the
corresponding Amiga interface. It's loads richer too... :(
>similar principles as the Amiga OS, mainly the object-oriented
>data structures and system calls.
GEOS is written in an object-oriented assembly language. We're not just
talking about a quais-object-oriented system like the Amiga.
>As GEOS is of nearly the same
>age as Amiga OS, you cannot say they took ideas from Amiga OS,
>but they followed the same ideas as our guys.
There are some very good ideas in GEOS that can't be found in the Amiga.
Device independence comes to mind. There are others I'm probably not allowed
to discuss.
>This all leads me to the conclusion that examples of this kind
>demonstrate that Amiga OS is well up with the current state of
>the art in OS design. Ok, there also exist newer developments,
The Amiga's OS has serious defficiencies, and serious advantages. However,
there is far too much redundant, multiple-interface stuff which leads not
only to a horrible programmer-interface, but to a huge kernel as well.
Fortunately most of it's in ROM...
As an example, think of how you'd develop a CLI utility, and then develop the
same utility for workbench. Question, why are they different? Because they
reach different audiences or because dealing with workbench and tooltypes is
so vastly different than dealing with CLI line arguments?
Even 2.0, which is at least advancing the idea of TAGS seems to have a bunch
of parsing code duplicated in commodities and DOS, etc. etc.
Why do we have THREE separate ways to create gadgets -- Gadget/boopsi/GadTools?
Why can't we have ONE call that creates/destroys ANY system structure?
IE: rastport = CreateSysStruct(CSS_RASTER);
I know why Exec *didn't* have it's structures protected by semaphores -- why
doesn't it now? Stick the Semaphores in the Library structure for crying out
loud if you have to. Of course, some structures you just *don't* want to
use Semaphores for... :).
And the beat goes on.
>but I'm confident that the open
>design will leave enough room for further development and
>keeping track with new ideas.
Let us all sincerely hope so :)
David Navas na...@cory.berkeley.edu
2.0 :: "You can't have your cake and eat it too."
Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus
David C. Navas
>> Now now... let's not get carried away. The Amiga OS is very, very
>>nice, that is true. I like it a lot. But no way is it "state of the art"
>>in the 1990's!
>>
>> For example, it doesn't have:
>>
>> - Virtual memory
Wouldn't mind it as an option -- useful for many applications I can think of.
Probably not useful for the general "kernel"
>> - Memory protection
See comment next:
>> - Resource tracking
Resource Tracking is nice, as long as you're not always passing memory pointers
between one's programs. What's that -- the Amiga does that? Horrors...
As an option it's nice -- so use malloc()... Oh, yeah -- Screen's and stuff.
If you *really* need resource tracking, it's a week project -- maybe three
weeks for 2.0 [because there are more system structures and stuff to learn].
Just use self-identifying data structures, and free everything according to
its type via library calls. Implementation is left up to the imagination
of the reader. It's not quite that simple, but it ain't hard neither.
>> - Multi-user capabilities
For business networking we need multi-user protection -- maybe those COMMENT
fields could be put to use...
>Yes, BUT -- these features are not NECESSARY. Further in order
>to have them you pay a performance penalty which, apparently,
>Commodore is unwilling to pay. Yes each would be very nice to have.
Each would be nice to have, PROVIDED they don't change the way I can already
do stuff.
Look, stop programming the Amiga as if it was a Unix box.
THE AMIGA IS NOT UNIX. THE AMIGA IS NOT MSDOS. Thank you.
If you want MS-DOS, buy an MS-DOS machine, or the Bridgeboard. If you want
Unix, buy Unix. My Amiga uses Exec, and I generaly like it.
This machine has some capabilities which I find completely indispensable,
and they are unique to this machine. If folks would stop programming the thing
as if was a single-tasking machine and use the message passing capabilities to
their fullest, the Amiga would be an *innovative* work whose software could
not hope to be ported to other platforms, because of the lack of fundamental
Amiga kernel operations. This applies to some folks at Commodore too --
although I suspect it's a lack of time and resources. Ah well.
I can't imagine Kent Polk's IPC work to be done on either the IBM or the Mac,
and frankly it would be a real royal pain in the butt to implement a fast
IPC protocol under Unix. Ask Prof. Ousterhout at UC Berkeley, apparently
he's done it via calls to X-Windows. Icky and slower than molasses on a
Sparc!
Plea to fellow developers:
STOP TREATING AMI LIKE A NORMAL PC. SHE AIN'T!
>To have virtual memory: Obviously most Amiga's don't have MMU's, a
> Currently AmigaDOS processes
> share the same address space & who knows what will break
> when that is changed.
Everything that I think makes the Amiga both unique, and a useful machine.
That's all.
Of course, if shared memory was the default, maybe then we'd be talking...
> Both these would be nice though.. especially memory protection
> for all instead of just for developers.
Don't buy software with bugs. Of course, that includes Cmdre's own kernel,
so...
>Resource tracking: Well.. obviously the kernel needs to be keeping
>
> Opion-Time: One of the jobs of an OS (or as I see it)
> is to "beautify" the users/programmers environment.
> That is.. make it simpler than "raw hardware". Resource
> tracking is one of those boring jobs which programmers
> do not do well. Especially in C where there are no
> built in facilities to help out!
Like I said, it's probably a week job for 1.3. malloc already does it for
every memory allocation. All you need is screens, windows, etc. pointers to
which are kept in a linked list which identifies the data. The rest is
so simple, I might write it one of these days for kicks.
Peter da Silva
> Quoted from <1991Mar29....@sugar.hackercorp.com> by pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva):
> > You can reboot the IBM-PC clone in my bedroom all you want, and unless
> > you bring your own O/S in with you you will not be able to defeat the
> Hm. I take a DOS disk out with me when visiting people whose machines
> need fiddling with at work. And a disk editor, and a binary file
> editor, and a couple of other things.
I don't expect people to be carrying bootable DOS disks when they go visiting
friends. I'm not one of the folks whose machines "need fiddling at work". Do
you actually go visiting people at home with an MS-DOS boot disk? If so, I
would suggest getting a life.
Peter da Silva
> in its base model. During the NeXT several years, developers can
> assume this where the NeXT is concerned, but they will have to develop
> for the A500 when they program on the Amiga. Of course, most
> developers probably aren't going to bother with the Amiga at all.
No. Most developers will continue to develop for MS-DOS and Windows. The
NeXT and Amiga are both way back in the race, with the Mac in an intermediate
position (and holding it largely through the clever use of lawyers).
All the arguments about the technical excellence of the NeXT apply equally
well to the technical excellence of the Amiga over the past 5 years. See
how well that's worked...
Andy Nagy
C. Navas) writes:
[stuff deleted]
> >> - Resource tracking
> If you *really* need resource tracking, it's a week project -- maybe three
> weeks for 2.0 [because there are more system structures and stuff to learn].
> Just use self-identifying data structures, and free everything according to
> its type via library calls. Implementation is left up to the imagination
> of the reader. It's not quite that simple, but it ain't hard neither.
[stuff deleted]
> Like I said, it's probably a week job for 1.3. malloc already does it for
> every memory allocation. All you need is screens, windows, etc. pointers to
> which are kept in a linked list which identifies the data. The rest is
> so simple, I might write it one of these days for kicks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please keep us posted ...
> David Navas na...@cory.berkeley.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Nagy (pto...@asterix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca)
The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
"Dee do do do, dee da da da, thats all I want to say to you" -- The Police
Michael D Mellinger
That's also why it's not nice to use a machine that uses a 15 MIPS 68040
as its base model (though in truth, the discontinued 68030 NeXT is the base
NeXT model). Software can set higher goals with a higher base processor,
but it also requires that base processor just to squeak by. The first
generation 64K/4.77MHz 8088 IBM PC, 128K/7.8MHz 68000 Mac, the 256K/7.16MHz
68000 Amiga 1000, and the 4MB/25MHz 68030 NeXT were each in this category
for what they were trying to achieve, though they were not all in the same
computer class (I see three different ones there myself).
Software is the name of the game. Make it as easy as possible for
developers to write software on your machine. So what if the first
generation of software is a bit on the slow side. Slow software is
better than no software.
The basic performance of the 68040 generation NeXT, to the average GUI user
at least, is on the order of what 2nd generation Amiga users have been
enjoying for a long time. While it won't number crunch faster, an A3000 does
nearly everything else faster than a 68040 based NeXT. And you haven't seen
a 68040 based Amiga yet.
Commodore just got the 030 Amiga 3000 out the door. I think it will
be a while before we see an 040 machine from you guys, knowing
Commodore's track record. I suggest skipping the 040 and going
straight to a RISC processor. Things are going to heat up with
introduction HP's Snake computers. NeXT year 15 mips isn't going to
seem all that fast, unless your selling it for $2000.
Or the NeXT. MOST developers develop for MS-DOS. A visable percentage are
developing for MS-Windows as well, and for the Mac. Standard UNIX, or perhaps
one of the standard UNIXs, is another growing target. Amiga has lots of
development in a few specific areas. NeXT has the kind of fringe the Amiga
did in its early days, and some hired guns, which are of course nice, and
something I wish C= had had the startup money to afford. That is an effective,
if expensive, way to get acceptance for a new system, as long as you can afford
to pay the big companies and scare away the little guys.
Who has NeXT paid to develop software? I've heard this before, but no
one is naming names. Is it just a rumor? In fact this newgroup is
the only place that I've heard it. Anyway, NeXT (or Commodore)
doesn't need everyone to develop software for their machine, just a
few good companies(or ones that people recognize :-)) in the necessary
areas like DTP, CAD, accounting, etc.
You would think with over 2 million machines more developers would
support the Amiga. As of last year, that was half as many as Apple.
That should be enough to make developers look your way. I think a
Word Perfect 5.0 and a Lotus 123 for the Amiga would sell a lot more
machines. Commodore can afford to at least pay these guys, if
necessary.
-Mike
Michael D Mellinger
No. Most developers will continue to develop for MS-DOS and Windows. The
NeXT and Amiga are both way back in the race, with the Mac in an intermediate
position (and holding it largely through the clever use of lawyers).
All the arguments about the technical excellence of the NeXT apply equally
well to the technical excellence of the Amiga over the past 5 years. See
how well that's worked...
I don't care if most developers continue to develop for DOS machines
as long as some good developers write software for the NeXT. The Mac
is still the best(IMHO) computer for WP and DTP.
The Amiga lost because it was branded a GAME MACHINE, the user
interface didn't/doesn't look as good/professional (Zzzz) as the Macs,
and it used to GURU meditate a little too much. Lest we forget,
Commodore didn't know how to market the machine either.
-Mike
Ray Cromwell
>
>In article <1991Apr2.1...@sugar.hackercorp.com> pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
> No. Most developers will continue to develop for MS-DOS and Windows. The
> NeXT and Amiga are both way back in the race, with the Mac in an intermediate
> position (and holding it largely through the clever use of lawyers).
>
> All the arguments about the technical excellence of the NeXT apply equally
> well to the technical excellence of the Amiga over the past 5 years. See
> how well that's worked...
>
>I don't care if most developers continue to develop for DOS machines
>as long as some good developers write software for the NeXT. The Mac
>is still the best(IMHO) computer for WP and DTP.
>
>The Amiga lost because it was branded a GAME MACHINE, the user
When did the Amiga lose? Amiga's are selling better now than they have
ever done before. Let's not forget that the Commodore 64 was also branded
a game machine yet it sold 10 million machines world wide and is still
selling. I predict NeXT's aren't going to achieve much of a market
penetration. There are low-end Amigas (500), low end Macs(Classic), lo end
IBM's (pc/xt), but there is no low-end NeXT. The cheapest model is over
$3000 and that's just the educational price.
>interface didn't/doesn't look as good/professional (Zzzz) as the Macs,
>and it used to GURU meditate a little too much. Lest we forget,
>Commodore didn't know how to market the machine either.
Regardless of that fact, the Amiga continues to sell without any marketing.
Just think how good it would sell with marketing. The Commodore 64 sold
10 million with hardly any marketing. I guess that says alot about
Commodore's technical excellence and price.
>-Mike
You need to wake up to the fact that the general populace isn't going
to purchase a NeXT anymore than they'd purchase a Sun or Vax. Sure, it's
cool to develop on the NeXT (objective-c, yuck), but you can't sell
a machine to developers only, developers need consumers to buy what
developers develop. An Amiga or Mac w/040 would kill NeXT in speed
considering the overhead of NeXTStep, Display Postscript, and Unix
compared to that of AmigaDOS or Finder.
And about Interface builder. The NeXT isn't the only machine that has
interface building programs.They are availible on the Ibm, Mac, and Amiga
as well.
Considering how long the NeXT has been around, and how many units it has
sold, i'd say it's more of a loser than Commodore.
--
/~\_______________________________________________________________________/~\
|n| r...@albert.ai.mit.edu Amiga, the computer for the creative mind. |n|
|~| .-. .-. |~|
|_|________________________________| |_| |________________________________|_|
Ethan Solomita
>
>Commodore just got the 030 Amiga 3000 out the door. I think it will
>be a while before we see an 040 machine from you guys, knowing
>Commodore's track record. I suggest skipping the 040 and going
>straight to a RISC processor. Things are going to heat up with
>introduction HP's Snake computers. NeXT year 15 mips isn't going to
>seem all that fast, unless your selling it for $2000.
>
talking about and doesn't want to. It is becoming more and more
apparent that you are here simply to cause trouble, not to
express real opinions. Commodore has been shipping a 68030
machine for over a year and a half in the form of the A2500/30.
Commodore seems to have caught up with the industry pretty fast.
The 040 isn't being shipped in machines by anyone except NeXT and
maybe HP. The 040s have been available to developers for SO long
that everyone has their boards done, they are just waiting for
040s to put in them! I'd say you'll see it for the Amiga as soon
as you see it for the Mac.
And why do you type NeXT when you using it to mean the
word next? And, as to 15 mips not being fast enough, that's why
Motorola does things called R&D which allow them to come out with
new and faster chips! What a concept! There was the 68000, 010,
020, 030, now the 040, and there'll likely be an 050 as well. And
how about a 50MHz 040!
>
>You would think with over 2 million machines more developers would
>support the Amiga. As of last year, that was half as many as Apple.
>That should be enough to make developers look your way. I think a
>Word Perfect 5.0 and a Lotus 123 for the Amiga would sell a lot more
>machines. Commodore can afford to at least pay these guys, if
>necessary.
>
>-Mike
The problem with paying these companies is that if they
are being bribed into making for the Amiga and otherwise don't
want to, their committment will be as bad as WordPerfect's is for
the Amiga today. We want companies who WANT to be in the Amiga
market. And, as to that 2 million machine base, as most of those
machines are A500s without much expansion, the 2 million is a
deceptive number.
-- Ethan
Q: How many Comp Sci majors does it take to change a lightbulb
A: None. It's a hardware problem.
Michael D Mellinger
When did the Amiga lose? Amiga's are selling better now than they have
ever done before. Let's not forget that the Commodore 64 was also branded
a game machine yet it sold 10 million machines world wide and is still
selling. I predict NeXT's aren't going to achieve much of a market
penetration. There are low-end Amigas (500), low end Macs(Classic), lo end
IBM's (pc/xt), but there is no low-end NeXT. The cheapest model is over
$3000 and that's just the educational price.
I used to own a Commodore 64 and 128 so I know all about them. The
Amiga lost, in my opinion, because is could have done so much better.
They aren't accepted in Fortune 500 companies, you don't find too many
campus computer labs full of Amigas, and major developers still don't
write software for them. We have one where I work(A2500), but the
people who I work with would rather play with Toolbook -- Damn that
thing is slow. That's how much respect it gets.
Regardless of that fact, the Amiga continues to sell without any marketing.
Just think how good it would sell with marketing. The Commodore 64 sold
10 million with hardly any marketing. I guess that says alot about
Commodore's technical excellence and price.
Commodore sold 10 million 64's because they sold them for $200 a
piece. When an entire Amiga system goes for $500, they will take off
too(IMHO). Get WP and Lotus on the machine, and I think a lot of
people will them. Then again, you need a flicker fixer. People might
go for VGA machines instead.
You need to wake up to the fact that the general populace isn't going
to purchase a NeXT anymore than they'd purchase a Sun or Vax. Sure, it's
cool to develop on the NeXT (objective-c, yuck), but you can't sell
a machine to developers only, developers need consumers to buy what
developers develop. An Amiga or Mac w/040 would kill NeXT in speed
considering the overhead of NeXTStep, Display Postscript, and Unix
compared to that of AmigaDOS or Finder.
Most people aren't interested in speed, they want functionality. It's
what you do with the speed that matters. NeXT gives the consumer
Display Postscript, voice mail, and built in fax capabilities.
The Amiga gives you the best games in the business.
And about Interface builder. The NeXT isn't the only machine that has
interface building programs.They are availible on the Ibm, Mac, and Amiga
as well.
And Motif. There is a free IB with Interviews for generic X Windows,
but it is only an alpha version. So, spend a few hundred bucks and
buy the one for your machine. Do you have your calculator out?
Amiga 3000 + 040 board + C++ + IB + Mathematica + DSP + 92 dpi display =
Should we throw in ethernet? That costs an extra $500 on a Mac. And
why the hell is Commodore still using 800K drives in the Amiga?
Considering how long the NeXT has been around, and how many units it has
sold, i'd say it's more of a loser than Commodore.
I think NeXT released their first machines in Sept. 88. Their latest
machines shipped in December. Your right, the old machines didn't
sell well because they were a bit slow, but they have sold about
20,000 new machines so far. NeXT hasn't won yet, but they are poised
to make their mark.
-Mike
Ethan Solomita
>
>I used to own a Commodore 64 and 128 so I know all about them. The
>Amiga lost, in my opinion, because is could have done so much better.
So that makes you qualified to discuss the Amiga? If the
Amiga were on the same level as the C=128, I'd give up too! You
make it sound like the game is over and Commodore has stopped
developing for the Amiga. There is still a bright future,
especially now that sales are up and there is more money at
Commodore to do things!
>Then again, you need a flicker fixer. People might
>go for VGA machines instead.
>
The A3000 has one built in and the cost of one is under $250.
>Most people aren't interested in speed, they want functionality. It's
>what you do with the speed that matters. NeXT gives the consumer
>Display Postscript, voice mail, and built in fax capabilities.
>The Amiga gives you the best games in the business.
>
That's just a cheap shot that lowers your credibility
even more (didn't think it could go negative, did you 8) The
Amiga is the BEST in video work in the micro/workstation
industry. All the major video magazines are moving over towards
HEAVY Amiga coverage. The quality of Amiga software in most
business areas is acceptable although not miraculous. And, BTW,
the Amiga DTP software is also quite good in its own right,
capable of publishing magazines.
>Should we throw in ethernet? That costs an extra $500 on a Mac. And
>why the hell is Commodore still using 800K drives in the Amiga?
>
I guess that's why Commodore just developed/announced a
HD Amiga disk drive!
>
>I think NeXT released their first machines in Sept. 88. Their latest
>machines shipped in December. Your right, the old machines didn't
>sell well because they were a bit slow, but they have sold about
>20,000 new machines so far. NeXT hasn't won yet, but they are poised
>to make their mark.
>
Not if they've only sold 20,000 new machines! If, after
the initial burst of sales from the new machine launches, they've
only made that many sales, then they can never make a profit (nor
will Lotus or Word Perfect) and they will simply survive until
Steve Jobs runs out of money with which to fund the company.
And, BTW, they've already made a mark. That doesn't mean
they'll be around in the long term. Commodore, however, will be,
as they are making a clear profit and their sales are growing.
>-Mike
Ray Cromwell
>
>In article <1991Apr3.0...@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> r...@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes:
>
> When did the Amiga lose? Amiga's are selling better now than they have
> ever done before. Let's not forget that the Commodore 64 was also branded
> a game machine yet it sold 10 million machines world wide and is still
> selling. I predict NeXT's aren't going to achieve much of a market
> penetration. There are low-end Amigas (500), low end Macs(Classic), lo end
> IBM's (pc/xt), but there is no low-end NeXT. The cheapest model is over
> $3000 and that's just the educational price.
>
>I used to own a Commodore 64 and 128 so I know all about them. The
>Amiga lost, in my opinion, because is could have done so much better.
>They aren't accepted in Fortune 500 companies, you don't find too many
>campus computer labs full of Amigas, and major developers still don't
>write software for them. We have one where I work(A2500), but the
>people who I work with would rather play with Toolbook -- Damn that
>thing is slow. That's how much respect it gets.
> Regardless of that fact, the Amiga continues to sell without any marketing.
> Just think how good it would sell with marketing. The Commodore 64 sold
> 10 million with hardly any marketing. I guess that says alot about
> Commodore's technical excellence and price.
>
>Commodore sold 10 million 64's because they sold them for $200 a
>piece. When an entire Amiga system goes for $500, they will take off
>too(IMHO). Get WP and Lotus on the machine, and I think a lot of
>people will them. Then again, you need a flicker fixer. People might
>go for VGA machines instead.
>
> You need to wake up to the fact that the general populace isn't going
> to purchase a NeXT anymore than they'd purchase a Sun or Vax. Sure, it's
> cool to develop on the NeXT (objective-c, yuck), but you can't sell
> a machine to developers only, developers need consumers to buy what
> developers develop. An Amiga or Mac w/040 would kill NeXT in speed
> considering the overhead of NeXTStep, Display Postscript, and Unix
> compared to that of AmigaDOS or Finder.
>
>Most people aren't interested in speed, they want functionality. It's
>what you do with the speed that matters. NeXT gives the consumer
>Display Postscript, voice mail, and built in fax capabilities.
an ethernet port, buthow many people can afford an Internet connection?
Voice-Mail from one NeXT to Another in the same computer lab is about
as useful as making a telephone call from your bedroom to your basement.
>The Amiga gives you the best games in the business.
>
> And about Interface builder. The NeXT isn't the only machine that has
> interface building programs.They are availible on the Ibm, Mac, and Amiga
> as well.
>
>And Motif. There is a free IB with Interviews for generic X Windows,
>but it is only an alpha version. So, spend a few hundred bucks and
>buy the one for your machine. Do you have your calculator out?
PowerWindows on the Amiga costs about $30. MenuC costs nothing.
Amiga interface builders generate in LOTS of languages not just Obj-C.
PowerWindows generates Forth, Basic, Modula, Assembler, C, and other
languages.
>Amiga 3000 + 040 board + C++ + IB + Mathematica + DSP + 92 dpi display =
$2600 + $800 +Free +Free/$30+Maple ?+Don't need DSP+A2024($499)=
$3800 bucks for a Machine that's muchmore usuable than a NeXT.
I'll take G++ over objective C anyday.
>Should we throw in ethernet? That costs an extra $500 on a Mac. And
>why the hell is Commodore still using 800K drives in the Amiga?
Commodore puts 1.76mb drives in new Amiga's now.
> Considering how long the NeXT has been around, and how many units it has
> sold, i'd say it's more of a loser than Commodore.
>
>I think NeXT released their first machines in Sept. 88. Their latest
>machines shipped in December. Your right, the old machines didn't
>sell well because they were a bit slow, but they have sold about
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I thought you speed wasn't important? First you say your Amiga2500 was
slow (an 030 running AmigaDOS slow? Doubtful), then you say speed
isn't important, now your saying NeXT machines (030) didn't sell
because they were slow? Which is it?
>20,000 new machines so far. NeXT hasn't won yet, but they are poised
>to make their mark.
How? NeXT's in business/home use? Not bloody likely. You say
Amiga's are game machines? Oh well, this fact alone guarantees that
C= will be around alot longer than NeXT. the C64 market hasn't even
died down yet. Commodore sold a few hundred thousand C64's last year
which is more than the total number of NeXT's world wide.
The C64 may have been a game machine, but a large number of people
still used it to do work. I used it to do all my word processing.
Many people I know ran BBSs on them, programmed, published, and played
games. I can still run more software on my C64 than you could ever hope to
run on your NeXT.
NeXT isn't going anywhere. There will be 040's out for Amigas and Macs
this year.
>-Mike
Michael D Mellinger
How can you send fax without a modem or ethernet? Sure NeXT has
an ethernet port, buthow many people can afford an Internet connection?
Voice-Mail from one NeXT to Another in the same computer lab is about
as useful as making a telephone call from your bedroom to your basement.
It works great acrossed campus. I'm not sure how many Fortune 500
companies are using ethernet? Voice mail will work through a modem.
It's just a compress'ed tar file. And I guess you'd have to buy a fax
machine to send faxes. Fax machines are pretty common, ya know.
I thought you speed wasn't important? First you say your Amiga2500 was
slow (an 030 running AmigaDOS slow? Doubtful), then you say speed
isn't important, now your saying NeXT machines (030) didn't sell
because they were slow? Which is it?
It was refering to Toolbook, not the A2500. Reread my posting. My
point was Toolbook is incredibly slow, and the people where I work
would rather spend their time developing in it then the Amiga which
looks a helluva lot more impressive. No one uses the loaner A2500.
It will leave here untouch except for a few demos. Damn shame.
How? NeXT's in business/home use? Not bloody likely. You say
Amiga's are game machines? Oh well, this fact alone guarantees that
C= will be around alot longer than NeXT. the C64 market hasn't even
died down yet. Commodore sold a few hundred thousand C64's last year
which is more than the total number of NeXT's world wide.
The C64 may have been a game machine, but a large number of people
still used it to do work. I used it to do all my word processing.
Many people I know ran BBSs on them, programmed, published, and played
games. I can still run more software on my C64 than you could ever hope to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
run on your NeXT.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How old are you? So what? It's what runs on your machine, not how
much software is available. Come on, think about this. By the way,
if you run acrossed any software that says "Cracked courtesy of the
Condor", that was me.
I'll let you figure out why Commodore sold more C64's than NeXT sold
NeXT computers.
NeXT isn't going anywhere. There will be 040's out for Amigas and Macs
this year.
Great statement. The big question is: "How much will they cost?"
-Mike
Michael D Mellinger
In article <1991Apr3.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
>I used to own a Commodore 64 and 128 so I know all about them. The
>Amiga lost, in my opinion, because is could have done so much better.
So that makes you qualified to discuss the Amiga? If the
Amiga were on the same level as the C=128, I'd give up too! You
make it sound like the game is over and Commodore has stopped
developing for the Amiga. There is still a bright future,
especially now that sales are up and there is more money at
Commodore to do things!
Right, Commodore does have a niche market. All I was saying is that
they could of had a lot more.
>Then again, you need a flicker fixer. People might
>go for VGA machines instead.
>
The A3000 has one built in and the cost of one is under $250.
I know the A3000 has one built in, but that isn't Commodore's $1000
machine. People don't want to screw around with a flicker fixer, they
want to pull the computer out of the box and start typing. Besides,
when they are shopping for a computer, the flicker fixer isn't going
to be installed. Commodore already has a two marks against them:
Apple and IBM. People are going to look at the screens, and they are
either going to like what they see or they're not. The people in my
office were definitely turned off by the flicker. I suppose the
salesman at the store could always explain it to the consumer(think
about why this isn't good -- extra points).
That's just a cheap shot that lowers your credibility
even more (didn't think it could go negative, did you 8) The
Amiga is the BEST in video work in the micro/workstation
industry. All the major video magazines are moving over towards
HEAVY Amiga coverage. The quality of Amiga software in most
business areas is acceptable although not miraculous. And, BTW,
the Amiga DTP software is also quite good in its own right,
capable of publishing magazines.
Isn't a Toaster being made for the Mac? And don't forget to watch out
for the NeXTDimension board from NeXT.
People aren't going to buy an Amiga(or NeXT) just because it has
acceptable software, if they can get a Mac that does the same thing
better. Very competitive software is needed!
>Should we throw in ethernet? That costs an extra $500 on a Mac. And
>why the hell is Commodore still using 800K drives in the Amiga?
>
I guess that's why Commodore just developed/announced a
HD Amiga disk drive!
Good to hear? I hope it reads/write DOS diskettes. What's their
capacity? Why didn't they just use the 2.88MB floppies like NeXT did,
or the 1.44MB drives that have been around for a couple of years?
Not if they've only sold 20,000 new machines! If, after
the initial burst of sales from the new machine launches, they've
only made that many sales, then they can never make a profit (nor
will Lotus or Word Perfect) and they will simply survive until
Steve Jobs runs out of money with which to fund the company.
Of course!
And, BTW, they've already made a mark. That doesn't mean
they'll be around in the long term. Commodore, however, will be,
as they are making a clear profit and their sales are growing.
And that doesn't mean that Commodore will be around either. They did
go through some bad years a while back.
-Mike
Evan Torrie
>The 040 isn't being shipped in machines by anyone except NeXT and
>maybe HP. The 040s have been available to developers for SO long
>that everyone has their boards done, they are just waiting for
>040s to put in them! I'd say you'll see it for the Amiga as soon
>as you see it for the Mac.
Just as a data point, last week saw the debut of Radius' Rocket 040
board for the Mac II... So the 040 boards have arrived (at least for
the Mac).
>And, as to 15 mips not being fast enough, that's why
>Motorola does things called R&D which allow them to come out with
>new and faster chips! What a concept! There was the 68000, 010,
>020, 030, now the 040, and there'll likely be an 050 as well. And
>how about a 50MHz 040!
A 50MHz 040 is still at least a year away I would venture. Such a
CPU would still only rate about 25 Specmarks, which is one third of
the performance available NOW in HP's Snake workstation.
If I were a 68K customer, and looking to build a high-end machine,
I'd have already decided to go to one of the RISC chips. Really,
there's only Apple, Commodore and Atari who haven't shifted already.
And the long-term emphasis coming out of Motorola these days finally
seems to have shifted behind their 88K series (at the expense of the
68K).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? tor...@cs.stanford.edu
Where can a nation lie when it hides its organic minds in a cellar dark and
grim? They must be ... very dim.
Ethan Solomita
>
>It was refering to Toolbook, not the A2500. Reread my posting. My
>point was Toolbook is incredibly slow, and the people where I work
>would rather spend their time developing in it then the Amiga which
>looks a helluva lot more impressive. No one uses the loaner A2500.
>It will leave here untouch except for a few demos. Damn shame.
>
have on the Amiga, and what are they expected to do with the
machine? It doesn't make much sense to show an Amiga to people
who are interested in doing SQL Database work, for example.
> NeXT isn't going anywhere. There will be 040's out for Amigas and Macs
> this year.
>
>Great statement. The big question is: "How much will they cost?"
>
For the A3000 it should be significantly under $1,000
from the figures I've heard. And, before you start quoting
prices, just because Steve Jobs doesn't care about making a
profit doesn't mean that Commodore can afford to.
Michael D Mellinger
You sound like someone who doesn't know what he is
talking about and doesn't want to. It is becoming more and more
apparent that you are here simply to cause trouble, not to
express real opinions. Commodore has been shipping a 68030
machine for over a year and a half in the form of the A2500/30.
Forgot about that? I wonder if that is what we have over in the
corner?
Commodore seems to have caught up with the industry pretty fast.
The 040 isn't being shipped in machines by anyone except NeXT and
maybe HP. The 040s have been available to developers for SO long
that everyone has their boards done, they are just waiting for
040s to put in them! I'd say you'll see it for the Amiga as soon
as you see it for the Mac.
You can buy an 040 Mac board for $3500 from Raduis. In case you don't
know, the NeXT costs $4995 retail. The 17" monitor, DSP, software,
105MB hard drive, 8MB RAM, 2.88MB floppy, and the software. If you go
to a university that sells NeXTs, you can buy everything for around
$3250. Yes, that's less than the Mac upgrade.
And why do you type NeXT when you using it to mean the
word next? And, as to 15 mips not being fast enough, that's why
Motorola does things called R&D which allow them to come out with
new and faster chips! What a concept! There was the 68000, 010,
020, 030, now the 040, and there'll likely be an 050 as well. And
how about a 50MHz 040!
We're all waiting for the 50MHz 040. Intel is releasing the 50MHz 486
soon. I wouldn't hold my breath until the 050 is released. RISC
machines are about to stomp all over CISC machines. Take the 57 mip
HP Snake for $12,000 as an example. Any company that is waiting for
the 050 is going to go out of business.
-Mike
Lyle Warren Kopnicky
- Quantum (!) Seep
Lyle Warren Kopnicky
- Quantum Seep
P.S. If the drives are being shipped, then in which models?
Ethan Solomita
>
>In article <1991Apr3.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
>
>
> >Then again, you need a flicker fixer. People might
> >go for VGA machines instead.
> >
> The A3000 has one built in and the cost of one is under $250.
>
>I know the A3000 has one built in, but that isn't Commodore's $1000
>machine. People don't want to screw around with a flicker fixer, they
>want to pull the computer out of the box and start typing. Besides,
Wait, wait, wait. Aren't you saying that the NeXT is the
great machine? They don't even HAVE a model for the $1,000 area.
The flicker-fixer can be added to an A2000, i.e. anything but an
A500, and there is an adaptor for A500s made by third-parties (I
believe ICD?). And, as to it not being in the machine, if you
have a competent dealer they will install it for you.
>Isn't a Toaster being made for the Mac? And don't forget to watch out
>for the NeXTDimension board from NeXT.
>
(I hate to this, but it is well deserved)
BZZZZZT Wrong answer! But thank you for playing!
NewTek is definitely not making a Toaster for the Mac.
While there are Apple companies who claim to be making similar
devices, that is to be expected. I have seen no price estimates,
and of course there is no hardware to SEE on the mac, just
advertisements. Lots of vapor.
>People aren't going to buy an Amiga(or NeXT) just because it has
>acceptable software, if they can get a Mac that does the same thing
>better. Very competitive software is needed!
>
That's why the Amiga has the best character generation
software and the best 3-D modeling software of anything in its
price range. Yes, a niche market, but that is how Apple started,
not so?
>Good to hear? I hope it reads/write DOS diskettes. What's their
>capacity? Why didn't they just use the 2.88MB floppies like NeXT did,
>or the 1.44MB drives that have been around for a couple of years?
>
The problem is that the standard Amiga disk-drive port
uses the Agnus for decoding the info. In order to get
high-density from Applied Engineering, they had the drive run at
half speed. I don't know what Commodore did. Not all Amiga's have
a SCSI port. The capacity is 1.76MB. And I'm sure that programs
like CrossDOS will be made to support them.
> Not if they've only sold 20,000 new machines! If, after
> the initial burst of sales from the new machine launches, they've
> only made that many sales, then they can never make a profit (nor
> will Lotus or Word Perfect) and they will simply survive until
> Steve Jobs runs out of money with which to fund the company.
>
>Of course!
>
> And, BTW, they've already made a mark. That doesn't mean
> they'll be around in the long term. Commodore, however, will be,
> as they are making a clear profit and their sales are growing.
>
>And that doesn't mean that Commodore will be around either. They did
>go through some bad years a while back.
>
Yes, but there were never really any good years for the
Amiga at that point. Now it has made its mark. Obviously the
Amiga won't last forever, but Commodore can be considered a sure
thing for the next 5-10 years, at least if stock-market analysts
are to be believed. They've rated Commodore a 'strong-buy' and
have said that it is a company to watch for in the 90s.
Ethan Solomita
>In article <1991Apr3.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
>
>You can buy an 040 Mac board for $3500 from Raduis. In case you don't
Is it shipping, or just advertised? There have been
advertisements for Amiga 040 accelerators in AmigaWorld for a
heck of a lot less than $3,500, and for machines that are already
32 bit, i.e. the A3000, the cost should be appr. $700
street-price.
>know, the NeXT costs $4995 retail. The 17" monitor, DSP, software,
>105MB hard drive, 8MB RAM, 2.88MB floppy, and the software. If you go
>to a university that sells NeXTs, you can buy everything for around
>$3250. Yes, that's less than the Mac upgrade.
>
Yes, you've mentioned that before. 8)
>We're all waiting for the 50MHz 040. Intel is releasing the 50MHz 486
>soon. I wouldn't hold my breath until the 050 is released. RISC
>machines are about to stomp all over CISC machines. Take the 57 mip
>HP Snake for $12,000 as an example. Any company that is waiting for
>the 050 is going to go out of business.
>
No one is waiting for the 050, but Motorola has made a
clear committment to their 680x0 line. If the current 040 is 15
mips then the 50MHz will be 30. And as top RISC machines stomping
CISC machines, YOU CAN'T COMPARE MIPS BETWEEN RISC AND CISC
CHIPS. The instructions on the RISC chip do less BY DEFINITION.
There are lies, damned lies, and benchmarks. The world is hardly
being run over by RISC chips, although they are becoming the
in-thing in workstations.
>-Mike
Ethan Solomita
>e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
>
>>The 040 isn't being shipped in machines by anyone except NeXT and
>>maybe HP. The 040s have been available to developers for SO long
>>that everyone has their boards done, they are just waiting for
>>040s to put in them! I'd say you'll see it for the Amiga as soon
>>as you see it for the Mac.
>
> Just as a data point, last week saw the debut of Radius' Rocket 040
>board for the Mac II... So the 040 boards have arrived (at least for
>the Mac).
>
We'll see if there are any companies showing/selling Amiga 040
boards.
Ray Cromwell
>In article <1991Apr3.0...@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> r...@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes:
>
> How can you send fax without a modem or ethernet? Sure NeXT has
> an ethernet port, buthow many people can afford an Internet connection?
> Voice-Mail from one NeXT to Another in the same computer lab is about
> as useful as making a telephone call from your bedroom to your basement.
>
>It works great acrossed campus. I'm not sure how many Fortune 500
>companies are using ethernet? Voice mail will work through a modem.
>It's just a compress'ed tar file. And I guess you'd have to buy a fax
>machine to send faxes. Fax machines are pretty common, ya know.
You can get send fax for Amiga, Mac, IBM, etc.
To tell ya the truth, I'd rather use the telephone. I can't fancy
uploading a multimegabyte sound file just to leave a few seconds of a message
that I could have sent in ASCII, or used the telephone. (especially
if the personal recieving it has a voice-mailbox system)
> I thought you speed wasn't important? First you say your Amiga2500 was
> slow (an 030 running AmigaDOS slow? Doubtful), then you say speed
> isn't important, now your saying NeXT machines (030) didn't sell
> because they were slow? Which is it?
>
>It was refering to Toolbook, not the A2500. Reread my posting. My
>point was Toolbook is incredibly slow, and the people where I work
>would rather spend their time developing in it then the Amiga which
>looks a helluva lot more impressive. No one uses the loaner A2500.
>It will leave here untouch except for a few demos. Damn shame.
Too bad, your fellow employee's loss. You'd make more money
developign AMiga software than you would doing NeXT software.
> How? NeXT's in business/home use? Not bloody likely. You say
> Amiga's are game machines? Oh well, this fact alone guarantees that
> C= will be around alot longer than NeXT. the C64 market hasn't even
> died down yet. Commodore sold a few hundred thousand C64's last year
> which is more than the total number of NeXT's world wide.
> The C64 may have been a game machine, but a large number of people
> still used it to do work. I used it to do all my word processing.
> Many people I know ran BBSs on them, programmed, published, and played
> games. I can still run more software on my C64 than you could ever hope to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> run on your NeXT.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>How old are you? So what? It's what runs on your machine, not how
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What does this have to do with it. I've owned Commodore products since 1982.
I'm keeping it around for the memories.
>much software is available. Come on, think about this. By the way,
>if you run acrossed any software that says "Cracked courtesy of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You sure do know how to increase your credibility on the net, don't you.
Sorry, I never heard of you. You weren't in Eagle Soft, ATC, NEC, UCF, or TA
which were the major American crack groups. The only Condor I even
remotely recall was from a group called 'TSC-The Supreme Council' However,
I knew the head of that group personally (He's serving in the persian gulf
right now.) so I would know you. I'm not going to reveal my handle
since that era of my life is past me, but I was in FBR,Public Enemy, and
Conquest, not to mention a few other groups. I never cracked games myself, I
programmed the flashy intros/demos for the game loaders. (I also released
a few programs to patch games and install cheat modes.) This is all
very interesting and brings back memories, but it has nothing to do
your arguement.
>Condor", that was me.
>
>I'll let you figure out why Commodore sold more C64's than NeXT sold
>NeXT computers.
My Commodore 64 system cost approx the same as an Amiga500 does.
(C64=$200, 1541=$200, Monitor=$150, printer=$150) My Commodore128
system costed $299 when it first came out, the 1571 disk drive was
over $200. Sure Commie 8bit systems were cheap, but not much cheaper
than an a500. Especially when the C64 first hit the market. Why don't you
figure out why people buy $7000 Mac II systems and not NeXT's?
> NeXT isn't going anywhere. There will be 040's out for Amigas and Macs
> this year.
>
>Great statement. The big question is: "How much will they cost?"
Well, GVP and Supra (small companies) have quoted prices at $895 list.
The Commodore card will probably be cheaper since Commodore can buy
040's and RAM in muchbigger quantities.
NeXT owner's act like the no other computer will have an 040 at the same
price. I remember NeXT users saying 040 Ami boards would cost $2000.
The sad fact is, the headstart that the NeXT had with the 040 isn't going to
help. 040's will be availible for the Amiga and Mac this year.
Ray Cromwell
>
>In article <1991Apr3.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
> >Then again, you need a flicker fixer. People might
> >go for VGA machines instead.
> >
> The A3000 has one built in and the cost of one is under $250.
>
>I know the A3000 has one built in, but that isn't Commodore's $1000
>machine. People don't want to screw around with a flicker fixer, they
>want to pull the computer out of the box and start typing. Besides,
>when they are shopping for a computer, the flicker fixer isn't going
>to be installed. Commodore already has a two marks against them:
>Apple and IBM. People are going to look at the screens, and they are
>either going to like what they see or they're not. The people in my
>office were definitely turned off by the flicker. I suppose the
>salesman at the store could always explain it to the consumer(think
>about why this isn't good -- extra points).
The same flicker fixer in the A3000 is availible on a card called the
A2320. It is very cheap($250 and below). Also, Commodore's new
custom chip chip has flickerfree modes. You can also purchase a $499
A2024 monitor that gives you 1024x800 NTSC or 1024x1024 PAL.
> That's just a cheap shot that lowers your credibility
> even more (didn't think it could go negative, did you 8) The
> Amiga is the BEST in video work in the micro/workstation
> industry. All the major video magazines are moving over towards
> HEAVY Amiga coverage. The quality of Amiga software in most
> business areas is acceptable although not miraculous. And, BTW,
> the Amiga DTP software is also quite good in its own right,
> capable of publishing magazines.
>
>Isn't a Toaster being made for the Mac? And don't forget to watch out
>for the NeXTDimension board from NeXT.
No the Toaster is not being made for the Mac, you have to buy an
Amiga+Toaster+Parallel/Serial connection to use it. NeXTDimension is
way to expensive considering the other boards availible now adays.
It won't give you the same NTSC Video ability that the toaster does either.
>People aren't going to buy an Amiga(or NeXT) just because it has
>acceptable software, if they can get a Mac that does the same thing
>better. Very competitive software is needed!
People buy Amigas. For Video, Audio and Games. What Niche does the
NeXT occuply?
> >Should we throw in ethernet? That costs an extra $500 on a Mac. And
> >why the hell is Commodore still using 800K drives in the Amiga?
> >
> I guess that's why Commodore just developed/announced a
> HD Amiga disk drive!
>
>Good to hear? I hope it reads/write DOS diskettes. What's their
>capacity? Why didn't they just use the 2.88MB floppies like NeXT did,
>or the 1.44MB drives that have been around for a couple of years?
It's 1.76mb. (880k * 2). It's getting to the point that incremental increases
in floppy drives are giving diminishing returns. Screw 2.88mb, give me
a 20/40mb floptical drive.
> Not if they've only sold 20,000 new machines! If, after
> the initial burst of sales from the new machine launches, they've
> only made that many sales, then they can never make a profit (nor
> will Lotus or Word Perfect) and they will simply survive until
> Steve Jobs runs out of money with which to fund the company.
>
>Of course!
>
> And, BTW, they've already made a mark. That doesn't mean
> they'll be around in the long term. Commodore, however, will be,
> as they are making a clear profit and their sales are growing.
>
>And that doesn't mean that Commodore will be around either. They did
>go through some bad years a while back.
Commodore has been around since the early 80's/late 70's. I even remember
an old Commodore 'brick' calculator they sold. They had bad years, but
they pulled through to produce the most sucessfl home computer ever created.
(C64). Now they produce one of the best multitasking PC's money can buy.
NeXT's are ok, but the RISC workstations are just so much better
in terms of performance.
Michael D Mellinger
In article <1991Apr3.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
Well, what does your company do, what software do you
have on the Amiga, and what are they expected to do with the
machine? It doesn't make much sense to show an Amiga to people
who are interested in doing SQL Database work, for example.
I am a student who works part time for Penn State as a programmer. We
develop educational software. We have Amiga Vision, and ...I'm not
sure what else.
For the A3000 it should be significantly under $1,000
from the figures I've heard. And, before you start quoting
prices, just because Steve Jobs doesn't care about making a
profit doesn't mean that Commodore can afford to.
The Mac upgrade from Radius costs $3500 as I posted earlier. Sun
sells their IPC(one of them) for $4995, the same as the NeXT. They
also offer an educational discount similar to NeXT's. I assume Sun is
making money. NeXT's is probably making money on their low-end
machines.
-Mike
Michael D Mellinger
>It works great acrossed campus. I'm not sure how many Fortune 500
>companies are using ethernet? Voice mail will work through a modem.
>It's just a compress'ed tar file. And I guess you'd have to buy a fax
>machine to send faxes. Fax machines are pretty common, ya know.
^^^^^^^^^What does this have to do with NeXT?
You can get send fax for Amiga, Mac, IBM, etc.
Faxing is an option from the print menu. You can use it from ANY
application. Just click the fax button instead of the print button.
>
>It was refering to Toolbook, not the A2500. Reread my posting. My
>point was Toolbook is incredibly slow, and the people where I work
>would rather spend their time developing in it then the Amiga which
>looks a helluva lot more impressive. No one uses the loaner A2500.
>It will leave here untouch except for a few demos. Damn shame.
Too bad, your fellow employee's loss. You'd make more money
developign AMiga software than you would doing NeXT software.
Actually, we develop mostly Mac and IBM software. We have only one
NeXT project.
You sure do know how to increase your credibility on the net, don't you.
Sorry, I never heard of you. You weren't in Eagle Soft, ATC, NEC, UCF, or TA
which were the major American crack groups. The only Condor I even
remotely recall was from a group called 'TSC-The Supreme Council' However,
I knew the head of that group personally (He's serving in the persian gulf
right now.) so I would know you. I'm not going to reveal my handle
since that era of my life is past me, but I was in FBR,Public Enemy, and
Conquest, not to mention a few other groups. I never cracked games myself, I
programmed the flashy intros/demos for the game loaders. (I also released
a few programs to patch games and install cheat modes.) This is all
very interesting and brings back memories, but it has nothing to do
your arguement.
Just reminiscing back to when I used to stay up all night playing with
my C64. I wasn't a major pirate, just a kid who liked to poke around
with the C64 :-).
My Commodore 64 system cost approx the same as an Amiga500 does.
(C64=$200, 1541=$200, Monitor=$150, printer=$150) My Commodore128
system costed $299 when it first came out, the 1571 disk drive was
over $200. Sure Commie 8bit systems were cheap, but not much cheaper
than an a500. Especially when the C64 first hit the market. Why don't you
figure out why people buy $7000 Mac II systems and not NeXT's?
Software and Apple's reputation. Also, people are still afraid of
computers. They frequently buy what their friends have.
>Great statement. The big question is: "How much will they cost?"
Well, GVP and Supra (small companies) have quoted prices at $895 list.
The Commodore card will probably be cheaper since Commodore can buy
040's and RAM in muchbigger quantities.
I think the 040 itself normally costs around $700. If you're right, a
lot of Mac users will be jumping ship.
NeXT owner's act like the no other computer will have an 040 at the same
price. I remember NeXT users saying 040 Ami boards would cost $2000.
The sad fact is, the headstart that the NeXT had with the 040 isn't going to
help. 040's will be availible for the Amiga and Mac this year.
I'm sure that other companies will sell you an 040 machine for the
same price as NeXT, but will they do it in 1991?
Keep in mind that the NeXT is more than an 040. The Amiga still
doesn't have virtual memory(even Macs have this) or memory protection.
The Amiga is a nice machine, but the market is heating up and
consumers educated enough to know the better machine by looking at
spec. sheet.
-Mike
Ray Cromwell
>The Mac upgrade from Radius costs $3500 as I posted earlier. Sun
>sells their IPC(one of them) for $4995, the same as the NeXT. They
>also offer an educational discount similar to NeXT's. I assume Sun is
>making money. NeXT's is probably making money on their low-end
>machines.
>
>-Mike
>
The Mac has nothing to do with Amiga. The Mac architecture makes
adding an 040 expensive, abut Mac users are used to paying high prices
like the $7000 030 Mac IIfx. The Amiga 3000's CPU slot was DESIGNED
with the 040 in mind. Just ask the designer, Dave Haynie, he's in this
news group. An 040 card for the Amiga 2000 would be more expensive
(>$2000) because the 32bit ram and HD controller had tobe put on the card.
Difference: The Mac and A500/2000 are 16bit, the A3000 is 32bit.
Comprehend?
Michael D Mellinger
No the Toaster is not being made for the Mac, you have to buy an
Amiga+Toaster+Parallel/Serial connection to use it. NeXTDimension is
way to expensive considering the other boards availible now adays.
It won't give you the same NTSC Video ability that the toaster does either.
If the Toaster only worked in the A3000... NeXTDimension will have
NTSC output. I would think that it is comparable the the Toaster. It
should be, it costs $4000.
People buy Amigas. For Video, Audio and Games. What Niche does the
NeXT occuply?
None at the moment, which could be a problem. I think it has a chance
of taking a piece of the DTP market and, with the NeXTDimension board,
part of the video market.
Commodore has been around since the early 80's/late 70's. I even remember
an old Commodore 'brick' calculator they sold. They had bad years, but
they pulled through to produce the most sucessfl home computer ever created.
(C64). Now they produce one of the best multitasking PC's money can buy.
NeXT's are ok, but the RISC workstations are just so much better
in terms of performance.
It's price/performance, and the NeXT is still competitive. It's a 15
mip, 2.5 MFLOP machine for $5000($3250 educational) plus..., well you
know what else you get.
-Mike
Michael D Mellinger
In article <1991Apr3.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
>
No one is waiting for the 050, but Motorola has made a
clear committment to their 680x0 line. If the current 040 is 15
mips then the 50MHz will be 30. And as top RISC machines stomping
CISC machines, YOU CAN'T COMPARE MIPS BETWEEN RISC AND CISC
CHIPS. The instructions on the RISC chip do less BY DEFINITION.
There are lies, damned lies, and benchmarks. The world is hardly
being run over by RISC chips, although they are becoming the
in-thing in workstations.
That is why we use SPECmarks to compare computers instead of mips.
Look at HP's Snake line, or any other workstation vendor, to see where
the industry is going.
-Mike
Ray Cromwell
> >Great statement. The big question is: "How much will they cost?"
> Well, GVP and Supra (small companies) have quoted prices at $895 list.
> The Commodore card will probably be cheaper since Commodore can buy
> 040's and RAM in muchbigger quantities.
>
>I think the 040 itself normally costs around $700. If you're right, a
>lot of Mac users will be jumping ship.
Data Point: It is harder to add an 040 to a Mac than it is to an A3000. And
and damn near impossible to upgrade the NeXTStation since it has NO SLOTS.
Another point: Mac harder/softwaree is historically more expensive than
Amiga hardware.
> NeXT owner's act like the no other computer will have an 040 at the same
> price. I remember NeXT users saying 040 Ami boards would cost $2000.
> The sad fact is, the headstart that the NeXT had with the 040 isn't going to
> help. 040's will be availible for the Amiga and Mac this year.
>
>I'm sure that other companies will sell you an 040 machine for the
>same price as NeXT, but will they do it in 1991?
Sure. Because other machines are expandible. Keep in mind, lots of
companies have already announced and developed 040 boards/computers. They
are merely waiting for Motorola to ship the chips.
>Keep in mind that the NeXT is more than an 040. The Amiga still
>doesn't have virtual memory(even Macs have this) or memory protection.
>The Amiga is a nice machine, but the market is heating up and
>consumers educated enough to know the better machine by looking at
>spec. sheet.
The Amiga has virtual memory/mmu protection if you purchase Unix for it
which IS availible. AT&T Sys V R4 with X windows and openlook.
S5R4 Unix incorperates everything BSD has and adds much more. There is
lots more software availible for X than there is for NeXTSTEP.
The Mac doesn't have VM unless you count unreleased System 7. There is
another product called virtual that doesn't use an MMU but the only reason
this hack works is because Macs reference memory by double
dereferencing pointers. (They call it 'handles')
Michael D Mellinger
In article <1991Apr3.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
Wait, wait, wait. Aren't you saying that the NeXT is the
great machine? They don't even HAVE a model for the $1,000 area.
The flicker-fixer can be added to an A2000, i.e. anything but an
A500, and there is an adaptor for A500s made by third-parties (I
believe ICD?). And, as to it not being in the machine, if you
have a competent dealer they will install it for you.
I'm looking at the complete market. The A500 doesn't compete with the
NeXT, it competes with cheap PC compatibles and the low-end Macs --
and Ataris. I was simply making an observation on how I thought the
A500 could be improved so that people wouldn't look at a cheap PC
clone with a VGA monitor then at the flickering Amiga monitor and
decide to buy the PC. The average consumer isn't going to ask for
flicker fixer!
>Isn't a Toaster being made for the Mac? And don't forget to watch out
>for the NeXTDimension board from NeXT.
>
(I hate to this, but it is well deserved)
BZZZZT, wrong. I didn't make an inaccurate statement, I asked a
question. However, you get BZZZZT for you lack of knowledge in your
other posting about RISC vs. CISC. Do you think pc's outperform
workstations?
BZZZZZT Wrong answer! But thank you for playing!
NewTek is definitely not making a Toaster for the Mac.
While there are Apple companies who claim to be making similar
devices, that is to be expected. I have seen no price estimates,
and of course there is no hardware to SEE on the mac, just
advertisements. Lots of vapor.
That's why the Amiga has the best character generation
software and the best 3-D modeling software of anything in its
price range. Yes, a niche market, but that is how Apple started,
not so?
Why is it better? I'm not that familiar with the Amiga character
generation software. How is it better than Display Postscript?
Yes, but there were never really any good years for the
Amiga at that point. Now it has made its mark. Obviously the
Amiga won't last forever, but Commodore can be considered a sure
thing for the next 5-10 years, at least if stock-market analysts
are to be believed. They've rated Commodore a 'strong-buy' and
have said that it is a company to watch for in the 90s.
Technology is changing too fast to say that a company is going to be a
strong buy throughtout the next decade. With the introduction of HP's
Snake machines, all bets are off. What's going to happen when
Microsoft, Compaq, and MIPS tell IBM this is how it's going to be?
On another thread, how much raw CPU does it take a computer to make up
for the advantage the Amiga has with its blitter? Does the blitter
effectively run at 14MHz? Someone told me that it was only 3MHz.
Does a 33 MHz PC have comparable graphics capabilities to an Amiga
500?
-Mike
Michael D Mellinger
Damn is it late. I can't believe I stayed up all night.
Data Point: It is harder to add an 040 to a Mac than it is to an A3000. And
and damn near impossible to upgrade the NeXTStation since it has NO SLOTS.
Another point: Mac harder/softwaree is historically more expensive than
Amiga hardware.
I'm not sure if you can upgrade the NeXT slabs either. You might just
buy a new one. The slab itself only costs $2300 after the educational
discount. The monitor is a major expense, but you can keep it.
The Amiga has virtual memory/mmu protection if you purchase Unix for it
which IS availible. AT&T Sys V R4 with X windows and openlook.
S5R4 Unix incorperates everything BSD has and adds much more. There is
lots more software availible for X than there is for NeXTSTEP.
You can't run Unix and your games(or video) at the same time. And X
Windows, along with Motif, is available for the NeXT. Runs in a
window, so you can have NeXTStep, SoftPC, and X Windows all running at
the same time.
The Mac doesn't have VM unless you count unreleased System 7. There is
another product called virtual that doesn't use an MMU but the only reason
this hack works is because Macs reference memory by double
dereferencing pointers. (They call it 'handles')
You can buy inits that give you virtual memory for the Mac. They(it)
have been available for at least a year. Actually, I think we are
thinking of the same product. If so, it requires the 68030 because it
does need the MMU. Anyway, System 7.0 is out next month so virtual is
available. Will Amiga DOS 2.0 be available for the A500 soon?
-Mike
Ray Cromwell
>
>In article <1991Apr3.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
> That's why the Amiga has the best character generation
> software and the best 3-D modeling software of anything in its
> price range. Yes, a niche market, but that is how Apple started,
> not so?
>
>Why is it better? I'm not that familiar with the Amiga character
>generation software. How is it better than Display Postscript?
He's talking about Video Titling. For instance, Turbo Titler, BroadCast
Titler, Tv-Text/Show, not to mention the Toaster's CG. Display Postscript
can obviously display text, but can it render it real time at 60 frames
per second? The Amiga can do it better, for a cheaper price.
> Yes, but there were never really any good years for the
> Amiga at that point. Now it has made its mark. Obviously the
> Amiga won't last forever, but Commodore can be considered a sure
> thing for the next 5-10 years, at least if stock-market analysts
> are to be believed. They've rated Commodore a 'strong-buy' and
> have said that it is a company to watch for in the 90s.
>
>Technology is changing too fast to say that a company is going to be a
>strong buy throughtout the next decade. With the introduction of HP's
>Snake machines, all bets are off. What's going to happen when
>Microsoft, Compaq, and MIPS tell IBM this is how it's going to be?
'With the introduction of the innovative revolutionary product X, we are
posed to dominate the market.' We have heard this phrase over and over before.
No doubt HP's machines will sell, but Sun, Dec, IBM and several other
companies will most likely introduce new cheap workstations.
>On another thread, how much raw CPU does it take a computer to make up
>for the advantage the Amiga has with its blitter? Does the blitter
>effectively run at 14MHz? Someone told me that it was only 3MHz.
>Does a 33 MHz PC have comparable graphics capabilities to an Amiga
>500?
The blitter has an effective data rate of 14mhz. The blitter takes
2 cycles to copy data. One to fetch the source, and one to write the
data. 14 million cycles per second / 2 cycles per operation = 7 MIPS.
That's theoretical. The blitter can do much more than just copy
data. It can perform 256 different logic operations to 3 input DMA channels.
It can also fill, draw vectors, detect zero bytes, mask and shift data.
The blitter isn't innovative anymore, but it still gets the job done.
It's the reason the Amiga has such awesome games, and why the Amiga can
multitask effectively with only a 68000. Most of the Amiga's
hardware is DMA driven, so the processor can go on to more complex
jobs rather than do the menial stuff like copying data, feeding a sound
chip or loading from the disk drive.
Andrew Clayton
> In article <1762....@templar.actrix.gen.nz> jbic...@templar.actrix.gen.nz (John Bickers) writes:
> > Quoted from <1991Mar29....@sugar.hackercorp.com> by pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva):
> > > You can reboot the IBM-PC clone in my bedroom all you want, and unless
> > > you bring your own O/S in with you you will not be able to defeat the
>
> > Hm. I take a DOS disk out with me when visiting people whose machines
> > need fiddling with at work. And a disk editor, and a binary file
> > editor, and a couple of other things.
>
> I don't expect people to be carrying bootable DOS disks when they go visiting
> friends. I'm not one of the folks whose machines "need fiddling at work". Do
> you actually go visiting people at home with an MS-DOS boot disk? If so, I
> would suggest getting a life.
> --
> Peter da Silva. `-_-'
> <pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
This has my vote for 'funniest posting in comp.sys.amiga.advocacy' for the week.
Dac
--
rory toma
> Keep in mind that the NeXT is more than an 040. The Amiga still
> doesn't have virtual memory(even Macs have this) or memory protection.
> The Amiga is a nice machine, but the market is heating up and
> consumers educated enough to know the better machine by looking at
> spec. sheet.
>
> -Mike
>
already are. If what you said was true, though, no one in their right
mind would pay $2000 for a PS/1 from Sears. The fact is, the average
blue-collar, beer drinking person is going to buy a computer that
he can pick up at a Sears, Montgomery Wards, Silo or whatever. You know
what Mont Ward's top selling CPU has been recently? The Amiga 500. Even
with salespeople that know absolutely nothing about it, it has still been
selling. The reason? It's $11 a month on your Ward's card, compared to
$30 for the 286 sitting next to it. The otherreason? It's a game
machine. Why do people usually buy computers? For their kids, and the
kids want to play games. Later, they begin to program, DTP and many
other things, but they all start out playing games. We are graduating a
generation of kids who had a 500 and are now moving in/out of college,
andwill want to stick with C= and the Amiga. Who the hell is goingto buy
a NeXT for their 11 year old kid? One, you can't get the thing anywhere -
How many families with 11 year old kids do you know make regular trips up
tothe University to check out NeXT prices? Tell me where you can buy a
NeXT otherthan a University? Tell me where you can get a NeXT for under
$1000. The C= 64 sold because it was cheap! I still think the Atari 800
was a better machine, but the 64 sold better. You have to realize that
most people would rather not spend over $1000, because theyeither don't
have it, or would rather spend it on a new boat, car, TV, etc. The # of
people willing to shell out car-sized payments for a computer has to be
limited, I'm sure.
Another point. This NeXT thing, didn't we just go through the same thing
with Atari. Why don't we call this comp.sys.Amiga.vs.the.World. Who's
next? Sun? DEC? Why don't I tell you how much better my Silicon Graphics
workstation is than an Amiga 500.
Still another point. I could have sworn that VGA, with all it's
niceties, was an OPTION. i.e. an expansion card. Gee, I coulda saved
myself money by just hooking up my 1950 monitor to my AT without a card.
Making comparisons of this type are like comparing a Hard disk system toa
floppy system, because we're not even talking about prices that are
close!
Last point. Quit comparing your wonderful NeXT and saying you get all
this for $3250. You don't. The Extended OS 2.0, which has C++, the
debugger, and many otherfine tools, does not fit in the base model. I
know, I was torn between a NeXT and a 3000. For a personal computer, it
is ridiculous that a 105meg hard drive should be way to small. You
really need the 200meg version, which is a little over $4000, I believe.
These are just my impressions, but it sure seems like every attacker
eventually gives up and leaves...
rory
P.S. You want a cool machine? Buy a Sun 3. People are practically giving
them away.
Donald R Lloyd
>NTSC output. I would think that it is comparable the the Toaster. It
>should be, it costs $4000.
It costs $4000 plus the price of a Cube, not the $3250 slab you keep
mentioning. You can't plug it into the two pizza-box models.
The Toaster will work in A3000's if they you leave the cover off and swap
out one of the coprocessors (forget which one) & replace it with its
pre-3000 counterpart. Rest assured that the Toaster will be 3000ized
eventually.
>
>None at the moment, which could be a problem. I think it has a chance
>of taking a piece of the DTP market and, with the NeXTDimension board,
>part of the video market.
>
I remember someone on the net talking about Framemaker, the big NeXT
DTP package. It cost something like $700, if I remember correctly,
and a bug fix for it was an additional $500. PageStream on the Amiga
costs ~$180 by mail, and a major upgrade from v1.8 to v2.1 only
cost me $75. This kind of thing is where the NeXT's apparent price
advantage disappears, and is one of the reasons I chose the A3000 over
a NeXT slab (not that I'd mind having one around :-).
>It's price/performance, and the NeXT is still competitive. It's a 15
>mip, 2.5 MFLOP machine for $5000($3250 educational) plus..., well you
>know what else you get.
>
You get no color, no expansion slots, expensive software, and a long
wait before you actually get the machine....
Although this post sounds fairly anti-NeXT, I really do like a lot
of the machine's features (esp. that little 68040 feature :-), and I hope
it's successful at sucking away a little of the MS-DOS/Mac market;
I don't think, though, that it's going to kill the Amiga, any more than
Ami has killed the Mac.
--
Gibberish May the Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork
is spoken fork() be Contact d...@brahms.udel.edu for more information.
here. with you. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.
Ethan Solomita
>
>In article <1991Apr3.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
>
> Well, what does your company do, what software do you
> have on the Amiga, and what are they expected to do with the
> machine? It doesn't make much sense to show an Amiga to people
> who are interested in doing SQL Database work, for example.
>
>I am a student who works part time for Penn State as a programmer. We
>develop educational software. We have Amiga Vision, and ...I'm not
>sure what else.
>
AmigaVision for anything? If you just make quick comments on it
there is no way to figure out the problem.
>The Mac upgrade from Radius costs $3500 as I posted earlier. Sun
>sells their IPC(one of them) for $4995, the same as the NeXT. They
>also offer an educational discount similar to NeXT's. I assume Sun is
>making money. NeXT's is probably making money on their low-end
>machines.
>
I've heard reports that they are selling them at cost. As
to Sun, they don't have the same worries as NeXT as they make
their own CPU instead of buying from elsewhere. They don't
include a DSP. There is also only one unit, just a monitor, no
pizza-box. There is also no HD. I'd say their costs are much lower.
Ethan Solomita
>
>
>Keep in mind that the NeXT is more than an 040. The Amiga still
>doesn't have virtual memory(even Macs have this) or memory protection.
>The Amiga is a nice machine, but the market is heating up and
>consumers educated enough to know the better machine by looking at
>spec. sheet.
>
Memory protection is not seen in any PC (except for Unixes). As
to VM, Commodore is working on that as well, and the Mac DOES NOT
have it yet. System 7.0 is not shipping yet.
Ethan Solomita
>
>If the Toaster only worked in the A3000... NeXTDimension will have
>NTSC output. I would think that it is comparable the the Toaster. It
>should be, it costs $4000.
>
The NeXTD I believe can do things like display live video in a
window, the toaster can't. The Toaster can do video effects such
as wipes and fades which the dimension can't. The Dimension also
doesn't come with software to take advantage of it, so it will
have to be developed.
> People buy Amigas. For Video, Audio and Games. What Niche does the
> NeXT occuply?
>
>None at the moment, which could be a problem. I think it has a chance
>of taking a piece of the DTP market and, with the NeXTDimension board,
>part of the video market.
>
>
> Commodore has been around since the early 80's/late 70's. I even remember
> an old Commodore 'brick' calculator they sold. They had bad years, but
> they pulled through to produce the most sucessfl home computer ever created.
> (C64). Now they produce one of the best multitasking PC's money can buy.
> NeXT's are ok, but the RISC workstations are just so much better
> in terms of performance.
>
>It's price/performance, and the NeXT is still competitive. It's a 15
>mip, 2.5 MFLOP machine for $5000($3250 educational) plus..., well you
>know what else you get.
>
>-Mike
Ethan Solomita
>
>In article <1991Apr3.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
>
>BZZZZT, wrong. I didn't make an inaccurate statement, I asked a
>question. However, you get BZZZZT for you lack of knowledge in your
>other posting about RISC vs. CISC. Do you think pc's outperform
>workstations?
>
low-end Suns, and the NeXT uses a CISC and the Sun uses a RISC?
> That's why the Amiga has the best character generation
> software and the best 3-D modeling software of anything in its
> price range. Yes, a niche market, but that is how Apple started,
> not so?
>
>Why is it better? I'm not that familiar with the Amiga character
>generation software. How is it better than Display Postscript?
>
Color, anti-aliasing and software to take advantage of
that.
>On another thread, how much raw CPU does it take a computer to make up
>for the advantage the Amiga has with its blitter? Does the blitter
>effectively run at 14MHz? Someone told me that it was only 3MHz.
>Does a 33 MHz PC have comparable graphics capabilities to an Amiga
>500?
>
It is 7.14MHz to be precise, which is a rate designed to
be good for NTSC scan rates. Admittedly it is slow. My 25MHz 030
outperforms it, unless it is busy with other things. It is well
known that Commodore is working on improving the custom chips,
but it is a slow process if you intend to do a real improvement
rather than a quick fix.
Chris Gray
(David C. Navas) writes:
[talking about Geoworks Ensemble]
>Why can't we have ONE call that creates/destroys ANY system structure?
>
> IE: rastport = CreateSysStruct(CSS_RASTER);
Arrrghhh! Please, no! Strong type checking is added to programming languages
for a reason - to help reduce bugs. Overly generic calls like the above
require changes to the LANGUAGE to provide any protection. I'm not too keen
on the TAGS stuff either - I'm still puzzling out what I can do to the Draco
language to try to support them reasonably. I'm sure the same problems come
up with Pascal, Modula-2, etc.
--
Chris Gray alberta!ami-cg!cg or cg%ami...@scapa.cs.UAlberta.CA
Dave Haynie
> The basic performance of the 68040 generation NeXT, to the average GUI user
> at least, is on the order of what 2nd generation Amiga users have been
> enjoying for a long time. While it won't number crunch faster, an A3000 does
> nearly everything else faster than a 68040 based NeXT. And you haven't seen
> a 68040 based Amiga yet.
>Commodore just got the 030 Amiga 3000 out the door. I think it will
>be a while before we see an 040 machine from you guys, knowing
>Commodore's track record.
C= first shipped an '030 machine, the A2500/30, in 1989. The A3000 shipped in
June of '90, almost 10 months ago.
>Who has NeXT paid to develop software? I've heard this before, but no
>one is naming names. Is it just a rumor?
Of course it's just a rumor; as a privately held company, NeXT doesn't have to
tell. But if you look at any other new computer launch, and which companies
get paid for ports, you can't imagine those same folks are jumping on the
NeXT bandwagon for free. IBM, for example, has reportedly paid 100's of
companies to do RS/6000 ports.
And these things DO scare away the competition. Aston-Tate, for example,
was working on one NeXT product, a port of their spreadsheet, apparently
without funding from NeXT. Now they say it's been indefinitely tabled. Anyone
care to guess why?
>Anyway, NeXT (or Commodore) doesn't need everyone to develop software for
>their machine, just a few good companies(or ones that people recognize :-))
>in the necessary areas like DTP, CAD, accounting, etc.
Of course they don't need everyone. And in fact, from what I've seen of the
PC market "leaders", I would rather see the #2 or #3 version of each
application ported to the Amiga. Those guys in the #1 place, in general,
seem to rest on their laurels far too much.
>You would think with over 2 million machines more developers would
>support the Amiga. As of last year, that was half as many as Apple.
>That should be enough to make developers look your way.
And there's half the installed base of computers. Like ya said, you don't need
everyone writing for the system. NeXT, with about 30 shipping applications
(as written up in the Personal Workstation "applications watch") must, by the
same logic, really scare away the developers.
>Word Perfect 5.0 and a Lotus 123 for the Amiga would sell a lot more
>machines.
Lotus 123G, maybe. There isn't a high end spreadsheet for the Amiga. I doubt
Word Perfect 5.0 would compete all that much better against native Amiga
wordprocessors than the original Word Perfect, unless they really got their
act together and did things "the Amiga way".
>-Mike
--
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
{uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy
"That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
Dave Haynie
>Keep in mind that the NeXT is more than an 040. The Amiga still
>doesn't have virtual memory(even Macs have this) or memory protection.
Sure it does, just run Amiga UNIX. You get all that, and the standard AT&T/
Motorola 680x0 UNIX ABI. NeXT OS doesn't have the architectural speed of the
AmigaOS. With an '30 or '040 based Amiga, you have your choice. And you can
even get a place for add-in cards in that $4000 system.
>The Amiga is a nice machine, but the market is heating up and
>consumers educated enough to know the better machine by looking at
>spec. sheet.
Actually, the spec sheet is about as useful as basing a decision strictly
on advertisements, since that's basically what it is. You base your decision
for a new computer on what you want to do with it, both now and in the future.
Danny Griffin
>They aren't accepted in Fortune 500 companies,
One reason they 'haven't' been accepted is because most people haven't
heard of them or seen them. I work for General Motors [a slower-moving
behemoth you'll never see, except maybe the federal government]. It
took years for people to convince them to buy some Macs because they
thought IBMs were the only real computers. We bought a few A3000s for
one of our design departments, and now that people see them and what they
can do they want more. Some A3000UXs are in their future, too. Multitasking
played a big part of this.
> you don't find too many
>campus computer labs full of Amigas, and major developers still don't
>write software for them. We have one where I work(A2500), but the
Hopefully this wil change soon.
>Most people aren't interested in speed, they want functionality. It's
>what you do with the speed that matters. NeXT gives the consumer
>Display Postscript, voice mail, and built in fax capabilities.
>The Amiga gives you the best games in the business.
I understand this discussion has been focused on the NeXT, but some
people also confuse the issue of Amiga v. NeXT v. HP to be linked to the
Amiga's future demise.
>-Mike
--
Dan Griffin
gri...@frith.egr.msu.edu
Dave Haynie
> That's why the Amiga has the best character generation
> software and the best 3-D modeling software of anything in its
> price range.
>Why is it better? I'm not that familiar with the Amiga character
>generation software. How is it better than Display Postscript?
Display Postscript is simply an interface layer, it has nothing to do with
character generation, 3-D rendering, or any other application you'd care to
point at.
If you're asking about 3-D rendering software, the reason the Amiga has good
3-D rendering software is that it that it's had such software much longer than
other platforms, and what's shipping now has the advantage of being its second
or third generation. Same reason people like the Mac's DTP software; it's
mature. People were attracted to the Amiga for this, I suppose, based on its
natural support of video display and the fact it could support realtime
animation, rather than requiring spooling out to videotape.
The ability to spit out NTSC doesn't simply make a system good at video. The
Amiga can also genlock. And it can display a 1280x400 (nominial) image, which
helps out titling considerable. It supports overscan, crutial to video work.
Video Toaster is even more suited to video display. It supports a full color
1500x900-something NTSC display. Multiple input sources switched in software.
Digital video effects in real time. And, apparently, much more. Along with
a boatload of softare. You can't do any better on any personal computer.
>On another thread, how much raw CPU does it take a computer to make up
>for the advantage the Amiga has with its blitter? Does the blitter
>effectively run at 14MHz? Someone told me that it was only 3MHz.
Someone was confused. The Amiga chip bus runs 280ns cycles, effectively
the same speed as a 14.3MHz 68000. Except for the fact that Agnus' bit image
manipulator ("blitter") does barrel shifting, line draw, and modulos in
hardware. So it does image manipulation much faster than a 14MHz 68000.
>Does a 33 MHz PC have comparable graphics capabilities to an Amiga 500?
Yes and no. Typical 33MHz PClones can't move graphics around as efficiently,
but the SVGA display adaptor certainly has better resolutions available --
31kHz/35ns pixels, 24 bit CLUT, 8 bits/pixel, etc. The typical A500 SCSI hard
disk controller is, as well, far more efficient than the typical EDSI interface
on a 33MHz PClone (in PC parlance, the A500 controllers are bus masters),
though this only becomes important when multitasking (which the A500 does, of
course).
Victor Solanoy
> True, this is why it's nice to use a machine that uses a 15 mip 68040
> in its base model. During the NeXT several years, developers can
> assume this where the NeXT is concerned, but they will have to develop
> for the A500 when they program on the Amiga. Of course, most
> developers probably aren't going to bother with the Amiga at all.
>
> -Mike
I was hoping you weren't gonna say anything like that. 8)
Personally, the home market doesn't need anything like a 14 mip 68040, a
SPARC-2, or an RS-6000... most businesses probably don't need it either.
The Amiga is definately in trouble in terms of the scientific field if
nothing is done about it though (I heard that Commodore is pushing in
education, engineering, and the scientific fields now that the business
market is saturated with IBM PC type computers and Macintoshes... have not I
idea if this has an ounce of truth).
Victor
David S. Masterson
Dan> I would still argue that, for an OS to be "state of the art" (as was
Dan> claimed by the original poster), it has to have some concept of file
Dan> ownership; a multiple user model in which a user "owns" a file.
No...
That's the last thing you want to do to a state of the art, *PERSONAL*
computer operating system. This is too much like the heavy model of operating
systems like UNIX and VMS (I still say that the biggest mistake made with UNIX
was in not developing a light weight, single user version). If you need file
ownership because you are going to run many people on your system, relagate
the "multiply" owned files to a file server and set up a daemon process on
your Amiga to negotiate with the file server (for instance, each request for a
file includes a password that the daemon asks for on startup).
Don't have the money for a file server (which is difficult to understand in
that an A500 could play this file server with an adaption to NET:)? Then
simply take your "critical" files with you on floppy or tape.
--
====================================================================
David Masterson Consilium, Inc.
(415) 691-6311 640 Clyde Ct.
uunet!cimshop!davidm Mtn. View, CA 94043
====================================================================
"If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"
Mathew Pierce
> In article <1991Apr3.0...@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> r...@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes:
>
>
> if you run acrossed any software that says "Cracked courtesy of the
^^^^^^
I guess that's like saying "If you find a bunch of your stuff missing, I
stole it."
Peter da Silva
> ... and as did CROMIX (1980-ish), Oasys (1982-ish), and several others.
> Come to think of it, it very well could be that the Amiga OS was the
> first multitasking personal computer OS _without_ multiuser features.
I don't class the Cromemco Z-2 as a personal computer. Yes, it's pitifully
weak by today's standards, but it was a $10K machine. To me, a personal
computer that costs more than a small car is an oxymoron.
Plus, it didn't really have multi-user protection if you had access to
a compiler. You need more than bank-switched Z80s for that. The same is
true, by the way, of OS/9 on the Color Computer.
Peter da Silva
> The Amiga lost because it was branded a GAME MACHINE, the user
> interface didn't/doesn't look as good/professional (Zzzz) as the Macs,
> and it used to GURU meditate a little too much. Lest we forget,
> Commodore didn't know how to market the machine either.
They still sold more machines in the first year than NeXT. How is NeXT's
great marketing doing? What are the final sales figures on the Cube, and
how do they match up to the 100,000 Amiga 1000s (let alone the 2,000,000
Amiga 500s)?
The NeXT has all the advantages and disadvantages as the Amiga did, and it's
not selling as well... that tells me my analogy is pretty much on the mark.
Gregory R Block
You're right. It is a damn shame. And unfortunately, its your loss.
The amiga is one of the best computers I've ever owned, and believe me
I've owned alot. And I'm not talking ancient crap either. IIci.
Dumpied it. NeXT was an idea, but decided on an Amiga because unless
I were to run an ethernet cable from here to school, it would be a
useless lump of shit sitting on my computer table, getting about as
much use as that funny green tie I got for christmas last year. The
tie is a joke, and unfortunately, so is the NeXT.
> How old are you? So what? It's what runs on your machine, not how
> much software is available. Come on, think about this. By the way,
> if you run acrossed any software that says "Cracked courtesy of the
> Condor", that was me.
>
Ahh, what a genius. Calling people children, and then saying this. I
hate to see the day when REAL software comes out for the NeXT.
Because you'll probably be a pirate then, too. It's sad, really.
This completely destroys any credibility you could ever have, Mr.
Condor. It's a good thing you're near extinction... I wish I could
finish you off. And it is how much software is available, pal. I
will NOT be deadlocked into a particular piece of software, my fine,
felonious friend. And because of what is NOT available on the NeXT,
or is available in one or two packages at most, I would rather pull my
hair out trying to learn MS-DOG then use software I use because I HAVE
TO, not because it's the best. I can choose the best software for my
Amiga, and right now you're pretty well deadlocked into all of that
free software you get when you buy it.
Have fun at the copy partys, fool.
--
- gbl...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu - | IBM's brain is on overload, and Apple
Gregory Block | needs to be potty-trained. C= may not
Toaster+Amiga=The One True DTV | be marketing geniuses, but theyre the
________________________________| best engineers I've seen... -Wubba
Gregory R Block
> If the Toaster only worked in the A3000... NeXTDimension will have
> NTSC output. I would think that it is comparable the the Toaster. It
> should be, it costs $4000.
The toaster DOES work on the 3000. Now, anyways. Adapters now exist.
And does it offer framebuffers? Realtime DVI? 4 video ins? A
preview? Okay how nifty. Now, the big one. Does it come with the
BEST 3d raytracing package on the market? How's about maybe something
like "ToasterPaint"? Or perhaps yours will be slightly less usable,
and maybe more on the Useless side of things. And maybe live
teleconferencing won't be quite so easy on yours as it is in a
real-time system like the Amiga. You give the toaster far less
credit than you think. Most importantly, you don't need to buy a 4000
dollar computer to use a 4000 dollar piece of equipment. You can buy
a 2000, and 7 megs of ram, and it's still good. And don't forget that
the toaster only costs 1500. Something else you can't say.
>
> None at the moment, which could be a problem. I think it has a chance
> of taking a piece of the DTP market and, with the NeXTDimension board,
> part of the video market.
>
> -Mike
And you think THAT'S the problem? I hope that the NextDimension board
is more than just a toaster clone. And I hope it's at LEAST as
useful. Because Next is up for a fight. No, commodore may not know
how to market (yet). But you can bet your butt that NewTek does. And
with the marketing lead already held by NewTek, you're in for a
helluva fight.
Michael D Mellinger
Sure it does, just run Amiga UNIX. You get all that, and the standard AT&T/
Motorola 680x0 UNIX ABI. NeXT OS doesn't have the architectural speed of the
AmigaOS. With an '30 or '040 based Amiga, you have your choice. And you can
even get a place for add-in cards in that $4000 system.
But you can't run Unix and the AmigaOS at the same time. Don't you
lose the advatage of having the current crop of Amiga apps being
available? And all your graphics programming must now be done in X.
-Mike
Michael D Mellinger
>On another thread, how much raw CPU does it take a computer to make up
>for the advantage the Amiga has with its blitter? Does the blitter
>effectively run at 14MHz? Someone told me that it was only 3MHz.
Someone was confused. The Amiga chip bus runs 280ns cycles, effectively
the same speed as a 14.3MHz 68000. Except for the fact that Agnus' bit image
manipulator ("blitter") does barrel shifting, line draw, and modulos in
hardware. So it does image manipulation much faster than a 14MHz 68000.
The confused person was a local Amiga zealot. I tried telling him
that the Amiga's graphics chip ran at 14MHz, but he refused to believe
me. He kept insisting that it was only 3MHz.
-Mike
Ethan Solomita
you want. If you want AmigaDOS only, get a non-Unix Amiga. If you
want Unix, get a unix Amiga. Although Unix and AmigaDOS don't run
concurrently, you can reboot into either and so use whatever you
like. And your point about X isn't such a big deal either as X is
a standard. BTW, you can safely expect all software made in the
future for the Sun to be made for Amiga Unix, because all that
will be necessary is a simple recompilation.
Michael D Mellinger
They still sold more machines in the first year than NeXT. How is NeXT's
great marketing doing? What are the final sales figures on the Cube, and
how do they match up to the 100,000 Amiga 1000s (let alone the 2,000,000
Amiga 500s)?
I think NeXT sold somewhere b/w 7,000 and 10,000 original machines.
They have sold around 20,000 new machines(this is all from following
the news rags and the net, NeXT doesn't release sales figures).
I do believe the original Amiga was prices around $1800. That might
be the reason that the sold more. What do ya think?
The NeXT has all the advantages and disadvantages as the Amiga did, and it's
not selling as well... that tells me my analogy is pretty much on the mark.
The NeXT is selling well. They are in the $5000 market. You just
don't sell as many machines there. Commodore has sold more machines
than Sun too, but most people would buy stock in Sun.
NeXT question.
-Mike
Ethan Solomita
>
>The NeXT is selling well. They are in the $5000 market. You just
>don't sell as many machines there. Commodore has sold more machines
>than Sun too, but most people would buy stock in Sun.
>
isn't enought to keep the company afloat, nor will it generate
enough sales to keep ANY software houses from the big-world
happy. WordPerfect and Lotus will turn back unless sales pick up,
as no matter what Steve Jobs wants, they want money.
And despite the claims that Lotus couldn't do this on
anything but the NeXT environment, they will soon port it to
MS Windows and probably XWindows/Unix. I seriously doubt that
developing on the NeXT and then porting is CHEAPER than just
developing on the destination machine.
Jobs probably promised these companies a rose garden.
They will soon be disillusioned. Of course, CBM did the same
thing back in 1985, and many were soon disillusioned.
As to buying stock, as I mentioned before Commodore has
been given "Strong Buy" status by a major Wall Street analyst
firm. That, combined with very strong sales over the second half
of 1990, have resulted in the stock quadrupling in the past 9
months (BTW, a round of applause to those with the vision and
money to buy in at $4/share!) How's NeXT stock doing? That's
right, they are afraid to make things public.
>NeXT question.
Arggggghhhhh!!! 8-)
David Tiberio
>>e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
>>
>>>The 040 isn't being shipped in machines by anyone except NeXT and
>>>maybe HP. The 040s have been available to developers for SO long
>>>that everyone has their boards done, they are just waiting for
>>>040s to put in them! I'd say you'll see it for the Amiga as soon
>>>as you see it for the Mac.
>>
>> Just as a data point, last week saw the debut of Radius' Rocket 040
>>board for the Mac II... So the 040 boards have arrived (at least for
>>the Mac).
>>
> So this week's World of Amiga should be interesting.
>We'll see if there are any companies showing/selling Amiga 040
>boards.
>
> -- Ethan
>
>Q: How many Comp Sci majors does it take to change a lightbulb
>A: None. It's a hardware problem.
Well, before nay one else prints this, there is an ad in the
current Amiga World for a 68040 accelerator board for the A2000.
The thing that makes it incomplete is that I saw the same ad
about a year ago, when they thought the 68040 would have
been available. But the ad is there (page 53).
David :)
--
David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN
-- Any students from SUNY Oswego? Please let me know! :)
-- Looking to buy a used 68000 CPU and 1.3 Kickstart
Steven L Wootton
>
>The NeXT is selling well. They are in the $5000 market. You just
>don't sell as many machines there. Commodore has sold more machines
>than Sun too, but most people would buy stock in Sun.
Really? Sun is supposed to be selling more than 250,000 boxes this year
(EE Times, April 1, 1991). How many boxes will Commodore ship?
Steve Wootton
ste...@ecn.purdue.edu
ste...@pur-ee.uucp
stevew%ecn.pur...@purccvm.bitnet
David Tiberio
>
>In article <1991Apr3.0...@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> r...@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes:
>
>
>mip, 2.5 MFLOP machine for $5000($3250 educational) plus..., well you
>know what else you get.
>
>-Mike
Lets see now... the Next has had a 68040 for about five months now...
AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Tell me it's not true!!
Human beings have been on the planet Earth for aproximately
2 million years. The Next 68040 has been around for bout one half
of a year. That is about 0.00000025% of the span of history tha
you have to be proud of! (The Amiga has 0.000003% of our
existance, which is much higher than that weenie slice the
Next has.... :)
Jeffrey M. Schweiger
>The NeXT is selling well. They are in the $5000 market. You just
>don't sell as many machines there. Commodore has sold more machines
>than Sun too, but most people would buy stock in Sun.
Considering that at close of business today the price of Sun common stock was
about 120% of the price it was at close of business 23 August 1990 (32 3/8 vs.
26 3/8), and the price of Commodore common stock at close of business today
was about 420% of what it was at close of business 23 August 1990 (19 3/8 vs.
4 5/8), may 'most people' should have bought stock in Commodore.
>NeXT question.
Next comment.
>-Mike
Jeff Schweiger
--
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
Internet (Milnet): schw...@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************
Jeffrey M. Schweiger
>In article <n9bG...@cs.psu.edu> mel...@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes:
>>
>>The NeXT is selling well. They are in the $5000 market. You just
>>don't sell as many machines there. Commodore has sold more machines
>>than Sun too, but most people would buy stock in Sun.
>
>Really? Sun is supposed to be selling more than 250,000 boxes this year
>(EE Times, April 1, 1991). How many boxes will Commodore ship?
Considering that in the less than six years since the Amiga was first
introduced, Commodore has sold over 2 million of them, that works out to
an average of over 330,000 Amigas per year (and probably more, but I don't
know when in 1985 the Amiga first started shipping, and I don't know how
many Amiga's over the 2 million mark have been sold). I've seen nothing
to indicate that Commodore will be shipping Amigas at any slower rate in the
near future, either.
Ethan Solomita
>In article <1991Apr4.0...@en.ecn.purdue.edu> ste...@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Steven L Wootton) writes:
>>In article <n9bG...@cs.psu.edu> mel...@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes:
>>>
>>>The NeXT is selling well. They are in the $5000 market. You just
>>>don't sell as many machines there. Commodore has sold more machines
>>>than Sun too, but most people would buy stock in Sun.
>>
>>Really? Sun is supposed to be selling more than 250,000 boxes this year
>>(EE Times, April 1, 1991). How many boxes will Commodore ship?
>
>Considering that in the less than six years since the Amiga was first
>introduced, Commodore has sold over 2 million of them, that works out to
>an average of over 330,000 Amigas per year (and probably more, but I don't
>know when in 1985 the Amiga first started shipping, and I don't know how
>many Amiga's over the 2 million mark have been sold). I've seen nothing
>to indicate that Commodore will be shipping Amigas at any slower rate in the
>near future, either.
>
through June 30, 1990 was about 550,000 machines, and Commodore
has reported that since then sales are up over 20%. As well, the
Christmas quarter showed the third largest sales of any CBM
quarter ever.
>Jeff Schweiger
>--
>*******************************************************************************
>Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645
>Internet (Milnet): schw...@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
>*******************************************************************************
Michael D Mellinger
In article <1991Apr4.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
>
That is true. So what? You choose which operating system
you want. If you want AmigaDOS only, get a non-Unix Amiga. If you
want Unix, get a unix Amiga. Although Unix and AmigaDOS don't run
concurrently, you can reboot into either and so use whatever you
like. And your point about X isn't such a big deal either as X is
a standard. BTW, you can safely expect all software made in the
future for the Sun to be made for Amiga Unix, because all that
will be necessary is a simple recompilation.
Which X standard are you talking about? Motif or Open Look? Errrh, I
should be asking which windowing system.
I think you may be over simplifying the the ease with you are going to
get Sun software to run on the Amiga. Anyway, wouldn't you much
rather run that same software on an 040 NeXT, or better yet an HP
Snake :-)? Why is it only future software? dBase IV, Lotus 123, and
WP all run on the Sun now.
-Mike
Michael D Mellinger
20,000 machines isn't so hot, actually. It certainly
isn't enought to keep the company afloat, nor will it generate
enough sales to keep ANY software houses from the big-world
happy. WordPerfect and Lotus will turn back unless sales pick up,
as no matter what Steve Jobs wants, they want money.
It's a start. I think Sun sold around 180,000 machines last year,
while its closest competitor sold half as many. NeXT should sell
between 40,000 and 50,000 machines this year. They will need a lower
priced machine to sell more, and I'm sure that they know that.
However, the people/companies who can spend $5000 on a computer are
also the ones who can afford to pay $500 for a word processor and
another $500 for a spreadsheet.
And despite the claims that Lotus couldn't do this on
anything but the NeXT environment, they will soon port it to
MS Windows and probably XWindows/Unix. I seriously doubt that
developing on the NeXT and then porting is CHEAPER than just
developing on the destination machine.
But the NeXT is magical :-). You write software correctly the first
time :-).
Jobs probably promised these companies a rose garden.
They will soon be disillusioned. Of course, CBM did the same
thing back in 1985, and many were soon disillusioned.
Commodore screwed up big time. They had the machine, but didn't know
what to do with it. Too bad Jack Tramail couldn't buy the Amiga when
he went to Atari.
As to buying stock, as I mentioned before Commodore has
been given "Strong Buy" status by a major Wall Street analyst
firm. That, combined with very strong sales over the second half
of 1990, have resulted in the stock quadrupling in the past 9
months (BTW, a round of applause to those with the vision and
money to buy in at $4/share!) How's NeXT stock doing? That's
right, they are afraid to make things public.
What do you want NeXT to make public? What does it matter?
>NeXT question.
-Mike
Ethan Solomita
>
>Which X standard are you talking about? Motif or Open Look? Errrh, I
>should be asking which windowing system.
>
company is already working on Motif.
>I think you may be over simplifying the the ease with you are going to
>get Sun software to run on the Amiga. Anyway, wouldn't you much
>rather run that same software on an 040 NeXT, or better yet an HP
>Snake :-)? Why is it only future software? dBase IV, Lotus 123, and
>WP all run on the Sun now.
>
Not at all oversimplified! That's why Commodore chose to
follow the AT&T standard. With SVR4, any program which uses the
standard Unix accompaniments, including X, will work with nothing
more than a recompile on any other machine running SVR4. In fact,
if the processor is the same no recompilation is necessary, the
binary runs on both machines. Welcome to the wonderful world of
ABI. 8)
Why wouldn't I rather run them on an 040 NeXT? First,
please, stop this "040" next stuff, cause everyone will be
getting 040s soon enough. We're waiting for Motorola to get out
those bugs that NeXT was willing to live with. Besides, you can't
just do a recompilation to run it on the NeXT, and to use the
pretty NeXTstep/Display Postscript interface will require a
complete rewrite, so even if they did do a basic port (with
changes) it still won't take advantage of the NeXT's main
advantage.
The reason I say future software is that, although Sun is
adopting the SVR4 standard, I don't believe it is done yet.
Ethan Solomita
>In article <1991Apr4.0...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> e...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes:
>
> Jobs probably promised these companies a rose garden.
> They will soon be disillusioned. Of course, CBM did the same
> thing back in 1985, and many were soon disillusioned.
>
>Commodore screwed up big time. They had the machine, but didn't know
>what to do with it. Too bad Jack Tramail couldn't buy the Amiga when
>he went to Atari.
>
have a hard time shifting from the game machine -- no support
company. As well, no one will believe that Commodore could
possibly be making something other than a game machine.
As to wishing Jack Tramiel had the Amiga, you're crazy!
Look what he's doing over at Atari! He hasn't shown any interest
in promoting things other than as a game machine.
>What do you want NeXT to make public? What does it matter?
>
I would like to know how much money they take in in
sales, and what their earnings are. Every publically traded
company has to say that.
> >NeXT question.
Greg Harp
writes:> How can you send fax without a modem or ethernet? Sure NeXT has
> an ethernet port, buthow many people can afford an Internet connection?
> Voice-Mail from one NeXT to Another in the same computer lab is about
> as useful as making a telephone call from your bedroom to your basement.
>
>It works great acrossed campus. I'm not sure how many Fortune 500
>companies are using ethernet? Voice mail will work through a modem.
>It's just a compress'ed tar file. And I guess you'd have to buy a fax
>machine to send faxes. Fax machines are pretty common, ya know.
So you're saying that a company or college can use voice mail or they can use
their _already_existing_ telephone system. Sounds like Northern Telecom had
better brace for a run on their business... ;-)
Remember that nearly the same hype went on when the 030 NeXT was released.
It wasn't long before the NeXT fell by the wayside. The software developers
weren't making any money, and neither was NeXT. Software development by
large companies came to a standstill. I predict that the same thing will
happen today.
The NeXT just doesn't have a good market. In the realm of personal
computers, it a pricey machine with a handful of software titles (that are
also quite pricey). In the business world, it has too many powerful
competitors that offer more support (remember, businesses don't pay the
educational price). In the video world, well, we know who has that tied
up. ;) For music? There are many cheaper and more suited MIDI boxes.
You might check into whether NeXT has ever shown a profit. You may be
surprised...
Greg
--
Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two
|lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year,
gr...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found?
s6...@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd
Loren J. Rittle
>Really? Sun is supposed to be selling more than 250,000 boxes this year
>(EE Times, April 1, 1991). How many boxes will Commodore ship?
Including C= 64's or not? :-) I won't as they aren't real boxes...
>Steve Wootton
>ste...@ecn.purdue.edu
>ste...@pur-ee.uucp
>stevew%ecn.pur...@purccvm.bitnet
Well, my guess, if current trends continue...
C= will sell between 750,000 and 1,000,000 Amiga computers in 1991.
Loren J. Rittle
The only proof I offer is this: 2,000,000 Amiga's have been sold
in the last 3 years.
--
``NewTek stated that the Toaster *would* *not* be made to directly support
the Mac, at this point Sculley stormed out of the booth...'' --- A scene at
the recent MacExpo. Gee, you wouldn't think that an Apple Exec would be so
worried about one little Amiga device... Loren J. Rittle l-ri...@uiuc.edu
Evan Torrie
> The Mac doesn't have VM unless you count unreleased System 7. There is
>another product called virtual that doesn't use an MMU
Why is it then, that Virtual REQUIRES a 68851 PMMU on 68020 Macs?
Could it possibly be that Virtual DOES use the MMU (in fact, it does,
using 4KB paged virtual memory via the 68851 or the 68030).
>but the only reason
>this hack works is because Macs reference memory by double
>dereferencing pointers. (They call it 'handles')
As my good friend David would say, "What a load of WaldenBollocks".
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? tor...@cs.stanford.edu
"Dear Fascist Bully Boy, Give me some money, or else. Neil. P.S. May
the seed of your loins be fruitful in the womb of your woman..."
Lou Cavallo
In comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Andrew Clayton writes:
> In comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Peter da Silva writes:
> [...posting about the carrying about of MS-DOS boot disks...]
> This has my vote for 'funniest posting in comp.sys.amiga.advocacy' for
> the week.
I *have* to vote for Peter's other posting regarding "Amiga will bump Mac"
where he (humouristically) pronounces he is a tug boat (i.e. if the other
guy is a ...). {You made my night Peter!}
> Dac
Back to the foray!
yours truly,
Lou Cavallo.
Michael D Mellinger
In article <46...@ut-emx.uucp> gr...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
So you're saying that a company or college can use voice mail or they can use
their _already_existing_ telephone system. Sounds like Northern Telecom had
better brace for a run on their business... ;-)
Mailing apps, documents, etc. is also turnkey with NeXT mail. That in
itself is very important to the average user.
Remember that nearly the same hype went on when the 030 NeXT was released.
It wasn't long before the NeXT fell by the wayside. The software developers
weren't making any money, and neither was NeXT. Software development by
large companies came to a standstill. I predict that the same thing will
happen today.
Can I quote you on that? :-)
The NeXT just doesn't have a good market. In the realm of personal
computers, it a pricey machine with a handful of software titles (that are
also quite pricey). In the business world, it has too many powerful
competitors that offer more support (remember, businesses don't pay the
educational price). In the video world, well, we know who has that tied
up. ;) For music? There are many cheaper and more suited MIDI boxes.
$5000 for a business computer is not that much. Check the prices of
last years Macs.
You might check into whether NeXT has ever shown a profit. You may be
surprised...
I thought we were comparing the merits of the machines, not the
companies? If we were all looking for safety, we would buy IBMs.
-Mike