Is the Amiga's OS 32 bit?
Gregg Le Blanc
and that... I know that internally the A3000 was 32 bit, but I also know
that the 68000 was internally 32 bit, (and 24 externally? or 16 bit?)...
So is this an issue at all?
Just wondering...
TTFN
Gregg
__
/// Gregg Le Blanc : uleb...@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu Santa Barbara
__/// Learning conservation of charge! | emb...@castle.ed.ac.uk Endinburgh
\\X/ No electrons were created or destroyed in the making of this message.
stephan schaem
: Well, that's really it... There's a lot of flap going on about 32 bit this
: and that... I know that internally the A3000 was 32 bit, but I also know
: that the 68000 was internally 32 bit, (and 24 externally? or 16 bit?)...
the 68000 has only the lower 24bit of the address line active.
The amiga custom chip in the A3000 are 16bit.
And yes, the a500 run a 32bit OS :)
Stephan
Matthew Dillon
:Well, that's really it... There's a lot of flap going on about 32 bit this
The 68000 instruction set has always been 32 bits, even if the datapaths
have not. Therefore the same OS binary when running on a higher end
68020, 030, or 040 effectively runs in 32 bits. Only Intel family
chips have actual instructional differences for higher-end processors.
(for main stream processors, anyway).
-Matt
--
Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.west.oic.com
1005 Apollo Way ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop)
Incline Village, NV. 89451 Obvious Implementations Corporation
USA Sandel-Avery Engineering
[always include a portion of the original email in any response!]
David Tiberio
>and that... I know that internally the A3000 was 32 bit, but I also know
>that the 68000 was internally 32 bit, (and 24 externally? or 16 bit?)...
Re: Is the Amiga's OS 32 bit?
No, it is 31 bit, unfortunately. This is the operating system I'm
talking about, not the hardware.
--
dtib...@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu - Editor of Omega RIPort Magazine
Peter Kittel Germany
>and that... I know that internally the A3000 was 32 bit, but I also know
>that the 68000 was internally 32 bit, (and 24 externally? or 16 bit?)...
Others answered already, but I think this has to be put even clearer.
There are two issues, the processor and the OS.
Though the old 68000 was externally a 16-bit processor, internally it
had already everything in 32-bit registers, forming a so-called 32-bit
programming model.
The AmigaOS was strictly 32-bit from day one. So when the bigger processors
with real 32-bit addressing capabilities came, AmigaOS had no problems at
all to use all this address space for RAM and other stuff. So yes, the
AmigaOS is a 32-bit OS, even in the A500, and the whole Amiga System is
also 32-bit.
Compare this to Windows, where the next generation still will contain
lots of 16-bit code in its kernal, according to BYTE and c't. This must
mean a big overhead and performance killer when you permanently have
to convert between 16-bit and 32-bit register use and addressing modes.
Shudder. - The Mac OS was in older times 24-bit and had big difficulties
to make it "32-bit clean" for their newer stuff. Have they succeded with
this in the meantime?
>So, is this an issue at all?
Yes, it is, because in the PC world, some markedroids are bragging
far and wide about this "new" world of 32-bit systems and how they
invented it, and it's another time where Amiga literates know better.
--
Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions...
Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ pet...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com
Jim Wong
>Shudder. - The Mac OS was in older times 24-bit and had big difficulties
>to make it "32-bit clean" for their newer stuff. Have they succeded with
>this in the meantime?
The system is certainly 32-bit clean. Any application that doesn't go
mucking about with the upper 8 bits of pointers is so as well.
>Yes, it is, because in the PC world, some markedroids are bragging
>far and wide about this "new" world of 32-bit systems and how they
>invented it, and it's another time where Amiga literates know better.
It's not as though the Amiga has any better claim to being the
first 32-bit operating system than MS-DOS.
Gregg Le Blanc
Olaf Seibert
>jim...@ruf.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>>It's not as though the Amiga has any better claim to being the
>>first 32-bit operating system than MS-DOS.
>
>MS-DOS is not 32 bit. How can it claim otherwise?
And furthermore 'the Amiga' is not an operating system, and neither is
MS-DOS (that's just a glorified program loader).
-Olaf.
--
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert rhi...@mbfys.kun.nl
\X/ An original idea. That can't be too hard. The library must be full of them.
mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
multitasking/compatiblity.. Not even with a pentium and os/2 can it even come
close.. Some day ibm may reach what Amiga had in 1986.. but they still have
yet to do it..
Jerry Shekhel
: >first 32-bit operating system than MS-DOS.
:
: MS-DOS is not 32 bit. How can it claim otherwise?
No? How come I can run gcc under it and produce 32-bit MS-DOS programs?
: Gregg
--
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
| JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Junta drew a picture of |
| Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | nectar and hoisted the |
| ... In rhythm! | je...@msi.com | lawn boy over the rift. |
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
Jerry Shekhel
: >
: >It's not as though the Amiga has any better claim to being the
: >first 32-bit operating system than MS-DOS.
:
: Well ibm's still have not matched the Amiga's OS and
: multitasking/compatiblity.. Not even with a pentium and os/2 can it even come
: close.. Some day ibm may reach what Amiga had in 1986.. but they still have
: yet to do it..
Very funny. Now let's get back to reality. The PC caught up and surpassed
the Amiga years ago.
Jim Wong
|> >It's not as though the Amiga has any better claim to being the
|> >first 32-bit operating system than MS-DOS.
|>
|> MS-DOS is not 32 bit. How can it claim otherwise?
My point exactly. The Amiga operating system isn't the first
32-bit OS any more than MS-DOS is.
Gregg Le Blanc
>Gregg Le Blanc (emb...@castle.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>: >
>: >It's not as though the Amiga has any better claim to being the
>: >first 32-bit operating system than MS-DOS.
>:
>: MS-DOS is not 32 bit. How can it claim otherwise?
>:
>No? How come I can run gcc under it and produce 32-bit MS-DOS programs?
Maybe you're just special! ;-)
Not using a DOS extender or anything else?
Does MS-DOS itself make use of 32 bit instructions?
OS/2 does, I know that... but I don't think DOS does.
Your program might run in 32 bits, but I don't think any part of DOS
does... at least that is how it was explained by some DOS-heads... maybe
they were talking out of their ass, hard to tell sometimes. :-)
Jim Wong
>>>It's not as though the Amiga has any better claim to being the
>>>first 32-bit operating system than MS-DOS.
>>MS-DOS is not 32 bit. How can it claim otherwise?
>And furthermore 'the Amiga' is not an operating system, and neither is
>MS-DOS (that's just a glorified program loader).
I meant to say "Amiga operating system". Sorry to have caused you
any stress. My error doesn't change my point, which was that the original
poster's assertion that the "computer industry is following the Amiga
operating system's lead" is patently untrue.
Jerry Shekhel
: >
: >No? How come I can run gcc under it and produce 32-bit MS-DOS programs?
: [...]
:
: Not using a DOS extender or anything else?
:
Yes, the MS-DOS port of GCC has its own DOS extender. My point was: how
does one determine the bit-ness of an operating system? If not by the
bit-ness of the programs it runs, then what?
:
: Does MS-DOS itself make use of 32 bit instructions?
:
EMM386.EXE is part of MS-DOS, and it sure uses 32-bit instructions.
Mike Dahmus
>
>Well ibm's still have not matched the Amiga's OS and
>multitasking/compatiblity.. Not even with a pentium and os/2 can it even come
>close.. Some day ibm may reach what Amiga had in 1986.. but they still have
>yet to do it..
Explain.
---
Mike Dahmus Internet: mi...@vnet.ibm.com
Pen for OS/2 Development, IBM PSP IBM: mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com
Disclaimer: Not an official IBM spokesman IBM Vnet: MDAHMUS at BOCA
David Hopper
Ah, but by using the comparison "more than...", you are quantitatively
comparing the two _chronologically_ with the origin of 32-bit-ness.
Ergo, 1985 is far closer to the source than 'never', and consequently,
AmigaDOS is proximitatively 'more' of the first 32-bit OS than MS-DOS.
<koff> <koff>
--
Dave Hopper |MUYOM!/// Anthro Creep | Corporate Events Technician
| __ /// . . | Microsoft Corporation
bard@jessica. | \\\/// Ia! Ia! | Anthro/CSE Major
Stanford.EDU | \XX/ Shub-Niggurath! | Stanford University
Gregg Le Blanc
>any stress. My error doesn't change my point, which was that the original
>poster's assertion that the "computer industry is following the Amiga
>operating system's lead" is patently untrue.
OK, I'm game, what WAS the first 32-bit OS? UNIX (of some flavour)?
Obviously from your knowledge we can rule out the Amiga (I guess), so far
this leaves out:
MS-DOS, Mac, Amiga, CP/M, GEOS, uhh...
What's the answer?
David Meiklejohn
>Yes, the MS-DOS port of GCC has its own DOS extender. My point was: how
>does one determine the bit-ness of an operating system? If not by the
>bit-ness of the programs it runs, then what?
By the instructions used in the OS code and, importantly, the memory
model it implements.
Yes, it is possible to launch 32 bit programs from MSDOS, which can use
"extended" memory, but, in a 32-bit OS, that distinction between memory
types wouldn't be there.
>EMM386.EXE is part of MS-DOS, and it sure uses 32-bit instructions.
That depends on what you call the "OS". For MSDOS, we're really talking
MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS and COMMAND.COM - everything else is extra.
By analogy - you would accept that AmigaOS does not use an MMU, right?
Yet, versions of AmigaOS have shipped with a utility called Enforcer, which
does use it.
--
David Meiklejohn Ph: +61 02 708 1007 (home), 516 3833 (work)
Bob Henry
: >Well ibm's still have not matched the Amiga's OS and
: >multitasking/compatiblity.. Not even with a pentium and os/2 can it even come
: >close..
: Explain.
Easy.
AmigaOS 3.1 will boot in 256K of RAM.
AmigaOS 3.1 will fit on a single high-density floppy.
It offers a very sophisticated GUI, true multitasking, AREXX, shared
libraries, devices, public screens, command line interface, etc, etc..
OS/2 is nice, but the Amiga's OS is the fastest, leanest and meanest around.
-henry
Bob Henry
: Very funny. Now let's get back to reality. The PC caught up and surpassed
: the Amiga years ago.
As far as sales, yes. As far as anything to do with speed, efficiency, or
operating system design.. Don't make me laugh.
-henry
Peter Kittel Germany
Pardon? People tell me that Windows can address in a flat model more
than 640 KB, but perhaps only 16 MB. So Windows is indeed a at least
24-bit OS (OS only together with MS-DOS, of course), if not even
32-bit. But MS-DOS in my book has that 640 KB barrier, that only can
get overcome by heaviest kludging with memory drivers, so I call
MS-DOS a 20-bit OS, *very* far from 32-bit! In contrary, the Amiga OS
from first minute was a full 32-bit OS, nobody can deny this.
Brent Rehmel
>Though the old 68000 was externally a 16-bit processor, internally it
>had already everything in 32-bit registers, forming a so-called 32-bit
>programming model.
The 68000 fetches 32 bits for absolute addresses, but it doesn't use the
upper 8 bits because it can only address 24 bits. This was one of hurdles
to an upgradable system.
>The AmigaOS was strictly 32-bit from day one. So when the bigger
processors>with real 32-bit addressing capabilities came, AmigaOS had no
problems at>all to use all this address space for RAM and other stuff. So
yes, the>AmigaOS is a 32-bit OS, even in the A500, and the whole Amiga
System is>also 32-bit.
Commodore overcame the problem by stating from the beginning that the upper
8 bits was not to be used for data storage. This wasted memory, but allowed
easy upgrading. This is why the Amiga OS was 32 bit even when the
microprocessor was only 24 bit.
Brent Rehmel Indiana State University
Computer Science Major Terre Haute, Indiana
Jerry Shekhel
: >
: >Yes, the MS-DOS port of GCC has its own DOS extender. My point was: how
: >does one determine the bit-ness of an operating system? If not by the
: >bit-ness of the programs it runs, then what?
:
: By the instructions used in the OS code and, importantly, the memory
: model it implements.
That seems fair actually, and DOS certainly falls into the 16-bit category
if we use that as the test.
But what about Windows 3.1? It uses 32-bit instructions -- the virtual
machine manager at the heart of the system (WIN386.EXE) is a full 32-bit
flat model program. On the other hand, the memory model it implements is
pretty much 16-bit, unless you use the WINMEM32.DLL or Win32s extensions,
the latter providing a full 32-bit memory model.
Oh no. Don't say it. There's no need to categorize Windows because it's
not an operating system, right? :-)
: >
: >EMM386.EXE is part of MS-DOS, and it sure uses 32-bit instructions.
:
: That depends on what you call the "OS". For MSDOS, we're really talking
: MSDOS.SYS, IO.SYS and COMMAND.COM - everything else is extra.
:
: By analogy - you would accept that AmigaOS does not use an MMU, right?
: Yet, versions of AmigaOS have shipped with a utility called Enforcer, which
: does use it.
:
Agreed.
: David Meiklejohn Ph: +61 02 708 1007 (home), 516 3833 (work)
Mike Dahmus
>Mike Dahmus (mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com) wrote:
>: >Well ibm's still have not matched the Amiga's OS and
>: >multitasking/compatiblity.. Not even with a pentium and os/2 can it even come
>: >close..
>
>
>: Explain.
>
>Easy.
>
>AmigaOS 3.1 will boot in 256K of RAM.
Woo woo. Who cares? What can you do in such an environment?
>AmigaOS 3.1 will fit on a single high-density floppy.
Woo woo. Who cares? I can boot OS/2 off one floppy as well.
>It offers a very sophisticated GUI,
Strike one.
>OS/2 is nice, but the Amiga's OS is the fastest, leanest and meanest around.
Strike two. Perhaps "faster", maybe "leaner", but certainly not "meaner".
Get back to me when AmigaOS includes DOS and Windows, memory protection, a
real user interface, etc.
Lars Garden
: Get back to me when AmigaOS includes DOS and Windows, memory protection, a
: real user interface, etc.
Define real user interface, please.
--
// Lars Gaarden. Student at Trondheim College of Engineering.
\\ // email: la...@edb.tih.no IRC: Lynet
\X/ "But I will rise and I will return like a phoenix from the flame."
- Sinéad O'Conner
Jerry Shekhel
: :
: : Very funny. Now let's get back to reality. The PC caught up and surpassed
: : the Amiga years ago.
:
: As far as sales, yes. As far as anything to do with speed, efficiency, or
: operating system design.. Don't make me laugh.
Well, let's see. The PC has faster CPUs, faster graphics, better sound,
more capable operating systems, and better software support. If you're
an Amiga owner, there is indeed very little reason for you to laugh.
: -henry
Jonathan Hogarth (CS)
>
>In article <2tl95c$t...@larry.rice.edu>, jim...@ruf.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>>In article <15...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com> pet...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com (Peter Kittel Germany) writes:
>>
>>>Yes, it is, because in the PC world, some markedroids are bragging
>>>far and wide about this "new" world of 32-bit systems and how they
>>>invented it, and it's another time where Amiga literates know better.
>>
>>It's not as though the Amiga has any better claim to being the
>>first 32-bit operating system than MS-DOS.
>
>Pardon? People tell me that Windows can address in a flat model more
>than 640 KB, but perhaps only 16 MB. So Windows is indeed a at least
>24-bit OS (OS only together with MS-DOS, of course), if not even
>32-bit. But MS-DOS in my book has that 640 KB barrier, that only can
>get overcome by heaviest kludging with memory drivers, so I call
>MS-DOS a 20-bit OS, *very* far from 32-bit! In contrary, the Amiga OS
>from first minute was a full 32-bit OS, nobody can deny this.
So what's your point? AmigaOS is better than mushdos. Whoopee. The
Amiga in 1985 was MUCH better than clones of 1985. Granted. But this is
1994, ms-dos is dying fast (but still adequate for lots of people), and
we have great operating systems that blow away AmigaOS like OS/2, NS,
Unix, etc.
>Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions...
--Jonathan
Kenton P. Zinn
Sure faster CPU's (needed for the crappy gfx routines), faster graphics? No I
don't think so...I own a 14mhz Amiga and Ive played Demo's faster than my bud's
486/50mhz. About the sound, well that is very questionable...As I've heard IBM
mods and they are okay..but Ive heard mods made on the Amiga that blow away all
IBM stuff...besides even when you use a mouse on an IBM you can see the lag
time...It just doesn't feel right...IBM is not good...
It's Better Manually I've Been Misled
Intimidated, Buffaloed Management Insultingly Boring Merchandisers
Itty Bitty Machine Ingrained Batch Mentality
Intelligence Belittling Meaning I Bought McIntosh
Incorrigible Boisterous Mammoth Incest Begets Madness
Intellectuals Being Moronized Inspect Before Multiusing
Inertia Breeds Mediocrity It Beats Mattel
Insipid Belligerent Mossbacks Imperialism By Marketing
Institution By Machiavelli Into Building Money
Irresponsible Behave Multinational Insipidly Bankrolling Millions
Innovation By Management Impenetrable Brain Matter
Idolized By Management Itsa Big Mess
Ingenuity Becomes Mysterious Investigate Baffling Malodor
Intolerant of Beards & Moustaches Install Bigger Memory
I Bring Manuals
Any ?'s
Jim Wong
|>
|> >>Yes, it is, because in the PC world, some markedroids are bragging
|> >>far and wide about this "new" world of 32-bit systems and how they
|> >>invented it, and it's another time where Amiga literates know better.
|> >
|> >It's not as though the Amiga has any better claim to being the
|> >first 32-bit operating system than MS-DOS.
|>
|> Pardon? People tell me that Windows can address in a flat model more
|> than 640 KB, but perhaps only 16 MB. So Windows is indeed a at least
|> 24-bit OS (OS only together with MS-DOS, of course), if not even
|> 32-bit. But MS-DOS in my book has that 640 KB barrier, that only can
|> get overcome by heaviest kludging with memory drivers, so I call
|> MS-DOS a 20-bit OS, *very* far from 32-bit! In contrary, the Amiga OS
|> from first minute was a full 32-bit OS, nobody can deny this.
Your point being? Despite MS-DOS's weaknesses, the Amiga operating
system hardly led the way to 32-bit systems.
Jim Wong
|> OK, I'm game, what WAS the first 32-bit OS? UNIX (of some flavour)?
|> Obviously from your knowledge we can rule out the Amiga (I guess), so far
|> this leaves out:
|> MS-DOS, Mac, Amiga, CP/M, GEOS, uhh...
To be honest, I don't know. Probably some tiny little thing in a
research lab somewhere.
Yiannias Christos G
>>OS/2 is nice, but the Amiga's OS is the fastest, leanest and meanest around.
>Strike two. Perhaps "faster", maybe "leaner", but certainly not "meaner".
define "meaner"
sig: just say no. save the bandwidth
Jeff Kirvin
: Mike Dahmus (mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com) wrote:
: : >Well ibm's still have not matched the Amiga's OS and
: : >multitasking/compatiblity.. Not even with a pentium and os/2 can it even come
: : >close..
: : Explain.
: Easy.
: AmigaOS 3.1 will boot in 256K of RAM.
: AmigaOS 3.1 will fit on a single high-density floppy.
Big deal. Show me a x86-based PC being sold today with only 256k of RAM
and no hard drive, and we'll talk.
: It offers a very sophisticated GUI,
OS/2
: true multitasking,
OS/2
: AREXX,
OS/2 has Rexx/2, which I've shown to be on par with AREXX in functionality
: shared libraries,
They're called DLLs in OS/2
: devices,
OS/2
: public screens,
OS/2 has full screen sessions, which is close
: command line interface, etc, etc..
OS/2
: OS/2 is nice, but the Amiga's OS is the fastest, leanest and meanest around.
Not that that matters as most PCs sold today have the power to run OS/2.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Jeff Kirvin | Proud member of Team OS/2! | lun...@asylum.hq.af.mil
"You are a lunatic. Go away. Pester someone else." Londo Mollari
Disclaimer: I do _not_ speak for the United States Air Force...
Yiannias Christos G
>Get back to me when AmigaOS includes DOS and Windows, memory protection, a
>real user interface, etc.
strike one, two, and three. isn't a CLI a 'DOS'? isn't the amiga's
implementation of a microcomputer-based windowing enviroment as good as
anyones? certainly better than Microsoft's Windows. The amiga has had a
_real_ 'user interface' years before any micro did, than includes the x86
world, and (IMHO) the Mac.
it just bugs me. I've only read one 'real' thread of discussion in
advocacy in the last month or so. People, if you want to justify your OSs
do it in YOUR .advocacy groups, this .amiga.advocacy group is not meant
to be a childish flame-war, people, grow up. If you like a mac, fine use
your mac, you're not going to convert anyone here. if you know what
you're talking about (I'm not saying that I do) than compare machines, OS
or whathaver else.
sorry about the pleed. I couldn't take it anymore. I think I'll
unsubscribe now. when some REAL C= news show up, somebody, please e-mail me.
chris/cyia...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
Gregory R Block
: >It offers a very sophisticated GUI,
: Strike one.
: Pen for OS/2 Development, IBM PSP IBM: mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com
I'd say you're not an official spokesman for IBM. Usually, when they
open their collective mouths, they have a clue as to what they're
talking about.
As a developer, are you wont to talk about things you don't have a
clue about? For your wild-punched comment, you couldn't tell.
Oh, perhaps you meant to tell me that it "wasn't OS/2's GUI". Which
it isn't. Or perhaps it was "It looks hideous". Which it doesn't,
and hasn't for a long time. Or perhaps it was yet another point, one
which has been lost in the whole two words you used to describe your
point. After all, the sheer amount of intelligence needed to take an
entire thought and squeeze it into two words which only metaphorically
hint at your point is astounding.
Twit. Strike two. Why don't you try that, and this time, with FEELING.
Greg
--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today? Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: "Elvis is alive in our hearts, and in his music, and in a little :)
(: trailer park outside of Milwaukee." -Animaniacs, Moral #3 :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Wubba :)
Jonathan Hogarth (CS)
>In a previous article, je...@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel) says:
>>
>>Well, let's see. The PC has faster CPUs, faster graphics, better sound,
>>more capable operating systems, and better software support. If you're
>>an Amiga owner, there is indeed very little reason for you to laugh.
>
Of course, that's all a CPU is good for. Graphics. ;)
>don't think so...I own a 14mhz Amiga and Ive played Demo's faster than my bud's
>486/50mhz. About the sound, well that is very questionable...As I've heard IBM
>mods and they are okay..but Ive heard mods made on the Amiga that blow away all
>IBM stuff...besides even when you use a mouse on an IBM you can see the lag
I have a modplayer that takes advantage of my 16-bit, 44khz stereo sound card.
Can the Amiga match that? And as to the mouse pointer, it's a LOT better
in OS/2. But that is one of the very few things that I like about the
Amiga - the "apartness" of the pointer. Wouldn't buy a machine just for that,
though...
--Jonathan
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>: >Well ibm's still have not matched the Amiga's OS and
>: >multitasking/compatiblity.. Not even with a pentium and os/2 can it even come
>AmigaOS 3.1 will boot in 256K of RAM.
>AmigaOS 3.1 will fit on a single high-density floppy.
And? If you're running on 256K and don't have a hard drive these
days, you're using a game machine. I can run OS/2 off a single HD
floppy, but why? I've got a meg of memory on my soundcard, for
grief's sake.
>It offers a very sophisticated GUI, true multitasking, AREXX, shared
>libraries, devices, public screens, command line interface, etc, etc..
>OS/2 is nice, but the Amiga's OS is the fastest, leanest and meanest around.
OS/2 has all those capabilities (including some critical features the
Amiga OS needs, such as memory protection and virtual memory), and is
faster in 24-bit graphics mode than my Amiga 1200 is in 4-bit
mode. The Amiga's OS is faster at multitasking because it doesn't have
to do as much, but it's slower at file access, and directory listings
are positively slothful. It's leanest, which is good and bad. I
don't mind using a few megs of my hard disk for complete online OS/2
documentation. And it's certainly meanest in that it crashes more
often when a rogue program takes out the whole machine for lack of
memory protection. Hell, my Coco running OS/9 is faster (less
overheard), leaner (just a few K), and meaner (more direct interface).
--
She was a suicide blonde; dyed by her own hand.
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>strike one, two, and three. isn't a CLI a 'DOS'?
Not even remotely. You've got a fundamental confusion here between
the interface and the OS. And in this case, he's talking about
emulation for (PC)-DOS programs, something that OS/2 offers for
compatability.
--
The three branches of government: Money, Television, and Bullshit
Ron Asbestos Dippold
Let's see... PCs have faster processors available standard, faster
graphics, more efficient sound hardware (32 16-bit voices mixed in
hardware), and an OS that supports virtual memory and memory
protection.
As far as I can tell, the Amiga has two remaining outstanding
strengths: video production work and better minimal hardware
configuration (such as standard blitter, copper and fast bus).
Actually, make that three: Windows isn't a standard on it.
--
We got rid of our kids. The cats are allergic.
Mike Dahmus
>Mike Dahmus (mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com) wrote:
>
>: Get back to me when AmigaOS includes DOS and Windows, memory protection, a
>: real user interface, etc.
>
>Define real user interface, please.
A flexible, powerful, configurable interface, preferably object-oriented
throughout, but more importantly allowing the user the choice of a document
centric or application centric metaphor. Other good points include
programmability, extensibility, and integration.
The Workplace Shell qualifies. NextStep qualifies. The Mac qualifies, but
barely.
Workbench and Windows' Program Manager do not.
------
Steve Vetzal
> mean a big overhead and performance killer when you permanently have
> to convert between 16-bit and 32-bit register use and addressing modes.
Intel processors have always been stingy with registers. Motorola series
have been very nice for their 8 full 32-bit general purpose registers and
8 32-bit address registers. This allows nicely designed OSs (like AmigaOS
8-) to do a lot less register<->RAM swapping to get things done.
Steve
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>Let's see... PCs have faster processors available standard, faster
>graphics, more efficient sound hardware (32 16-bit voices mixed in
>hardware), and an OS that supports virtual memory and memory
>protection.
Reading these postings again, I don't _mean_ to be so Amiga negative -
I like my Amiga. I know that even though they're non-standard you can
add third-party memory protection and virtual memory systems, and even
replace the file system with something a little snappier than what
comes with the AmigaOS. But the "Pro-amiga" side here has that pretty
well taken care of, and I firmly believe that the limitations need to
be dealt with instead of rationalized away to place the Amiga squarely
in the lead again. The PC has OS/2 for those who want to use it. It
also has Linux (which should be here pretty soon for the Amiga as
well) for those who want a lean OS with bitchin' fast multitasking.
It has new hardware. A lot of "amiga-only" stuff has gone away, and
living in 1985 doesn't help that.
I think we all (even Mac users) can agree on one thing:
Death to Windows
--
If a government were put in charge of the Sahara Desert, within five
years, they'd have a shortage of sand. -- Milton Friedman
mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
>In article <15...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com> pet...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com (Peter Kittel Germany) writes:
>>
>>In article <2tl95c$t...@larry.rice.edu>, jim...@ruf.rice.edu (Jim Wong) writes:
>>>In article <15...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com> pet...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com (Peter Kittel Germany) writes:
>>>
>>>>Yes, it is, because in the PC world, some markedroids are bragging
>>>>far and wide about this "new" world of 32-bit systems and how they
>>>>invented it, and it's another time where Amiga literates know better.
>>>
>>>It's not as though the Amiga has any better claim to being the
>>>first 32-bit operating system than MS-DOS.
>>
>>Pardon? People tell me that Windows can address in a flat model more
>>than 640 KB, but perhaps only 16 MB. So Windows is indeed a at least
>>24-bit OS (OS only together with MS-DOS, of course), if not even
>>32-bit. But MS-DOS in my book has that 640 KB barrier, that only can
>>get overcome by heaviest kludging with memory drivers, so I call
>>MS-DOS a 20-bit OS, *very* far from 32-bit! In contrary, the Amiga OS
>>from first minute was a full 32-bit OS, nobody can deny this.
>
>So what's your point? AmigaOS is better than mushdos. Whoopee. The
>Amiga in 1985 was MUCH better than clones of 1985. Granted. But this is
>1994, ms-dos is dying fast (but still adequate for lots of people), and
>we have great operating systems that blow away AmigaOS like OS/2, NS,
>Unix, etc.
>
>>Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions...
>
> --Jonathan
>
OS/2 and NS still do not even come close to the Amiga's.. they are much
better.. but still fall short of being usefull..
Yeah.. Unix has always been a good system.. but All computers can run unix..
mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
computer... It is a all out total joke to try to state that ibm's are better
than Amiga's.. ibm's can't even really compare to Amiga's .. not in the same
class even.. When IBM gets rid of their hardware problems they have had for
20 years... and get a decent operating system.. maybe we can take another
look.. but I have yet to see an ibm that I would consider using or would like
to own.. not even the new ibm's with pentiums.. they are still the same junk
box I have always known them to be..
mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
were wrong about that eh?
Well mouse pointer is not as important.. like you said.. however Amiga has
thousands of such details and features that makes it a million times better
than any scrap box ibm.. I can perform more tasks and jobs on a simple 030
amiga.. than you can do on the top of the line pentium computer.. now that has
to make you think... if an 030 can beat a pentium.. just think how bad an 040
and the new 060 amigas will make the ibm look.. but if you are happy with the
slow outdated ibm that is fine.. but for me and millions of others. we are just
not happy enough with a scrap box.. we want a real computer that handles are
needs..
and are needs can't be matched by anything on ibm..
mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
>Bob Henry (he...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: :
>: : Very funny. Now let's get back to reality. The PC caught up and surpassed
>: : the Amiga years ago.
>:
>: As far as sales, yes. As far as anything to do with speed, efficiency, or
>: operating system design.. Don't make me laugh.
>:
>
>Well, let's see. The PC has faster CPUs, faster graphics, better sound,
>more capable operating systems, and better software support. If you're
>an Amiga owner, there is indeed very little reason for you to laugh.
out performed by a modified calcualtor
- better sound.. No it doesnt.. what were you thinking? oh yeah.. Mr
IBM user adds a new sound card and calls it better than Amiga.. hehe
well yeah but hey quess what.. what is to keep an Amiga user from adding
a sound card as well? Hey and quess what.. IBM's still don't match Amiga
sound with a card.. so what are you really trying to say? IBM can beat
Amiga sound if it modifies itself and the amiga doesnt.. well sounds lame
- More cpable operating system? hehehehe.. That is the biggest joke I have
seen since I have been on the internet.. Well if ibm had such a great
OS.. then we would not be having this arguement.. I would have to say
that an Amiga 68000 machine can run more tasks than a 486 66mhz.. and
certainly ibm does not have a better os.. maybe requires more memory, more
hd space, and has more bugs.. but it is not better than Amiga os.. what
planet have you been on?
- Better software support.. well yes more software comes out on IBM.. however
when you take into consideration that I can run all your ibm software,
all macintosh software, and almost all other computer's software all on
My Amiga.. with the superior OS and abilities and I can run the ibm software
without the IBM Hardware problems.. which computer would you say had the
best selection? Yours which does ibm.. or Mine that does 15 platforms with
ease..
wake up to the real world..
mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
both since 1985.. and it does have great interfaces for the user. .nothing
like it on ibm .. that is for sure!..
Hell I can even run Macintosh and ibm software on my Amiga in the background
while Amiga programs are performing their operations.. and hey quess what.. it
doesnt even slow the machine down..
1.2.3.. your out of there.
mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
interfaces.. Amiga had great user interfaces from the start.. and ibm still
doesnt look anything like it.. and still can't match it even with os/2..
It is just a desperate statement from an ibm guy who can't face the facts.. and
can't accept that his machine is inferior..
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>Yeah.. I can stack my simple AMIGA up against 10 486's and do more on my
>computer... It is a all out total joke to try to state that ibm's are better
>than Amiga's.. ibm's can't even really compare to Amiga's .. not in the same
>class even.. When IBM gets rid of their hardware problems they have had for
>20 years... and get a decent operating system.. maybe we can take another
Now we know where the C-64 lusers went... they upgraded. Somebody
just mailed me saying that Amiga users were more computer
knowledgeable than PC users. Where were you when I needed you?
Free clue: _how_ old is the IBM PC? One thing at a time. Then we'll
talk about MS-DOS and whether or not everyone uses it.
--
A Renaissance man diffuses to refine himself. -- Steve Hug
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>hehehehe.. Amiga has a dos and windows type environment.. and has had them
>both since 1985.. and it does have great interfaces for the user. .nothing
>like it on ibm .. that is for sure!..
Theory 2: he can't be this stupid. He's an PC user trying to make
amiga users look bad, or one of the syntax.tactical squad.
--
Emotions are alien to me. I'm a scientist. -- Dr. Forrester
Barry Clarke
Nope, a DOS is a _D_isk _O_perating _S_ystem - it's absolutely
nothing to do with either a CLI or GUI - it just controls disk
access, system functions etc.
Barry.
NICHOLS SCOTT CONRAD
>In article <CrHvv...@bocanews.bocaraton.ibm.com>, mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>>Get back to me when AmigaOS includes DOS and Windows, memory protection, a
>>real user interface, etc.
>>
>>---
>>Mike Dahmus Internet: mi...@vnet.ibm.com
>>Pen for OS/2 Development, IBM PSP IBM: mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com
>>Disclaimer: Not an official IBM spokesman IBM Vnet: MDAHMUS at BOCA
>>
>
Hi Mike, Could you explain to me what a "real user interface, etc.." means? I
understand the MP, VM, but what exactly is a real user interface. Are you
saying real users can't use the Amiga? :), then again, I'd never claim to
be real afterall I am on the USENET, and real people have jobs, work 40
hours a week, have a wife, 2.4 children, white picket fence, dog, and
go to church every Sunday. Who would want to be real? I'm content living
my pretend life as a graduate student with no real responsibility.
What I find most amusing about all this is that I'd swear the same arguments
keep popping up on this newsgroup (multiple screens for example) about
every other month. Quite funny if you ask me. With the Amiga people saying
the stupid claims about the Mac/PC and likewise with the other platform
advocates saying about the Amiga.
Scott
Brian Ward
|: AREXX,
|
|OS/2 has Rexx/2, which I've shown to be on par with AREXX in functionality
Perl. Aren't you happy that perl is free? Have you hugged a perl creator
lately?
fhei...@desire.wright.edu
> mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com writes:
>>Yeah.. I can stack my simple AMIGA up against 10 486's and do more on my
>>computer... It is a all out total joke to try to state that ibm's are better
>>than Amiga's.. ibm's can't even really compare to Amiga's .. not in the same
>>class even.. When IBM gets rid of their hardware problems they have had for
>>20 years... and get a decent operating system.. maybe we can take another
I think 10 486s is an exageration. Lessee, the Amiga is 32 bit so,
and the cpu has 16 registers instead of what, 6? I vote for 5+
486s. (( 16 / 6 ) * 2 = 5-1/3.)
>
> Now we know where the C-64 lusers went... they upgraded. Somebody
> just mailed me saying that Amiga users were more computer
> knowledgeable than PC users. Where were you when I needed you?
The amiga users may not be more knowledgeable per se but they
have the instinct to smell a better machine.
>
> Free clue: _how_ old is the IBM PC? One thing at a time. Then we'll
> talk about MS-DOS and whether or not everyone uses it.
I vote for BD of 1979. Thats 15 years right?
>
> --
> A Renaissance man diffuses to refine himself. -- Steve Hug
- Fred
fhei...@desire.wright.edu
> In article <2tr7bi$d...@dsm6.dsmnet.com> mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com writes:
>>In article <CrHvv...@bocanews.bocaraton.ibm.com>, mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>>>Get back to me when AmigaOS includes DOS and Windows, memory protection, a
> keep popping up on this newsgroup (multiple screens for example) about
> every other month. Quite funny if you ask me. With the Amiga people saying
> the stupid claims about the Mac/PC and likewise with the other platform
> advocates saying about the Amiga.
We're not asking you. We just want to live in our pretend computer
flameage world. :)
>
> Scott
- Fred
Kniivil{ Jarkko
[deleted stuff which I don't have anything to add to]
>Oh no. Don't say it. There's no need to categorize Windows because it's
>not an operating system, right? :-)
Right. It's an API that provides some OS-like services without completely
replacing the underlying OS (= MSDOS), ie. it doesn't provide facilities
for accessing all low-level interfaces in a consistent, independent manner.
Chicago and Win NT are of course totally different animals in this respect.
>: David Meiklejohn Ph: +61 02 708 1007 (home), 516 3833 (work)
>--
>+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
>| JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Junta drew a picture of |
>| Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | nectar and hoisted the |
>| ... In rhythm! | je...@msi.com | lawn boy over the rift. |
>+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
--
E-Mail: k15...@cc.tut.fi | S-Mail: Jarkko Kniivil\"a % (TEX-format)
[ This space unintentionally | Opiskelijankatu 4 F 315
left blank! ] | FIN-33720 TAMPERE
Jeff Kirvin
: That is what I would like to know.. hehehe.. IBM is not known for its
: interfaces.. Amiga had great user interfaces from the start.. and ibm still
: doesnt look anything like it.. and still can't match it even with os/2..
I'll let the tone of your comment slide due to your obvious ignorance, but
just so ya know, OS/2's WPS is _far_ superior, in both technology and
usability, to Workbench.
:
: It is just a desperate statement from an ibm guy who can't face the facts.. and
: can't accept that his machine is inferior..
It's people like you that make me ashamed to own an Amiga. Grow up or go
away.
NICHOLS SCOTT CONRAD
>
>I'll let the tone of your comment slide due to your obvious ignorance, but
>just so ya know, OS/2's WPS is _far_ superior, in both technology and
>usability, to Workbench.
>:
Why? I'm curious. We have OS/2 at school on our 486/66/16MB Machine and I
think its slow and cludgy. Why is OS/2's interface better? What the hell
is the difference between the Amiga and OS/2? They seem to be about the
same, besides the fact that the Amiga is a LOT faster for general window
type operations. Maybe our computer at school isn't set up correctly, but
this as I see it is a major problem with PC's. Almost every one is different
and they then perform at different speeds.
Now, on a programming level, I can't comment since I've never programmed in
OS/2. What are the major differences between OS/2 and AmigaOS 3.1? Even
if OS/2 is better at a fundamental level, it still isn't as nice or have
as good of a feel as the Mac Desktop. Of all my gripes about other OS's
the Amiga and the Mac both have good environments that feel better to me.
Windows is annoying and OS/2 doesn't respond very quickly (I don't know
why, maybe someone could fill me in).
I'm really not trying to start another Amiga vs. the world argument, I
really am curious as to why OS/2 is "far superior in both technology and
usability" to Workbench. Also doesn anyone know why our machine at
school is so slow? 486/66Mhz/16 MB isn't this enough power to run
OS/2 at a decen speed?
Scott
Mike Dahmus
>mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>
>
>>Get back to me when AmigaOS includes DOS and Windows, memory protection, a
>>real user interface, etc.
>
>strike one, two, and three. isn't a CLI a 'DOS'? isn't the amiga's
No. DOS, as in, the thing most idiots get preloaded on their PCs these days.
The thing most apps used to be written to.
Windows, as in, the Microsoft thing that most new apps are written to.
Jerry Shekhel
: >
: >Well, let's see. The PC has faster CPUs, faster graphics, better sound,
Don't you Amiga owners hate when this happens? You've been struggling to
be taken seriously all these years, and then once again someone like this
comes around and ruins it for you :-)
Mike Dahmus
>In article <2tpt38$m...@astfgl.edb.tih.no>, la...@edb.tih.no (Lars Garden) writes:
>>Mike Dahmus (mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com) wrote:
>>
>>: Get back to me when AmigaOS includes DOS and Windows, memory protection, a
>>: real user interface, etc.
>>
>>Define real user interface, please.
(horrible check sig removed by me)
>
>That is what I would like to know.. hehehe.. IBM is not known for its
>interfaces.. Amiga had great user interfaces from the start.. and ibm still
>doesnt look anything like it.. and still can't match it even with os/2..
>
>It is just a desperate statement from an ibm guy who can't face the facts.. and
>can't accept that his machine is inferior..
You're absolutely right. Dead-on right. So right that it's difficult to
understand why Commodore went out of business with the incredible amounts of
rightness in your posting alone, and the rightness that flows like rivers
from the frothing mouth of every Amiga advocate.
Jerry Shekhel
: >
: >Oh no. Don't say it. There's no need to categorize Windows because it's
: >not an operating system, right? :-)
:
: Right. It's an API that provides some OS-like services without completely
: replacing the underlying OS (= MSDOS), ie. it doesn't provide facilities
: for accessing all low-level interfaces in a consistent, independent manner.
If that's your definition of OS, then MS-DOS isn't one either.
: E-Mail: k15...@cc.tut.fi | S-Mail: Jarkko Kniivil\"a % (TEX-format)
Jerry Foster
: >AmigaOS 3.1 will boot in 256K of RAM.
: Woo woo. Who cares? What can you do in such an environment?
Maybe not much. But I believe the point was, that OS2 is MUCH more of a
memory and power hog to accomplish some of the same tasks as the Amiga OS.
I've noticed that many PC users are so used to bloated apps that require
10MB Ram and 40MB of HD space apiece that they can't think in terms of
anything less.
: >AmigaOS 3.1 will fit on a single high-density floppy.
: Woo woo. Who cares? I can boot OS/2 off one floppy as well.
The "Who cares?" argument is wearing pretty thin. If you don't care, then
go elsewhere.
: >It offers a very sophisticated GUI,
: Strike one.
Opinion.
: >OS/2 is nice, but the Amiga's OS is the fastest, leanest and meanest around.
: Strike two. Perhaps "faster", maybe "leaner", but certainly not "meaner".
Opinion
: Get back to me when AmigaOS includes DOS and Windows, memory protection, a
: real user interface, etc.
Well in that case, I hope we never have to get back to you. Requiring Dos
and Windows compatibility would be a step backwards in my opinion. I think
the Amiga does have a real user interface. And yes, memory protection would
be nice.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Foster // SysAdmin/Programmer
jf...@msp.com \x// Amiga MSP Industries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yiannias Christos G
meant MS-DOS but that's an irelevent arguement since non-intel machines
don't need to reatain backward software compatibility.
by Windows i assumend he meant a windowed Graphical User Interface,
another feature that is only there for backward compatibility and is
irrevelent when comparing non-intel based OSs. you can't go up to a mac
person and tell them that their machine is inferior because it can't run
MS-DOS/Windows applications that they don't need to/never will need to
use. on the other hand, this is a valid arguement against intel-based
NeXT step, which in my opinion is the only GUI/enviroment that comes
close to the Amga's
Robert Owen Raine
>Path: msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!jerry
>From: je...@msi.com (Jerry Shekhel)
>Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
>Subject: Re: Is the Amiga's OS 32 bit?
>Date: 17 Jun 1994 19:01:02 GMT
>Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
>Lines: 19
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <2tsrte$a...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>
>References: <CrAqx...@festival.ed.ac.uk> <15...@cbmger.de.so.commodore.com>
><2tl95c$t...@larry.rice.edu> <CrFJs...@festival.ed.ac.uk>
><2tn8rj$g...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> <CrG7x...@festival.ed.ac.uk>
><2tnju1$k...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> <2tntkc$ish@kralize
>c.zeta.org.au> <2tpqg9$c...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> <2ts754$e...@proffa.cc.tut.fi>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: foxbat.msi.com
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>Kniivil{ Jarkko (k15...@proffa.cc.tut.fi) wrote:
>: >
>: >Oh no. Don't say it. There's no need to categorize Windows because it's
>: >not an operating system, right? :-)
>:
>: Right. It's an API that provides some OS-like services without completely
>: replacing the underlying OS (= MSDOS), ie. it doesn't provide facilities
>: for accessing all low-level interfaces in a consistent, independent manner.
>:
>If that's your definition of OS, then MS-DOS isn't one either.
Now your getting the Idea. Low level programs are in the bios which has MSDOS
call it. All MSDOS is is a collection of commands made up of bios calls. But
the difference is that WINDOWS never calls the bios it only makes DOS calls,
ERGO IT is NOT an OPERATING SYSTEM. It is an APLICATION that IS the difference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only Amiga Makes it Happen Bob Raine
The computer for the creative mind Michigan State University
Make Up Your Own Mind Physics Astronomy Dept.
Amiga / The Alternative Ra...@msupa.pa.msu.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>meant MS-DOS but that's an irelevent arguement since non-intel machines
>don't need to reatain backward software compatibility.
No, but OS/2 does, and that's where quite a bit of it's extra size
comes from. If AmigaOS was going to emulate MS-DOS as OS/2 does, it'd
have to expand quite a bit as well.
Now if you want to run OS/2 without DOS or Windows capabilities, you
can do so, and your needed resources take a considerable cut.
--
Yeah, but it's a dry heat. -- David Koresh
David Meiklejohn
>any stress. My error doesn't change my point, which was that the original
>poster's assertion that the "computer industry is following the Amiga
>operating system's lead" is patently untrue.
I disagree. The Amiga was the first platform to popularise many OS and
interface concepts which are now being implemented in other systems. That
they had existed in various obscure places beforehand is hardly relevant.
--
James Douglas MacLeod
Jonathan Hogarth (CS) <hog...@suntan.ec.usf.edu.> wrote:
>
>>don't think so...I own a 14mhz Amiga and Ive played Demo's faster than my bud's
>>486/50mhz. About the sound, well that is very questionable...As I've heard IBM
>>mods and they are okay..but Ive heard mods made on the Amiga that blow away all
>>IBM stuff...besides even when you use a mouse on an IBM you can see the lag
>
>I have a modplayer that takes advantage of my 16-bit, 44khz stereo sound card.
>Can the Amiga match that? And as to the mouse pointer, it's a LOT better
>in OS/2. But that is one of the very few things that I like about the
>Amiga - the "apartness" of the pointer. Wouldn't buy a machine just for that,
>though...
This is something I am curious about. Is there any differences in Amiga
and PC mods? I mean I have PAS16 in my 486 and play mods at 44Khz ect.
but they do not sound as good as the mods on my 1200.
This has been observed by several people, am I just dowloading crappy mods?
Now is there a difference in the amount of control over the audio chips
in the amiga than the PC sound cards? Could this arise simply because of
the standardized audio?
There seems to be a difference inthe ability to decay a sound, or volume
control over sinlge instruments. Maybe it is a software thing I dont
know.
Anyone else notice this?
James Douglas MacLeod
Jerry Shekhel <je...@msi.com> wrote:
>mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com wrote:
>: >
>: >Well, let's see. The PC has faster CPUs, faster graphics, better sound,
>: >more capable operating systems, and better software support. If you're
>: >an Amiga owner, there is indeed very little reason for you to laugh.
>:
>: - Faster cpu's don't do any good when the hardware sucks and it can be
>: out performed by a modified calcualtor
>:
>: - better sound.. No it doesnt.. what were you thinking? oh yeah.. Mr
<crap deleted>
>:
>: - More cpable operating system? hehehehe.. That is the biggest joke I have
<crap deleted>
>:
>: - Better software support.. well yes more software comes out on IBM.. however
<crap deleted>
>:
>: wake up to the real world..
Did you run out of your Lithium pills again? I have a suggestion
how about you take a local PC user group hostage and force them to see
the great power of the amiga thus breaking the cultish lock on their
minds. Cause really they are all closet amiga users just screaming to
get out. Free them, free them.
Have them chant over and over again:
"My PC is so crap"
"My PC is so crap"
"My PC is so crap"
That will fix them.
>:
>
>Don't you Amiga owners hate when this happens? You've been struggling to
>be taken seriously all these years, and then once again someone like this
>comes around and ruins it for you :-)
I love it. I think this one is so awsome I am going to get a print out of
it.
:)
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>This is something I am curious about. Is there any differences in Amiga
>and PC mods? I mean I have PAS16 in my 486 and play mods at 44Khz ect.
>but they do not sound as good as the mods on my 1200.
>This has been observed by several people, am I just dowloading crappy mods?
This could be several things. Assuming you are playing the exact same
mod on both machines (it should work easily on both if it's a standard
mod), the one played on the PAS16 could sound different because:
* It's a two-channel card. The MOD player is mixing the samples in
software in stereo, or even worse, four samples into a mono channel.
It may or may not be doing it in such a way as to preserve all the
lower bits and it may or may not be doing it in 16 bits.
* The mod player is different. This makes a BIG difference. Some
mods sound crappy on some players and good on others. This is a
difference in how they handle different effects, _whether_ they handle
different effects, and if they do it properly. Try using some other
MOD players on the Amiga - some mods will sound different.
* I don't know enough about the PAS16, but it's possible the Amiga
audio design is cleaner from an analog standpoint.
--
Bomb 20, you're out of the bomb bay again.
John P Sheehy
>EMM386.EXE is part of MS-DOS, and it sure uses 32-bit instructions.
That executable is only for 386 and higher machines. The majority of
the MS-DOS executables are backward compatible to earlier machines
and are 16 bit.
>--
>+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
>| JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Junta drew a picture of |
>| Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | nectar and hoisted the |
>| ... In rhythm! | je...@msi.com | lawn boy over the rift. |
>+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
John <j...@cup.portal.com>
Gregory R Block
: Now is there a difference in the amount of control over the audio chips
: the standardized audio?
: There seems to be a difference inthe ability to decay a sound, or volume
: control over sinlge instruments. Maybe it is a software thing I dont
: know.
You hit the most common problem right on the head: The Amiga has 6
bits of volume for each channel, in the hardware. The PC modplayer
must either A) be connected to hardware that has that, or B) fake it
in software.
That could easily be the reason.
Greg
--
(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today? Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :)
(: "Elvis is alive in our hearts, and in his music, and in a little :)
(: trailer park outside of Milwaukee." -Animaniacs, Moral #3 :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Wubba :)
Eric Haddix
: Bob Henry (he...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: : Mike Dahmus (mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com) wrote:
: : : >Well ibm's still have not matched the Amiga's OS and
: : : >multitasking/compatiblity.. Not even with a pentium and os/2 can it even come
: : : >close..
: : : Explain.
: : Easy.
: : AmigaOS 3.1 will boot in 256K of RAM.
: : AmigaOS 3.1 will fit on a single high-density floppy.
: Big deal. Show me a x86-based PC being sold today with only 256k of RAM
: and no hard drive, and we'll talk.
Ummm sorry dude but the discussion was about MULTITASKING not
about what MSDOG can do....sorry
--
Who said 640k was the limit?
Only Amiga makes it possible.
Email me for PGP key.
mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
>he...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Henry) writes:
>>: >Well ibm's still have not matched the Amiga's OS and
>>: >multitasking/compatiblity.. Not even with a pentium and os/2 can it even come
>
>>AmigaOS 3.1 will fit on a single high-density floppy.
>
>days, you're using a game machine. I can run OS/2 off a single HD
>floppy, but why? I've got a meg of memory on my soundcard, for
>grief's sake.
>
>
>>It offers a very sophisticated GUI, true multitasking, AREXX, shared
>>libraries, devices, public screens, command line interface, etc, etc..
>>OS/2 is nice, but the Amiga's OS is the fastest, leanest and meanest around.
>
>Amiga OS needs, such as memory protection and virtual memory), and is
>faster in 24-bit graphics mode than my Amiga 1200 is in 4-bit
>mode. The Amiga's OS is faster at multitasking because it doesn't have
>to do as much, but it's slower at file access, and directory listings
>are positively slothful. It's leanest, which is good and bad. I
>don't mind using a few megs of my hard disk for complete online OS/2
>documentation. And it's certainly meanest in that it crashes more
>often when a rogue program takes out the whole machine for lack of
>memory protection. Hell, my Coco running OS/9 is faster (less
>overheard), leaner (just a few K), and meaner (more direct interface).
>
You are totaly wrong... OS/2 does not even come close to an Amiga.. this can
be prooven quite easily. .but lining up the two..
Amiga's DO! have virtual memory.. you are wrong yet again..
Amiga's DO! have memory protectdion.. You are wrong yet again..
Amiga's do not crash at all hardly.. I run a 7 node bbs and multitask all
the time.. and I never have any crashes.. you are wrong yet again..
Not to mention.. Ibm's would not get as much of a chance to crash since they
dont mulitask like an Amiga.. When a computer is only running one program
total.. the chances of problems are less likely than a Computer running 50
tasks at the same time.. wake up a bit..
Don't talk about things that you don't know enough info about.. it makes you
look stupid..
mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
>he...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Bob Henry) writes:
>>: Very funny. Now let's get back to reality. The PC caught up and surpassed
>>: the Amiga years ago.
>>As far as sales, yes. As far as anything to do with speed, efficiency, or
>>operating system design.. Don't make me laugh.
>
>Let's see... PCs have faster processors available standard, faster
>graphics, more efficient sound hardware (32 16-bit voices mixed in
>hardware), and an OS that supports virtual memory and memory
>protection.
>
>As far as I can tell, the Amiga has two remaining outstanding
>strengths: video production work and better minimal hardware
>configuration (such as standard blitter, copper and fast bus).
>Actually, make that three: Windows isn't a standard on it.
>
Sorry to correct you.. but when you are wrong you are wrong..
- Amiga's DO! have 16-bit sound cards!.. so you are wrong
- PC's do NOT! have faster processors.. Compare an 040 25mhz with 486 25mhz.
or any other compatilbe comparison.. Motorola's blow the SHIT out of the
intel's in every case!.. Not to mention the intel processors don't amount
to much at all stuck in a lame ibm machine where software and hardware
have a million problems and limitations that slows the overall performance
of the processor.. Not to mention I can take a lower class Amiga like an
030 25mhz Amiga and still do more than you can do on a Pentium IBm...
Hmmm who cares if you have a faster clocked processor. . it is not doing
you any good.. and direct compares with compatible processors, your intel
looses every time.. you are yet confused and wrong again.
hope things are more clear now..
mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
just can't take it when they are wrong..
You thought there was no 16 bit sound cards for amiga.. and you were wrong..
and the Amiga has a better operating system.. and if you do direct compares of
motorola and intel processors.. Motorolas are always faster.. I can't help it
if this information upsets you..
Amiga owners don't hate anything.. they have the best machine and are enjoying
them all the time.. They are thinking of all the things they can do that
others can not do on ibm toys...
It does not matter if you don't take me seriously.. the facts remain.. no
matter if you choose not to accept them or not..
R S Rodgers
> Maybe not much. But I believe the point was, that OS2 is MUCH more of a
> memory and power hog to accomplish some of the same tasks as the Amiga OS.
The interesting thing, though, is that OS/2 scales better. Name the
fastest Amiga you can buy and I bet I can buy a faster OS/2 system
(probably cheaper, but not necessarily). Then we'll get into OS/2 as
an SMP system (coming eventually). Then we'll get into Windows NT
which has even heavier initial requirements than OS/2, but scales even
more. It handles more CPUs in SMP configurations--and better, faster
CPUs like a 275MHz Dec Alpha (or six of them)--and takes better
advantage of the memory you add.
If you need a powerful system, OS/2 may be it. NT definitely will
cover you. AmigaDos? Well, afraid not. Not now, not ever.
It's interesting to argue how bottom-end your system can be, but when
you look at the other side, then it looks pretty feeble.
--
Yippee for uqwk!
Jim Wong
|> I disagree. The Amiga was the first platform to popularise many OS and
|> interface concepts which are now being implemented in other systems. That
|> they had existed in various obscure places beforehand is hardly relevant.
You haven't read the whole thread -- the original poster claimed that the
Amiga operating system was pretty much the first 32-bit OS.
C Knee
Jyrki Saarinen
> Well, let's see. The PC has faster CPUs, faster graphics, better sound,
> more capable operating systems, and better software support. If you're
> an Amiga owner, there is indeed very little reason for you to laugh.
If this is so true, why the hell I am still using an Amiga? Hell, I will
go and by a cheap 486-clone.. few months after that I have to buy new
motherboard and buy more memory.
Oh, and PCs are VERY nice to program with.. (notice sarcasm..)
Especially assembler is SO efficient..
> +-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
> | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Junta drew a picture
> of |
> | Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | nectar and hoisted
> the |
> | ... In rhythm! | je...@msi.com | lawn boy over the
> rift. |
> +-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
--
Jyrki Saarinen Amiga 4000/EC030/881, 10MB/210MB,
Pappilantie 2 Eizo Flexscan 9060S, Microcom
02770 Espoo, FIN V.FC / A2232
+358-0-8058003 DevPac 3.02 is my friend
Jyrki Saarinen
> So what's your point? AmigaOS is better than mushdos. Whoopee. The
> Amiga in 1985 was MUCH better than clones of 1985. Granted. But this
> is
> 1994, ms-dos is dying fast (but still adequate for lots of people), and
> we have great operating systems that blow away AmigaOS like OS/2, NS,
> Unix, etc.
If ms-dos is dying, why the hell most of (96%) of worlds clonese use it?
How is OS/2 better than AmigaOS? I know one thing; it is so much slower
and bigger.. I think OS/2 is quite good too, but I still prefer my
Amiga.
Btw, if PCs are so great, and I deal with them daily, why the hell
I am using an Amiga then?
> --Jonathan
x91t...@wmich.edu
>
>> So what's your point? AmigaOS is better than mushdos. Whoopee. The
>> Amiga in 1985 was MUCH better than clones of 1985. Granted. But this
>> is
>> 1994, ms-dos is dying fast (but still adequate for lots of people), and
>> we have great operating systems that blow away AmigaOS like OS/2, NS,
>> Unix, etc.
>
> If ms-dos is dying, why the hell most of (96%) of worlds clonese use it?
>
> How is OS/2 better than AmigaOS? I know one thing; it is so much slower
> and bigger.. I think OS/2 is quite good too, but I still prefer my
> Amiga.
>
> Btw, if PCs are so great, and I deal with them daily, why the hell
> I am using an Amiga then?
You know, you set yourself up for flamage by saying
"Then why am I still using them." OS/2 beats AmigaDos in pretty
much every imaginable area.
amiga users have no idea how lame they sound when they
say "Yea but OS/2 needs 8 megs to run decently and my amiga only needs
512k". Makes the sayer sound like some computer user who lives in
poverty or something, as if 8 megs is a LOT of memory or something.
Deb
x91t...@wmich.edu
>>>It offers a very sophisticated GUI, true multitasking, AREXX, shared
>>>libraries, devices, public screens, command line interface, etc, etc..
>>>OS/2 is nice, but the Amiga's OS is the fastest, leanest and meanest around.
>>
>>OS/2 has all those capabilities (including some critical features the
>>Amiga OS needs, such as memory protection and virtual memory), and is
>>faster in 24-bit graphics mode than my Amiga 1200 is in 4-bit
>>mode. The Amiga's OS is faster at multitasking because it doesn't have
>>to do as much, but it's slower at file access, and directory listings
>>are positively slothful. It's leanest, which is good and bad. I
>>don't mind using a few megs of my hard disk for complete online OS/2
>>documentation. And it's certainly meanest in that it crashes more
>>often when a rogue program takes out the whole machine for lack of
>>memory protection. Hell, my Coco running OS/9 is faster (less
>>overheard), leaner (just a few K), and meaner (more direct interface).
>>
>
> You are totaly wrong... OS/2 does not even come close to an Amiga.. this can
> be prooven quite easily. .but lining up the two..
>
> Amiga's DO! have virtual memory.. you are wrong yet again..
Not out of the box. AmigaDOS does not support Virtual memory
unless thigns have drastically changed recently.
>
> Amiga's DO! have memory protectdion.. You are wrong yet again..
No, you're wrong.
>
> Amiga's do not crash at all hardly.. I run a 7 node bbs and multitask all
> the time.. and I never have any crashes.. you are wrong yet again..
> Not to mention.. Ibm's would not get as much of a chance to crash since they
> dont mulitask like an Amiga.. When a computer is only running one program
> total.. the chances of problems are less likely than a Computer running 50
> tasks at the same time.. wake up a bit..
>
I will agree with you here. Amigas are quite stable. They don't
crash much but I don't see how any of these things make it better than
OS/2. Amigas users always sound like hicks when they start talking
about "OS/2 takes 8 megs, I can boot my amiga with 256K". It's like,
whoopie doo.
> Don't talk about things that you don't know enough info about.. it makes you
> look stupid..
>
You're the one who just announced that AmigaDos suddenly acquired
memory protection.
Deb
x91t...@wmich.edu
> Jeff Kirvin (lun...@asylum.hq.af.mil) wrote:
> : Bob Henry (he...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
> : : Mike Dahmus (mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com) wrote:
> : : : >Well ibm's still have not matched the Amiga's OS and
> : : : >multitasking/compatiblity.. Not even with a pentium and os/2 can it even come
> : : : >close..
>
> : : : Explain.
>
> : : Easy.
>
> : : AmigaOS 3.1 will boot in 256K of RAM.
> : : AmigaOS 3.1 will fit on a single high-density floppy.
>
> : Big deal. Show me a x86-based PC being sold today with only 256k of RAM
> : and no hard drive, and we'll talk.
>
> Ummm sorry dude but the discussion was about MULTITASKING not
> about what MSDOG can do....sorry
"Dude". Great word. Amiga users love that word as it only
seems to appear in their echos (smile).
What does 256K and fitting on a HD floppy have to do with
multitasking? My machine has 32 megs of ram on it, what would I or any
person who is willing to put some money into a nice computer care whether
the OS requires 2K or 256K. OS/2 can boot on 4 megs ($130 in ram).
1985 was great for the Amiga but now in 1994, bragging about 256K or
whatever is like a commodore user bragging on how their great program
used to do everything that Word or Excel does but in only 12K. No one
cares.
> --
> Who said 640k was the limit?
>
> Only Amiga makes it possible.
> Email me for PGP key.
640K? MS dog (in Amiga language) limit, has nothing to do with a PC
running a modern OS.
x91t...@wmich.edu
That's for sure, that Amiga user is completely the stereo type
amiga users that everyone imagines.
Right from the delusions of "my 68000 is better than a Pentium
when it comes to speed due SPECIFICALLY to my Amiga" to "PC OS's are
junk" argument. LIke the machine, some Amiga users are still trapped
in 1985.
x91t...@wmich.edu
What equiv to a Pentium does Motorolla have that the Amiga
could run on? There is no PowerPC Amiga.
The topic was processor speeds. You are obviously incorrect in
your above statement. Saying that You personally can do more with
a 030 25mhz that some guy can do with their Pentiumda doesn't somehow
magically make that 030 25mhz FASTER than a Pentium. It just means
you are willing to post your delusions.
x91t...@wmich.edu
> Mike Dahmus (mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com) wrote:
> : >AmigaOS 3.1 will boot in 256K of RAM.
>
> : Woo woo. Who cares? What can you do in such an environment?
>
> Maybe not much. But I believe the point was, that OS2 is MUCH more of a
> memory and power hog to accomplish some of the same tasks as the Amiga OS.
> I've noticed that many PC users are so used to bloated apps that require
> 10MB Ram and 40MB of HD space apiece that they can't think in terms of
> anything less.
sxGa |
No, Amiga users just like to sound like the Commodore 64
users (which I was one) of yore who would say "What do I need with
a 256K machine when I can run Geoworks and word processing in less
than 64K"
8 megs ram, 10 megs ram cost virtually nothing to anyone
who has a job.
>
>
> : >AmigaOS 3.1 will fit on a single high-density floppy.
>
> : Woo woo. Who cares? I can boot OS/2 off one floppy as well.
>
> The "Who cares?" argument is wearing pretty thin. If you don't care, then
> go elsewhere.
>
Oh, but the "My amiga can boot in 256K and off one floppy" isn't
so thin it's see through? Amigans have been saying this irrelevant
thing for years.
> : Get back to me when AmigaOS includes DOS and Windows, memory protection, a
> : real user interface, etc.
>
> Well in that case, I hope we never have to get back to you. Requiring Dos
> and Windows compatibility would be a step backwards in my opinion. I think
> the Amiga does have a real user interface. And yes, memory protection would
> be nice.
>
>
Unfortunately for you, while you argue a rational case, you
have others who are trying to say that now the Amiga HAS memory protection.
Makes debating from your end tougher because people begin to assume that
you're a fruitcake because you lke Amigas because so many Amiga users
are fruits (whereas you obviously know your stuff).
Mat Hall
>In article <2tst4s$e24$1...@heifetz.msen.com>, m...@garnet.msen.com (Jerry Foster) writes:
>> Mike Dahmus (mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com) wrote:
>> : >AmigaOS 3.1 will boot in 256K of RAM.
>>
>> : Woo woo. Who cares? What can you do in such an environment?
>>
>> Maybe not much. But I believe the point was, that OS2 is MUCH more of a
>> memory and power hog to accomplish some of the same tasks as the Amiga OS.
>> I've noticed that many PC users are so used to bloated apps that require
>> 10MB Ram and 40MB of HD space apiece that they can't think in terms of
>> anything less.
>
>sxGa |
> No, Amiga users just like to sound like the Commodore 64
>users (which I was one) of yore who would say "What do I need with
>a 256K machine when I can run Geoworks and word processing in less
>than 64K"
> 8 megs ram, 10 megs ram cost virtually nothing to anyone
>who has a job.
Umm, I have a job, but I also have a lot of financial responsibilities,
and 8 megs of RAM isn't exactly dirt cheap, is it? And remember, not
everyone has a job anyway... A good number of people on the net are in
university, and they don't have money to burn.
>>
>>
>> : >AmigaOS 3.1 will fit on a single high-density floppy.
>>
>> : Woo woo. Who cares? I can boot OS/2 off one floppy as well.
>>
>> The "Who cares?" argument is wearing pretty thin. If you don't care, then
>> go elsewhere.
>>
> Oh, but the "My amiga can boot in 256K and off one floppy" isn't
>so thin it's see through? Amigans have been saying this irrelevant
>thing for years.
How is it irrelevant? Surely it is A Good Thing to have low system
overheads?
>> : Get back to me when AmigaOS includes DOS and Windows, memory protection, a
>> : real user interface, etc.
>>
>> Well in that case, I hope we never have to get back to you. Requiring Dos
>> and Windows compatibility would be a step backwards in my opinion. I think
>> the Amiga does have a real user interface. And yes, memory protection would
>> be nice.
>>
>>
>
> Unfortunately for you, while you argue a rational case, you
>have others who are trying to say that now the Amiga HAS memory protection.
>Makes debating from your end tougher because people begin to assume that
>you're a fruitcake because you lke Amigas because so many Amiga users
>are fruits (whereas you obviously know your stuff).
Ever hear of Enforcer? Nice debugging tool that has the advantage of also
implementing memory protection... (Ok, so it's not an integral part of
the OS, but it's free...)
mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
Pentium.. the point is simple.. I can run and perform more tasks than a
pentium can do.. and all this on a simple 030 25mhz processor.. I am showing
you how inferior ibm's are even with os/2.. Yes os/2 has made ibm people think
they are multitasking as well as AMiga users.. but it is a joke compared to an
Amiga.. they can not in fact multitask even remotely close to what a simple
amiga can already do.. That is the point.. faster processors are helping
ibm people.. but not as much as they may think.. they still can't perfrom as
well as Amiga's have been doing for years.. I will take a simple AMiga.. you
take whatever Pentium ibm you want.. with os/2.. and I would place any amount
of money as a bet that I can perfrom more tasks then your pentium ibm.. and
with HALF the memory of your pentium machine..
This says something about Amiga Computers and their os.. a far superior
processor like the Pentium. and yet they still can't out perform a simple
Amiga.. in the number of tasks...
IBM's and os/2 do not mulitask anything close to that of the Amiga..
u898...@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
> Hmmm seems like you were upset to hear that you were wrong.. well some people
> just can't take it when they are wrong..
>
> You thought there was no 16 bit sound cards for amiga.. and you were wrong..
> and the Amiga has a better operating system.. and if you do direct compares of
> motorola and intel processors.. Motorolas are always faster.. I can't help it
> if this information upsets you..
Look, when you see crap like this it makes you wonder !!!
Has your mind been left behind at the 486 25mhz. There has been 568, pentium,
and PPC. Alll theose and including higher speed 486 chips blow the 68040 out of
the water. As for sound cards, the sunrise card is one 16 bit card. Cool, arn't
we lucky. It's a nice piece. Can you say a couple of grand to own one. With
that money you can get a faster 486DX with a 16bit sound card stuck next to it.
They are different markets, but they exist. If money is not the problem, then
the Amiga has all that IBM has. It's just that you have to requst custom design
an coding for each product.
>
> Amiga owners don't hate anything.. they have the best machine and are enjoying
> them all the time.. They are thinking of all the things they can do that
> others can not do on ibm toys...
hey, I enjoy my Amiga. It's a great programming platform (I have no OS2
experiance). But I can tell you, there is little were we are in front. OS2 can
run simultaniously programs with no problem. It's just that we did it better
first. I remeber running on my old humble A500 ~100 shells on 4 megs.
(About ~20 on 1.3 and crash). Go buy one of those cheepo magazines were it's
all advertising for PC compatibles. You will be blown away at the mass of
hardware and software that is available on the PC. Hundreds of cheeeeep
HW that would make your mouth water. It's worth buying them for a joke.
Would you mind paying under $100 to view 24 pictures and run windows under ?
Hundresd of CD titles with the strangest compilations at prices hardly the
value of the material.
>
> It does not matter if you don't take me seriously.. the facts remain.. no
> matter if you choose not to accept them or not..
>
>
What the Motorolla chips are always faster ? The 486 came out before
the 68040. The 68060 is hardly out, and the PC world has probably more than
10 new chips to chooose from. Intel, Cyrix, PPC. Alll in competition driving
the prices down. get ready to pay >$2000 for your 68060 upgrade. IBM users can
go to 486DX66 for rediculous prices.
regards
George
Thomas Brobech
: Bob Henry (he...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: : :
: : : Very funny. Now let's get back to reality. The PC caught up and surpassed
: : : the Amiga years ago.
: :
: : As far as sales, yes. As far as anything to do with speed, efficiency, or
: : operating system design.. Don't make me laugh.
: Well, let's see. The PC has faster CPUs, faster graphics, better sound,
: more capable operating systems, and better software support. If you're
: an Amiga owner, there is indeed very little reason for you to laugh.
No! The PC Don't have faster graphics at all, This come only with a
graphics accelerator, Better sound, Well My office makes some nice beeps,
but my amiga does qoite well, More capable OS.. At work I use a 486 DX66
with 16 megs of ram, and OS/2. Here on my own machne i have 3 megs, an
outdatet processor (68010) and to be honest the only thing that I envy my
officecomputer is the faster processor, But that is easy to install on A
Amiga. Software support, I do agree with you, There is far to little
support from the big companies, but that it Comodores (RIP) own fault. If
they had made some real advertising and marketing, then I really think
that the current status for the Amiga would look quite different. With
more exposure in the public, the more machines could be sold.
Just for the record, I'm not a fanatic, niether in amiga or in PC, I use
both systems, and they each have their own likes and dislikes. The Amiga
i use here at home is an old amiga 2000. And I can still use all the new
programes that come to the amiga. I Also had a Pc a few years ago. (a
286)but it was outdatet.
: : -henry
: --
: +-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
: | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | Molecular Simulations Inc. | Junta drew a picture of |
: | Drummers do it... | Burlington, MA USA | nectar and hoisted the |
: | ... In rhythm! | je...@msi.com | lawn boy over the rift. |
s:
+-------------------+----------------------------+---------------------------+
Eric Haddix
: "Dude". Great word. Amiga users love that word as it only
: seems to appear in their echos (smile).
:
: What does 256K and fitting on a HD floppy have to do with
Ya know ...it's generalities like that that show pure
studidity..... I would suggest a better approach to replying as I
COULD have said "Hey Asswipe" but had NO urge to...hmmm makes ya
wonder...
: multitasking? My machine has 32 megs of ram on it, what would I or any
: person who is willing to put some money into a nice computer care whether
: the OS requires 2K or 256K. OS/2 can boot on 4 megs ($130 in ram).
It has nothing to do with it's size but it's efficiency. Now you
could have a Cray but if you can't program the damn thing then
why does it matter that it can do calculations faster than any
other computer? Get it? I am sure it is wonderful to have that
kind of memory but I use MANY paint programs and I do not need my
OS taking up 4 megs when some of my images take up that easy and
I have 2 or more in memory.
: 1985 was great for the Amiga but now in 1994, bragging about 256K or
: whatever is like a commodore user bragging on how their great program
: used to do everything that Word or Excel does but in only 12K. No one
: cares.
I would also suggest that you keep comments like "no one cares"
out of your statements also....pure opinion on your part also see
above about generalities. And if you don't care WHY REPLY?
: > --
Jim Wong
>- PC's do NOT! have faster processors.. Compare an 040 25mhz with 486 25mhz.
> or any other compatilbe comparison.. Motorola's blow the SHIT out of the
> intel's in every case!
Except for the fact that Intel parts are available at higher clock
rates than Motorola chips. Arbitrarily comparing processors that happe
to run at the same clock frequency is stupid. Should Intel be penalized
for pushing their technology harder?
--
Jim Wong (jim...@es.rice.edu)
Gregg Le Blanc
No I didn't, I asked, "is the Amiga's OS 32 bit?".
You came in and said that it wasn't the first one, that wasn't the point
of the thread. Dr. P.K. said it was 32 bit from day one. That's all the
point of the original thread was.
TTFN
Gregg
__
/// Gregg Le Blanc : uleb...@mcl.mcl.ucsb.edu Santa Barbara
__/// Learning conservation of charge! | emb...@castle.ed.ac.uk Endinburgh
\\X/ No electrons were created or destroyed in the making of this message.
Gregg Le Blanc
> You know, you set yourself up for flamage by saying
>"Then why am I still using them." OS/2 beats AmigaDos in pretty
>much every imaginable area.
Except for speed. And yes, I use OS/2 2.11 daily. I know what the hell
I'm doing, I have a 486/25 with 12MB of RAM. My machine can easily cope
with OS/2. It is not as fast as my A3000. Period.
OS/2 also has a lot more tinkering that needs to be done to it.
This is all due to my experiences. Once OS/2 works, and you actually USE
OS/2 apps, it is quite OK. But nowhere near the responsiveness of my
other Amigas.
>512k". Makes the sayer sound like some computer user who lives in
>poverty or something, as if 8 megs is a LOT of memory or something.
It is when your applications can use all of it. When your OS is taking
half the memory you've invested in, then it isn't a lot of memory left over.
The OS/2 kernal in 2.1 and 2.0 was about 4MB (with all the support), if
you have 8 MB, that leaves you 4 MB left to run Win-OS/2, OS/2 apps etc.
This involves a lot of swapping once you start doing 5 or 6 tasks. So
that's why 8 MB should be the lower limit.
I dunno... if I had 8MB in my Amiga, I would probably be able to do "more"
because of the low OS overhead, that is the idea behind "running in 512k".
Yes I use OS/2 everyday on a completely capable machine.
>Deb
mikeb...@dsm1.dsmnet.com
and have and always are Faster.. that was the point..
Yeah Intel needs to push their processors harder.. to make up for shitty
hardware and software on ibm that don't like to mulitask and run with other
programs.. even os/2 is dragin ... IBM's are very poorly designed.
Mike Dahmus
>: Get back to me when AmigaOS includes DOS and Windows, memory protection, a
>: real user interface, etc.
>
>Well in that case, I hope we never have to get back to you. Requiring Dos
>and Windows compatibility would be a step backwards in my opinion. I think
>the Amiga does have a real user interface. And yes, memory protection would
>be nice.
This, coming from a defender of a platform with even fewer native apps than
OS/2?
Give me a break.
------
Mike Dahmus Internet: mi...@vnet.ibm.com
Pen for OS/2 Development, IBM PSP IBM: mi...@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com
Disclaimer: Not an official IBM spokesman IBM Vnet: MDAHMUS at BOCA
x91t...@wmich.edu
>> What equiv to a Pentium does Motorolla have that the Amiga
>>could run on? There is no PowerPC Amiga.
>> The topic was processor speeds. You are obviously incorrect in
>>your above statement. Saying that You personally can do more with
>>a 030 25mhz that some guy can do with their Pentiumda doesn't somehow
>>magically make that 030 25mhz FASTER than a Pentium. It just means
>>you are willing to post your delusions.
> Hi.. Mindless fruit.. Yes I posted that an 030 25mhz can do more than a
> Pentium.. the point is simple.. I can run and perform more tasks than a
> pentium can do.. and all this on a simple 030 25mhz processor.. I am showing
> you how inferior ibm's are even with os/2.. Yes os/2 has made ibm people think
> they are multitasking as well as AMiga users.. but it is a joke compared to an
> Amiga.. they can not in fact multitask even remotely close to what a simple
> amiga can already do.. That is the point.. faster processors are helping
> ibm people.. but not as much as they may think.. they still can't perfrom as
> well as Amiga's have been doing for years.. I will take a simple AMiga.. you
> take whatever Pentium ibm you want.. with os/2.. and I would place any amount
> of money as a bet that I can perfrom more tasks then your pentium ibm.. and
> with HALF the memory of your pentium machine..
Do you have OS/2? I think not. I had an Amiga 1000, then Amiga
500, and had an Amiga 1200 briefly. I KNOW what an Amiga can do. If you
knew anything about computer hardware you would know that the SPEED of
the processor has nothing to do with how many tasks you can run [except
if the system gets slow enough it may seem like a limit].
I have a 486-66 and I am quite certain I can do far more tasks
at the same time than you can do on your Amiga. In fact, I know for
certain because I probably have more drive space and since OS/2 supports
virtual memory, I can just keep running more and more taskks until my
gigabyte of space runs out. The only thing that truly [technically]
limits the number of processes running is memory.
>
> This says something about Amiga Computers and their os.. a far superior
> processor like the Pentium. and yet they still can't out perform a simple
> Amiga.. in the number of tasks...
>
Making delusional claims like the above doesn't make it a fact,
just makes you look desperate. Most readers would just shake their head
at such claims.
> IBM's and os/2 do not mulitask anything close to that of the Amiga..
>
>
I'd like some proof that you even have USED OS/2.
If you had OS/2, you wouldn't be saying that. I kept the Amiga faith
for years but I know when a better system has come along and OS/2 was
that better system. The only things I miss about the Amiga are multiple
resolutions at once and the animated icons.
Deb
Kenton P. Zinn
IBM still needs software (OS2) to make it comparable to the Amiga. Face it you
pay more for upgrades (sound,processor,Memory) when you can get a Simple Amiga
and do everything.
Why is it so hard to comprehend? Amiga is simply better, I rest my case.